[Discussion] A world, which the MOST ACTIVE want

DeletedUser

Guest
I don't see why nublets (aka majority) don't want a slower world to be honest... Most of the time I get mails from people complaining about co-playing on a 1.6 speed world. I want a life to be honest and wanna actually concentrate on my GCSE's at school instead of farming on my iphone to get a decent rank (I don't mean top 50 or anything, I mean a good top 10) and with a .5 world it would be so much easier
 

DeletedUser

Guest
True, but others just hang around at home all day, infront of their computer... They say that TW is too slow.. Both sides are understandable..
 

DeletedUser

Guest
They want a faster world due to the idea they may actually reach a certain amount of points. When you're new, the game moves slow, and you always get owned before you can experience a second village sometimes.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Well this is it:
uk9 world speed much higher than 2-other settings don't matter.
uk10 world speed slow for PLAYERS WHO KNOW THEY CANT BE LOGGED IN ALL DAY!

This world should be lounched at the same time uk9 for people that are fast and are online allmost everytime and uk10 for people who know thy can't.... Simple rules are just if u join uk9 u can't join uk10 with same account and viceversa. Other settings I don't really care! I just sate for a FAST WORLD SPEED HOGHER THAN 2
 

DeletedUser1511

Guest
Well this is it:
uk9 world speed much higher than 2-other settings don't matter.
uk10 world speed slow for PLAYERS WHO KNOW THEY CANT BE LOGGED IN ALL DAY!

This world should be lounched at the same time uk9 for people that are fast and are online allmost everytime and uk10 for people who know thy can't.... Simple rules are just if u join uk9 u can't join uk10 with same account and viceversa. Other settings I don't really care! I just sate for a FAST WORLD SPEED HOGHER THAN 2

Yeah i am with this guy, he is also willing to pay for extra server costs that would come from a faster speed all by himself, and he will one of those people who won't complain if the price of prem goes up to pay for said world. :)
 

Nauzhror

Well-Known Member
Reaction score
106
Following are what I'd like to see for W9, warning now that the post will be lengthy as i am not solely posting what settings I want, but also an explanation of why I want each setting.

Speed: 0.5

This creates a more balanced playing field and makes the game more about strategy and tactics rather than activity. It also helps negate the benefits of co-playing, which should help non co-played accounts compete with their co-played counterparts.

Unit Speed: 2.0

This largely does the same thing as the .5 speed does. Buildings and troops still build half as fast as usual, so you still spend resources at half the usual pace. The troops move the same speed as a speed 1/unit speed 1 world though so you can get nearly as many resources as usual per day despite only needing half as many. This makes it easier for players with reduced activity to have 24/7 queues.

Example, you can play a 5 hour block each day, on a speed 1 world that is enough to run all your queues for 14 hours, but on a speed .5 world it is enough to run them for 24 hours. This is because you can haul almost as much resources as usual, but they last twice as long. (The reason you can haul almost as many resources, and not as many is because the villages you are farming generate resources at half the usual speed, but your troops move at twice the normal speed when compared to this regeneration rate, which would mean you'd get the same, except that on the .5 world you farm farther away to get the same due to each village having less, and the increased travel time reduces the efficiency somewhat.

Noble System: 1 package nobles

Most of you have probably never played with one package nobles as they are something that is usually reserved for the speed server, but they have also been used twice on .net worlds, namely W33, and W45, both of which were speed .5 worlds. On 1 package noble worlds you do not store packages, you simply pay the price of a package whenever you create a noble. This makes nobles very cheap, which once again takes the emphasis off of farming and helps less active players. Normally a player's growth is limited by the amount of nobles they have, and due to ever increasing noble costs the amount of nobles they have is limited by their farming capacity. On one package noble worlds nobles are cheap, and not the limiting factor. Offense is the limiting factor instead, nobles are cheap, nukes are not, therefore conserving your offense is the key to being able to rapidly noble.

Starting Village Build: Level 6 mines, 3 HQ (or one HQ like W56 on .net was if that is now an option for future worlds)

The reasoning for this is actually just because barbs start with the same buildings that players do and I want barbs to start with level 6 mines so that they make half-decent farms,

Barb-Growth: Off

Yep, that's right, the barbs will start with 6/6/6 mines and level 3 HQ and stay there, they won't grow any bigger, this is why I wanted the 6/6/6 mine start, as if they started with 0/0/0 mines and then didn't grow they'd make terrible farms. With this setup though they make half-decent farms, but awful noble targets. Barbs being awful noble targets is an absolute necessity on a world with one package nobles. Otherwise people would noble barb villages that had academies already in them as a means to grow far far far more rapidly than a player that needed to clear their conquers.

