Are gifts ruining this world?

[DeletedUser]

--> NO WHERE HAVE I SAID GIFTING IS CHEATING <--

Let's start by saying I'm not blaming those taking the villages: gifts are the most efficient form of growth. It's essentially a free village, already built to a decent standard -- what's not to like?

However one could argue they are ruining this world, if we take a look at the top 10 and their ennoblements for example:

1 Nibbler - 4.7k gift
2 misschiff - 2.4k gift
3 Cero Puccol - 2.5k not-a-gift
4 jmaxspeed - 3.1k gift
5 gotcha! - 2.3k not-a-gift
6 pizzahappy - 3.1k barb (no oda/odd gain - restarted gift?)
7 PintoMcGuinness - 473 barb
8 FatIgor - 502 barb
9 I Blame Your Mother - 1.9k cheap village (could be a gift)
10 Bazza The Brave - 506 barb

So except for 2, everything else is either a gift(probably) or a small barb. The ~500 point barbs is a valid strategy on this world, and it gives no hugely unfair advantage - it's available to everyone and it also gives a subpar village. Those who are able to find people to gift them cheap, easy village on the whole though are doing much, much better than those who have nobled barbs. The options so far ultimately seem to come down to: take a risk on a player, find a gift, or noble a small barb. The gifting is the best of both worlds, as it allows the no-troop-losses of the small barb, and more than likely a much better build than some random player. There is no down side to it.

Hence I'd like to put forward the argument that gifts will ultimately ruin this world, or at least the early world portion of it. I also reiterate it is not the players who are taking the gifts fault, the blame lies entirely with those giving the gifts. They are the people unbalancing the world, only a poor player would refuse a gift due to pride and hence it's a decision pretty much already made up for most people -- take it if it is offered. On the other hand, those giving the gifts are making an active choice to give away their village, and in some cases are continuing to build it up after deciding to leave the world, this is wrong and unbalances the world. It borders on cheating, and could destroy what was supposed to be a balanced world. So my main issue with the gifting culture I think this early portion of the game will have a problem with is not that it happens, it is that even after deciding the gift shall be made in the future players continue to build up the village for others until nobled. How is this any different to me starting two accounts, building them up simultaneously and then nobling one of them?

The settings of this world make it virtually impossible for a player who tries to take a village by force to keep up with one receiving gifts, for example. On a regular world, as you can farm, players will have more sizeable troop counts and hence be able to attack "juicy" targets, which allows them more to keep up with those eating gifts, yet here it is an either-or decision between decent village or high troop count (you can maintain a decent one, just not a high one). Furthermore this world's troop counts seem to be more d-heavy than on a regular world, further reducing the ability to clear a decent target.

Ultimately those who get given gifts for whatever reason should be able to excel against the others who do not, this will lead to what was intended to be a more balanced world becoming unbalanced in another direction.

What are others opinions on this?

 

[DeletedUser6695]

I think you're just jealous of people who have been gifted vills as they now hold rank 1 and you are upset by this *nods*

My real opinion is there seems to be a lot of gifts on this world, personally I think its a little suspicious that so many players are building up nice vills and just gifting them away but meh I guess we just have to deal with it. Plus most of the people receiving gifted vills have terrible builds

 

[DeletedUser9748]

I just believe that the advantage you gain from a gifted village is only temporary. You have to show your skill to actually be ahead and win future wars. Players that count their growth based only on gifted villages means that they know nothing of strategy or even how the game is played and eventually will fall down. Also tribes that play only by giving gifted villages will fall down for the same reasons.

I also hate neighbors getting free high villages without any losses, but if a friend decided to quit and offered me his village I would not say no. So, be patient, play your game and eventually the good players will arise without any gift never mind it's early "advantage".

 

[DeletedUser]

--> NO WHERE HAVE I SAID GIFTING IS CHEATING <--

I just believe that the advantage you gain from a gifted village is only temporary. You have to show your skill to actually be ahead and win future wars. Players that count their growth based only on gifted villages means that they know nothing of strategy or even how the game is played and eventually will fall down. Also tribes that play only by giving gifted villages will fall down for the same reasons.

I also hate neighbors getting free high villages without any losses, but if a friend decided to quit and offered me his village I would not say no. So, be patient, play your game and eventually the good players will arise without any gift never mind it's early "advantage".

