New endgame: Domination

Hello everyone,

After 7 long years (one for each World Wonder :)) we are finally working on a new endgame – in close collaboration with the Player Council, and drawing inspiration from Tribal Wars our “ancestor in spirit”. We finally bring you Domination, a fast and battle focused endgame as so many of you have asked for so long.

Before getting into the inner working of this new endgame I would like to say a few things:

  • All values presented here are still completely open for alterations, we are also waiting on a few analyses to determine the best initial values for some of these.
  • The following descriptions are also still open for changes and iterations, as we are aiming to have an endgame that can be fun for most of our community.

Let us get to it.


  • In this mode alliances battle to have control of the majority of player controlled cities.
  • When an alliance controls 50% (this number may be a world configuration setting, but we are still waiting for analyses), of the total player controlled cities AND holds that control for a period of 14 days, it means they are the victors of the world.

Starting conditions:

The start of the domination era will take place on a fixed date relative to the world start. This means domination starts a fixed amount of days after the world has started.

This date is based on 2 factors, World speed, and the world config.

  • There are three options for the world config: Slow, Regular, Fast.
    • Slow = 5 months
    • Regular = 4 months
    • Fast = 3 months
  • The world config selection is then multiplied by the World Speed factor, these factors are related to each world speed.
    • Speed 1 factor = 2
    • Speed 2 factor = 1.5
    • Speed 3 factor = 1.25
    • Speed 4 factor = 1
  • This means a Regular Speed 3 world would have the domination era start after  5 months.
  • Final values will be based on analyses.

If an alliance has the total domination value before the start of the domination era, the value is adjusted with the top alliance current value of domination +10%. This adjustment only happens prior to the start of the era.

Once the Domination era starts, new registrations are no longer allowed.

Main rules:

Dominance is calculated by the total city count of one alliance divided by the total city count in the world.

  • Ghost towns are excluded from the total count.
  • Ongoing sieges still count towards the besieged player city count. It remains within the owning alliance until conquered.
  • Base domination value is 50%.

End conditions:

An alliance must hold the domination of the world for 14 days without dropping below the current domination value.

When one alliance has won the world, peace is activated, and the world closing countdown starts.

  • Countdown lasts 14 days.

During the countdown there will be peace, this time is destined for players to finish pending affairs.

Domination value decrease

The domination value starts to decrease at a fixed date of the world, just like the start of the domination era.

  • The base domination value decreases by half of the difference between the top alliance current dominance and the objective. This happens every 14 days until the difference is less or equal to 2%.


  • Top 1 Alliance holds 40% domination when the world hits the decrease date.
  • ([Current Domination Value] – [Top Alliance Domination Value]) / 2
  • (50% – 40%) / 2 = 5%
  • New Domination value = 45%

The domination value decrease date is also based on the World speed factor and World config.

The base values for Domination value decrease are:

  • Slow = 10 months
  • Regular = 8 months
  • Fast = 6 months

This means a Regular Speed 3 world would have the domination value decrease start after  10 months (8 months * 1.25).

Final values will be based on analyses.


Winners of this type of endgame will get an award for dominating the world.

Anyone with this award will have an extra 50 favor permanently.

  • This reward is cumulative with the WW award reward, making it possible to have a total of 600 favor, but not more.

Players will also get a new “domination crown”.

  • We are still evaluating how this is going to work in combination with the World Wonder crown.

World Wonders

We are still working the details of having World wonders present in this game mode. There is a chance that this part will get dropped.

World wonders are not a win condition for this game mode, they are present to increase tactical possibilities. Building the wonders in a Domination world just add the effects to the alliance improving its chances to win.

Since this is something that can really change the strategies of alliances, we are considering having this as an optional setting of the world. So players could vote on having the WW in the domination world or not.

IF they are present, there will be changes in resource costs, and effects.

Players are able to build world wonders from the start, just following the basic requirements to build them. With this, there would be a more tactical variation to the strategies created by alliances.

Effects from the wonders may be changed for more tactical impact, this is pending technical investigation.

Resource costs and build duration should be reduced to reflect a shorter game mode, this is pending technical investigation.


When an alliance reaches certain % of domination powers are unlocked and activated for as long as they hold that %.

  • 5% – 5% favor production
  • 10% – 5% extra battle points generated
  • 20% – 5% defense to all battles
  • 30% – 5% attack to all battles
  • 40% – 10% to all of the above

This topic is still in discussion as we will check how this affects the rest of the Domination endgame. That said, I would love to hear your opinion about this, as well as the concept as a whole.

As a Game Designer, I work to improve Grepolis in any way I can. I mostly listen to the community and find good ways to make players life easier and more exciting.

Posted in Uncategorized
105 comments on “New endgame: Domination
  1. MarkASp says:

    A couple thoughts:

    1) I expect alliance sizes will be higher to concentrate the city counts, instead of having feeder alliances as is done now.
    2) Doesn’t this encourage a certain amount of simming, with alliances sending a group off to the rim that concentrates their resources on building cities without worrying about attack/defense as much?

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello MarkASp,

      1) Not sure about the alliance sizes, I would like to start with what we have now and adapt if there is need for it. I dont think feeder alliances would be a big thing in this mode as only one alliance can win.
      2) Building cities wont really help you win the game as they increase the total amount of player controlled cities and therefore the total number of cities you need to control to win the world.

      • Erik Wijmeersch says:

        Forgive my bad english writing skills, i am not a native speaker, but i try to give it a shot!
        I have said this already often but will say it again.
        First of all let me introduce myself.
        I won WW 7 times.
        I was in the team who won the very first golden crown in grepolis history.
        I was the one who first used the rotation method , because of me we had that pacts system to distribute golden crowns!
        I even ones used VM to avoid the enemy from striking WW cities.
        You can see me as the person who has destroyed the original concept so perhaps I can offer some thoughts to make it better again!
        The things you need are that people look forward to the end game! Today people look forward to the reward and wish to walk away asap.
        Also people don’t like that more than 1 team can win rewards of 1 world.
        This is what you might consider!
        Every team try to build 5 WW out of 7!!! ONLY 5!!!
        The team who build 5 get a small award on their account – profile!
        When 5 out of 7 are build, on screen you see a countdow of 2 months???
        During that countdown the team who owns 5/7 needs to keep 4/7 to become victor of the world!
        So they can lose 1!!!
        But if they lose 2!!!! and go to 3 WW the countdown stops!
        after this you can have 2 options!
        options 1:
        If another team gets 4 WW after the succesfull sabotage the countdowns keep going! in favor of those who owns the 4 this time (not 5)
        option 2:
        Countdow only starts again if 1 team owns 5 WW!

        Anyhow , if a team builld 5/7 and score the victor award by keeping them for 2 months the game stops 24 hours later!
        what is the positive effect from this!?
        A: it avoids rotation multi pack alliances.
        B: After victor the ranking stay what they are, today the best ones ghosts, or mny simmers keep playing and getting on top the rankings while they shouldnt be there.
        NOTE : people who won more than 1 world shoudl get more than just a crown, perhaps decorations on the crown or something cool .

        • Erik Wijmeersch says:

          and to make it compete because almost forgot!
          if after an xxx time period nobody owns 5/7 there simply is not a winner of the world

  2. Talita (.Smile.) says:

    The idea of a new End Game of world domination is great, but on the Brazilian Market we have a problem with the so-called “academies” that are extensions of the alliances. Recently the number of members that an alliance can have has been decreasing gradually, this causes that there are more “academies” (extensions). In a world of domination I can clearly see a situation in which alliance leaders make covenants and when the time comes for the beginning of domination, join all in one alliance, thus gaining the world easily.
    I think there should be some sort of limitation on the interaction between alliances near the period of commencement of domination, because if this practice really happens there is no chance for other smaller alliances or enemies outside the pact. For it is easy to avoid confrontation.

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello Talita,

      I see your point, but in this mode for one alliance to win all other alliances have to lose, there will be no rotation for a crown on domination mode. So in this case, academies would work for the duration of the world but at the end, players will have to decide if they just give the win to their “Mentor” alliance of it they wanna fight for it. I can see that this is a possible problem but I think we would have to see it happen first and then react to it. Of course there will be need for adjustments down the road, this might be one of them for sure.

  3. Char Aznable says:

    Where you mention possibly changing the buffs WW’s offer, possibly consider lifting WW lvl 10 caps in a domination world so that more than 1 alliance could complete them. Could have buffs from them gradually scale benefits similar to the heroes as they level up. Would enhance battle & competitiveness to a degree & lower the temptation to just merge for the win. Could also consider a mechanic similar to joining a ww alliance with an interaction restriction – merging in age of dominance doesn’t count cities in the victory total that were recently gained through mergers/new members for x weeks?