Paladin: Off

All it does is make the defender have a much larger advantage in a game where they already have a large enough advantage as is. This is especially true on worlds with paladin weapons since they stack (ie. if you have a spear and a sword weapon in the village both the villages spears and swords benefit from the weapons, whereas an offense can only ever contain one paladin, and thus, one weapon)

Church: Off

This one is important, W33 having churches was in fact about the only thing that tarnished the world as far as I'm concerned.

Morale: Off

It's a world where offense should limit your growth moreso than nobles, as such let's not abuse the players that try and play it as such by making it stupidly difficult to noble players, if you're small enough to be affected by morale, let's face it, you won't last till the end of the world anyway via any means but waiting around till the competition has quit, which is one of the biggest flaws with the game as far as I'm concerned.

Ratio: 20:1 for 30 days

This is annoying, but with 2.0 unit speed it will be much less annoying than usual since you will be able to farm a larger area to compensate for the lost farms. The real purpose of it isn't to protect those in the core though but to protect late starters until they have a firm footing, if there's a way to activate this a month or two into the world so that it doesn't affect the core at all that'd actually be ideal.

Smithy System: 15-tech

It encourages playing as a team, and let's face it, that's what this game is meant to be about, it's TribalWars, not AccountWars or VillageWars.

Spy: 4

This is the usual 15-tech scout system, level 1 shows res and troops, level 2 shows buildings in addition to what level 1 shows, and level 3 additionally shows troops stationed outside of the village.

If the world is destined to be simple-tech make the spy setting be 10 instead, spy setting 3 is ridiculously awful.

(Spy setting 3 is the one where you see outside troops, but have to send at least 4 scouts in every attack, and when being scouted need only as many as the defender to kill their scouts rather than the usual where you need twice as many as the attacker.)

As for the rest of the settings I prefer:

Archers: Off
Tribe Limit: 20-40
Outside Support: No
BP: 5 days


but none of those are overly important in the grand scheme.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser

Guest
Following are what I'd like to see for W9, warning now that the post will be lengthy as i am not solely posting what settings I want, but also an explanation of why I want each setting.

Speed: 0.5

This creates a more balanced playing field and makes the game more about strategy and tactics rather than activity. It also helps negate the benefits of co-playing, which should help non co-played accounts compete with their co-played counterparts.

Unit Speed: 2.0

This largely does the same thing as the .5 speed does. Buildings and troops still build half as fast as usual, so you still spend resources at half the usual pace. The troops move the same speed as a speed 1/unit speed 1 world though so you can get nearly as many resources as usual per day despite only needing half as many. This makes it easier for players with reduced activity to have 24/7 queues.

Example, you can play a 5 hour block each day, on a speed 1 world that is enough to run all your queues for 14 hours, but on a speed .5 world it is enough to run them for 24 hours. This is because you can haul almost as much resources as usual, but they last twice as long. (The reason you can haul almost as many resources, and not as many is because the villages you are farming generate resources at half the usual speed, but your troops move at twice the normal speed when compared to this regeneration rate, which would mean you'd get the same, except that on the .5 world you farm farther away to get the same due to each village having less, and the increased travel time reduces the efficiency somewhat.

Noble System: 1 package nobles

Most of you have probably never played with one package nobles as they are something that is usually reserved for the speed server, but they have also been used twice on .net worlds, namely W33, and W45, both of which were speed .5 worlds. On 1 package noble worlds you do not store packages, you simply pay the price of a package whenever you create a noble. This makes nobles very cheap, which once again takes the emphasis off of farming and helps less active players. Normally a player's growth is limited by the amount of nobles they have, and due to ever increasing noble costs the amount of nobles they have is limited by their farming capacity. On one package noble worlds nobles are cheap, and not the limiting factor. Offense is the limiting factor instead, nobles are cheap, nukes are not, therefore conserving your offense is the key to being able to rapidly noble.

Starting Village Build: Level 6 mines, 3 HQ (or one HQ like W56 on .net was if that is now an option for future worlds)

The reasoning for this is actually just because barbs start with the same buildings that players do and I want barbs to start with level 6 mines so that they make half-decent farms,

Barb-Growth: Off

Yep, that's right, the barbs will start with 6/6/6 mines and level 3 HQ and stay there, they won't grow any bigger, this is why I wanted the 6/6/6 mine start, as if they started with 0/0/0 mines and then didn't grow they'd make terrible farms. With this setup though they make half-decent farms, but awful noble targets. Barbs being awful noble targets is an absolute necessity on a world with one package nobles. Otherwise people would noble barb villages that had academies already in them as a means to grow far far far more rapidly than a player that needed to clear their conquers.

