I tought about this, when I saw WTO players owning more than 30 metropols, offcourse this would be very hard in real life (Due to this the Byzantine and Roman Empire fell) So I tought about this:

1. If you own more than X cities, the income over the next one will drop by Y and after that one Y+Y
2. If you are over the limit, the cities have a small change to revolt (in other words there is a change that 10% of the population will attack the army stationed in the city)
3.To solve this you have three options, 1. leaving the city 2. Accepting the fact you own less income and more revolts 3. Let the local people rule themselves (explained in point
4.)
4. When you are over the limit, you can install a 'puppet city' i.e you pay some geos, to have the miltia rule themself, in return you get like 50% of their income - minus their army upkeep. (To represent this in the game - You just get as owner - militia, and after that (puppet of *player*)
5. offcourse those 'puppet cities' can demand things from their masters (like 'we want more industry, a nuke shield, walls etc.)
6. If you don't listen to them, there is a small change that they will declare independance, or even worse, turn to another player.

Okay, I know this need some tweaks here and there. But with this there would be more strategy, less blobbing of alliances, and militia will make sense.

Would need a bit more thinking, but good ideas coming.

Nice thinking tonie.

Yes, I know it just some raw idea's gathered, offcourse this couldn't be impleted exactly as I suggested. :p

I just wanted to represent that it is impossible to own so many cities and discourage it to own so many.

Again, like elsewhere, I like Tonie's ideas here.

In my opinion, 3 rules need to be changed/adapted/removed as soon as possible to improve the game for everyone and make it more playable/open to all:

1) 300k value required for bank access rule - if this is changed/removed, the need to zero your opponent or risk being zeroed yourself problem will disappear instantly.

2) Non-donators only being able to jewel if they have less than 2500 geos, a total of 10,000,000 city value, or 30,000 troops - this only makes it even more difficult for new players to get into the game and needs to be changed or removed.

3) Unlimited jewelling for donators - this will only lead to the big alliances getting bigger and more powerful, making it impossible for smaller alliances and new players to get into the game.

At one point I had 900 cities I think and I am sure that it could be done again, but that took me being on 24/7 for 4 days I think and 500k in oil. Would be interesting to see someone try it again though.

Again, like elsewhere, I like Tonie's ideas here.

In my opinion, 3 rules need to be changed/adapted/removed as soon as possible to improve the game for everyone and make it more playable/open to all:

1) 300k value required for bank access rule - if this is changed/removed, the need to zero your opponent or risk being zeroed yourself problem will disappear instantly.

2) Non-donators only being able to jewel if they have 2500 geos (or over), a total of 10,000,000 city value, or over 30,000 troops - this only makes it even more difficult for new players to get into the game and needs to be changed or removed.

3) Unlimited jewelling for donators - this will only lead to the big alliances getting bigger and more powerful, making it impossible for smaller alliances and new players to get into the game.

Mongoose there are things you do not know and they effect things.

First off 1 should be harder, 500k to get bank access and it drops very rapidly, should be no cities for 3 days you will loose a mill value. And should take 3 days to get a mill value.

2, to bad. The point is to try the game and if you like it chip in. We have far to many people in the past who just logged in once a week and never donated. Now those people either need a city of their own to send all their funds to the alliance bank, or they are useless.

3, anyone who wants to jewel 14hrs a day deserves to get ahead. period.

You are missing hte point in that the goal is to have a game that makes it easier to play every day or two and rewards you for both playing and donating, and makes it useless to just log in once a week to send your geos to a bank. And far far to many people did that. Never once attacked anyone just gave all their money away to the alliance leader. I am willing to bet we will need to make it harder not easier.

I am willing to bet we will need to make it harder not easier.


I think I can follow that :

At the start :
Less geos
More militia in the cities
Less resources

Making it harder to get all the cities anyway
Bin the bank and the possibility of transfering geos.

I am with mongoose about the donater perks with jeweling.

Mongoose there are things you do not know and they effect things.

Well if I've learnt anything in these forums, it's that constructive discussion (i.e. discussion on normal threads like this, not on flame wars) is simply not possible.

I also forgot myself for a second and failed to remember that many here think this is the only subscription/donator based war game ever developed, so it's not possible that maybe people like myself have seen better ways of doing things elsewhere.

There are many different ways to achieve what the current new rules I listed aim to, and some of the different ways would just make the game a little more bearable and approachable to all.

Still, I won't bother wasting my breath going into detail, as I said there's really no point. Sorry for trying to help the game, I'm glad open discussion was dismissed so quickly cos now I don't have to care.

I think I can follow that :

At the start :
Less geos
More militia in the cities
Less resources

Making it harder to get all the cities anyway
Bin the bank and the possibility of transfering geos.

I am with mongoose about the donater perks with jeweling.

For what it's worth, I agree. It would mean people have to build slowly rather than sweeping across entire continents in a day at the start.