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello Char Aznable,

      Yea, I am still working on how the WW would fit and how their effects would work. I think having levels to the effects like the heroes is a good point and might be the way to go, but I still need to consider some more scenarios. As for the interaction restriction, as I said to Talita above, I think I would like to see a few worlds running before making a decision like that, it is definitely possible that we end up with some sort of restriction, but it might be that we dont need one, so I would really like to see it running first. But dont get me wrong the concern has been noted and I do see it as a potential threat, so I will work on possible solutions event before we have this mode running.

  4. Mellon Collie says:

    First of all, I’d like to say I am really thrilled about this concept, If this is implemented correctly I am sure it will blow the world wonder system out of the water as a victory condition.
    I do however have some remarks and thoughts regarding a few aspects of what you outlined:

    -I think the percentage of owned cities that is required for a domination win could do with another variable: alliance limit. As it stands now, the standard domination percentage is almost impossible to attain for worlds with smaller alliance limits, and although the gradual decrease over time could lessen the impact of that, I don’t think the wait for that to reach an acceptable percentage would necessarily make for an enjoyable experience. As such, smaller alliance worlds would either disappear in favour of a higher limit, or risk to become the theatre of long winded wars of attrition until the percentage drops. Neither of these alternatives seem very desirable, especially as many members of my native server (Dutch) have lately expressed a desire for smaller alliances in new worlds.
    Taking into account alliance limits when determining the required percentage, would therefore be an elegant and effective solution in my opinion, although the concrete values would of course have to be determined in testing.

    -the 14 day peace period at the end of a world seems a little overly long in my opinion. If there is no potential for interesting play, wouldn’t it be better to shorten the ‘farewell stage’ of a world to about a week: long enough to properly say goodbye to friends and opponents, not too long to get bored and leave the world on a negative note.

    -I am very glad you are thinking of keeping the world wonders active in a slightly different role, I will always applaud the presence of more potential for impactful tactical choices. On that note, I am very happy about the fact that you are thinking about changing some of the existing effects, because without a careful rebalancing, I am afraid the world wonders will end up in the same unfortunate position as many of the special buildings in cities: a gimmick at best, not worth the time and resources at all most of the time.

    -This might just be my unfortunate lack of mathematic skill, but wouldn’t it be very beneficial for an alliance to just start founding a whole heap of cities to attain a certain percentage of owned cities?

    All in all I am very enthusiastic about this idea, and I think it emphasizes the important mechanics of grepolis a lot more than the WW system ever could. Looking forward to it!

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello Mellon Collie,

      1. Required Domination value: That’s a fair point, we are still waiting on some numbers to determine the final values and maybe looking at these numbers will help to visualize if the alliance limit plays a big role on the domination values. I will definitely keep an eye on it once we have those numbers and consider how we could integrate the alliance limit if needed.
      2. This final peacetime would not be there to be interesting in any way really, it is supposed to be a farewell time. I hope players understand that and don’t expect anything out of the ordinary would happen. With that said, if it bothers a lot of people we can reduce it.
      3. Great. I will share more details as soon as I have them.
      4. Founding cities can be somewhat beneficial, but it would me a very slow and boring progress, and also creates easy targets for other alliances. This is a potential problem indeed, it was also brought up by the Player Council, but I think with a large number of cities the effect will be very small and not worth the hassle. But we will definitely keep an eye on that as well, as it might influence the course of the worlds.

      Thanks for the feedback.

  5. Char Aznable says:

    One other suggestion – only count cities obtained via conquest/revolt in this calculation – removing the foundation mechanic from the calculation. Afterall, it IS a battle mechanic.

  6. Char Aznable says:

    Could also inject a possibly very radical idea – amm worlds with Domination have a no gold use restriction in place upon them to truly make them more appealing to those whom have walked away because of the abusive usage of gold.

  7. Char Aznable says:

    Or, why not just make them subscription-based? Like a premium server? Gold is an extremely unbalancing mechanic. Gold should be treated like morale, where you can try it’s removal out for a server & see how the community responds to it. You might be surprised in how the community responds. When one strives for balance, one should try to make all sides as equal for victory.

  8. djdom32 says:

    Some thoughts from an old timer who was glancing at the forums but quit playing around a year ago:

    Founding lots of cities on the rim will inevitably become a problem some people will always look for the easiest way to win. I would suggest one thing that I think needs to be built into the game and another that I think the kind of people I used to play with would like.

    1. Domination percentage should be linked to alliance size. If you’re going to have an ally cap of 200 people then it’s much easier to hit a high domination number. If your ally cap is lower then the percentages need to be adjusted down whilst a 30 cap ally is my idea of fun it would make domination nigh on impossible.

    2. Domination of cities should be limited to the core oceans 44,54,45,55. This would lead to a domination world being all about the core and people fighting to stay in there. You could also potentially have a secondary criteria where domination is where you have x% of the cities in the core oceans and a minimum of y% of cities in each ocean.

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello djdom32,

      I have to say I really like this approach of domination cities being limited to the core oceans. It minimizes problems with foundations but also doesn’t prevent players from using it, but even if they do, there would be a limit to it. I have to put some thought into it and crunch some numbers, but I think this has great potential. Thanks for the feedback.

      About the domination value being linked to the alliance size, I also think that makes sense. Other players have mentioned it as well. I will also think a bit about this and see how it would fit, but we are also waiting for a few numbers that will help clarify the relationship between the domination value and the alliance limit. With this final numbers, I can see what is the best way to proceed with this matter.

  9. Seb says:

    Very good idea. I think in general ends of world are not funny beacause if 1 alliance has already built its WW there’s nothing much to do anymore, so I really like the idea that the wonders should give you a strategic advantage but not lead automatically to victory. Domination sounds like a good idea, but should be adjusted depending on the size of alliances and there should be a limitation in time for alliance changes (otherwise players will change alliance quickly in order to win).

    I also think that Phantom cities should simply disappears beacause at the end when many players delete, there are to many Phantom cities so it is easier to win points by conquering Phantom cities rather than trying to conquer an enemy city (big problem of fairness and attractiveness in my opinion). So why not make phantom cities simply disappear?

  10. Paul Sileo says:

    Great idea!

    However, some comments:

    1) I would say that a week (7 days) before Domination begins, ALL alliance changes are final. This should remain during the entire Domination phase and even into Peacetime after a win. This way, there’s no “sharing the win” as is FAR too commonly practiced today. The only option should be the ability to dissolve an alliance but no one can join an alliance once Domination ends. So to be more clear, 7 day pre-cuntdown to Domination begins. During this, players must choose their final alliance. then, say an hour before Domination begins, all joining alliances and creating them are prohibited and nulled (the option goes away). This way, players are forced to fight as well since although many of us have been crying for this end game, there are many now whom hand hold and make 4+ alliances and rotate people in, in order to win the world so everyone gets the crown. This brings me to my next point:

    2) Ally cap need to be minimally at 60 for every world from the time Domination gets rolled out. This will also aid my first point and help prevent the hug-a-thons and people creating 4+ alliances in order to win and rotate people in. The slower the world, the higher the cap should be (because people will drop).

    3) With the current proposed formula, I like it. I only suggest that we add +1 month to the final number in that formula. So in the example where Reg Speed 3 = 5 months until Dom begin. I’d say add 1 month to make it 6. Gives a little more time and allows players a better chance to strategize.

    4) World Wonders -> Perfect idea IMO right here:

    ALL 7 wonders are fully built on islands in the DEAD CENTER of the core. Each island has an even number of anchor spots as well. Then, EVERY player starts in the rim and moves INWARD. VERY different from today’s procedures. But the goal would be for players to make every possible move to expand (since this EG win is based on expansion) to the core and capture the WW islands. Players would start in a rim ocean say halfway into it. With rim oceans being places like 53, 65, 46, and etc.. players would start in the middle of the ocean and circle around the core like we currently do as world’s develop. As new players come in, they start further in the rim (thus giving a little incentive to join worlds as they open – allowing for faster growth and helps prevent slow world growth).

    As players move to capture the islands Alliances that control 51%+ of a WW island gains it’s boost – So a WW that allows + x% of favor boost, that alliance now gets that boost (same goes for all wonders, like BP boosts, defensive, boosts, attacks, resources, Build Time reductions, and etc). The WWs cannot be torn down either. Alliances also CAN lose their boost bonus if they lose cities and fall below 51%+ (meaning, the alliance has to own the majority of the island). Should two alliances own it 50/50, nobody gets the Wonder’s boost. Should another alliance take over and oust the original owning alliance, the previous alliance loses their boost and the new owning alliance gains it.