Paladin: Off

All it does is make the defender have a much larger advantage in a game where they already have a large enough advantage as is. This is especially true on worlds with paladin weapons since they stack (ie. if you have a spear and a sword weapon in the village both the villages spears and swords benefit from the weapons, whereas an offense can only ever contain one paladin, and thus, one weapon)

Church: Off

This one is important, W33 having churches was in fact about the only thing that tarnished the world as far as I'm concerned.

Morale: Off

It's a world where offense should limit your growth moreso than nobles, as such let's not abuse the players that try and play it as such by making it stupidly difficult to noble players, if you're small enough to be affected by morale, let's face it, you won't last till the end of the world anyway via any means but waiting around till the competition has quit, which is one of the biggest flaws with the game as far as I'm concerned.

Ratio: 20:1 for 30 days

This is annoying, but with 2.0 unit speed it will be much less annoying than usual since you will be able to farm a larger area to compensate for the lost farms. The real purpose of it isn't to protect those in the core though but to protect late starters until they have a firm footing, if there's a way to activate this a month or two into the world so that it doesn't affect the core at all that'd actually be ideal.

Smithy System: 15-tech

It encourages playing as a team, and let's face it, that's what this game is meant to be about, it's TribalWars, not AccountWars or VillageWars.

Spy: 4

This is the usual 15-tech scout system, level 1 shows res and troops, level 2 shows buildings in addition to what level 1 shows, and level 3 additionally shows troops stationed outside of the village.

If the world is destined to be simple-tech make the spy setting be 10 instead, spy setting 3 is ridiculously awful.

(Spy setting 3 is the one where you see outside troops, but have to send at least 4 scouts in every attack, and when being scouted need only as many as the defender to kill their scouts rather than the usual where you need twice as many as the attacker.)

As for the rest of the settings I prefer:

Archers: Off
Tribe Limit: 20-40
Outside Support: No
BP: 5 days


but none of those are overly important in the grand scheme.

Would be my ideal world, with a couple of changes:
Pally's without weapons - Early game, let's tribes co-ordinate stacks easily especially when they have a large spread. Late game, 1 unit with a cool name makes no real impact.
Ratio off, if possible - From my experience, it rarely helps newbs grow when they would be better off restarting on the rim. As soon as the ratio ends, they get pwned by the bigger players in the area.
No Bonus villages - Gives people self-justification for nobling them
A lot of barbs - BP shouldn't be about area, Uk6 was pretty epic with its barbs.
Attack/Support Gaps of 20ms - Still allows people to snipe T trains, but they need to work harder to do so.
Can't choose Starting locations - Not a major setting, but gets rid of the rather rubbish premades joining.

Would be an epic world, .co.uk needs one. There's been a 2 monthish gap between Uk6-Uk7 and Uk7-Uk8. Based on that, Uk9 should be coming out pretty soon?
 

Nauzhror

Well-Known Member
Reaction score
106
Ratio off, if possible - From my experience, it rarely helps newbs grow when they would be better off restarting on the rim. As soon as the ratio ends, they get pwned by the bigger players in the area.


It's main purpose is to protect players on the rim. ie. When you're 100 points and starting near someone who's many times bigger than you. That's why I was hoping it could be activated after the world had already been going for a while so that it didn't affect the core at all, and only helped give late starters a chance.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Only one addition, I do like W8's overall champions idea,, once a point limit is reached no more tribe changes or restarts. It gives you something to stay in the game for.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I quite like Nauz's idea (I'm calling you Nauz as I'll never be able to spell Nauzhror - well clearly I did just then but I add to scroll down and have another look)
I agree that 0.5 speed and 2 unit speed (this is just a multiplier? So the troops would go twice as fast relative to everything else on the world?) as I think it would require less activity to farm enough resources to keep your village going constantly.

On the ratio thing :-
If I understand this correctly, the 20:1 ratio means that players 20 times bigger than other players cannot attack the other players. This doesn't seem to actually help other players much, as if someone is 20 times bigger than you, you can't have logged in much, so why would people want to protect inactive players and hinder the active, aggressive players? Seems stupid to me.

If there's someone over 20 times bigger than you near you, surely you are going to die anyway? It's just a question of growing enough so that they can kill you.


I would think that there needs to be some kind of end point to a world, like there is on world 8, otherwise I would think huge numbers of people would quit, as there isn't a goal they are reaching for. This could be a tribe points have to be at x and held at x for y time, or the world will finish after z months, or something like that.