I am sorry mongoose I was not trying to put down your suggestions, or stop discussion. But alot of thought went into the model we have now, and since I was responsible for a portion of it I was trying to explain the rational. Let me say now also, that the current model failed, there will have to be changes made. It was tried 3 times with slightly different variables and the hope is that with many more participants it will work better, I do not believe it will, but the decision is not mine to make, and my opinion is no longer requested.

The most important change that needs to be imo is cities/value

The game needs to be more like the beta game was... You don't have to own a city to get access to the bank and cities shouldn't be worth so much that it will make it impossible for other alliance to fight you...

The other thing is that jeweling should have a cap and everyone should be able to jewel the same amount!

everyone can jewel the same amount. Anyone who supports the game by becoming a donator. I am not sure why this is even an argument.

You do know that the game is set up this way to stop the 100's of accounts that only made income and sent it to others right?

I am sorry mongoose I was not trying to put down your suggestions, or stop discussion. But alot of thought went into the model we have now, and since I was responsible for a portion of it I was trying to explain the rational. Let me say now also, that the current model failed, there will have to be changes made. It was tried 3 times with slightly different variables and the hope is that with many more participants it will work better, I do not believe it will, but the decision is not mine to make, and my opinion is no longer requested.

Sorry Peon, I'm having a bad day in real life so I may have just been quick to read your message in a way that you didn't mean - if that's the case, I apologise too.

I'm not criticising anyone involved in the design/development of these rules. The game needed to change from how it was in beta 1 and you're 100% right that there were way too many people who weren't active but still accrued significant geo savings which were then just given away.

The way I see it, there are two main challenges the game faces. First, to attract new players to the game who like it enough to donate. Second, to make the game more playable but to only reward active players.

I think Skotty's post before regarding starting geos, increased militia sizes, capped jewelling, and no bank access whatsoever is a start towards achieving those aims. You're right though Peon, it's not easy and by no means do I think I have all the answers.

I think that this thread is pretty clean and everybody is just trying to get some ideas to make this game work.

Noone needs to get heated up, mongoose - I wish you a great evening after a bad day - we all get them. Peonboss, noone gets invited to make suggestions - I like your posts here- it has given me an insight to some of the backgrounds and for further ideas.


Forget non-donaters and donaters - how can we make the game "fair" to players.
Then move onto beginners
Then see what can be changed to get donaters in

From what I've seen of the complaints flying around, the main areas that multiple people have mentioned and backed up with examples are:

Alliance sizes.
Banking and access to banking.
Resources and City Income.
Jewelling - capped vs uncapped vs whether it should exist at all.

These seem to be the areas that a lot of people want to see changed to allow for a fairer, more playable game. Unfortunately, they are the main points because there is no easy solution to the problems the game faces.

From what I've seen of the complaints flying around, the main areas that multiple people have mentioned and backed up with examples are:

Alliance sizes.
Banking and access to banking.
Resources and City Income.
Jewelling - capped vs uncapped vs whether it should exist at all.

I agree, these are the most important issues that needs attention!

I fear that we WILL lose players if the game doesn't change :)

Sorry to say, but haven't we already?

I mean I saw times where there were many more players than 300 (Yes, I know it just started, but even then). And even I have quit the game sometimes when I couldn't start up the game propertly

T.

Yes we have T and that needs to change but the game needs to change first :)

What if we played on the idea of a noob world and the 'real world'?

We have separate words, 2 or 3 of them. But all worlds are equal.

We cap alliances at 20 members a piece.

Alliances are formed beforehand, and then randomly thrown into each world to battle for the cities.

So world 1 may have NAOAW, AI, part of 3rd and part of WTO
world 2 has Natives, TLI, rest of 3rd, and rest of WTO

so on and so forth.

Ok, well we know the problems outlined above, what are the solutions?

Would be good to get a few people posting here to get some good ideas, especially some of the longer term players who have left if possible. It would also be useful if Peon and other staff could explain any potential issues with suggestions as they come up.

Constructive suggestions only, no moaning, whinging, complaining, flame wars, or generally useless posts. Let's try and keep this thread on topic as I think we all agree it's an important one.

Ok, well we know the problems outlined above, what are the solutions?

Would be good to get a few people posting here to get some good ideas, especially some of the longer term players who have left if possible. It would also be useful if Peon and other staff could explain any potential issues with suggestions as they come up.

Constructive suggestions only, no moaning, whinging, complaining, flame wars, or generally useless posts. Let's try and keep this thread on topic as I think we all agree it's an important one.
See above.

:tease

2 quick things/corrections.

1. there is a reason this was called level 3....

2. I am not in staff.

Personally the only real issues I see is the need for value to open your bank, perhaps that should be changed, yes initially you need the value but once your bank is open then it stays open, then it does not interfer with everyones styles of gameplay.