    ^This also allows for fierce fighting in the core like we currently have and also comes in handy during Domination begin time as alliances would have “Dominated” a WW island and therefore, gain it’s boost as a reward.

    5) I believe it’s best to reduce down the 14 day wait time on winning the game to 7 days. 2 weeks is too long imo because people will be under CONSTANT fire all the time (and in faster paced worlds, almost 24/7) on the front lines. This is easily KO a bunch of people and therefore make it significantly harder because not everyone can be on 24/7. Nor deal with alarms all the time for 2 weeks straight at all hours and even every 5 mins through the night and while at their jobs.

    6) Lastly, as for the new crown, I believe instead of a physical crown, make it a War Banner. Similar to the current crown with gold and jewels and such, only a war banner very much like the banners we already have when choosing an alliance flag/banner (in terms of style). In the center, mark with the a big “G” (for Grepolis) or maybe the words “Dominated”.

    Let me know your thoughts and ask any questions that I may have been unclear on!

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello Paul Sileo,

      1. I would like to avoid a solution like this. I think locking alliances in place can cause other problems, imagine if you lock your alliance and you guys are almost winning when 5 members just drop out of the game for personal reasons. I do understand that changing from one alliance to the other can be a potential “exploit”, but this is not the best solution to it. The rotating tactic won’t happen in this game mode, as only one alliance can get the award for winning the world.
      2. Like others mentioned the alliance limit for this mode is an important aspect, but I will keep an eye on it as soon as we have more data.
      3. The current values fopr time are just base values, we will probably iterate on them as worlds are created and players show different preferences.
      4. Im not saying thats not a good idea, but for us to have this new end game out there for you guys to play it I would keep it simple. Changing something like this would require a lot of effor from the devs and take a lot longer, so I rather have a simple change to the effects and costs of the wonders then creating a whole new system around them.
      5. I think if many players show the same feedback towards this it could be changed. Ill keep my eye open for more feed back like this.

      Thanks for the feedback 🙂

  11. XxXKeyBoardxWarriorxofxGrepolisXxX says:

    I would like to start this post with; “Sorry Bernard”

    *Questions Ripped From Some of the Forums regarding EndGame

    1)Will there be a “minimum point limit” per town in-order for cities to be counted towards the overall total? *To Prevent Founding Abuse

    2)I expect that at one point; the largest players will wish to merge together to “Call it a wraps” on the world. Do you expect to input a timer on alliance leaving and quitting to prevent abuse?

    *Posts I forgot to comment on

    3)The Grepolis Council asked our feelings about “Casual” Worlds, can you go more into depth on what your definition is, and what you consider to be “Casual”

    4)On October 26th, you posted regarding researches etc.[You led the Feedback Section]
    That was a while ago.. and nothing has been mentioned about it. Will you be continuing with the changes put forth with respect to research?

    5)While we are at it; there was also another post regarding Morale
    on the 27th of September[Steffi led the Feedback Section]
    This was the [First Stage] with Morale changes, or “Morale 2.0” as you have coined it.
    *Just wanted to thank the person or group that decided to continue with some “Non-Morale” Worlds!
    **Getting attacked by low point players without any means of retaliation was… troublesome, now I can send them to the rim!

    6)Do you play Grepolis? If you are “actively” playing a world, what are the world settings of the world you are currently on.
    *Actively is defined as earning offensive battle-points once out of every four days.

    7)There is a thread in an Acropolis that states, “Does World Difficulty Matter”; that being said, do you think there is a world setting that is the “Most Difficult” for a team to win?

    Thanks for answering these questions in advance
    *You know clicking your username on this page only links to the grepolis homepage? And not
    **If you have any questions or whatever.. I was forced to give my email to post this.. so yeah… you know where I’m at

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello XxXKeyBoardxWarriorxofxGrepolisXxX, (long nickname, lol)

      Hahahahh, no worries Ill answer what I can.

      1. As of now there isnt a minimum point per city, it has been considered but I would also not like to go this way for the foundation problem. It is a potential solution, but I am looking for better options.
      2. I did not think of applying restrictions to alliances before you guys pointed out. I think political play and alliance switches are part of the game, as many players that were “left out” would be angry and should retaliate against these merged alliances. That’s why there is a time you have to hold domination, to give the others a chance to react, I know this is not always possible but I rather see the players reacting and creating cool fights than creating a rule to prevent such things.

      (This is nothing to do with the endgame, but ok Ill answer it. For the future, let’s try to stay on topic :))
      3. My personal approach to a casual world is a world where players cannot lose their first city ever. Or something like not losing cities until they reach 10 cities or something. To be honest, I haven’t put too much thought into it yet, we wanted to know what players think about it before starting to work on it.
      4. As of now it all indicates that we are not moving forward with the tech changes and new techs. But the Stone Hail/Breakthrough part will probably make its way into the game soon (no specified date yet thou).
      5. We are still watching the impacts of the morale change, so the first stage remains in play indefinitely (until we have the data we need). I’m glad you guys enjoy some non-morale worlds again, I’m sure we can have them every now an then :).
      6. I am currently only playing on beta, for testing reasons. But I have actively played for quite a while, I have experienced the whole game, and even won a world :).
      7. I don’t think I am qualified to answer that question as I have not really experienced many of the different settings. I can talk about theory, but that is not always the same as the reality of playing.

      I know what happens when you click my name, I want ppl to go play :).

      Thanks for the feedback

      • XxXKeyBoardxWarriorxofxGrepolisXxX says:

        Wow!! Thanks Bernard, didn’t think you’d answer all those questions!!

        2)Sounds about right
        3)Casual as in Elysian Fields (No Conquest?) type worlds? I know the current one (At least on the “EN” servers was started ages ago), so never thought of trying it, but it might be of interest to others.[At least a “fresh” world version]
        4)Sounds like some good changes to the Tech usability
        6)You won a world!! Congratulations!!
        Hmmm… playing on the Beta Server? you say?? Well if you need a teammate…. or some competition, let me know! My keyboard is ready:)

  12. Mellon Collie says:

    I fear you might be underestimating players’ willingness to put up with ‘very slow and boring’ processes when a world win is at stake. If anything, years of world wonders and the associated cluster building, mindless resource sending and investing everything into wonders rather than troops and new cities should have taught us that lesson.

    I realize that it is an alliance’s own decision if they want to pursue domination in that way, but I don’

    • bernardgra says:

      I might be, but this is all good feedback I think we can come up with some sort of compromise for the foundation tactic. I am already considering something based on the feedback I am getting from you guys.

  13. NutsnBoltz says:


  14. Wareagle1983 says:

    I think buying cultural points with gold should be taken out in this type of world as not everyone can buy gold

  15. Andrew Evans says:

    This will need major adjustments to be even remotely effective for its envisioned changes. The team that has the most cities is not the team that takes the most cities. It is the team that generates the most city slots. Generating city slots is most efficiently done through NONCOMBAT methods, such as mass building friendly troops and killing them with BP multiplier tokens, farming for resources and running festivals, etc. These are not fighting based activities. These are simming activites. If anything, this gamemode is even more simmer friendly than world wonders are as you don’t even have to defend 7 islands. Below are the necessary knowledge points to keep in mind when tweaking this to become successful.

    Taking a city from an enemy just opens up a slot for them which they can re-use to found in a safe area and have a fully built city within a month or so. Taking cities from an enemy that’s large enough to be able to recover doesn’t permanently remove cities from the enemy roster, and certainly not 14 days.

    “Founding cities can be somewhat beneficial, but it would me a very slow and boring progress, and also creates easy targets for other alliances. This is a potential problem indeed, it was also brought up by the Player Council, but I think with a large number of cities the effect will be very small and not worth the hassle. But we will definitely keep an eye on that as well, as it might influence the course of the worlds.”

    ^^^^The boring part is true, but the ‘easy target’ part is ENTIRELY false. If cities are not in frontline areas with enemy support available with short travel times, they will not be easy targets to take regardless of size. It is not only possible, but easy to recover lost cities near the endgame. A player with 150-200 cities will never lose enough of them to have difficulty recovering by founding because the enemy team won’t be able to generate slots fast enough to take his foundlings.

    “2) Building cities wont really help you win the game as they increase the total amount of player controlled cities and therefore the total number of cities you need to control to win the world.”

    ^^^^^^ Also false. Creating and building more cities of your own does increase the total number of cities, true, but you also have a larger fraction of them when doing so. If the domination value was 40% and the #1 team increased their city count, then the ‘total city count needed’ would only increase by 40% of what they add, and the other 60% of what they add would contribute entirely towards their ownership percentage. Since I’ve already outlined that taking a city from an enemy is only a minor setback to their current city count and is easily recoverable without foundation/culture level penalties, this is really the only way to make significant progress.

