New endgame: Domination [UPDATED]

All right guys, still have some work to do on the feedback you provided but this is the most updated version of the new Domination endgame.

With these changes we should tackle the following raised concerns:

  • Foundation tactics
  • Vacation mode
  • Self-bashing


Starting conditions [Unchanged]:

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:

Goal [Unchanged]:

To win a Domination world, an Alliance has to reach and hold the Domination value for a determined amount of time.

Dominance value:

Base dominance value is 50%.

  • This is just a base value, we are STILL waiting for numbers to find out the best starting value
  • Still waiting for more information to potentially integrate the Alliance cap (max players per alliance) into the domination objective value definition.

Dominance Calculation:

Dominance is calculated by the total valid city count of one alliance divided by the total valid city count in the valid domination area.

  • Ghost towns are excluded from the total count.
  • Ongoing sieges count towards the besieged player city count until the siege is finished successfully by the besieging player.

Valid area and cities [This limits Foundation Tactics]:

Before domination era starts, the system calculates the valid area for domination cities. This area is based on the most populated oceans at that time.

Only cities on valid big islands and inside the valid area are counted towards the Domination value.

  • Small islands are invalid for Domination.

Valid islands will be marked and easily recognizable on the map.

This does not completely forbid foundations, but it limits the amount of space available for foundations. Therefore preventing Alliances from winning the world just by founding cities, but at the same time allowing players to found cities for other potential reasons (strategical, personal, etc).

End conditions:

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

  • Vacation mode: Vacation mode will have no effect for the alliance holding the win condition, all cities are attackable even if they are in vacation mode (if started before the holding time). Players are still allowed to enter vacation mode but the cities will still be attackable while the alliance holds the domination. Players will receive a prompt to confirm that they understand about vacation having no effect during the holding period. As soon as the holding time is broken, vacation mode is allowed again. This can still be useful if the Alliance is going in and out of domination and the player is unavailable.
    • [This prevents the dominating alliance to win just by starting vacation mode collaboratively]

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 [Unchanged]:

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.

Rewards [Unchanged]:

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. (I am still considering an alternative reward)

  • 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.

Domination Powers  [Unchanged]:

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 (10% total, not +10%)

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.

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.

(Under technical investigation) New Wonder Effects:

The idea is to have the effects work for each level of the Wonder, but have a greater effect for level 10 (since only one alliance can hold a level 10 wonder).

Costs and building durations are also reduced based on World speed, Alliance limit, and an Extra Domination factor.

Here are the possible new effects for level 10, I will disclose the lower levels once we find out if it will be possible to have them. Described values are still open for changes.

  • Great Pyramid Of Giza: +5000 in the warehouse
  • The Hanging Gardens of Babylon: +40% resource production
  • Statue of Zeus at Olympia: +25% favor production to all gods
  • The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus: +10% population in all cities
  • The Mausoleum of Halicarnassus: Mythical units cost 15% less resources
  • The Colossus of Rhodes: Generate 15% more battle points
  • The Lighthouse at Alexandria: +30% movement speed to ships
  • THESE EFFECTS ARE ONLY FOR DOMINATION WORLDS! World wonder worlds keep the original effects.

There is also a possibility of an extra power to the Alliance that holds all Wonders at level 10. I have not yet considered what that will be or the impacts, so it is not certain.

New general battle points behavior [This makes it harder for players to get City Slots by self-bashing]:

This new behavior will be rolled out across all game worlds, once confirmed.

Attacking units you own

  • Attacking/Defending owned units generates 0 battle points.
  • Spells included

Attacking alliance/pact members

  • Attacking/Defending alliance member units generates 20% of the total battle points.
  • Spells included.


There will be several awards for domination achievements. Not only the winner of the world will be awarded, but smaller Domination awards will be given for holding domination over specific oceans, and reaching certain domination thresholds. There will also be specific world wonder awards for domination worlds, including Domination versions of the regular World Wonder awards. Final details on this will come soon.

Pending points requiring further investigation:

  • Alliance limit influence in relation to Dominance objective.
  • Battle point generation difference between Attackers and Defenders creating disadvantage towards attacking.

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 Game Design
39 comments on “New endgame: Domination [UPDATED]
  1. Thass says:

    I have only a question at this moment (I need more time to share my feedback)
    “Attacking/Defending alliance member units generates 20% of the total battle points.”
    Have you considered all situations on siege worlds? I mean a tactic where a city of your ally mate is occupied by e.g. 20 k of land units and 3 k birs -> you will decide to break the siege through the sea. However, you can also send your land units to support that city -> you will steal battle points from the enemy (as you have units there too…). Do you understand me?

    • Thass says:

      To be exact, I mean what will happen to 80% of the BPs? Will they be lost? Or they will be granted to enemy?

      • bernardgra says:

        Hello Thass,

        Yea, we did consider situations like that (of course there might be a few scenarios that were not completely considered), that is the exact reason why we want to give a small % of the generated battle points. And as to what happens to the battle points that are “reduced”, they are lost, no one gets the “rest” of the battle points.