I do not think we should have a jewel cap, otherwise we are literally forcing everyone to have roughly the same number of geos, also I really think we should only be able to transfer geos within an alliance.

How about having levels on the cities ie. having to build up levels in cities before being able to take new ones.

Non-donors and old players need a more prominent notice of their "trial" limited features.

And maybe Luke's seabases should now be given priority before interception and split.

I disagree with so many things that's being said in this entire thread I'm not even going to bother talking about them.

However, bring back intercept and split, lift the 40 members cap.

I disagree with so many things that's being said in this entire thread I'm not even going to bother talking about them.



Oh well if you disagree with everything, I guess its just us being stupid. Hang on, you have no idea what its like though. You befriend yourself with the biggest alliance, and say everything is ok.

Wait til you the natives are wasted for being a sit around do nothing alliance.

If you cant be bothered to talk about things - shut up and go away.

Actually interception and split will really level the field and boost wars.
We may as well sit idle until that happens.

Oh well if you disagree with everything, I guess its just us being stupid. Hang on, you have no idea what its like though. You befriend yourself with the biggest alliance, and say everything is ok.

Wait til you the natives are wasted for being a sit around do nothing alliance.

If you cant be bothered to talk about things - shut up and go away.

Which big alliance? I'm not friends in 3rd. JW is probably loling at how ridiculous that comment is.

As for WTO, I don't like attacking the Chinese, even if they were small or big, simply doesn't matter.

Which big alliance? I'm not friends in 3rd. JW is probably loling at how ridiculous that comment is.

As for WTO, I don't like attacking the Chinese, even if they were small or big, simply doesn't matter.

I never stated you are friends with 3rd.

Its enough with your statement :


As for WTO, Natives have no plans or issues with WTO. We hope for a long peace with the Chinese, as always, I hope it will be reciprocal.


Shut up and go away. Infact hard ignore is better. Go NAP everybody who is bigger than you. How boring. How native.


PS. I found a website for you : http://www.realnappiesforlondon.org.uk/why/

I never stated you are friends with 3rd.

Its enough with your statement :



Shut up and go away. Infact hard ignore is better. Go NAP everybody who is bigger than you. How boring. How native.


PS. I found a website for you : http://www.realnappiesforlondon.org.uk/why/

We don't really do NAPs, it's more unsaid agreements. If you look at Natives history, we have never attacked WTO even when they were big or small (even when ODA was very small). This is near fact.

But ofcourse, you wouldn't know about that, you've not played the game long enough to know how much time and effort we've put into our relationships... geWAR and all that you know?!

I have played long enough to know that natives like to sit around and watch everyone else attack.

And I heard you cry and whinge in the last round.
That was enough for me.

Dont forget if you should get attacked - order your nappy on time.

I have played long enough to know that natives like to sit around and watch everyone else attack.

And I heard you cry and whinge in the last round.
That was enough for me.

Dont forget if you should get attacked - order your nappy on time.

You haven't been in the game in the long enough to play a longer-game of success. I've been on both sides of the coin, if you're small you should play the game carefully.

In NO, I was zeroed so many times against UN (like the war last 3 resets or more).

I also got zeroed by AO which was brutal (and probably the worst). Got zeroed by BNW and 3rd also in the sj/ukraine/NO war against them.

As a large alliance UNO (which had like 50+ members) we virtually had no NAPs.

Natives has always been very small, and always had to defend. I mean you must be completely crazy to start declaring war on alliances double your size.

Natives has always been very small, and always had to defend. I mean you must be completely crazy to start declaring war on alliances double your size.


JPF smaller. Want to remind me what wars we have been in?

You have to be very boring to be a native.

Natives do not have NAPS only agreements?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pact

Another candidate for english lessons.

Oh well if you disagree with everything, I guess its just us being stupid. Hang on, you have no idea what its like though. You befriend yourself with the biggest alliance, and say everything is ok.

Wait til you the natives are wasted for being a sit around do nothing alliance.

If you cant be bothered to talk about things - shut up and go away.

hmmm.... after reading thru the "problems" here, i then found out what the real "problem" is and it was coming from this post.
unable to survive with those big alliances hanging around so there is "problems" in this game and therefore the game concept and rules need to be change.

just like Jaz's said, you need to be long enough in this game to really understand how to work around in this game.

Ok then you long time serious players tell me how a small alliance should play.

NAP everyone? Bring 100 members out of a magical hat.

This game suffers from following major flaws :

Alliances have to many members - WTO leader has also said this (coward -recognises a problem - not big enough to change it)
Bigger alliances will not let people start up - you are rolling over anyone who takes a city in Asia
The bigger alliances will grow and grow and the poor get poorer
Donaters have too many perks

The natives are not particulary well known for their attacks - you say its because I am new. Show me more players (who have no connection to natives) who back up that natives are fierce.


And if any of you natives or WTO want lessons in GEwar, I shall arrange for sarge to give you some.