    To make this meaningful at all you will need to disable founding once the domination stage of the game begins and/or implement a culture level penalty when a player loses a city.

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello Andrew Evans,

      Thanks for the feedback, those are all very valid points and important to the success of this game mode. Here are a few points to what you mentioned.
      1. BP farming: We are exploring some options to minimize this practice event for WW worlds, this is not in our immediate roadmap, but if it proves a key factor for he success of domination than we can definitely bring it closer. I think this can be reduced, but not sure if it can be completely solved.
      2. Disabling foundations: We have talked about this in the player council, but I was the one pushing not to disable them. I think changes in the core functions of the game for something to work should be avoided, as they cause confusion and unforeseen scenarios. With that said, it might be that we have to disable them, but I would like to explore other options to prevent Foundation tactics, if possible. Like the core oceans idea, I think that could minimize the problem very much (but of course it brings other problems).

      I think there is still some things that need to be done to have a great domination endgame, but you guys are giving me some great points and perspectives to consider and I intend to work on it to improve the current version.

      Thanks for the feedback 🙂

  16. Count Davryll says:

    I’m looking forward to the new Domination concept of Grepolis.

    I have a few sceptical views like Talis. But I also believe you can adapt the game as much as necessary to give different end game options.

    Djdom32 mentions fighting in 55 and the core areas, yep you could have a 4 core ocean criteria, but not in every world! Mix it up, players late to the game and starting up on the fringe are going to lose interest very quickly if the hundreds of cities they’ve won on the fringe, count for nothing.
    “Dominance” should be exactly that dominating cities, just because that’s in a different ocean than the core oceans, shouldn’t mean the core players get it easy, they will have to adapt and maybe over extend themselves by advancing on the dominating fringe alliance.
    So I for one don’t agree too much on controlling just the central 4 oceans, unless you’re using that as a stipulation to win.

    What I will be worried about is that it could end up as a “political game” where the top players in different alliances band together to form one strong alliance to dominate, although I feel that those they leave won’t be too happy, but I can see it happening, so unsure if restrictions in the dominance period, of alliance changes/swaps/merges would be a good thing or not.

    I think you have your work cut out and not everyone will like, but I think you have gone some way to redress the boring endgame of most current worlds ….. thankyou!

    One last point, why not try just say 1 World in 10-15 without Gold or at least limit the amount of gold used in that world to say 5000, so the impact is negligible, I would love to see if it makes any difference to the fun of the game! I’m sure that it could be affordable and it gives players what they want on a limited scale.

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello Count Davryll,

      I think the core oceans idea has potential, but I have to look at different worlds and the progression within them exactly to estimate how much the time will impact it. As I am still considering the scenarios for this, there might be possible game breaker cases, but I am not sure if we should have different oceans for different worlds yet. I agree that the Domination system should be about dominating cities, that’s why the core oceans idea kinda makes sense as players would have to fight to stay in there (or get in there).

      About the political game, I think this is part of the game. But I am exploring some counters to possible exploits of this “tactic”.

      Thanks for the vote of confidence, I really want this to be a cool endgame for you guys. You deserve it.

      Like I said before, we cannot do worlds without gold, we have costs and every world counts.

      Thanks for the feedback 🙂

  17. Thass says:

    Generally, that idea is definitely fine. However, I am afraid of several things.

    Ally cap limit should be taken into account as high ally cap limit combinated with that basic domination ratio would devalue winning itself. The goal shouldn’t be only changing the end-game on something more fun but also on something more important… on something more valuable.

    However, it would be needed to be sure that ally cap will never be high on small markets (e.g. on CZ not more than 60, on SK 40… etc.). It would make pressure on ally leaders to choose their teams more wisely… so, if player wants to be a winner, he will have to play quite more actively. Currently, the winner award or the crown doesn’t say anything to you as even a not good/active player who doesn’t help to reach that success is awarded. That’s pretty demotivating.

    And what about alliance changing? Are you gonna to secure this somehow?

    I also consider that 14 days to really low. If some ally merging happens (or another unexpected situation), 14 days is not enough to react. Arming of units, planning… and we have to consider it’s often (especially on revolt worlds + small markets) really hard (sometimes even impossible) to conquer some cities.

    And I definitely disagree that 50 favor bonus will be added up to the WWs 50 favor as newer players won’t have any chance to have 600 favor too… so, they won’t cast Sea storm and Zeus’s rage twice (such a useful defensive spell), Heroic power and Wisdom or Purification and Desire three times etc… this can change everything in contact battles.

    The 50 favor bonus should be maybe completely removed from everybody as this end-game concept brings an absolutely new winning strategy… so, wouldn’t be it unfair? .)

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello Thass,

      1. Yea a few other mentioned the Ally cap, and I am working on improvements in that aspect. Don’t worry all sized markets will be considered. 🙂
      2. Not sure about alliance changes yet, I feel like this shouldn’t be regulated at first. But since a lot of you are mentioning I will try to come up with something. But I would also like to see how it goes without any regulation, at least for a few worlds.
      3. So for the 14 days, I have had feedback that this might be too much, and feedback that it might me too little. Maybe I have to connect this time to the speed of the worlds as well. Ill consider.
      4. I think the favor thing is already a part of Grepoils, removing it would be like taking away the prizes players worked so hard for it. I think having 600 favor is an incredible advantage, but I don’t know if it’s enough to guarantee a victory.

      Thanks for the feedback :).

  18. aanvaller123 says:

    What about keeping the world wonders as a requirement to win? This would mean that to win, one alliance has to a) build all the world wonders (maybe make them cheaper, but I’ll leave the numbers to you guys :p) and b) they have to do the new domination thing.

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello annvaller123,

      I think this would be a possible next step for an extra option for domination, if and only if, the community wants it. I wouldn’t make the WW a win condition for the Domination endgame just yet.

      Thanks for the feedback 🙂

      • aanvaller123 says:

        I just taught of this, because the way domination now stands, an alliance doesn’t HAVE to conquer whole islands, they can have cities spread out all over the world. The addition of WW’s as would combat that, as then you still have to cluster… Or you could say that an alliance needs X full islands to win instead of cities, that would make it more interesting I would like to think.

  19. Paul Sileo says:

    Hey Bernardgra,

    Thanks for the response, here’s my thoughts on that:

    1) I see your point but I believe you see what I’m saying as well. What I fear people will do is recruit people in an alliance in order to gain the win since it’s based on expansion and not actual war itself. Let’s say the ally cap is 100. Ally x has 30 people but a couple hundred cities. Ally y has 65 people and a couple hundred cities as well. Both alliances talk and decide to merge to prevent team z from winning since team Z is about to win. The merge, grants them the needed requirements to win and therefore the merged team of x & y win without any real issue or any fighting. Thus pissing off everyone (especially team z) and over time, players will ditch out of the game and we’ll be back to square 1 of where we’re at now with people ditching out because of the INSANE gold buying that occurs now. There needs to be a way to prevent this. This EG is about WAR. So it needs to have fail-safes to prevent “back door” wins and avoiding what this EG win is designed for.

    Also, People would still be able to rotate in with this without locking the alliance because as soon as a team wins, people will leave out to allow others to be recruited in. With how the game coding works (and sounding of the unwant to change the coding), players who rotate in after the win, will STILL get the win/crown. The alliances NEED to be locked. Otherwise we’re just repeating the same mistakes and problems we already have with today’s model of Grepolis.

    4) No offense, but everyone at Grepolis kinda works for us players. We buy gold. Our money to purchase this item allows you guys revenue to keep up the Bulletin (forums) as well as keep the game ad free and people employed and etc. So to say that you guys want a simple solution is fine, I get it, but if we want something that’s “complicated” to code and redo, then that needs to happen. Otherwise players leave and your income does as well. That’s honestly very poor and upsetting to hear that after all of this recent “listening to the players”, that there’s still resistance for what we want. I understand there’s guidelines and such for what INNO wants. But Inno’s bills aren’t paid without us (I know there’s other games inno owns but imagine the grepolis income taken away. I’m sure it’s not a wanted thing). Us players don’t care about waiting a little bit longer for something like my suggestion to happen. We’ve been waiting for YEARS for a new EG.

    Anyways, all in all if the alliances aren’t locked or a similar fix is introduced, this EG is pointless and we might as well keep WWs because the SAME issues to rotate people and back door the win will still be very prominent and highly used.

