Casual worlds

Status
Not open for further replies.
"No endgame" is not an endgame
You are right. What will happen, if a Domination world have at least 300 player or less?

As in wiki statement is written: ''On casual worlds players cannot attack other players when there is more than 20% difference in points between them ''

So that understand in : if the player is small and the point difference (to his target) is greater or equal to 20% he can't send attack.
That brings me to another few thoughts, let’s say, somebody wants to finish Grepolis, because he/ she found a new job and have no time, or get a baby and have no time or something else.
The calculation is just like a doctoral thesis, you need for every city transfer have to be done very careful. Only during a short period, the giver lost his cities could use for the transfer. The giver and the receiver have to be nearby the same points (i.e. +/-20%). If the receiver couldn't conquer the city during this period, he lost in every case the chance of the city, until it is a ghost.
It's really sophisticated for a few cities and I do not think it might work.
Furthermore if an inactive player has an active administrator, there is never the chance to conquer the last city, was it?
 
Last edited:

bogdy 95

Poseidon
That brings me to another few thoughts, let’s say, somebody wants to finish Grepolis, because he/ she found a new job and have no time, or get a baby and have no time or something else.
The calculation is just like a doctoral thesis, you need for every city transfer have to be done very careful. Only during a short period, the giver lost his cities could use for the transfer. The giver and the receiver have to be nearby the same points (i.e. +/-20%). If the receiver couldn't conquer the city during this period, he lost in every case the chance of the city, until it is a ghost.
It's really sophisticated for a few cities and I do not think it might work.
Furthermore if an inactive player has an active administrator, there is never the chance to conquer the last city, was it?

I think you mean ''Blessing'' not Administrator. And as far I know, the blessing will be not active on ghost cities. So yes, you will be not able to conquer the last city from a player until it isn't a ghost.
 
No, she means "active advisor". As long as a player has gold in his/her account and has activated the checkbox that will automatically extend the services of at least one of the advisors, his/her cities will not ghost until the account runs out of gold. And since all Beta accounts will be granted 300 gold each month (even if inactive) this could mean that the cities will never ghost. The last one will block its colonization spot forever, and all the others will not be attackable by most accounts in their neighbourhood.

---

I really don´t understand why you did not ask for player comments on the concept before coding and introducing it. We have a player council, we have the DevBlog (well, at least we had it before @sieperka killed and silenced that platform(s) within weeks after becoming LCM), and we have local forums where you could have asked for suggestions and advice.

When Marcel Zons/The Envoy had proposed and discussed "Casual Worlds" some years ago, the concept encountered so much criticism (and with reason) that it might have been well worth your while to discuss it before unearthing it again. The initial concept´s main flaw was its incompability with the WW end game, of course, for obvious reasons. But even without an end game, the current concept will hinder most of the game play Grepolis is about.

You will not be able to conquer inactive players within at least one month after the world´s start (or even more, see my first paragraph), and being an active player developing normally or even above average, while your account is growing you will find that you cannot attack any of the players around you while they still can attack you. There might even be players among them owning more cities than you own - if they keep their cities small and you don´t, they can still attack you while you cannot retaliate because of that obstructive 20% rule. You cannot even try to destroy their offensive troops, since you cannot attack them at all.

Whole alliances can save all their troops in their smallest member´s city that cannot be attacked by anybody around it.

Internal conquests will be hindered even more than they already are because of the 0% bash for internal clearing - at a certain point only the smallest alliance members will be able to attack them, and those smallest members will lack the necessary troops as well as the necessary culture slots, and nobody will be able to help them.

You will not be able to kick a colony ship out of an alliance member´s or ally´s or friendly neutral player´s city, if that CS is owned by a player 20% smaller than you are - you must watch helplessly in most of the cases of normal Grepolis game play only because you have dared to have one city or some points more than your 20% smaller opponent.

Sorry, that´s not Grepolis, it´s a perversion of Grepolis and Grepolis team play.

Players have been asking for years for new peace worlds, where you cannot be conquered, but at least find some satisfaction in growing your accounts, accumulating bash points and awards and working together as a team conquering ghost towns. If you really think that casual worlds - not only offering no incentives for bashing and growing, but quite the opposite - could be an answer for those players asking for peace worlds, you have not been listening.