1 Packet nobles seems like a good idea as later in the game, getting enough coins or packets to be able to build a noble must take up huge amounts of resources. But with 1 packet nobles amount of offence would be the limiting factor of how many villages you can take, not how many nobles you have, I would think that this in turn add more strategy into the game, as the higher percentage of villages with just offensive troops in them the fast they could grow, but without as much defence they would be more open to attack.

I don't like the idea of paladin weapons, the catapult defence weapon seems to make catapults overly strong, I can imagine that early on it would be extremely annoying as even if you had the most offensive troops in the world, if the guy you attack has that weapon and manages it properly building lots of catapults you would lose. This seems stupid. However, I like the idea of a paladin without weapons, as it seems that this would make early farming easier, but also, it seems to me that in the start of the game, players who build just offence will be able to do to well, as for a long time these players can be building offensive units from 2 (and then 3) buildings whilst people starting defensively can only build from 1 building until they get their smithy to level 15 (This seems to high for me) so I figure the only way defence can beat offence early on is with support from tribe mates, and as I would have thought that most attacks early on would be from relatively close, as people aren't going to want to be sending their armies away for hours as they need them to raid resources, so it would be hard for tribe mates to get their support to the attacked player, but with paladins, as the support moves at the same fast speed as the paladin, support can move faster, so this means that tribes that have good teamwork and good coordination are more likely to succeed. Late game it seems that the defender has the advantage as he can stack, villages together, whilst the attacker cannot, but as you can only have 1 paladin, when you have over 50 villages it will make almost no difference.
For these reasons I think that paladins should be on world 9 but paladin weapons shouldn't be.

I can understand the idea for morale, but on a world with constant nobles it would seem stupid as offence is the limiting factor for growth and so morale would slow the world down.

I have no experience with churches, they sound like something that would add more strategy to the game, but make it much more annoying, especially on a 1 packet nobles world restricting growth with church areas sounds bad.

I think that there should be lots of barbs so there can be lots of farming, as I would want a 0.5 speed 2 unit speed world, you are gathering resources twice as fast as they are being produced, so there needs to be lots of barbs so that lots of people can farm. I think that they should grow to 1000 points as this means they are very nice farms, and it adds more strategy into the game, you can noble a barb, spend no troops on it but get a smaller village, or spend troops nobling a player and get a bigger village.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nauzhror

Well-Known Member
Reaction score
106
Holier Than Thou said:
On the ratio thing :-
If I understand this correctly, the 20:1 ratio means that players 20 times bigger than other players cannot attack the other players. This doesn't seem to actually help other players much, as if someone is 20 times bigger than you, you can't have logged in much, so why would people want to protect inactive players and hinder the active, aggressive players? Seems stupid to me.

If there's someone over 20 times bigger than you near you, surely you are going to die anyway? It's just a question of growing enough so that they can kill you.

At the start of the world it's mostly useless, but later on, it can be useful. If you join the world late you can start near someone who is already more than 20 times your size.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
At the start of the world it's mostly useless, but later on, it can be useful. If you join the world late you can start near someone who is already more than 20 times your size.

Say I join a world, theres someone with 3,000 points within my 7x7 square. By the time I get to 200 points they can kill me if they like, assuming they aren't hugely better than me and have more than 4,000 points by this point. It makes no difference, if someone is playing actively then at some point they are going to come out of the 20:1 ratio protection and then they can be killed by someone 19 times bigger than them the protected person is still going to die if the bigger person wants to kill them, the 20:1 rule just wastes some of their time before they are wiped out. Without the 20:1 rule they will quickly realise that they have no chance in their area and can restart or move to another world. With the 20:1 rule, they will play for a few days, and then be wiped out, and because they have invested some time in the game, they may try to stay there even though they have no real hope, and get frustrated with the game and eventually quit.

I really don't think a 20:1 rule could be any actual help in defending someone.
 

DeletedUser8897

Guest
I really don't think a 20:1 rule could be any actual help in defending someone.
add to that a moral basher/20:1 bashers and it just gets worse.

nauz setup is spot on (never thought i would agree with him again tbh)
bravo nauz..quality.

i know this will stir the pot but too bad...
here is an idea..stop opening worlds so frequent for god sakes...just when you establish a good crew and get people working as a team a new world opens and the normal crap goes on..the old ''real life..or school''..or some other bullcrap, then they run off and join the new world because they cant handle the concept of actually wining a world...then we have to noble out that account..and so the cycle continues, round and round..world after world.

yes its good to have a new world to go too
no i dont like it when people up and leave to go to those worlds and leave people high and dry.
confusing i will admit..