Well yes a tribe who is mainly reliant on gifts at this stage is not really gaining villages, merely transferring them. However the advantage is not only temporary on a player-level (and let's not forget not all gifts are internally within a tribe, so may be beneficial to a tribe as well), as the village is more developed, allowing more resource income (in most cases), allowing more troop production and/or nobling at a higher rate. This is an advantage that lasts over time assuming the player is good: it leads to a player reaching various things faster than those without gifts. The fact it may be a poorer player in control merely means they are the reason for there being no permanent advantage, not the gifting itself. Gifting to a good player allows a lasting advantage which will allow sustained growth at a higher rate. Ultimately your argument that it is only temporary is ridiculous, if it were only temporary nobody would ever need noble a decent village ever :icon_confused:

 

[Maggie Wallis]

It happened all over the no hauls world on .net... Plenty of players "suddenly" decided to co-play once one of them had reached nobles... although I'm sure that not all gifts didn't have a legitimate reasons...

But then you can say that players that have a 4K village near by that the owner hasn't thought could do with some d troops have an advantage...

I'm sure the "leet" players that don't receive gifts will find a way to make it to the top of the rankings, might just take them a little longer... and after all they keep complaining on every new world that their isn't any competition and it's all too easy...

P.s. Krazy, you jelly bro?

 

[DeletedUser]

Come on guys and girls, 'tis the season of good will', ...and before you say it Christmas dont officially end til 6th Jan! :lol:

 

[DeletedUser]

--> NO WHERE HAVE I SAID GIFTING IS CHEATING <--

It happened all over the no hauls world on .net... Plenty of players "suddenly" decided to co-play once one of them had reached nobles... although I'm sure that not all gifts didn't have a legitimate reasons...

But then you can say that players that have a 4K village near by that the owner hasn't thought could do with some d troops have an advantage...

I'm sure the "leet" players that don't receive gifts will find a way to make it to the top of the rankings, might just take them a little longer... and after all they keep complaining on every new world that their isn't any competition and it's all too easy...

P.s. Krazy, you jelly bro?

The 4k village without troops is an unknown though: the player has had to have the initiative to scout, this is a risk in it's own right. Throw in the chance of tribal support/coordinating a backtime with a local player and it is not really comparable to the gifting situation. Hence it's not such a clear cut advantage, and also my issue is with those giving the villages (and continuing to build them up which should be considered pushing but is not) -- not those taking them, hence in that situation I have no issue with anyone.

And yes, I'm sure most, if not all, players(sure 90% will deny it though) have a hint of jealousy within them regarding this situation: I'm not going to deny I'm one of them. :icon_razz:

 

[Maggie Wallis]

The 4k village without troops is an unknown though: the player has had to have the initiative to scout, this is a risk in it's own right. Throw in the chance of tribal support/coordinating a backtime with a local player and it is not really comparable to the gifting situation. Hence it's not such a clear cut advantage, and also my issue is with those giving the villages (and continuing to build them up which should be considered pushing but is not) -- not those taking them, hence in that situation I have no issue with anyone.

And yes, I'm sure most, if not all, players(sure 90% will deny it though) have a hint of jealousy within them regarding this situation: I'm not going to deny I'm one of them. :icon_razz:

Look harder... :icon_sad: Even a nobling a 500 point barb is more risky then nobling a gifted village...

I'm jelly that someone hasn't gifted me a 4.7K village but then it would mean being nice to some one...

 

[DeletedUser5582]

If a tribe was all co played accs but started this world as 2 separate tribes of 25 accs with the sole aim of each co played acc nobling the other (so one went the path of Noble the other mine whored) would we all say cheats or congratulate them on reading the world settings and thinking ahead?

It is often posted that great players adapt their playing style to suit each world and that is part of what makes them great (and their hair!) so personally have been a little surprised not to have seen more gifting going on. I certainly advised/asked my co played accs to both start separately and then to merge later as thought was a good strategy but then I have been told off before for reading the world settings and plotting!