---

There is only one minimum requirement that could solve at least some of the issues described (and there are even more than I have mentioned above):

Analogous to the beginners´ protection (which will be forfeited as soon as the protected player attacks another player) also in Casual Worlds protected players/cities must lose their protection as soon as they attack other players. Thus everybody can decide whether he/she wishes to colonize peacefully and well protected, or to play Grepolis with all the risks and advantages that might imply. You cannot revel in your own protected status while attacking others whatever their account status might be. I will not even start describing how this 20% rule could be exploited - every player with some imagination can do so for himself, and it´s a pity that the Grepolis team in Hamburg is lacking that imagination.
 
Last edited:
No, she means "active advisor".
You are right, it could be everyone of the advisor's active, and the cities will not ghost.

administrator.JPG


I really wonder, @bogdy 95 , do you not know this?
 

bogdy 95

Poseidon
No, she means "active advisor". As long as a player has gold in his/her account and has activated the checkbox that will automatically extend the services of at least one of the advisors, his/her cities will not ghost until the account runs out of gold. And since all Beta accounts will be granted 300 gold each month (even if inactive) this could mean that the cities will never ghost. The last one will block its colonization spot forever, and all the others will not be attackable by most accounts in their neighbourhood.

---

I really don´t understand why you did not ask for player comments on the concept before coding and introducing it. We have a player council, we have the DevBlog (well, at least we had it before @sieperka killed and silenced that platform(s) within weeks after becoming LCM), and we have local forums where you could have asked for suggestions and advice.

When Marcel Zons/The Envoy had proposed and discussed "Casual Worlds" some years ago, the concept encountered so much criticism (and with reason) that it might have been well worth your while to discuss it before unearthing it again. The initial concept´s main flaw was its incompability with the WW end game, of course, for obvious reasons. But even without an end game, the current concept will hinder most of the game play Grepolis is about.

You will not be able to conquer inactive players within at least one month after the world´s start (or even more, see my first paragraph), and being an active player developing normally or even above average, while your account is growing you will find that you cannot attack any of the players around you while they still can attack you. There might even be players among them owning more cities than you own - if they keep their cities small and you don´t, they can still attack you while you cannot retaliate because of that obstructive 20% rule. You cannot even try to destroy their offensive troops, since you cannot attack them at all.

Whole alliances can save all their troops in their smallest member´s city that cannot be attacked by anybody around it.

Internal conquests will be hindered even more than they already are because of the 0% bash for internal clearing - at a certain point only the smallest alliance members will be able to attack them, and those smallest members will lack the necessary troops as well as the necessary culture slots, and nobody will be able to help them.

You will not be able to kick a colony ship out of an alliance member´s or ally´s or friendly neutral player´s city, if that CS is owned by a player 20% smaller than you are - you must watch helplessly in most of the cases of normal Grepolis game play only because you have dared to have one city or some points more than your 20% smaller opponent.

Sorry, that´s not Grepolis, it´s a perversion of Grepolis and Grepolis team play.

Players have been asking for years for new peace worlds, where you cannot be conquered, but at least find some satisfaction in growing your accounts, accumulating bash points and awards and working together as a team conquering ghost towns. If you really think that casual worlds - not only offering no incentives for bashing and growing, but quite the opposite - could be an answer for those players asking for peace worlds, you have not been listening.

---

There is only one minimum requirement that could solve at least some of the issues described (and there are even more than I have mentioned above):

Analogous to the beginners´ protection (which will be forfeited as soon as the protected player attacks another player) also in Casual Worlds protected players/cities must lose their protection as soon as they attack other players. Thus everybody can decide whether he/she wishes to colonize peacefully and well protected, or to play Grepolis with all the risks and advantages that might imply. You cannot revel in your own protected status while attacking others whatever their account status might be. I will not even start describing how this 20% rule could be exploited - every player with some imagination can do so for himself, and it´s a pity that the Grepolis team in Hamburg is lacking that imagination.

Firstly, there are granted just 300 gold coins/month, that mean a week and sometimes 2 remain the account with no gold coins. After that the advisor will not be any more checked and that city will transform in ghost.

Secondly , about asking opinions, I can't have any position about this topic, so i will ask @Arci to fill those gasps.

And most important thing, you have missed some important thing. Neither the player which has 20% points less can't attack you. Those 20% rule is also for small not only for big player with more points.
And as far i can think, your scenario has a gap, you can attack an allied city to clean another player CS even if the player which send the CS has 20% less points than you. Because you are not attacking a town of his own, just his troops in another city. So you will be able to destroy a CS in another city (if it meets the 20% criteria) even if the attacker has 20% less points than you do.