        • Thass says:

          And what about ally leaving and then re-joining? I think it’s quite easy to leave your ally, destroy units and return back. It’s even simplier considering these attacks are sent on short distances usually.

  2. AnWePe says:

    Did you think about that no one will help an little allymember to clean Cities of an inactive allymember that he can siege this City? Because you only will get 20% Bash???

    And ok no own or allytroups to kill in selfbashing GREAT

    i just have to speak to our friendally they bashes by us we bashes by them

    And if you think ok Pactallys bashing will get only 20% Bash ok then i make NO Pact and mark them as Enemy and the Pact only is in SKYPE and every Member knows AH these Ally is “ENEMY”

    Sorry that Solution will be quite useless in my opinion^^

  3. Talita (.Smile.) says:

    Hello bernard

    I found a new proposal much more complete, it pleased me a lot. I just wanted to know about the limitations of alliances when the world closes. Are there any plans for a possible limitation on the exit and entry of players into the alliance after the onset of domination?

  4. Rachel.L says:

    In terms of the penalty for attacking alliance mates’ troops and only receiving 20% bps, have you considered how this will affect siege breaks? An important reason to have an alliance in CQ worlds is so alliance and pact members can assist in breaking a siege. If allies feel that siege breaks are an inefficient use of troops compared to the bps they can get attacking an enemy, there will no longer be cooperation in saving a city. Players may even abandon their own cities since they will get no bps for recovering them. This will change how the game is played entirely, making it a free-for-all, except when an endgame situation is in effect. Is this what you envision?

  5. Figtree2 says:

    As for a domination crown…. Please make something different then what we currently have for the World Wonders System. Could you have something a little more warlike? Possibly change the icon for battle points to gold, platinum, diamond, and divine crossed swords? I think that would make much more sense then a crown honestly since it has been long associated with World Wonders.

    Again with the reward for winning a Domination World… It should be different then the reward for winning a World Wonder based world. The reward should be related to fighting as that is what domination is about. Possibly a 2.5-5% increase in fighting power?

    As for the self-bashing fixes, I think that is a step in the right direction, but I still see some issues with this. What about academies and pact members? The main alliance and academies/pact members could easily cooperate to kill each other’s units for battle points. There should be restrictions on the battle points between pacts as there have a formal treaty between both parties.

    • Figtree2 says:

      Upon rereading, it looks like you may have addressed pact members? The issue won’t be entirely solved unless you prohibit the sharing of forums between alliances without relations. Alliances could simply work together without having official relations. If you do this, it would prohibit people from avoiding the penalty by not having official relations and still working together via shared forums. This may make it less profitable to have academy alliances. This would enforce the actual alliance limit that you place upon the world and make who is in the alliance matter more.

      • bernardgra says:

        Hello Figtree2,

        The forums sharing between alliances without a pact makes sense, I will investigate a bit more on the issue.

        Thanks for the feedback.

  6. MDGeist74 says:

    That was the death knell for this Game! The fun so that the playing was carried to his grave. The holiday mode should actually be holy here,so you can spend time with the family undisturbed. Without having to worry about what will happen to my cities in the game. It is about time commitments here Goodbye, had a nice time with you.


  7. Pianoman98 says:

    Good morning,
    I strongly disagree with your plan of implementing a new battle-point behaviour.
    I myself, kill my troops for bp. It is a tactic that i have chosen ( along with my whole alliane i admit). This is a strategy game after all, you should allow all strategies chosen by players to be allowed and respect their choices.
    If it were up to me, you should implement these sort of things in NEW worlds and leave the old worlds to be ( and tell people beforehand that this will be the case), but my two cents are worth nothing really, you’ll probably implement this anyway.
    I’ll just say once more, i thought this was a strategy game, why are you killing off strategies which is limiting the possibilities of this game ?

    Hoping to hear from you

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello Pianoman98,

      I understand that you see this as a strategy, as you use it yourself. But this is not a strategy that was intended and not a strategy that we want to incentivize, this takes away from the immersion and fairness of the game.


      • AnWePe says:

        An Ally how takes care of Allybashing have some simple positive Things. The greatest oh these Things is that you be able to finish conpuests of inaktive Allymembers FASTER than normal.

        And THIS is one of the most boring Things in Grepo. So Allybashing helps the Allymember to have more fun, because borings Things are faster GONE^^.

      • Rachel.L says:

        If it is legal, why are you shaming him. There are many loopholes players exploit.

        Perhaps the team should focus on writing programs to catch the illegal bots that ae used and leave legit strategies alone.

  8. Kaneki says:

    I was against the domination mode since i heard about it, imo it will completely ruin the game for most. It gives an advantage to players starting earlier on a world and limits the options of smaller alliances. In alot of cases the top alliance for points lacks the skill and activity of the smaller ones so i’m surprised more people aren’t being open about how terrible it is. It also encourages something i hate alot, joining the winning alliance. It’ll be easy to see who has the most points and alot of players will simply join cementing their lead, this happens alot in grepolis meaning we don’t get a proper fight. In certain strict conditions this mode could work but probably only with the retired/student population of grepo who would have the time to potentially bridge a point gap, those who work wont have the time to catch up.