So jump down from your ILoveMyself trips and back off and go find a life.
You do not exist in my eyes.

so sarge did not give u enough lessons in GEwar ??
I did not say you are new.... just that you have not been here long enough to see the changes that took place in Gewar... many big alliances came and go....

the big alliances dun drop from the sky suddenly... they were form after many resets...
even enemies can merge into 1 alliance... eg. NAOW(NA+AO), NATIVES (NO+UN..if I am not wrong)... thats how they survive..
if one only thinks of playing this game on their own.... good luck to that guy then. there is no Battle strategy here... so you can throw that book "Art of war" away and play like how others are playing.

Ok then you long time serious players tell me how a small alliance should play.

NAP everyone? Bring 100 members out of a magical hat.

This game suffers from following major flaws :

Alliances have to many members - WTO leader has also said this (coward -recognises a problem - not big enough to change it)
Bigger alliances will not let people start up - you are rolling over anyone who takes a city in Asia
The bigger alliances will grow and grow and the poor get poorer
Donaters have too many perks

The natives are not particulary well known for their attacks - you say its because I am new. Show me more players (who have no connection to natives) who back up that natives are fierce.


And if any of you natives or WTO want lessons in GEwar, I shall arrange for sarge to give you some.

So jump down from your ILoveMyself trips and back off and go find a life.
You do not exist in my eyes.

one thing I know is :
that TheSarge has a reason to let you play in his alliance.....and I respect him for doing so

you may continue to talk as you do, the question will be if you are still there later on and proofed that what you would like to do "changing the world"
can be done in the way you love so much to express in here...

and if you really want to make us believe that you are the only one who has to go through a difficult time - well skotty - than Thesarge may be was wrong believing in you...

your number of post is higher than most of us who paid efforts over 2-3 years just, so far you just cry - you are not ready to do...

and just to confirm that - you sure have the right crying as much in here as you want...smile


Laoma
*if you really want to learn something about the game, you wouldn't have shout over 600 post, you would have listen a lot supporter, who are very interested to let you grow up in here, but well seems you just want to pay one effort - posting in the Forums
and please cut that noob and veteran issue... you are living in the Forums so you may research what is written about that so often...

Ignore laoma the coward hypocrite.

Your post contained nothing.

so sarge did not give u enough lessons in GEwar ??


Climb under your stone. Coward.


Go roll over some beginners who dare take a city in Asia. Go follow you leader , you coward sheep.

Climb under your stone. Coward.


Go roll over some beginners who dare take a city in Asia. Go follow you leader , you coward sheep.

ok.. i am talking to a stone too...

ok.. i am talking to a stone too...

Are you talking to laoma on the phone whilst writing to me?

Coward sheep. Found any beginners to roll over - I bet you roll over the beginners in mass numbers as well.

Enough skotty. There are a few other threads of skotty vs the world. Lets keep this one on topic please.

Just one correction - I am not against the world -I do like some people and alliances here.


And while I am at it another correction - Its not just me against everyone - anyone can join in.

Otherwise, I really like this game, but would like to see some changes (in my favour).

As I said before......

Constructive suggestions only, no moaning, whinging, complaining, flame wars, or generally useless posts. Let's try and keep this thread on topic as I think we all agree it's an important one.

Furthermore, if you disagree or have alternative ideas to others, post them and justify your reasoning.

And agreed......army splitting and intercept needs to come back asap! The game just isn't the same without those features but I'm sure the developers are working on them as a priority.

And agreed......army splitting and intercept needs to come back asap! The game just isn't the same without those features but I'm sure the developers are working on them as a priority.

but if army splitting is allow, the feature of oil usage to move army becomes less useful....
using of oil to move armies helps to prevent playes from moving too far too fast....

but if army splitting is allow, the feature of oil usage to move army becomes less useful....
using of oil to move armies helps to prevent playes from moving too far too fast....

Yep, I can certainly see your point Ronnie and I can't argue with that. The only thing I can counter with is that from a playing/attacking perspective, no army splitting makes attacks a bit clunky and slow at times I've found.

I am not sure if alot of donaters will have fun, attacking a city only to lose it by the mother of all alliances. And as such I foresee the loss of alot of donaters, if nothing is changed.

I played the donut game once and lost big time. After trying for 4 weeks to have 1 city, I lost interest.

I for one feel sorry for 3rd, I say what I might about them, but they are fun (most of them anyway), and lots of them do have patience with me.

But if warriors like 3rd dont manage the game, I might as well zero myself :'(

Thank god I still have monopoly in the cubboard.

Now to the serious point of my thread :

Whats an alliance supposed to do, when they have lost xxK geos in an allout war? Holding a city is hardly an option. It would cost more to try and hold it, than they would recieve holding it.

