Domination Rules

Whitty

Citizen
Dear Inno Executives, Leaders and Developers,

The current design of domination end game winners is based on the alliance that starts the domination timer first.

Please consider changing this rule to be the alliance with the highest domination area percentage. Here is the business rationale for this change:

  1. A person’s internet connection or speed, location in the world, etc. could determine timing of “the win”, which may not be perceived as a “fair rule”.
  2. Business environments typically base wins on highest performance, versus “luck of timing”.
  3. The current display of #1, #2 & #3 alliances lend alliances to believe the win is based on highest percentage of domination cities occupied by the top three alliances. If the “win” is based on “first to click”, then this display needs to be modified to who clicked first, second and so on.
  4. The current end game rules encourage players and alliances to have players go on VM in an effort to protect and not to lose cities. This is done by the domination alliance releasing players from their alliance, so their domination cities are protected during the domination period. The domination alliance is bringing back VM players in the last few days of domination to increase their percentage and protect from dropping below 40%. Attached are two examples of how VM many cities can be picked up by an alliance within the last few days of domination to increase percentage. Once picture is 4 days prior to end of last stand. The second picture is 3 days prior to end of last stand, after bringing back players who were on VM during the period of last stand, preventing attacks on them.
  5. If first click is the determining factor, and the alliance who clicked the button first has a low percentage, compared to the other alliance,, then alliances in that world may be less motivated to play during last stand period to try for the win, causing a dormant period of the game.
  6. On the contrary, if the percentage between the top two alliances is close, then this should increase the competitive spirit and game activity.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

DeletedUser13387

Guest
Dear Whitty,
You have been a great enemy to play against. Thank you for making the game more enjoyable for me ;).

I have few problems with your statements and the reasoning behind the end game:

1. Internet connection: the stable connection is a must have for this game. Unless you are simming or a casual player, you really need to be connected 24X7, especially in the conquest system. Once the siege has begun, you may be pretty much out a luck. So, there is no excuse for poor internet connection to start the "Last Stand." Please note that I lost two cities to Vindication because my alerts didn't go off that one night. Shall I claim my cities back?

2. Luck: This game is based on a luck system isn't it?
2.a: +30% and -30% luck in every battle. So you can be going at 100 biremes with 80 LS , it's up to the luck right, if the attack has -30% luck then you don't go through the biremes...
2.b; there is an anti timer in every attack. Unless you are not using a bot, or can adjust time, the landing of the attacks may not necessarily accomplish what you want.

3. Number of cities etc...: This is actually a summary of my #1 and #2 points; it doesn't matter how many biremes you have or how many clearing waves you are sending right? We know that the magic number of LS escorts is 39 ( or equivalent battleship BP) to a CS. So100 biremes at the harbor should prevent any CS from going in right? But the biremes need to be there at that time to face the CS. If they are in 1 second later, they are not good, if they are there 1 second before, they mean nothing (assuming clearing wave). The inno game rules are very clear. Also, what if two alliances have same number of cities... the last stand is a way to tell the enemy that one team is capable of protecting what they have.

Having the larger number of cities isn't the goal of the game. The GOAL of the game is to START the LAST STAND and protect it


4. Vacation Mode and calling people in: Vacation Mode rule sucks. I agree with that. However, the way that it is stated also gives an opportunity to strategize. For example, when I wanted go to VM for a few days because I was going skiing I had 10 or so incoming CSs the last 90 seconds. I'm not sure how the enemy knew my time... so at that point, you and your team have used the VM to your advantage to lock in cities. No cities were lost, and it was fun. You and I exchanged messages after I was back, I had no complaints. This is a war game, and strategy is as important, or sometimes more important than muscle power.

The winning alliance of the game at this time, had many players in VM, players genuinely long gone. The first week of the last stand was spent protecting what was theirs and transferring internally. One last player or two came from VM, yes true, but it's part of the game. VM cannot be working both ways. I would tend to agree with your statement that VM should not apply to any DOM CIRCLE cities regardless of it the alliance is in the LAST STAND or not.


5. In you suggestion, if the last stand was automatically granted to the first alliance, there would be no fight the last two weeks. It's virtually impossible to conquer 10-15 cities day after day. I mean we only had a small margin and you a quit because one player came back. I think it would have been close, but without anybody quitting or moving in an out of the game, yeah, it would have been hard.


I hope this makes sense.

Kind Regards.
 

DeletedUser16299

Guest
I agree that DOM rules need to be fixed. Based on the rules and wording, the devs focused more on getting to DOM than what happens if more than one alliance has it once it starts. If a normal world entered DOM with with 3-4 alliances of similar standing then it would be as the name suggest, dominating the others to make it to that 40% to hit Last Stand.

My thought on a potential solution is if 2 alliances hits Last Stand within 24 hours of each other then they each have to knock the other down a certain percentage based on their size. I rather it not morph into another city grab based on the high percentage, a 59% to 40% would just be game over with no point in Last Stand. 2 teams with 40+ have to do equal damage relative to size. much more fair than clicking first.

I hope others can offer suggestions as well, I like the idea of DOM and would like to play a better iteration in the future.
 

Pnut123

Newcomer
To add to what others have said...
If 2 (or more) alliances have domination %'s within the threshold value (assume 40%) an initial domination stage should be triggered automatically for those within reach. Let those alliances fight and grab cities on domination islands until a certain threshold is met (say 40 + 5% as an example) and at that point activate last stand. This will assure that only one alliance can activate last stand. Last stand rules apply after initiating (i..e must hold minimum % for 14 days). This would give the alliance that could not initiate last stand (@ 40 +5%) to knock the dominate alliance down, preserving the intent. However, the fact that if there is more than one alliance that can initiate last stand (i.e. % >40%), those alliances must fight to determine which is actually dominant prior to initiating last stand.