    In regards to the killing of your own units, this should stay the way it is. The growth from the bp of killing your own units is only about the same as simming and doing festivals, the only possible way to abuse that system is in a speed 6 world, even then it has significant disadvantages that those of you who bother to think things through will have noticed. To change the amount of bp gained for these units would only remove yet more of the options that make grepo what it is. To have individual strategy is what’s fun about this game, you’re slowly but surely forcing everyone to do the same thing which will just lose you loyal players like myself who have been playing for years.

    • Fluvisol says:

      They did mention smaller alliance caps probably so just joining the lead alliance won’t work, and seeing as there’s a possibility that alliance cap will be worked into the dominance value they are looking for ways to counter it

      Personally I started out 2 months late in a world and made it to top 10 and #1 fighter without much gold, so it is definitely possible though I agree starting later gives a disadvantage

      Killing your own troops is a tactic I despise because it takes away the “war” in this war game. It screws up the fighter ranks and since you say it’s about the same as doing festivals, why not just do those then if there’s no difference besides actually looking like a simmer in the ranks

  9. Ajay says:

    I do not like the rewards difference between Domination and WW .

    you have
    5% favor production for Domination
    25% favor production for WW .

    what do you think will the most preferred approach to victory?

    I do not understand why fighting and dominating a world is often less valued/rewarded when compared to just generating resources.

    Developers have to understand that resources needed to build troops and clear a stacked city behind walls is much more than just building up cities.

    In fact fighting players need lot more of them to fight and build up a city. If the end game is again going to reward the simmers “More” . What exactly is the point of domination world again?

  10. MarkASp says:

    What is the rational for excluding small islands from the calculations? It seems that the very definition of domination is to control everything. With this exclusion, the only reason to populate a small island would be have a front line city near an enemy alliance. None if us like doing small islands because of the lack of farming, so this just reinforces that dislike. If they are counted, then there is a strategic reason to build them out.

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello MarkASp,

      The rationale behind it is to reduce the number of city spots where players can found cities so we can prevent the Foundation tactics (winning domination just by founding new cities).
      Small islands will still be able to be used for tactical reasons, like to get closer to enemy lines or reducing the support/attack times.


      • AnWePe says:

        oh my god^^

        YES to settle a Town on an island that doesn´t count towards to Domination helps to get Domination. THAT makes SENSE oh wait a Minute NO IT DOESN´T^^

  11. Char Aznable says:

    Thank you for the Anti-Bashing provision mate. Having been through worlds where the #1 & #2 largest players in the world are over 100 cities above the rest because they bash each other always made the competitiveness feel less than healthy. Add to that also the impact of existing bully alliances stacking cities with transports & cs’s just to bash for early advantages & yeah…this is a good first step in the right direction. The tricky part left now is addressing those multiple alliance groups that would circumvent that proposal by just having cities stacked with different alliance member troops to maintain the full gain of bp. When you start a world on day 8 and there are players with 8 or more cities already, in area’s full of only their own alliance mates, you know something is progressing in unnatural ways…

  12. XxXKeyBoardxWarriorxofxGrepolisXxX says:

    Miss me Bernard!?

    Slightly disheartened by the anti self/alliance bashing measures, as I always thought it was nice to give my teammates some bp for unwanted troops as we’ve moved up the battleline and cities purposes changed.
    Ohh well, Teammates, if your reading this, I’m sorry, this will mean no more gifts for you:(

  13. MDGeisti74 says:

    Really a pity that there InnoGames not creates a new playoff to Programming. If I remember correctly, your over 6 years for the dominance of idea. What is better in these years you come up with it? As the players to punish for private reasons you need to activate the vacation mode.

    You were even creative here.

    I am not easily understood with each update here, but the vacation mode should be holy here. We also want to take a break from the game players, we worry about our cities without the need to make.

    Now take your us this possibility is still here. 🙁

    We will set on vulnerable, even though we have activated the vacation mode. This really isn’t fair.

    “One focus of disillusioned players”

  14. LauraCez says:

    I understand that to plug the loophole of winning by mass vacation mode by an alliance there has to be a rule. I’m just wondering about the times of genuine emergency would there be anyway maybe a mod could override a genuine case of needing VM.
    Or would you need to leave your alliance in order to protect everything you had just spent 8 months building

    • bernardgra says:

      Hello LauraCez,

      We are looking into ways of minimizing the vacation mode problem, but I am not sure there will be a way to completely prevent this without opening a big space for exploits. There are a few ideas still being considered.


  15. Supermanuelino says:

    A possible solution could be to leave the vacation mode unchanged and the cities of the player unattackable (anyone can have a genuine emergency). But at the same time the player’s cities will not be calculated in the dominance calculation of his alliance during his vacation mode.