    • bernardgra says:

      Hey Paul,

      1. I also want to prevent backdoor winds, thats not fun for anyone, and I know that you know that I know that (wow that was a weird sentence). I want to find possible solutions to that, but I would like to see a world playing out first to understand how big od a threat that really is, to actually find the best possible solution without “killing” one part of a feature. I am sure you can understand that.
      2. It is not about resisting giving the players what they want, its actually quite the opposite of that. Over the years there was plenty of endgame ideas but none of them were taken forward because the effort to bring them to the game was too big for the risk. By keeping this EG simple, we can bring it to the game faster, and improve it with time. This not only brings you guys more content and (hopefully) a new fun EG, but opens doors for us to try new and more complicated features and possibly new EGs. When I say I want to keep it simple so the effort is not so big, I am not saying that we dont want to take the time to do that, I am saying that I want to bring this EG to you guys faster. Hope that makes sense to you :).

  20. MarkASp says:

    I think if we are really going for domination, and a solution to the simming issue would be to not just look at the total number of cities, but require a percent ownership in some number of oceans. Both values could be reduced over time as described. So, to start, you might need 50% of cities in 20 oceans, reducing to 48% in 18 oceans, etc. Maybe oceans are only counted if they have more than 5 alliances in them. This should prevent alliances form turtling up and just running festivals and building cities, and make sure that alliances are actually trying to dominate large parts of the world.

  21. Thass says:

    I have just an idea about CS… it can currently travel on 48 hours. Why don’t reduce it during the domination era? Or maybe not only during that era… but for the whole game.

    And I think, the first step should be reducing of the world map on lets say 6×6 seas. It would be still far enough (there is also too many small islands without no villages and empty places where is just water… on SK market, I have considered it as a big problem many times). I am worried (after I have considered some things more in detail) that getting domination will be really about founding cities in the edge of the world as front line cities will be hardly supported from these more distanced cities.

    P.S. CAPTCHA time limit is really annoying… I need a time to write a comment!

    • bernardgra says:

      Yea, that is a possible idea as well. We have been playing around with the idea of: Once the domination era starts, we determine the “Valid” area for domination cities, so only cities within this are would be counted for the Domination Objective. This would take a bit of the “Core oceans” concept, but also take into account cities from players that joing the game a bit later. I would have to create a rule to determine this area but I dont think that would be too much trouble.
      With something like this, we could prevent the players from straying away too far into the edge, but still have the possible small islands foundation problem. I wonder how a world would play out if there is a limited area but still many spots to Found inside, I am not really sure yet.

  22. Thass says:

    I quite don’t agree with the core oceans idea. I’ve experienced (right, I was a member of that ally) many times an ally could control the middle seas just ’cause they were deployed there in the game beginning. And ’cause they weren’t weak they held their position well… even though there were other equal alliances but they didn’t have any chances to control more cities than only minority of them.

    Increase this “core oceans” radius from 2×2 to e.g. 4×4 could slightly improve that situation in the end-game but reducing the worlds’ size could improve all the game stages in my opinion. After all, I read similar ideas in the past.

  23. mungus1974 says:

    I am mungus1974 founder of The Syndicate, the best ever alliance that played this beautiful game. Yes i know this sound like bragging but check forums or simply ask around and you will find out who we are.

    Let me start:

    So far we only played speed 1 worlds just because the old end game did not favor someone like us who is fighting entire server and in faster speed there is simpli not enough time to be ready for WW when the time comes. We explore every aspect of the game and use everything to maximum within the rules ofc. We are what you call ultimate fighting alliance who never care about NAP or pact just kill everything on their path. We hate sim play and with this solution you offer that is what you favor to win the worlds.

    Let me explain something to you:
    The last world we played, emporium we won 70 of us with 3.3k cities against coalition with well over 10k cities. We had 23 to 1 ratio conquered against lost cities, fighting entire server from day one, over 1.2k players formed coalition against us. Those 3.3k cities at the end were just over 20% of total cities in that world but we still built all 7 wonders in record time.
    We would have lost that world if new end game was on with 23 to 1 ratio just because we were not big enough, because we fought entire world and did not want to merge with enemies?

    Please explain this to me and my members so we can understand how this new end game is better?

    With this you just favor sim play and NAP and merges and MRA style of play.

    Thank you.

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello mungus1974,

      First I would like to congratulate you on what must have been a hell of a win, I imagine that was very intense gameplay, congrats.

      Now about the new endgame. I would not say this necessarily a better endgame, but a different one. I am sure you and your alliance can be very successful in Domination as well, but definitely not with the same tactics. The whole idea of a new endgame is to bring players a new way of playing Grepolis (to some extense). So in your example, I have to agree, you would not have won that world if it was a domination world, but you would also not have played the same way.

      So I truly expect that you and your alliance will join on a new Domination world (once it is out) and show us that you can be the best there as well. 🙂


      • mungus1974 says:

        Yes new game play, its called sim play.

        Let me state that we hate WW end game but we still play it.
        For sure we will join when we see settings we like but not for you not for anyone we will change our game style. What i am saying is that with this new end game you encourage sim play. Now we will have to wait also for alliance cap that suit us, something we always overlooked because we fought everyone.

        Make the core ocean cities worth more, the fight is always there not on the rim.This way you will encourage the alliances to fight for those cities and not to run from a fight.

        • bernardgra says:

          Thanks for the feedback mungus1974, we are trying to work the proposal to make it more about fighting then simming. Thanks for the input, I hope this can be a fun option for you guys as well.

  24. MDGeist74 says:

    In principle, the world’s most urbanized golds could join forces in an alliance just before the dominance phase and go on collective leave before the start of the 14-day hold period – there is absolutely nothing in the approach that could prevent this scenario, in particular not fair acting other alliances.


    • bernardgra says:

      Hello MDGeist74,

      Good catch, I did not consider the vacation mode. I think a simple solution for that would be to turn off vacation mode for the Alliance that is holding the Domination, so Only for the domination holding period, not for the whole Era.
      So basically once an alliance reaches the domination value to win, within the holding period, they are not allowed to enter vacation mode, and all their cities are attackable. But just while they are holding for the win condition.
      I cannot say for sure this is the way it is going to work, as I have not considered all scenarios yet. But I believe it is going to be something in this direction.

      Thanks for the feedback 🙂

  25. Atlas says:

    I have one question, to start with; is INNO planning in reducing the average life span of grepolis worlds? I ask this because I have noticed that latest worlds last little. A little over a year, maybe one and a half. Is this a real intention of the company?
    If yes, do they estimate that people will like this aspect? Or they intend to do it regardless, for their own reasons?

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello Atlas,

      We are not yet sure how long a Domination endgame will take, the values posted here are base values but are subject to change based on player feedback and experience. We will always take player feedback as part of our decision process, so if we have a number of players showing discontent with shorter worlds we will definitely consider increasing them.

      Thanks for the feedback

  26. MatteoPozza says:

    Sorry for my english I’m Italian,
    Domination of cities should be limited to the cities that exist at the exact time when the Domination time starts, so players will fight in a restricted area and they won’t be encouraged on colonizing, but they will be concentrated on fight against a limitated number of polis (which could be marked on the map with a special tag like a star on It or something else) so players could colonize and conquer near them but If they want to win they have to take those polis and colonizing is helpful only to make troops and resources

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello MatteoPozza,

      That is a valid option as well. I am still looking at some numbers to make sure what the best way to go is, but I will keep that idea in mind.

      Thanks for the feedback.

  27. stevehazelnut says:

    I just happened to discover this less than an hour ago and I scrolled through the details of the new endgame. At the moment, I must say I’m looking forward to this being implemented. While reading through it, I noticed a comment about how you’re still thinking about how to have that crown work with the WW crown, which I have a suggestion for. Rather than have a full crown, have half a crown for each. Ie if you win WW in a world, you get the left half of a crown. If you win a domination world, you get the right half of the crown.

    I must say though, I sent this to a few of the other guys on US64 and they love the idea. It makes the Grep endgame not so “bland”.

  28. bob says:

    Seriously? 7 years and this is what you come up? Where is your creativity? This is basically equal to saying ‘the biggest alliance wins?

    Whats the point of having an endgame if it doesent involve a ‘game’?

    How about coming up with something that tests an alliances tactical and strategical skills? That is a game beyond just becoming the largest alliance.

    Waited 6 years for a new endgame and you came up with ‘we’re not gonna have an endgame’.

    Thoroughly disappointed…

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello Bob,

      I am sorry that you feel that way. I hope you can be proved wrong once this endgame is up and running. But even if you don’t like this new endgame, I hope it serves as a door for us to be able to work on new and different endgames. That is also one of the reasons why we wanna try something “simple”.