imo, awards and milestones have made people world jump..all the quality that can bind a good tribe together is now chasing their names up in lights..so they play start up only.

i love a good game of speed server now and then..i would love to be in for the start of a HP round with a good crew, and at the same token would love to see out a world..but its so damned hard when new worlds open and you loose good members to them gaaahhhh does my head in :mad:

i will play almost any settings with the right people just for the enjoyment..but i prefer coins, hate churches..moral sux..bonfire is pathetic when moral is involved..2 speedw 1 speed troop is best with a co more often than not

someone tell me to shut up please :icon_rolleyes: anyway..too many worlds open too regularly imo. if they didnt have that option people would stay and play, if you dont give them that option you loose people also..i get it...stuffed either way.

result = no one will ever be happy. just deal with each setting given

DARTH.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I have not followed the arguements through this thread, but based on the title i can say:

What a crap idea! A world the most active want is a world with settings the most active like, is a world generally not suitable for newbies, enlarges the problems concerning tw's loss of market share, there is that what ya want? Didn't think so ...


And darth, bang on the nail


*edit: nauz you even more banged on the nail, i agree with your settings and all your reasonings .. that would be a world to save tw's ass of the downfall
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Hmm Thar, if it's a .5 or .75 world, have you thought about allowing elevated starts?

fantastic idea, speed it up then slow it down to put it simple, work it on a gradient, week 1 +80%, week 2 +50%, week3 +15% etc ;)
 

Nauzhror

Well-Known Member
Reaction score
106
fantastic idea, speed it up then slow it down to put it simple, work it on a gradient, week 1 +80%, week 2 +50%, week3 +15% etc ;)



That's not what he meant. He meant that he'd like it to be speed .5, but to start higher than the usual 26 points to offset the slow startup.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Based on the last page of grown up conversation we're having, it's easy to have a little insight as to what Innogames and the staff have to deal with trying to appease the general consensus...

Now can we please stop the little flamefest and get back on topic...?

Jaypee, I think theres a problem within the whole innogames appeasement policy.

Lets be a little frank here, during the height of tw's commercial success, the administration were by and large absolute and arbitary dicks who gave players the option of their road or the high road.

And the game was fun, and the numbers on the front page just kept going up and life was good.

Then somewhere in the en20s the numbers started dropping and people's complaints started being attended to, and the numbers kept dropping. Then the community started being consulted on the settings for new worlds or for rule changes and the numbers kept dropping. The numbers are still dropping.

What I'd question here, is whether the appeasement policies enacted over the last year and a half to get the community more involved in the policy making level of the game is actually a viable strategy to save TW from bankrupcy.

*Yes I realize that this isn't the place for that, just strolling through.


On Topic : there's no real logic to a newb friendly world. A newb doesn't fall in love with the game simply cause he's exposed only to other newbs. There's a lot more to it, and the world settings aren't even important to a player at that stage of his tw life.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Forgive me if this is a 'noobish' question, but is it hugely expensive for InnoGames to create a world?
Im thinking along the lines of open 2 or 3 worlds at the same time, each with greatly varying settings.
Surely that is the only way to please most people? And I agree that some will moan no matter what.

A slightly unrelated question, is it possible for there to be a world were coplaying is not allowed? E.g. one internet connection per account? I dont want to get into the coplaying argument, just want to know if that setting is actually possible.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Forgive me if this is a 'noobish' question, but is it hugely expensive for InnoGames to create a world?

Hypothetically speaking, as I don't work for InnoGames, I would say no. What gets expensive is the load.. Multiple worlds does not represent load.. Does that make sense? 1 world with 150,000 users is a heavier load on the server than 5 worlds with 10,000 users would be.

As I said, I don't work for InnoGames but they're probably using a Virtual Machine.. In this way they could power on extra "servers" without actually acquiring any new (costly) hardware. 1 machine running multiple Virtual machines each running the Stamme software and exposing themselves as isolated, independent servers running on dedicated hardware ^_-

Im thinking along the lines of open 2 or 3 worlds at the same time, each with greatly varying settings.
Surely that is the only way to please most people?

This is actually the way it used to be on the international servers. The highly active (In the forums...) complained that this was "dividing the player pool" too much and so the moderators stopped opening multiple, competing worlds.

I think that was a mistake, personally, but I think I'm a minority here in that regard.

A slightly unrelated question, is it possible for there to be a world were coplaying is not allowed? E.g. one internet connection per account? I dont want to get into the coplaying argument, just want to know if that setting is actually possible.

Mmm, some communities actively enforce a strict no co-playing rule for certain worlds. Certainly a minority, however..

//mpw
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top