About that topic with '' peace worlds'', I am quite new in this Team and as far I can tell, we read your suggestions and demands, but 99% of the time it is not up to us to be implemented. We are just the messager in most of the cases.
 
@bogdy 95 I answered to your posting, but mostly I mean the guys at InnoGames, so do not take it personally but always constructively ;)

And as far i can think, your scenario has a gap, you can attack an allied city to clean another player CS even if the player which send the CS has 20% less points than you. Because you are not attacking a town of his own, just his troops in another city. So you will be able to destroy a CS in another city (if it meets the 20% criteria) even if the attacker has 20% less points than you do.

What about helping an Alliance Member with 20% less points, when he/ she will attacked and sieged. I guess, it is not possible in such a system. So there is more than one gap. Please be carefully to establish something like this in a short manner!

Firstly, there are granted just 300 gold coins/month, that mean a week and sometimes 2 remain the account with no gold coins. After that the advisor will not be any more checked and that city will transform in ghost.
If the checkbox from one advisor is crossed, and that is normaly the administrator and you reveive 300 Gold per month, the player would never deleted.
In evidence to that there are so many examples in all country versions, so it have to be consider it in any way. If the last city cann't be conquer, there is another gap in this system and have to revise.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, there are granted just 300 gold coins/month, that mean a week and sometimes 2 remain the account with no gold coins. After that the advisor will not be any more checked and that city will transform in ghost.

Wrong. Extending the administrator (and that´s the only advisor most players will have active on Beta worlds, even if they don´t buy any gold) automatically for 2 weeks will cost you 100 gold. 100 gold is not the weekly fee for an advisor, it´s a bi-weekly one. You should know that, at least.

On casual worlds players cannot attack other players when there is more than 20% difference in points between them. This improves the experience of smaller players as they can only be attacked by players that have the same range of strength.

Well, it is the second sentence that is misleading, obviously. Well, good luck then for finding anyone to attack and conquer and good luck for all internal conquests - it´s even worse than I suspected. It´s utter nonsense.

And as far i can think, your scenario has a gap, you can attack an allied city to clean another player CS even if the player which send the CS has 20% less points than you. Because you are not attacking a town of his own, just his troops in another city.

When a player is besieging another player´s city, the conqueror´s morale values will apply, not the morale values of the besieged player, and the morale values depend on the player´s account size.Thus I think your statement is wrong and the account size of the conqueror is the crucial one. But even if you were right, this would mean that you cannot help alliance members breaking a siege in their cities, if they (or rather the conqueror) are not within the 20% range in relation to your own account.

It´s the second time in a row (after domination) that a game concept is transplanted from Tribal Wars (where it was/is unpopular) to Grepolis (where it cannot work at all). There already is a game concept working for Grepolis (Peace Worlds/Hyperborea Worlds) where you can attack and gain bash points and city slots without conquering or being conquered, but the players asking for nothing else than the opening of a new Hyperborea world in their market have been ignored year after year - only to end up with this ....

Get rid of that 20% rule - it was not in the original concept, and the original concept was bad enough without it.
 
Last edited:

bogdy 95

Poseidon
Wrong. Extending the administrator (and that´s the only advisor most players will have active on Beta worlds, even if they don´t buy any gold) automatically for 2 weeks will cost you 100 gold. 100 gold is not the weekly fee for an advisor, it´s a bi-weekly one. You should know that, at least.

Yeah sorry about that, I have also checked that box for automatically extending the premium and I forgot that it was 2 weeks. My mistake.
 
Yes, and please check your other possible mistake as well. A siege is not only "the conqueror´s troops in another player´s city" - during a siege the morale, account size and even researches of the conqueror will apply.

Sorry, I don´t want to attack you or belittle you - it´s only that we all have been surprised and shocked by this development, and it´s a shame that we had to learn about it only a few days before the opening of a respective game world, without prior notice via DevBlog or other platforms. I simply cannot stomach such "surprises" any longer.
 

bogdy 95

Poseidon
Yes, and please check your other possible mistake as well. A siege is not only "the conqueror´s troops in another player´s city" - during a siege the morale, account size and even researches of the conqueror will apply.

Sorry, I don´t want to attack you or belittle you - it´s only that we all have been surprised and shocked by this development, and it´s a shame that we had to learn about it only a few days before the opening of a respective game world, without prior notice via DevBlog or other platforms. I simply cannot stomach such "surprises" any longer.