I'm not sure what's right or what's wrong. More city value, less bank interest, capping jeweling, etc. All I know is that what it will always come down to is a player with more time to play, will, and should, be better, and have more of everything than someone who doesn't have as much time to play. The same is true and should be true when comparing alliances. Simple.

Capping features is not the way. Where do you cap it? Is the cap at the minimum effort someone is expected to put forth to play the game? What is that effort? IMO, capping is the same as not having it, more or less. Everyone is put on the same playing level at the start. Keeping them there is boring.

Someone mentioned the game is about World Domination. In it's current format, that is probably now possible. Think about it. In the beta version whatever was lost was able to be taken back at some point. All someone needed was time to save up. Here, the lose of the bank is a great way to stifle your enemies to reach that ultimate goal: World Domination. How would that be possible if you can't "take" away someone's resources for funding a war? Sure, it will take time and take a totally different strategy than everyone is used to, but NAPs will have to be made (and broken, lol) and zeroing is going to happen (sucks to be you, lol). But allowing everyone to easily get back to where they were is, and was, boring about beta.

If and when World Domination happens, there will be a reset and an alliance (or player) will truly be crowned the greatest at GEWar.

There have been some suggestions that I like, though. Bring back splitting and intercepting, but to keep oil important, instead of 2 barrels per 5min of travel, make it like 5 or 10 barrels for every 5min of travel. I like the beginning being harder to cover the world by reduced geos and resources. It would be something to still see unoccupied cities after a week or two or even 3! This will also help the new-comers and late starters. Of course, knowing where to place your home base prior to placing it would be nice (and necessary) too, lol. Also, keeping the transferring of geos within an alliance is a great idea. I'm sure there are other ideas that I forgot about, and I'm sure there will be more to come.

I highly doubt luke wants a game where the goal is to eliminate the majority of players abilities to play the game. If WTO succeeds in eliminating players banks and resources, what point is there to play?

Congrats, you'll be soon playing with yourself.

Didn't your mother teach you better?

To win this game, you only have to be in the biggest alliance, and you automatically have the most geos to play with.
And if you are in the biggest alliance, then you would only have to logon once a day, knowing that its impossible for a one man alliance or alliance with a severed income to take 1300 cities in 24 hours.

I am sorry but what is great about having the biggest alliance? I am sure I missed something. Who can would even try to stop WTO now?

I think that the start needs to be made harder, and your words on this matter really do make sense to me.


So to win the game one has to be in the biggest alliance and maybe NAP everyone (breaking the naps one at a time).
It was announced that this game will not have a reset. So what should alliances do when they have been zeroed. Once an alliance has been zereod, and cannot hold cities again, how long will they remain?

As I said, I can see lots of people becoming bored with this game, and I never found beta boring. Being able to fight back at some point, was not boring. Infact the other online games what I play, if one should lose, you have the chance to start again. Here you dont.

I have been zeroed many a time, and I still had fun. Beta offered lots of game play choices. But here you own a city, or basicaly you are not part of the game.

OMG. Whats with this crowning as greatest at GEwar? Have you worn a crown after a winning a game of chess or monopoly?

Well, I say, what is the point of playing a game where there is no end? What is the goal? And this is a game, right? What game doesn't have an end where a winner is declared? Can anyone answer me that question? Even .net had some form of winners with value and score and an end with RESETS. No resets, no winners equal no purpose. And no purpose equals boring. And boring equals people leaving the game.

On .net, how many times did everyone go back and forth over a city? So many times you can't even count it, I'm sure. I was in one particular fight with someone, and we were constantly intercepting each other. Back and forth. I don't even know how many times we "beat" each other. Finally, my opponent changed the name of his army to something that indicated it was a stalemate and in response I renamed my army to reflect the same. We both realized that what we were doing was a waste and that nobody was gonna "win". We both backed down. Keeping everyone at the same level will cause that and there can never be a winner. If you don't want a winner, then what the hell is the purpose?

And my point was that by changing the values of jewels or the city tax or how long it takes to do anything isn't really going to change a thing. Think of it this way: whatever you have now, will take longer or shorter to get (based on proposed changes) and those players that are "better" than you or "worse" than you will still be that. Time is what determines who has more and that is the way it should be.

As for what happens to players when they get "eliminated". Move them to another world to start over (the main login screen even mentions multiple worlds). Like skotty mentioned that's what other browser based games do. Of course their playing worlds are basically unlimited, so this game must move them to another dimension, so to speak.

So, harry, my mom taught me to come up with solutions to problems instead of just pointing them out. And skotty, I have won at chess and monoply (turn based games where everyone starts with the same chances, but by the end all but one are eliminated. ie: a purpose to actually spending the time to play). It was great. I'm sure you even won at something like that and didn't you like the feeling of accomplishment?

Well it was one of the mods or Luke who wrote there would be no reset.
Yes, it is game, slightly flawed, more open questions than answers but still only a game.

Does that answer your question?


