I disagree with you.
Today we have 3 win conditions
Landmarks
Sacret Site
Wonder
Why making only 2 of those 3 viable?
Also, using my idea
In 1v1 would reduce in half, from 24k to 12k
in 2v2 would be cheaper, from 24k to 16k
in 3v3 would be only 4k discount, from 24k to 20k
It’s not like, I’ll rush imp and then rush a wonder and your opponent(s) just sitting around and watching.
The game was released with 3k each res (12k total), but it has changed to address the 4v4 team games.
We didn’t see many wonders in 1v1 and 2v2, and we probably won’t see even it if they cost 12k
Because third one (wonder) is the one that promotes stale defensive style once you consider it a “go to” win conditions. And this is a style of play that, I assume, most of the players consider boring to play against. As I said, right now it’s not exactly a “go to” win condition, but a way to finish the game against turtling opponent given you can’t break their defences.
Well you maybe won’t but someone else will. And one guy in golden league succeeding with it is enough to have 10 guys come to the forum whining about how “stale and boring the game is”.
I don’t think you realize how hard it is to establish yourself in Imperial at 200/200, have 3000 of each resource (including stone that would have to be spent on defenses), and defend the Wonder or prevent the opponent from winning through the Sacred Site.
The issue with Wonders was in team games when it was set at 3k. The staggered mode they propose seems very appropriate.
If you’ve not seen my comment above, I wrote that the cost reduction of wonders in a stalmate game should be accompanied by truly neutral sacred sites.
I’ve seen it, but It still doesn’t say why you want it to be reduced in the first place.
If you also consider it as the way to end stalemate matches, then it still not gonna work. Because if you are floating 12k resources and still haven’t lost, you already have the way to end such a stalemate: spend it.
It doesn’t matter all that much if it is 12k or 24k, the same logic with different degree of bad macro.
And if you are not floating 12k resources it doesn’t matter if wonder cost is 12k or 24k lol.
There’s a central argument supporting my theory, which revolves around infinite resources (tithe of relics + passive bonuses and trade).
In high-level matches, I’ve observed many resources floating around, constantly maxed out at 200/200, with most upgrades completed. Stalemate isn’t the norm, but when it occurs, it’s quite regrettable.
Two scenarios can unfold:
One player controls has more control map than the opponent, but there are no neutral sacred sites, and the opponent is heavily locked down through constant siege and fortifications, resulting in a stalemate.
Both players can’t dominate each other even with neutral sacred sites in play.
In the first case, neutral sacred sites are necessary, and in the second, the wonder serves as a means to break the deadlock. However, constructing the wonder can pose issues for the player building it:
The player might breach their defenses because the opponent lacks sufficient resources or stone for defense.
In the neutral sacred sites (all of them must be considered), the player who didn’t build the wonder can counter it by capturing them.
The game should allow for the possibility of winning through all three ways available on all maps.
Looks like we are going circles here. I’ve just explained why it’s not true. If you are floating significant amount of resources and still not loosing it’s up to you to spend it. The game doesn’t limit you at this.
It sounds like what you are asking for is easier way to spend it. In this case yes it will work. But that’s only fixing the problem for your level. After that someone will come here asking to make it 2k each etc.
Though a good way to counter a wonder is taking the sacred sites. You can even wait for it to be completed and then you get 5 full minutes to move if you didn’t already.
That’s not false! It’s just one way to break the deadlock, the others being sacred sites or spending all those Ks you got in the bank.
You can still use it to break a stalemate after a prolonged fight but only if you can be conservative enough to save the resources needed and not loosing in the meanwhile. That’s a niche situation I’m afraid.
Surely in 1v1 or 2v2 building a wonder is a problem as you usually spend all you have for the aggression, it’s not so viable at the moment, even if you want it saving enough resources it’s hard. The main problem lies in stone. The Devs made it rarer (can’t be gathered by traders and there’s less in the outcroppings) but didn’t adjust the cost of the buildings. Fortifications are a thing, wonders another, in fact they weren’t the reason for the change. The result is that the cost in stone of the wonder became a much greater cost in gold instead, since you’d most definitely have to buy it. No one would deliberately give up keeps and outposts for the chance of building one wonder.
So I’d argue the stone price should go down. Also wood, but by a lower amount. Just because those are not infinite resources. Maybe like 2k less stone and 1k less wood.
If it is a stalemate scenario you are not just sitting at 200/200 but constantly fighting and rebuilding units. It is hardly ever the case where both players are 200/200 all the time while floating 12k resources.
You can add some production to rebuild army faster than your opponent.
If you are floating resources while constantly at 200/200 you can delete some vills.
The only theoretical scenario where there is nothing possible to do is when you have no economy units while constantly at 200/200 army or if you are literally out of space to add production. But I doubt any of this has ever happened. Reality is if you take a risk and delete enough vills you either win or lose at this point.
And theorycrafting aside in 90% of cases it’s enough to try attacking from multiple sides rather then fighting at one point and one of the players/teams will fall apart.
What you’re describing are choices calculated to shift the balance of the stalemate. Wonders should be such a choice. There’s a reason there’s an entire win condition / game mode that revolves around them.
I don’t see an issue to give solution. Stalemate is very rare and there is no reason to take a risk of breaking the game to fix it. Especially since players already have everything they need to solve it. I guess the right solution is to give players some more time to learn how to play around it.
And if I’m wrong and data says it happens too often the solution would require analysis of why exactly it takes place. And based on that the solution must be more proactive. Like making bombards more reliable in some way or introducing some sort new mechanic. But not making passive win condition the thing to go to for sure.
I’ve mentioned before that it’s not very common at a high level, but the term “very rare” refers to less than 1% (or even less than 0.5%) of games that start to stall, typically occurring around the 40-minute mark, which isn’t precisely the case, especially in tournaments.
Based on the data, I estimate that stalling (only at high levels) occurs in about 2-3% of games. It’s not common, but it does happen, and when it does, and there are spectators watching, it can be boring.
I hope they continue to improve the late game, something that has always been criticized even by those of us who are still fans.