However, me asking and my minions doing are two different things and the co played accs are well co played :icon_sad:

Now I can't speak for other gifts in other tribes but in my tribe none were pre planned, all needed tw skills (diplomacy, being nice, being able to write a mail without using the word mate etc etc) so I would mark them down as a real demonstration of playing the game and not unbalancing this world. The next "gift" we had to work hard for so using stats to say gift won't even scratch the surface of the efforts out in as a tribe so no I don't think gifted villas, in the main, unbalance this world unless you are a purist, eat muesli and wander around covered in sheets chanting about stopped clocks

Let us all remember how UK11 will be won. Villas taken with a nuke half killed, barb munching or gifts are not going to help here (that much)

 

[DeletedUser]

You know what Jo, you're right mate

 

[DeletedUser5582]

have you stopped laughing yet! very droll

 

[DeletedUser]

--> NO WHERE HAVE I SAID GIFTING IS CHEATING <--

If a tribe was all co played accs but started this world as 2 separate tribes of 25 accs with the sole aim of each co played acc nobling the other (so one went the path of Noble the other mine whored) would we all say cheats or congratulate them on reading the world settings and thinking ahead?

I wouldn't congratulate them. They are abusing the way this game is played, and quite frankly I still think a situation such as that should be regarded as pushing -- a preplanned move to develop a village to later noble it, that's just a bastardisation of the way in which the game is intended to be played.

It is often posted that great players adapt their playing style to suit each world and that is part of what makes them great (and their hair!) so personally have been a little surprised not to have seen more gifting going on. I certainly advised/asked my co played accs to both start separately and then to merge later as thought was a good strategy but then I have been told off before for reading the world settings and plotting!

Claiming planned gifts are adapting is just being silly, it's basically multi-accounting without the restrictions. It's an abuse of the way in which the game was intended to be played, and hence unbalances the game. It is essentially one account growing 2 accounts at once, this would be known as multi accounting if it were not separate ip addresses and people. If you feel that is within the boundaries of the game fine, but don't say it doesn't unbalance the game because that is simply an idiotic statement to make, if it were to not unbalance the game I'm pretty sure multi accounting would be allowed. :icon_rolleyes:

However, me asking and my minions doing are two different things and the co played accs are well co played :icon_sad:

Now I can't speak for other gifts in other tribes but in my tribe none were pre planned, all needed tw skills (diplomacy, being nice, being able to write a mail without using the word mate etc etc) so I would mark them down as a real demonstration of playing the game and not unbalancing this world. The next "gift" we had to work hard for so using stats to say gift won't even scratch the surface of the efforts out in as a tribe so no I don't think gifted villas, in the main, unbalance this world unless you are a purist, eat muesli and wander around covered in sheets chanting about stopped clocks

Let us all remember how UK11 will be won. Villas taken with a nuke half killed, barb munching or gifts are not going to help here (that much)

You've not once said how they don't unbalance the world, just said they required effort. Note: These two things are not identical.

Responding to my actual points would be rather nice. The reasons I believe they unbalance the world are quite simple: gifted villages are built up better than barbs, and have the same effects on an account nobling them (i.e. no troop losses, no risk). Bear in mind I'm talking entirely early phase of the game with regards to unbalanced growth.

As for how the world will ultimately be won, via this secret of powers end game thing well the more developed your account, the easier it is to take control of them surely and hence by getting the best possible start, and ideally continuing into a superior account if you are a decent enough player, you will find them easier to control. Hence surely it does have an effect?

 

[DeletedUser5582]

I wouldn't congratulate them. They are abusing the way this game is played, and quite frankly I still think a situation such as that should be regarded as pushing -- a preplanned move to develop a village to later noble it, that's just a bastardisation of the way in which the game is intended to be played.


Claiming planned gifts are adapting is just being silly, it's basically multi-accounting without the restrictions. It's an abuse of the way in which the game was intended to be played, and hence unbalances the game. It is essentially one account growing 2 accounts at once, this would be known as multi accounting if it were not separate ip addresses and people. If you feel that is within the boundaries of the game fine, but don't say it doesn't unbalance the game because that is simply an idiotic statement to make, if it were to not unbalance the game I'm pretty sure multi accounting would be allowed. :icon_rolleyes:

Ok two players who plan to co play later but go through start up running their own accs is not multi accounting and to say it is is disingenuous at best. Some say that co playing is unbalancing the game and didn't see you supporting them then? This is not so different (and No lets not restart the co playing debate)

I can show plenty of times folks saying better players merely adapt their playing style. How would this not be one of those occasions? Or you just a little peeved you didn't think of it? I truly don't think it unbalances the game in the examples I made from my tribe just good old fashioned rounded skills. Sniping is a skill, chatting to folk is a skill.