  29. Mim le Fay says:

    May I ask you, what to do during the “14 days Peacetime”. What do you exactly mean with “pending affairs”

    Grepolis is a wargame; you can colonize citys, from an enemy alliance or you can colonize citys from a player, who had already left. But you can not colonize citys during a peace time, could you?

    So I do not understand, what is still pending in the peace time?

    Could you explain it, please?

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello Mim,

      About the peacetime: The idea is that when one alliance wins a domination world, there will be no more fighting, the world is done. The 14 days is more of a farewell time for the world, where players can talk to their friends, plan where they are moving, finish messages, anything non-battle related. They would still be able to build their cities, but that accomplishes nothing really. What is pending in the peacetime duration, is some technical details we must be sure of.

      Does that answer your question?


  30. Pat Reese says:

    All I can say is it’s about time.. I’ve always hated World Wonders. You go from all out attacking and defending to gain territory then by the nature of world wonders you become a simmer. I say good riddance!

  31. Volzaac2001 says:

    A suggestion for the colonizing thing. I saw a post saying that only main islands can be colonized. On top of this, I saw you only open them in sequential order so a particular area must be so far filled ( saw 75% ) with colonizations before the next section opens near that sector ( there can be multiple across the map surrounding it ) so that it is harder to get to the rim.

    Vacation Mode: one solution may be to limit the number of cities they can lose if they are dominating. Lets say 75% ( not necessarily ) of their cities can be lost. So the player can lose cities, but not all and can get back into action when they get back. Only thing is that an alliance may clear all cities before they get back. Not sure about that. That would have to be figured out.

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello Volzaac2001,

      I got some feedback that is similar to your ideas. I am already working on an improved version of Domination that takes in most of the feedback you guys gave me, I think it will improve a lot.

      Ill post more as soon as I am done.


  32. DR001 says:

    I would love to see this idea implemented into the worlds. World wonders are incredibly boring to me and feel like they shut a world down honestly once they start being built. I even quit for awhile and just now returned due to how boring things got. This would definitely add a great new dynamic to the game I think all would enjoy immensely.

    I also feel like sister alliances are a nuisance and this will probably just kill that completely and really be a true 60 cap alliance without another 60 cap alliance assisting world which would be a breath of fresh air.

    Its a war game of course so having world domination is the only thing that makes sense!! Cant wait for it!! 🙂

  33. James K McCaffrey says:

    I love the idea. It adds a new level to the end. If u keep the WW in some way. Some people don’t like new ideas but keeping an open mind is one way I win.

    I know you want to keep it simple but here is my ideas. (Maybe only on the longer worlds I.e. lower speeds)
    To have 3 level of Domination (like the WW) –> % are just est.
    Level 1: 25% –> 5 Free Culture Levels (anyone can get)
    Level 2: 30% –> 500 warehouse permanently. (anyone can get)
    Level 3: 50% –> 50 favor permanently. (Only one alliance win)

    This will help the smaller alliance stay in the server longer because even if a bigger alliance get close to 50% there is something to fight for.

    In this example if 2 alliance get 25% (due to the bonus they get. As they will only keep the winning bonus if their alliance hold that level at the end of the game) and 3rd alliance has just under 50%…. The smaller alliance will fight harder to gain cities due to stopping the 3rd alliance form win. I can see smaller alliance just giving up if there come a big GAP in % of cities.

    Just some ideas to think on…. But overall LOVE the new ending.


    • bernardgra says:

      Hello James,

      I like that idea, but it could also mean that sister alliances would work better. I will think about this because I think there is a potentially good outcome from the levels, but at the same time, I dont want to incentivize big coalitions to win the world.

      Thanks for the feedback 🙂

  34. FutbolTango says:

    Hello Ben,
    First of all, I would like to thank the people of Grepolis for creating this game. It has given me a lot of pleasure to play the game, and it has been a good distraction during challenging times in my life. I am very appreciative of this.

    Second, I also appreciate that you are trying to improve the game.

    To be honest, I like the existing ending. I find it a bit more realistic. Let me elaborate.

    In the history of the world, and in particular Greece, War is result of Economic/Political struggles. In other words, people do not fight for the sake of fighting. People got to war with an economic/political objective.

    The World Wonders provided this Economic Objective. I always thought is as the Wonders as the “consumption” of the elites of particular alliance.

    In other words, no real wars are played to a get a larger territory or larger number of towns unless there is a real economic benefit from it.

    Following this line of thought, I thought of this.
    Alliance have to built World Wonders like now.

    The Winner of the world has to control the majority of the World Alliances.
    The Winner of the world has to conquer one or two World Wonders from other alliances (not the same alliance).

    I find this more realistic. For example, the Romans build amazing cities in the Italian Peninsula, but at some moment they had to go a conquer Carthage, Alexandria, Jerusalem.

    The point that I am trying to make is that at some moment in armed conflicts in history a victorious army had to conquer the “capital” city (which is the economic centre) of another competing power. Even the Greeks would time their conquest of other cities with the harvesting time of the opponents. It is not about conquering the city for the sake of conquering.

    I am sure that my proposal has many things to iron, but I hope that the general concepts are made clear.
    One, an empire has to build a wonder/capital city/source of production.
    Second, an empire has to conquer the wonder/capital/source of production of the largest competing powers.

    I would like to play in games like this. The objectives are clear and precise (i.e. you conquer the wonder, you build the wonder).

    The currents proposal lacks focus. This is like saying the winner of a world is the one that conquers numbers of cities. No historical war resembles this.
    Almost every war requires an specific event to its end (i.e. surrender or conquering/control of the enemy most precious places)

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello FutbolTango,

      I see your point to a more historic endgame, and I agree that this endgame has none of that. But as I said to others, the fact that this is a simple and straightforward endgame may open doors for us to create new and more complex endgames. I think this endgame has to be simpler so we can open that door, and start exploring other ideas latter. Also, the majority of the feedback we get from the communities is that they want a battle-focused endgame, and for this reason, we are working on Domination.

      I do like the idea of having some sort of capital system endgame, but that will have to wait a bit.

      Thanks for the feedback.

  35. FutbolTango says:

    A last twist.
    I know that most of you might not like it.

    However, it would be nice if you had an ending scenario where an invader sweeps the world and the winner is the one who is able to protect its wonders or cities.

    I am thinking of Persian-Greek wars. Where competing groups of Greeks were forced to help each other in defending from an foreign enemy.

    Perhaps a bit to hard to do by the computer, but it would be nice if we had a survivor scenario.

  36. Ghostboyrazox says:

    Domination seems to force worlds to close, possibly earlier than before??? I have played for five(!) years in the only(?) two worlds that do not close (Achilles and Hyperborea) where players have amassed huge numbers of cities (700+) and would like to continue doing so. Years ago the Achilles players even staged a successful revolt there that prevented the WW stage and kept that world going forever(?). In Hyperborea you cannot conquer occupied cities, only ghost or “empty” ones. My question is: will these two worlds also be forced to close through Domination or can we keep our special status of not closing?

    BYE, Ghostboyrazox (Arthur)

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello Ghostboyrazox,

      The current worlds will not be affected by this new endgame, only new worlds will be set as domination worlds. And of course, we will start worlds by player preference, this means that we will still have WW worlds, the Domination endgame is just a new option for players.

      As of now, there are no plans for having a long-term domination world, but if there is player interest in that we can think of something.


  37. Diogenes2 says:


    Just want to point out something you should also consider. The impact of pre-made alliances showing up would pretty much prevent smaller ad hoc alliances from having a chance to win. And not to mention the lone players entering the world. It would be enter as a pre-made or forget it.

  38. Dementivs says:

    Initially looks like a better approach than “traditional” WW approach but still too many if’s.
    50% (or whatever percentage) of what? Total city count? If I have 5100 cities with average 5000pts and someone has 5050 cities with average 11000pts who will be the winner?
    Also … if whatever percentage will be decisive this will only encourage simmers to build up cities is safe areas.

    Simple ocean dominance will (imho) be better approach. If because of nothing else then because of ship-jumpers who can decide server more easily in “Percentage Dominance” approach.

    • bernardgra says:

      Hey Dementivs,

      I got some feedback that alignswith what you are saying, and am working on alternatives. Ill post it again when I have it ready.


  39. Robert says:

    Come up with a system that adds total alliance score value to cities built near WW islands that are 100% controlled by an alliance. This will stop alliances from building cities on the rim.

  40. King Soos says:

    What about rotations?
    would it be possible to rotate academies in to the winning like u can in wonders by demolishing one wonder and rebuilding?