Regarding vacation mode, once domination has been reached in the world, ALL cities should be eligible for takeover - not simply those from the alliance that started last stand. This would eliminate any tactics that may be used by alliances to remove players from alliances whom are on VM or have people initiate VM to "protect " said cities while outside the main alliance. This would ensure a level playing field as all cities would be fair game.
 

Lord Corny

Senior Citizen
Totally agree all VM should open up when last stand starts . But as far as how it starts i believe the way it is now is fine .


Regarding vacation mode, once domination has been reached in the world, ALL cities should be eligible for takeover - not simply those from the alliance that started last stand. This would eliminate any tactics that may be used by alliances to remove players from alliances whom are on VM or have people initiate VM to "protect " said cities while outside the main alliance. This would ensure a level playing field as all cities would be fair game.
 

DeletedUser16299

Guest
I'd like to get an explanation behind the reasoning for why Last Stand isn't autostarted. I'm sure they had something in mind for their idea of how things played out. May be something we're missing.

And I even like the idea of extending Last Stand to 30 days. Within that time, if your team is the most dominate that world, then that's a reasonable timeframe to level an alliance that's taking in new players to pad stats.

How does this look scaled? If US95 had 6k eligible DOM cities instead of 3k.
 

Whitty

Citizen
I agree with extending Last Stand to 30 days, as it's very difficult to take enough cities in a 14 day period to either gain or lose the advantage.
 

DeletedUser13931

Guest
Dom mechanics are fine. WW doesn’t have an auto start, never heard any complaints about that. You fill it, you click “build.” Dom mechanics are immaterial compared to the penchant for certain players and by extension, their alliance, to cheat. But that’s another topic.
 

Vindication

Senior Citizen
Dom mechanics are fine. WW doesn’t have an auto start, never heard any complaints about that. You fill it, you click “build.” Dom mechanics are immaterial compared to the penchant for certain players and by extension, their alliance, to cheat. But that’s another topic.
In a dynamic gamemode like WW, there are more factors at the end of the day than a single 'button press' attributing the winner. The issue comes down to the value for the winner being set to 'first to fulfill Last Stand', and not 'highest Domination value', which causes a 'false pretense' scenario.

Why wouldn't it be called 'Last Stand' mode instead of 'Domination', if this were the case. It comes down to no concrete connection between 'Domination'/controlling most assets, causing a false pretense for declaring the winner.

- (room for error is acceptable in WW, as again, numerous factors attributing to success in that gamemode).

It comes down to the fact that regardless of 'Domination' ranking, and the fact that 'Coming Soon' is holding more Domination points, it simply seems erroneous that the dictating factor is a 'Last Stand' press. Nonetheless, when it comes down to a margin of 53 seconds. With a 40% qualification, 2 factions could likely hit this value simply due to point-count. As seen by 'Fletch/Caddyshack/Myridons/Relentless/The Reborn' grouping & the 'Coming Soon / Shuffle Game' alliance.

@basbug

Also, the scenario that you propagate, losing 2 cities due to being offline. This is not simply a matter of pressing a single button 53s before the others, as there was a siege-hold time & opportunity to break. I feel like this is a false equivalency, undercutting the true reason for this thread. The fact that 'Last Stand' has an improper value setting, which I genuinely believe to be a concrete bug.
 
Last edited:

sleeperagent

Newcomer
I am confused swear the setting for the world state domination not who can push button faster

Dear Players,

On November 24th Pagasae will be open for battle!

World settings:
  • Game speed: 4
  • Unit speed: 4
  • Trade speed: 4
  • Night bonus: 00:00 - 08:00
  • Beginners protection: 6 Days
  • Alliance limit: 60
  • Conquer system: Conquest
  • Morale: Yes
  • Endgame: Domination (Fast)
* Aphrodite will be available on this world
Let us know what you think about it in the dedicated thread on the forum: link.

https://us.forum.grepolis.com/index.php?threads/new-world-pagasae.12663/
 

Whitty

Citizen
Based on the current configuration of the game, activity would be the primary concern with maintaining "status quo". In my experience, activity drives business and activity is the purpose of this game. A game methodology that may inadvertently foster inactivity should be reviewed.

Please consider an in-depth analysis of domination world activity to determine the impact of game activity versus inactivity of alliances. Does the current game configuration encourage activity? What is the player attrition rate in the domination world and the reason for the loss?

Adding a few other performance factors for review:

1). Fighters (Alliances) numbers as of 3/2 - last day of domination

Fighters (Alliances).jpg

2). Attackers (Alliances) as of 3/2

Attackers (Alliances).jpg

3). Defenders (Alliances) as of 3/2

Defenders (Alliances).jpg
 

DeletedUser16299

Guest
We qualified for Last Stand and followed through. If you guys did your job and hit Last Stand when you were supposed to we wouldn't be having this conversation, at all. As in my previous replies, I see where you all are coming from but those are the facts. No matter how much you "dominated" the noobs on US95, we still had 40% DOM and held for 14 days faster than you all. That's a win.

I hope you keep posting those Exit, save em. show your friends and family, add it to your resume. Its proof to everyone that even if CS is in the lead, you still have a solid 53 second window to take the crown LOL what a joke
 

DeletedUser16299

Guest
But in reality. You guys are gunna be spamming LS for the next couple years right? When you think of us at the end of every world from now on and you're still a little pissed.. Just remember it's all just a game

Coming Soon.jpg
 

DeletedUser16299

Guest
I'm sorry guys. This isn't the place or time to be making jokes

DivineDream def not laughing.jpg