You are right, about the siege and that involves the attacker researches, but that doesn't mean you can't attack that player. The points difference it is between attacker and deffender, not third parties.
 
Pardon me - you don´t get the point. No matter whether the conqueror´s or the besieged player´s account size is the crucial one regarding those 20%, I will not be able to attack the siege when my own account is 20% bigger or - according to your previous statement - smaller than the "defending" one. At least I see nothing in the wiki page contradicting me, it does not mention any exemption from the rule. If someone 15% smaller than my alliance mate is besieging one of his cities, and my account is 30% bigger than his - what happens?
 

Mimarifap

Hydra
Grepolis Wiki said:
The city can have spells cast on it (lightning bolt is an exception to this rule).

This is now but a minor question in this thread, which has by now turned into a general feedback thread for casual worlds (as represented by Sandbox 12), but still. What is the reason behind lightning getting blocked by blessing? The city can still be attacked as usual, so why this exception?
 

DeletedUser4186

Guest
I really don´t understand why you did not ask for player comments on the concept before coding and introducing it. We have a player council, we have the DevBlog (well, at least we had it before @sieperka killed and silenced that platform(s) within weeks after becoming LCM), and we have local forums where you could have asked for suggestions and advice.

100% true
as we asked inno what our "Job" should be inno said:
Collecting Suggestions and wishes from our communitys, filtering them, bringing them to inno AND be an additional feedbackchannel.

But how can we do that if inno is silence for weeks?
i thing inno will see what her silence lead to a feedback.
perhaps we would also be silent but not because we just say nothing more but perhaps its because we don´t play Grepo anymore
Grepo has right now so many problems with lagging and freezing Things (and the get more and more) but it seems to make such a really bad thing is more important.
It´s a shame
smiley_emoticons_thumbs-down_new.gif


About that topic with '' peace worlds'', I am quite new in this Team and as far I can tell, we read your suggestions and demands, but 99% of the time it is not up to us to be implemented. We are just the messager in most of the cases.

we know that you are one of the unluckiest Persons here because you are only the messenger
smiley_emoticons_biggrin.gif


but i have a question to that casual worlds.

i never read an wish or an suggestion about this in any Grepoforum. So if inno read our suggestions and demands than the only logical solution why such a bad thing came is

inno ignore that suggestions and wishes

or can you show me whre such a suggestion about casual worlds is written? please with link^^

This is now but a minor question in this thread, which has by now turned into a general feedback thread for casual worlds (as represented by Sandbox 12), but still. What is the reason behind lightning getting blocked by blessing? The city can still be attacked as usual, so why this exception?

That a good question^^

You are right, about the siege and that involves the attacker researches, but that doesn't mean you can't attack that player. The points difference it is between attacker and deffender, not third parties.

oh i try to explain it one more time ok?

so you can´t attack a player wiht more or less than 20% of your Points right?

so let´s say there are 3 Players: You me and your best friend

and 4 example calculations:

1.
you have 100k Points i have 124k points and you best friend has 80k Points

2.
the same only this time your Friend has 90k Points

3.
the same only this time your friend has 110k Points

4.
the same but this time your friend has 130k Points

so in all cases you are in my Reach (which is from 96k to 144k) and i can attack you and send CS an siege one of your towns, correct?

and lets say your Friend wants to help you to kick that CS

here the possible solutions:

1.
he can´t attack the siege because he is not in your or my range (his range is from 64k to 96k) and you can only attack player within that 20% or not?

2.
he is in your Range but not in my Range (his Range is 72k to 108k) so if counts who owns the town right now than he can attack but if counts who sieges that town he can´t help you right?

3.
he can help you because no matter of the points because he is in Range for you and me (his Range is 89k to 131k) right?

4.
he can help you only if the points from that player that sieges a town counts because you are not in his range (his Range is 104k to 156k) or not?

do you know now what draba try to say?

and i have more things that are bad or just stupid or useless but only 2 Things at the moment

1. why is morale acitve on that world? you can´t attack Player to which you have les than morale 100 so each attack is at moral 100 (for example 2 Player one has 1 millon the second 1,2 million so both morales are 100) morale is useless on such a world or not`?