  41. Boknows says:

    Sounds interesting. Would think making the islands be a subject of contention could add an additional level of play “close quarter island wars” more than just building “the most” cities, who controls the most islands, maybe an island bonuses of 1% of something per island could be added, whatever else.

    BUT for the love of the GODS can we please get a FARM ALL button. Come on now, just give in already,lol

    Vacation Mode would be a lot better with 36 or 24 hour vulnerability time, 48 is really a stretch. Is there any real reason for that length of time, or is that just a dartboard number that could be flexible?

    Kind of sucks to have to Hit VM on a Wednesday to take a weekend trip and then babysit your game with your arm tied behind your back. Be nice to be able to at least attack self, to defend(snipe).

    What would be really nice to maybe have like 1-3 emergancy VMs a year that would only last up to, maybe… 3-5 days and starting between immediately and 24 hours at double reg day cost?
    I’m sure you guys need alot more advice than you already get and i’m positive my advice is the best.
    So this is what i’m going do for you guys, anytime ya’ll are stuck, need some creative inspiration, or just want to revise part of the game. You can message me and I will easily be able to tell you how to do your job, Correctly! Now, wouldn’t be nice 🙂

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello Boknows,

      Thanks for the feedback. I took notes on all of your points.

      Ill post something new about Domination as soon as I am done with the changes.


      • Boknows says:

        HEHE, thanks for reply. Was just being a clown. But seriously I’m not up to speed on Domination. But seemingly to me, someone who is pretty much clueless, that just having most cities “win” would have more ways to be able to find unintended ways to win. Of course everything is going to have pros, cons.
        Mainly, how is this just not a race to found the most cities? Kinda like race to make WW? Could an alliance in theory have the most cities and never fight one battle? Could an alliance just move to a far corner of world and just build cities; and win?

        It would be interesting to change the end game race dynamic to a battle dynamic. Some how using the islands as the count for the win. Maybe end game domination of “battle” islands, alliance rank deems how many cities you can have on island, as well as other alliances rank. so ranking alliances all get spots on island and who ever can take control of the others cities(most/majority) wins that island. You guys could pop up a couple different island to be fair about the distances, or whateva……..OR every ranking alliance gets an end game island to defend and one alliance has to take control of x amount of other end game islands…….IDK ran out of funny cat videos to watch, LOL.

        But please, guys, really. I mean really really total cereal.
        FARM ALL OPTION. It doens’t seem that farming is linked to gold. Would farm all option reduce revenue?
        Just go with it, guys. Ya’ll know it like the one thing everyone would love you guys for. But why do hate us so much by not giving us a little request(for how long now?) It not difficult at all to rearrange the code, all the source is already there.

        Anyways, thank you guys for making and maintaining a game that pretty fun.

        and here’s a tip… less is more, as a capitalist I make more when I lower my prices, get more buyers…..You have a closed system where you control the game capitol.
        Gold is nothing(your pay checks), you guys create it. What happens to gold? It gets used back into game. This not like diablo 2 economy was, made out like a bandit before gold traders were around. You guys have gold on LOCK……
        SO if you gave 10k gold for $20, what can people do with it that would make em not buy more? THE PRICE. Economkics 101, the cheaper it is the faster it will go and the more will be sold…..the cheaper it is the more people would be loose using it, then the more they would buy, falling into the trap….. 🙂

  42. Padre Kolio says:


    Good to see that a new endgame is being considered.

    Would this end game take into account BP?

    In quite a few worlds there is a high emphasis on simming. Lots of players use festivals or gold to get their bp. It would be a bit boring and it can be repetitive now – one issue being that when you reach a certain amount of cities you can grow faster by using festivals than attacking.

    E.g. – One can dominate the World by eating ghosts, founding, playing festivals.

    This to me does not sound like domination -> even if alliances continue to take cities off of them.

    Either way, glad to see there is a new concept – WWs tend to get a bit stale after a while!

  43. Voltie says:

    It’s a new concept, but let me through one item into the calculation that gets over used so therefore should be removed from factorin dominance. It’s vacation mode. The players cities in any area in any stage should exclude the might or cities with players in vacation mode since non of those players or cities add value since they are dormant.

  44. AnWePe says:

    This Endgame would be TERRIBLE


    1. Only the biggest Ally could win
    2. PGUs and the best selfbasher grows fast enough to be in the winning ally
    3. whats about if 2 or 3 allys get domination at the same time (for example if you need 10% of all cities and three allys does have more than this 10%)? do they all win???
    4. there is NO CHANCE to break Domination in 2 or 4 or 6 weeks for all other allies, because the dominating ally gets more bashies and more slots and must only colonize little towns or conquer little players that are not so active.
    Some Numbers from my world:

    Ally A.R.C. lost 306 Towns in 30 Month!!!!About 140 of them was to our WING oder friends. So 160 170 lost Towns in 30 Month. If we gets domination and we have 200 Towns to lose to end our domination in 2 or 4 weeks????? i said that will be IMPOSSIBLE

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello AnWePe,

      1. I am not sure about that, if other small alliances gather forces to fight a big one, it is very possible to change the status of a world.
      2. We are considering options to solve the self bashing problem, and those would come together with this new endgame.
      3. The alliance with the top Domination % would win in this case.
      4. We are considering options for the colonization part, we also do not want the final part of it to be easy.

      I should get the analysis I need this week, and this will provide me with the necessary info to get better values. 🙂

      Thanks for the feedback

      • AnWePe says:

        Hy Bernard

        1. sorry but that´s nonsense^^ it quite IMPOSSIBLE to change the Status of a world. WHY? what Reason should an ally ranked 10 have to fight against the top ally???? NO ONE because they never will have a chance to win the world not even if they help to break domination 4 5 times, so these small allys force together to fight would not happened (again for what reason should they force together????) another reason is please look at the stats of top allys of some worlds. They often lost only few towns in a year, how would you take many town from them in 2 or 4 or 6 weeks?

        2. its very simple to cover the selfbashing problem. NO items that change the bashies = no selfbashing

        3. wow sounds VERY interesting for all other allys if all knew at the beginning that only Top1 ally could win and all other allys of the server will get NOTHING

        4. ok we will see

        but all of what you said doesn´t change my mind that these is a very very very terrible idea for an endgame and if this endgame comes i will go away from grepo for sure^^

  45. woodstar says:

    the ideas and comments are great , but i would like to add that when the world domination starts. The alliance size should be uncapped so that feeder alliances can join the main alliance and show true unity rather than an alliance having huge points players in their team… would it also be prudent to make it easier to get city slots at this time to encourage more city takeover attempts??

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello woodstar,

      I would not uncap the alliance limits, as the whole idea of this endgame is to create battle. This would cause big unions instead of big battles, and that is not the main objective of this proposal.

      Thanks for the feedback

  46. James K McCaffrey says:

    When do you think this will roll out?

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello James,

      We do not have a rollout date yet, as we are still perfecting the design based on the feedback.
      As soon as we have more info, we can give out more details.


  47. AnWePe says:

    and one thing must be said

    about 3.)lets say 3 allys have the requirements for domination but only the top one ally can win after the 2 weeks

    but no one of these THREE allys can take any vacation mode???? because all three have running domination????

  48. Quallenwolf says:

    This is the worst idea ever and InnoGames had many bad ideas! Fuck! Maybe you remember this one?

    1. The winner of a World with “Domination” is the alliance with the most cities and the best / fastest way to get more Cultural Levels is not to fight. The fastest way to get a high Cultural Level is to use “Heightened Sense” / “Divine Sense” and bash your own units. On DE88 (Emporion / Germany) had one player over 200 cities after 3 months (and he couldnt use “Divine Sense”). With the new event you coult get 300 cities in 3 months, but only if you bash your own units. If you fight you have no chance to win in “Domination”.
    2. If you fight you make your enemy bigger, because the defender gets more Bash Points than the attacker. On DE88 (Dimale / Germany) i have 1.6m attack bash. I used units with a population from 1.112m to get this much and i bashed units with a population from 880.000. The defender gets 26% more Bash Points as the attacker (without consider “Heightened Sense”).
    3. If you consider point 1+2 the best strategy in “Domination” is to never attack your opponent. But this is not Grepolis.
    4. The winner of a world is fixed from the beginning. Its the alliance with the most “Power Gold Users”. It give no strategy or action you can do that change this fact.
    5. You cant motivate smaller alliances to attack the rank 1 alliance. It give only 1 winner. So for Rank 4, 5, 6,…. its no matter if the current Rank 1 or the current Rank 2, 3 wins. Herself cant get the win.
    6. A good strategy to win the world is to make no colonizations and conquer the small players. With fewer cities on the server, its easier to get a high “Domination”. If you want to win you cant invite small players and can only play with the big ones. This would it make really difficult for “Newbies” to survive on a server.