To what level should the players be moved? We are already at the highest level. And then what will we have? 3rd will dominate the new level and all alliances that are zeroed after will have a hard time against 3rd on the next level.


Not everybody is a fulltime gamer and has solutions for online games.
I am pretty dam sure that Harry could provide solutions, but seeing as this game is boring, he has sent himself on holiday.

3rd cannot do a thing. Apart from hang around and renew the donatership when it runs out. They cannot take a city, it is taken off them straight away.

It sounds like you had a nice mum.
I play for fun, and not to achieve a crown. I play CS too, and still laugh when my head gets shot off. Sure I won at monopoly against a child too, and spent the whole day telling the child how great I was.
I looked for a crown but could not find one.

Natives have said they will not attack WTO. Looks like its up to the 5 man JPF alliance to zero WTO save the world. Or is AI willing to have a bash and maybe go the same road as 3rd?

Well, I say, what is the point of playing a game where there is no end? What is the goal? And this is a game, right? What game doesn't have an end where a winner is declared? Can anyone answer me that question? Even .net had some form of winners with value and score and an end with RESETS. No resets, no winners equal no purpose. And no purpose equals boring. And boring equals people leaving the game.

On .net, how many times did everyone go back and forth over a city? So many times you can't even count it, I'm sure. I was in one particular fight with someone, and we were constantly intercepting each other. Back and forth. I don't even know how many times we "beat" each other. Finally, my opponent changed the name of his army to something that indicated it was a stalemate and in response I renamed my army to reflect the same. We both realized that what we were doing was a waste and that nobody was gonna "win". We both backed down. Keeping everyone at the same level will cause that and there can never be a winner. If you don't want a winner, then what the hell is the purpose?

And my point was that by changing the values of jewels or the city tax or how long it takes to do anything isn't really going to change a thing. Think of it this way: whatever you have now, will take longer or shorter to get (based on proposed changes) and those players that are "better" than you or "worse" than you will still be that. Time is what determines who has more and that is the way it should be.

As for what happens to players when they get "eliminated". Move them to another world to start over (the main login screen even mentions multiple worlds). Like skotty mentioned that's what other browser based games do. Of course their playing worlds are basically unlimited, so this game must move them to another dimension, so to speak.

So, harry, my mom taught me to come up with solutions to problems instead of just pointing them out. And skotty, I have won at chess and monoply (turn based games where everyone starts with the same chances, but by the end all but one are eliminated. ie: a purpose to actually spending the time to play). It was great. I'm sure you even won at something like that and didn't you like the feeling of accomplishment?

Sorry dude, I don't have any solutions, and I don't care enough to try and come up with any.

When I first started the game my situation was significantly different, things have changed in my life and I can barely find time to jewel 50 geos a day, at most.

Before I could manage, cities didn't bring in as much, jeweling was worth more, this combined made the difference between those who held cities v those who didn't much smaller. Maybe it's a good thing for the game now that has changed, but it's certainly not good for me.

Jewels should be scrapped period. It brings everyone onto an equal playing field in terms of time for gameplay.

Jewels should be scrapped period. It brings everyone onto an equal playing field in terms of time for gameplay.

Well for this i cant really agree. Cuz if someone is zeroed, doesnt have bank access and no cities, he HAS to quit. There is absolutely no more choice.

Well for this i cant really agree. Cuz if someone is zeroed, doesnt have bank access and no cities, he HAS to quit. There is absolutely no more choice.


Then put a CAP on the jewels - such as only being able to jewel if alliance has less than x cities.

Why not just make it so if someone is zeroed they automatically get another 6k to come back and fight? Give them 24 or 48 hours to get the money deposited and then they are right back in the thick of things. Does that sound good? It doesn't to me. I bet you want them to work at getting back into the thick of it. Cuz jeweling isn't boring either, right?

I think that a solution like this would be good but people would get themselves zeroed just so that they get the easy geos and land back in the game....

Jeweling is damm right boring :beat

Well for this i cant really agree. Cuz if someone is zeroed, doesnt have bank access and no cities, he HAS to quit. There is absolutely no more choice.

Seems no different to any other game? Make a new homebase, start over.

Or, Basically jewelling should be limted to a max of 250 geos income every 36 hrs to place resources.

I highly doubt luke wants a game where the goal is to eliminate the majority of players abilities to play the game. If WTO succeeds in eliminating players banks and resources, what point is there to play?

Congrats, you'll be soon playing with yourself.

Didn't your mother teach you better?

and if 3rd had that chance on WTO... wouldn't you do the same....

and keep that "mother" issue away in the forums please....

Well for this i cant really agree. Cuz if someone is zeroed, doesnt have bank access and no cities, he HAS to quit. There is absolutely no more choice.

I agree that the bank system here is not working fine.... the value needed to open the bank accounts should be taken out....