2. On casual worlds players cannot attack other players when there is more than 20% difference in points between them. This improves the experience of smaller players as they can only be attacked by players that have the same range of strength.

thats in some cases are just wrong and the opposite is true

please take a look to the 4 examples

you have 100k Points that means your Range is 80k to 120k right?
i have 124k so my range is 99,2k to 148,8k right?

that means i am as the bigger player can attack you but you can´t attack me because big numbers means bigger bandwith of the range

so that "Protection" is not a protection for small players its one for bigger players

ok by 100k accounts that perhaps not so important but on accounts with 2 millions and 100 to 150 towns the Reach is 1,6 to 2,4 Millions and being able to attack a player with 100 Towns and he cant do the same because his range is not big enough is nothing but a protection for the bigger player.

and @InnoGames

if you asked us GPC before doing such a really really bad thing this discusion wouldn´t be necesary-.-
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Arci

Community Manager
Grepolis Team
What does InnoGames says about this? :D

Rank 1 couldnt attack anyone :D

Screenshot-at-Okt-29-10-16-56.png

The goal of the Casual World is offering the opportunity to enjoy some of the Grepolis features without having to worry too much about enemies and incoming attacks, designed for casual players without any particular hardcore requirement.

If a player is interested in the war and fight aspects of the game, obviously he shouldn't join a Casual World but wait for a regular world instead.

Here's your "InnoGames" answer for that ;)
 

Mimarifap

Hydra
This is now but a minor question in this thread, which has by now turned into a general feedback thread for casual worlds (as represented by Sandbox 12), but still. What is the reason behind lightning getting blocked by blessing? The city can still be attacked as usual, so why this exception?

Grepolis Wiki said:
What happens if...
  • players send catapults toward it? → The attack happens normally, but the Stone Hail technology is not activated but the Wall will still be destroyed.

This raises a similar question. Why is Stone Hail stopped by the blessing?

On a different note, I'm now interested in the answer to the siege-lifting question. How can this be solved without introducing an exception from the established rules? I can't see a more satisfactory option than a complete exemption of sieges from the point requirement limitations and allowing sieges to be attacked by anyone, anytime. But we'll see what the game has for us.

Or is the answer "Go playtest and we'll see."? We could go and play on Sandbox 12, after all...

This might be tense.
 
The goal of the Casual World is offering the opportunity to enjoy some of the Grepolis features without having to worry too much about enemies and incoming attacks, designed for casual players without any particular hardcore requirement.

And that´s what Hyperborea Worlds do far better than Casual Worlds. Even those player interested in peace worlds opposed casual worlds some years ago, and we had really hoped that the general feedback was clear enough to bury that concept for good. But it´s Halloween, and the Zombie returned (and even more rotten then before).

Well, it´s not "hardcore" to be able to break a siege in an alliance member´s city besieged by a player 20% smaller, it´s not hardcore to conquer inactive players, it´s not hardcore to help smaller players clear cities in internal conquests, and it´s not hardcore to be able to save alliance cities via internal conquest in the first place.

And apropos waiting for "regular worlds": When we can only choose between Domination or Casual Worlds (one concept worse than the other, both concepts not working for Grepolis), what should we be waiting for at all?
 

meli

Medusa
The goal of the Casual World is offering the opportunity to enjoy some of the Grepolis features without having to worry too much about enemies and incoming attacks, designed for casual players without any particular hardcore requirement.

If a player is interested in the war and fight aspects of the game, obviously he shouldn't join a Casual World but wait for a regular world instead.

Here's your "InnoGames" answer for that ;)

Your answer shows a general lack of game tactics.

Hardcore players will mercilessly take advantage of the protective functions and casual players will have little chance of survival.
I will be able to play such worlds with 8- 9k cities and attack significantly smaller players. By cleverly using the "Blessing Citys" I can easily destroy the safe area of whole alliances.
Since no safe area can be built up, the pressure on the players will increase and end up costing more time.

For players who are so inactive that they cant be attacked, peace worlds would be better. Because this small players couldnt be attacked, but couldnt be attack also.
 

Arci

Community Manager
Grepolis Team
I don't see any major problem here. What are the player who like revolt only doing? They're just playing on revolt world and not on siege.
If a player doesn't like both, can propose changes that may work with his own and personal playstyle.
If a player doesn't like anything about the game and is not intended in proposing/waiting for changes... guys, there are plenty of other games, not every single game can be enjoyed by every single person of this planet.

The same applies for Casual World. Feel free to share suggestions for improvements in the proper forum section, or feedbacks in the feedback section.
If you don't like a concept, there's no need to repeat it several times, just say it once, it's enough :)


The question on the first post has already been answered, hence I'm closing this post to avoid further off topic (everything that isn't strictly related to the question).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top