    If you want to make the worlds end earlier use the World Wonder System. Each World Wonder generate “End Points” for the alliance. If you have a certain amount of End Points your alliance win.
    Your alliance lose End Points if they lose their World Wonder or if they lose cities in general. This idea would bei 100 times better than domination.

    • Quallenwolf says:

      @Bernardgra u dont want to say anything to this?

      Your Edits cant change anything. I cant bash my units or the units or the units of my alliance? Okay. I bash the units from the “wing/recruitment alliance”.

      • bernardgra says:

        Hello Quallenwolf,

        Like I wrote in the new post, this change is supposed to make this action more inconvenient. We are fully aware that this does not completely prevent friend bashing.


  49. random dude says:

    Here is an idea out of the DE Grepolis Forum:

    That would be another and in my opinion a better way to achieve dominance and win a world.

  50. Eloí Lucas says:

    4- I tried to think of a solution in case of alliances that did not involve blocking them, something that counts how many cities the alliance has won instead of how many it has, so when a player enters the alliance more cities must be won and when cities go out that player has won out of the count of the alliance, but end up arising more problems (sincerely hope that aumenos open the way to a better solution :))

  51. Mim le Fay says:

    Dear Bernard,

    After reading all the information and statements for the domination endgame I want to inform a few ideas I have.

    A few players noted, that you get much more defensive points as attack-points during a “war” and so you loose every time, if attacking a domination alliance, because the defending alliance will gain more culture points.
    I think it will be decreased, if you calculate only the attack points against a domination alliance multiple by two? Another Idea would be, to multiple the attack points with the diffence of diffent of the position in the ranking list. For example, all Players from Alliance of position 3 will receive calculated attack point 3 times, the forth postion 4 times and so on. It should be possible to do it only during the dominance time.

    An additional bonus for this solution will be, that you have to identify, in which ralationship attacker and defender are. So it is easier to find out, if this is a self-bashing party or a alliance-self-bashing party. That will help, to punish actions like this and you could split such aquired bash points with 2 or higher.

    Kind regards

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello Mim le Fay,

      Thanks for the feedback. Yes, a few players raised that point, and I am considering ways of improving this not only for Domination Worlds but for the game itself.


  52. AnWePe says:

    one Question to Vacation Mode

    you said if more allys get the domination the same time only one ally woudl win. And another point was that you must block vacation mode for the ally that is in domination phase

    BUT what is if there are two or three in domination phase? do they all get blocked vacation mode? if the answer is YES then 2 of those allys would be blocked für vacation mode for NOTHING and if they paid für more vacation mode they pay for NOTHING and thats sounds very very very silly for me^^

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello AnWePe,

      Yes, all alliances that are holding the Domination will have vacation mode blocked. The last stand in the domination is a crucial part of winning the world, so it makes sense that all players should be involved in it.


      • AnWePe says:

        ok and exactly THIS is an unhuman horrible Thing


        after the Dominationphase (lets say 3 Allys had this Phase) there are TWO Allys who had blocked Vacation mode for NOTHING (and if they PAID for more vacation mode is extremely bad thing paying for nothing)
        And you thing that everey vacation mode is coordinated and that´s completly nonsens sorry. Many vacation modes are based on PROBLEMS in Reallife (Accidents, ill family, sickness of the player, cases of DEATH trouble in the job an so on and so on)

        and to tell such a Player that he can´t make vacation mode on because the new “super” endgame is more important is the badest thing ever. and the case that ALL Cities of that player are involved makes it even more terrible. Andthe blocked vacation mode says in that case BETTER LEAVE THIS WORLD!!!!
        And ok lets say a player which such a Problem stays in the World, but what happened then? his Ally probably looses domination because this player will be the focus of all enemies. And to say the main reason for the winning of a world could be in that case was that one player had a big RL problem sounds horrible to me

        • bernardgra says:

          Hello AnWePe,

          It is very unlikely that 3 alliances hold the domination objective at the same time, it is also unlikely that 2 alliances hold it at the same time. I is more likely that they are fighting to break and reach the objective. So I dont think it is inhumane for an alliance that is fighting for the win to have to be prepared. The winning condition of the world will last 14 days, that is also the reason why this has to be short. I know that accidents happen, and sickness and even just personal reasons, but we have to think that this is a game for a lot of players. We cannot stop the game based on the needs of a few players, the endgame should be the apex of the world and must be fair to everyone. We do intend to have notices for players and cities that are in vacation mode during the holding phase to help the alliances to prepare and defend the affected cities.

      • AnWePe says:

        sorry for my bad english today but i´m a little ill^^

        hmmmmmmmmm time for vacation mode OH STOP he is blockes because my Ally is in domination phase 😀

        But on more question

        blocked vacation mode means vacation mode can be activated but has no affect?
        OR does it mean that you can´t activate vacation mode????

        BOTH times there are big Problems i think.

        because what happend if one player activates vacation mode BEFORE domination phase? does the mode end without a message to the player?????

        or does he work at day one but works no more on day 2 because day two starts domination? an if that player has no app these time (because he activates vacation mode so no need for APP)?

        and when vacation mode only can´t be activated in domination phase but BEFORE?
        If that happend than i simply must make a little calculation when would domination phase starting und activating the mode 1 or 2 days before.

        i´m sure this bad endgame will cost innogames a lot of players

        ONE player is already losing thats ME^^ because i dont wanna play a game where his designer think such unhumanly about important Things like VACATION MODE

        • bernardgra says:

          Hello AnWePe,

          The vacation mode is better explained in the new post, check it out there. 🙂


          • AnWePe says:

            i read it

            and thats the Reason for me to end playing Grepo


            Simply to explain

            because the Gamedesigner think this is fair to EVERY Player and tells me if i had a RL Problem THATS fair FOR ME!!! And NO it isn´t fair to me so its ned fair for EVERYONE or count I not to everyone????

            Perhaps is this Endgame idea not good enough to be fair to everybody????

  53. Guilherme (Lógan.) Br says:

    I have some ideas for improvement of the project, sorry I do not speak English, I would like a little attention, this is really important.

    If the world were alliances with 50 players, the game would be very good but it would never end, it would be very difficult for alliances to conquer 50% of the world, so to correct this problem would require a “factor” to define the percentage of domination. Think of a world where there are only two alliances, 50% seems great, but since we will not have gyms, I think we will have more alliances for the crown, in a world with 9 alliances (which is very likely), this world would never end, because an alliance would never reach 50% domination so I thought of something with a factor to set the percentage …. this would be:

    * benchmark score = ally top1 points divided by 5

    * number of alliances disputing = number of alliances with a score greater than or equal to the reference score

    * factor = 100 / number of alliances disputing

    * percentage for victory = factor + factor / 2

    Ally top1: 100 points (overall score, just example, could be 50miles)
    Ally top2: 75 points
    Ally top3: 70 points
    Ally top4: 50 points
    Ally top5: 21 points
    Ally top6: 15 points

    score reference = points of top1 divide by 5
    score reference = 100/5
    reference score = 20

    number of alliances disputing = number of alliances with a score greater than or equal to the reference score
    number of alliances disputing = number of alliances with a score greater than or equal to 20
    number of alliances disputing = 5

    factor = 100/5
    factor = 20

    percentage for victory = factor + factor / 2
    percentage for victory = 20 + 10
    percentage for victory = 30%

    Why is this adjustment necessary? because domination mode does not accept academies, it would only have one winner, and imagined alliances with 50 players could put some 15 alliances in the fight there, and with that adjustment that I imagined, the bigger the number of alliances the smaller the percentage of domination needed to win , something proportional to the amount of alliances that are able to dispute the crown. In the example I calculated, there are 5 alliances with up to 20% of the overall top1 alliance score, so the percentage for victory would be 30% domination

    This calculation and formula are the initial idea for adjusting the percentage by the number of players and alliances in a world, I believe they can and should be improved. it’s just the basic logic …

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello Guilherme,

      I see your logic and that makes sense. But I dont think you should be too worried about the value that needs to be reached, as there is a subsystem exactly to readjust this value in case a world is too far from reaching it.
      So for that reason we do not really need a system that calculates the initial value in a super precise way.

      Thanks for the feedback.

2 Pings/Trackbacks for "New endgame: Domination"
  1. […] This week, Bernard published our current proposal for a new endgame. […]

  2. […] We would like to thank every single one of you who has taken the time to comment on our new endgame proposal. […]