But if warriors like 3rd dont manage the game, I might as well zero myself :'(

.

and 3rd is not the so call big alliance here in the game ?

and 3rd is not the so call big alliance here in the game ?


You have misunderstood the meaning.

I meant that if 3rd the 2 biggest alliance do not manage to beat you - no body can. Natives refuse to attack you. Should JPF (5 members) do it alone ;lose ?

Ok, just forget levels. There are no levels. Just make different worlds. Make the beginning of all worlds slower/harder so that unoccupied cities are around for a few weeks. Once all cities are occupied the world is closed and no other players may join. Open another world for additional players as needed. Once you get eliminated you place your home base on an open world (it can be random or chosen). Alliance sizes will fluctuate, and a world will end with an eventual winner. Once a world ends, the winner has to replace their hb on an open world. And the cycle repeats.

Bring back the splitting and intercepting for donators. Keep the jeweling limited or unlimited, doesn't really matter. No max on alliance sizes. Movement costs more in oil. A protection period could be introduced for new players to a world, such as no new player may attack a city over a certain size, say 1mil. Also, they can't hold a combined city value of 5mil. And they can't attack an occupied city. Once a player reaches 1mil in cumulative value, they are free game to attack and be attacked. Of course, the "training" world they currently have could also work since it's like it's own separate world now. And it's that concept that the programmers should build on (if they are, great, lol).

And skotty, big alliance will always exist. Instead of complaining about it, perhaps everyone who's in a smaller alliance, and cares, should suck up their pride and combine into one alliance, perhaps bigger than the one you are complaining about. That's just how it goes. But everyone wants everyone else to join their alliance so nobody joins anybody. Or, instead of combining in name, just combine in force. Of course, this will require NAPs among the smaller alliances, which you seem to be against too.

Ok, lets ALL just join one big alliance. Or to have some fun, lets just make 2 alliances.

I am sorry but for example :

For the natives to refuse point blank to attack WTO, deadlocks this game.
Everybody just sit around and wait for something to happen - wake me at christmas please.


I am happy to shut up and watch you profis win play this game.

The WTO Leader stated he would like to see more alliances, and the smaller alliances are being advised to join up and make one big alliance.


PS I am not complaining.



Now to the serious point of my thread :

Whats an alliance supposed to do, when they have lost xxK geos in an allout war? Holding a city is hardly an option. It would cost more to try and hold it, than they would recieve holding it.


I only asked an innocent question and recieved a load of junk back and none of it answered the question.

It's just a suggestion. After all, if you can't beat them, join them. And I mean play their own game. Once they are gone, go back to play your game. You get what you want, and they, well, who cares what they want. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices to reach what you are looking for.

You have misunderstood the meaning.

I meant that if 3rd the 2 biggest alliance do not manage to beat you - no body can. Natives refuse to attack you. Should JPF (5 members) do it alone ;lose ?

oopss... my bad....

but there is always other options... i remember the whole world coming against us when I was in NA ....
as I say before, it is harder if you always wanted to do it alone.
of coz there is also risk when ganging up with other alliances.... back stabbing ?

It's just a suggestion. After all, if you can't beat them, join them. And I mean play their own game. Once they are gone, go back to play your game. You get what you want, and they, well, who cares what they want. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices to reach what you are looking for.


smile.... clearly to see - that you guys had to go through a tough time in the past and come back very powerful....

Ok, lets ALL just join one big alliance. Or to have some fun, lets just make 2 alliances.

I am sorry but for example :

For the natives to refuse point blank to attack WTO, deadlocks this game.
Everybody just sit around and wait for something to happen - wake me at christmas please.


I am happy to shut up and watch you profis win play this game.

The WTO Leader stated he would like to see more alliances, and the smaller alliances are being advised to join up and make one big alliance.


PS I am not complaining.

Now to the serious point of my thread :

Whats an alliance supposed to do, when they have lost xxK geos in an allout war? Holding a city is hardly an option. It would cost more to try and hold it, than they would recieve holding it.


I only asked an innocent question and recieved a load of junk back and none of it answered the question.

did skotty just quote his own post?? I don't think I have ever seen this in my 2 years and 10.5 months playing this game. touche skotty.... touche.

The one thing you have to remember is you have to play as a team, I have fought many great and fun wars with wto so you cant hate them for playing the way the do but its a good plan, or you can attack them. I lead Vulture with 4 members and also had over 30 members at different times, the whole trick to this game is to have ACTIVE players and you will do well.I salute wto for getting the jump on everyone this round, when they get real big maybe a few allainces will form together for some epic battles?thats what makes this game fun, see you on the battle field.

If it were my choice, I'd put it back to the way beta was and keep the market place and all those new cool features. At least beta was good to the active players, inactive players and the non-donators. This is a game that needs a reset and it is why I like it. Resets allow you to join other alliances and try to achieve new goals. The only problem I saw in beta is when we were fighting NAOAW two resets ago, they were actually gaining geos on us, and when they had all the cities, we were gaining geos on them. Now we can at least snuff them out of the game, which is fine for me, but I miss the war, the constant whining and ... jk.;) They're a good bunch to fight.

