Reevaluation of World Wonders Changelog

Discussion in 'Ideas' started by HMZephyr, Feb 27, 2017.

Share This Page

  1. ctduck

    ctduck Senior Citizen

    Joined:
    May 23, 2014
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    3
    Severely mistaken. Koopas had 1 wonder, Rat had 1, KOD had 3, You had 1, IA had one. We were pacted with Rational and Rational only. Once Rational's numbers dwindled it didn't make sense for them to stand on their own they just merged in with us and Koopas had 2 wonders and we were on own with no pacts. When you guys ran your first op on me where we had both our wonders revolted then took a dozen cities from me with the help of GDI, JG, IA etc Koopas decided why are we on our own battling 4-5 alliances so we at that point pacted with KOD who was then our only pact until the end.
     
  2. Whitty

    Whitty Citizen

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2015
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    30
    I was specifically and directly asked to join the new KOD, Rational and Koopa Coalition that was going to all partner and fight the world, well before wonders even occurred, so something is amiss.
     
  3. ctduck

    ctduck Senior Citizen

    Joined:
    May 23, 2014
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    3
    Sounds like someone tried to pull one over on you! who was it? Would have been funny if you said yes! [​IMG]

    If there was a coalition then why did it take so long after wonders were completed for us to attain victor? I can tell you why but curious if you already know the answer.
     
  4. Whitty

    Whitty Citizen

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2015
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    30
    No, I'm pretty clear on what happened here. You guys were friendly with KOB well before this world started, but perhaps aren't using the word "pact"; therefore, it justifies the action.
     
  5. ctduck

    ctduck Senior Citizen

    Joined:
    May 23, 2014
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    3
    Hehe you obviously aren't clear! I was friendly with a few members of kod from past worlds in a similar manner to being friendly with many members of tbd from past worlds. Koppa leadership however had never had any previous interaction with kod. Up until we made our pact agreement it was a constant dialogue within koopas on whom we should be battling, either kod or the coalition. I will admit I was a strong advocate of continuing the battle against the coalition and leaving kod alone because it seemed more fun but I was certainly not singing in a chorus in that regard! It wasnt finally settled for good until we pacted with them well after wonders.
     
  6. Whitty

    Whitty Citizen

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2015
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    30
    Yea, I'm crystal clear on what I was told. The word "coalition" and those three alliances was brought up around August, 2015. I'm looking through e-mails to see if I can find "the one", as it was early discussions, around the time you were friendly with both Rational and TBD, prior to the TBD split.

    I've been asked to move this discussion to the Baris thread, so I'll post there if I can find that message.
     
  7. ctduck

    ctduck Senior Citizen

    Joined:
    May 23, 2014
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    3
    I wasn't in koopas then. I was in wtf.
     
  8. Whitty

    Whitty Citizen

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2015
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    30
    That helps Duck. My response will be posted in Baris thread now.
     
  9. bettydavis

    bettydavis Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    This practice of restarting during the end game as it has played out on US46/Baris is detrimental to reaching the conclusion of the game, and is to be expected to produce a negative impact of varying severity on many other worlds. I believe it was better the way it was, when players *could* protect wonders with vacation mode, but were wholly subject to it's built in restrictions and limitations than it is as it currently stands.

    My personal opinions on nature of (much of) this discussion: All the individual and alliance debate is off-topic and detrimental to the the purpose of this thread as indicated in the original post. Please take that to Politics and Propaganda where it belongs. The mention of perceived injustice in multi alliance coalitions I consider moot, as negotiation in diplomacy is a valid skill and practice and will naturally demonstrate wide variety of effectiveness. The first time a bug is discovered, accidentally or intentionally sought, I would not consider grounds for a ban (possibly a warning). Deliberate exploitation after it's discovery would be grounds for adverse action.

    I propose reversion to the previous standard until a better resolution can be implemented, if something like I will explain can't be quickly applied. There will be no resolution that will satisfy all players of Baris, as you cannot alter the past, but I believe that exploitation can be prevented, deterred, or eliminated. I suggest that one of two simple approaches will useful to resolve this:
    • Disallow any players restarting after new players can no longer join a world.
    or,
    • Players may restart at any time, but Beginner's Protection will not apply after new players are no longer able to join the world.

    Either of these will be just as they will be universally applicable, are easily understood by all, and will not grant any new advantages to some players and not others. Player's using a great deal of gold may still have an advantage, but in scale with the many other advantages gold can supply. There will also be nominal impact on the established political landscape of current worlds, which will continue to be shaped by the actions and negotiations of the players and alliances.
     
  10. dan10000

    dan10000 Citizen

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    7
    Was the point of this thread to allow us to vent and let off steam or is INNO actually going to do something in response to all the comments and questions?
     
    Whitty likes this.
  11. MarkASp

    MarkASp Philosopher

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2014
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    16
    Both. It would be nice to see some sort of official response, at least that they are aware of the issue, but that would be breaking tradition.

    But I'd rather have them take a reasonable amount of time to make sure their solution actually solves the real problem(s), without throwing the game out of balance, or leaving more holes open.
     
  12. dan10000

    dan10000 Citizen

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    7
    You silence answers this question. Shocking lack of interest in so many players' concern. This is the kind of extremely lazy attitude from Inno and forum moderators that will hopefully lead to Inno losing many players and lots of money.
     
    Whitty likes this.
  13. Whitty

    Whitty Citizen

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2015
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    30
    Yes, ending beginner's protection a couple of hours early is not a satisfactory response. Time to search for alternative forms of entertainment. Let's query the team and see what is of interest.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2017
    dan10000 likes this.
  14. Lord Fauntleroy

    Lord Fauntleroy Philosopher

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2013
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    7
    The VM issue crept into a few worlds, it wasn't intended to delay anything, it allowed alliances to keep defence outside and simply be safe for the expected duration of the first period of the Wonder Age - it was a tactic to win. Funny thing was I never saw it actually win probably because you lost a player who had say 100 cities from sending resources which in an active world (not like Baris now where every player who has had a sustained period of activity is over 2 million, if they want to be) was significant.
    It took a long time to change that as we know - but there is no way to Inno to respond as quickly as you want Dan, they would need to change codes, test it (as that could cause unknown issues) to see what they can propose - they won't come in here and say we appreciate etc as that doesn't deal with it, nor can they say we will do x if they find they cannot.
    I don't see anyone disagreeing with the bp removal - when I saw the cities I thought a new update highlighted when a city was protected by cp, so this was a surprise to me particularly when I believed bp ends when you attack another city??
    I guess alliances could actively run down players to benefit from the low morale on islands if restarting ended (I didn't know you could do this either and probably hasn't been done before) - but you aren't going to have settings change mid-way through a world.