Anyways, back to what I was saying. I'd like to see beta banking system back in place, donator army benefits(intercept/split) and jeweling capped. Also have non-donators back to how beta was, need city for income over a certain amount of geos.

I think there should be more stats, most games I play have stats and I enjoy them because of that. Like most troops killed, best nuke to troops killed ratio, have non-donators rated somehow, in attacks, troops spent(would make it a lot easier for alliances to recruit :)) etc.

I don't believe I posted in the right thread for game suggestions.

Hi bluecoat and all those who may miss beta - which I also did before I played alpha and now v2.

as far I understand v2, it offer with far distance a much better base comparing to beta
to implement almost everything a game like Gewar needs...
- function tools
- statistics
- forums
- well anything

give it a longer try and our crew / codemonkeys more time

and one more thing about all those who may think it would be impssoible to find a spot in here - even if there is no reset....
trust me that exactly would be the chance to pull down existing "empires"
at least for steady players.....
for those who are looking for a shorter success, the crew will and must find side goals, side games and I am sure they will do...

My biggest concern right now is the amount of players that will quit because I think it has been pointed out, the poor keep getting poorer, and the rich keep getting richer.

did skotty just quote his own post?? I don't think I have ever seen this in my 2 years and 10.5 months playing this game. touche skotty.... touche.

Tim I can't believe you have never seen this before lol I have seen it loads :D

My biggest concern right now is the amount of players that will quit because I think it has been pointed out, the poor keep getting poorer, and the rich keep getting richer.

Exactly!!! But you know what 'some' (if you are clever you will know who) don't get the point, they are already big but would like to be even bigger and no one seems to care about that!

If no one attacks them they WILL dominate this game sooner or later and then It'll be too late ;ranting;ranting

Exactly!!! But you know what 'some' (if you are clever you will know who) don't get the point, they are already big but would like to be even bigger and no one seems to care about that!

If no one attacks them they WILL dominate this game sooner or later and then It'll be too late ;ranting;ranting

and why the finger pointing at WTO for gainning the upper hand in this round. Aren't this game about taking cities ?
when u lost a round, you people wanted to quit ? it was as if WTO's members had never been zeroed to nothing before but they still stay on till times are right instead of complaining in the forums and threatening to quit.

seriously... go create a thread "I quit"... and those who really wish to can report there and dun ever post anymore since you are quiting...

seriously... go create a thread "I quit"... and those who really wish to can report there and dun ever post anymore since you are quiting...

you are funny and if you read a bit more you might see I said I am not quitting, I just wont be defending/attacking anything... ;smi551

Split armies shoud cost oil, it will be powerful but also help more with the domination issue than any of the other pending features.

My biggest concern right now is the amount of players that will quit because I think it has been pointed out, the poor keep getting poorer, and the rich keep getting richer.
This was the main problem of alpha but v2 is supposed to be the trial of fire in which we'll see if having more players make it run good long term.
Pending the new features it is too early to call it won't even despite WTOs strong start.
Thus i keep the hopes up, besides the best weapon is knowing your enemy.

you are funny and if you read a bit more you might see I said I am not quitting, I just wont be defending/attacking anything... ;smi551

quiting - no defending/attacking anything

the same meaning :D

quiting - no defending/attacking anything

the same meaning :D

oh but it's not the same... quitting means I will stop playing altogether and wont log in :) No defending/attacking means I'll be here and just as active as always ;)

oh but it's not the same... quitting means I will stop playing altogether and wont log in :) No defending/attacking means I'll be here and just as active as always ;)

so you quiting the game and only active on forum :) no wonder several of threads suddenly get hotter and spice. ;bounce the ring of trouble.

so you quiting the game and only active on forum :) no wonder several of threads suddenly get hotter and spice. ;bounce the ring of trouble.

I have always been active on the forums though so nothing changed :p

I have always been active on the forums though so nothing changed :p

Posts Per Day: 4.65 ;clap

Posts Per Day: 4.65 ;clap

haha if that's not active then I don't know what is ;banana

More than double mine, and people say I dont wrote enough write too much.

;lose

haha, I don't know how that was possible, a time ago I was warned for spamming, and to keep my post count down but I'm still left at 400

Yes tonie that is true... I don't spam though and I was on staff for a while and on the staff forums we chatted A LOT :)

Too bad we can't see those chats
(well maybe we don't want to see those :D)

P.S I Find it funny that I live in Breda, and you in Bredasdorp, maybe we have some special connection :P)

P.S I Find it funny that I live in Breda, and you in Bredasdorp, maybe we have some special connection :P)

haha I only just realized that you live in Breda :) I like special connections :P