However, if you are really sad that gifting is cheating then put a ticket in.

Responding to my actual points would be rather nice. The reasons I believe they unbalance the world are quite simple: gifted villages are built up better than barbs, and have the same effects on an account nobling them (i.e. no troop losses, no risk). Bear in mind I'm talking entirely early phase of the game with regards to unbalanced growth.

My apologies! I was just putting across my viewpoint in the context of my tribe's actions as you mentioned my acc and two of my tribemates (see what I did there Phil huh?!) and forgot to talk about your points in more loving detail!

I still say/think that if you have the skills to get a gifted villa then that is a legitimate tactic, Am sure you mail folk in your 15x15 at the start of the game and you do this why? As you love to talk or you are building bridges and making sure no one slows your growth down?

So I did really answer your points I just didn't agree with them. Each of us plays this game in their own way. Diplomacy can be the way forward, aggression or barb munching and we have seen folks do well and do badly using these techniques (and been flamed for on these very forums).

Am sorry I used a context to get my replies to your thread over I should have answered them straight up for you.

As for how the world will ultimately be won, via this secret of powers end game thing well the more developed your account, the easier it is to take control of them surely and hence by getting the best possible start, and ideally continuing into a superior account if you are a decent enough player, you will find them easier to control. Hence surely it does have an effect?

Ok first up see the bit I put in brackets?! Of course having a better/bigger acc will help but trust me it won't be the main factor in achieving success here unless a tribe goes the old fashioned route of world domination.

This is my opinion and solely based on the previous world to use special powers so is silly arguing over it we can just see who was right or wrong when UK11 is won.

Geography and diplomacy will be way more important than having the biggest acc.

 

[DeletedUser6695]

Gifting vills is great but if you had 2 people setting out all along to co play one is on a sense a 'push' account.

And Jo of course we thought of it, but I'm sure you can imagine the uproar it would have caused

 

[DeletedUser5582]

Gifting vills is great but if you had 2 people setting out all along to co play one is on a sense a 'push' account.

And Jo of course we thought of it, but I'm sure you can imagine the uproar it would have caused

On Uk3 a player nobled 500 point barbs, built them up then allowed a tribemate to noble them (pages of them on UK stats). Was that cheating?

Alas answer was no (note word alas) as if a player wanted to do this was all ok as their acc their choice. Now 50 players starting this world intending to go to 25 accs with 25 plum villas nobled is same ball park but still not a push acc though is a grey area but with these world setttings would we honestly be angry that they did it or angry that we had been out thought?

As for the uproar CF well not from me (would have choked on my tea/wine and might have blasphemed a little bit) but eventually would have said well done (gritted teeth mind).

So I think the reason you didn't do it is A: you all eat muesli, B: you worry too much about your reputation or C: you geniunely looked forward to seeing if you could make top rank on a level playing field world.

Now I thought of it but, as you know, am the siren call of reason in a tribe of hairy men who, at best, humour me!

pfft cretins the lot of them!

 

[DeletedUser6695]

The main reason I didn't do it was because I joined as a lone ranger but joined a tribe for a quest

Anyway as I said somewhere, most of the players who got gifts suck so it doesnt bother me

 

[DeletedUser]

--> NO WHERE HAVE I SAID GIFTING IS CHEATING <--

Ok two players who plan to co play later but go through start up running their own accs is not multi accounting and to say it is is disingenuous at best. Some say that co playing is unbalancing the game and didn't see you supporting them then? This is not so different (and No lets not restart the co playing debate)

I can show plenty of times folks saying better players merely adapt their playing style. How would this not be one of those occasions? Or you just a little peeved you didn't think of it? I truly don't think it unbalances the game in the examples I made from my tribe just good old fashioned rounded skills. Sniping is a skill, chatting to folk is a skill.

However, if you are really sad that gifting is cheating then put a ticket in.

I didn't say it was multi accounting, I said it was similar. Comprehension not a strong point? It is similiar because it is one planned account, but has 2 accounts at the time. If you are failing to see how they are similar, please consider multi accounting = 1 player, 2 accounts and my comparison comes from 1 planned account, 2 accounts at present. Quite similar, no?

If you need me to spell it out any more, I will do but I don't think I should have to as this is at a very, very, very basic level.

As for the adaption, well I guess it kind of is. I just disagree with it on many levels (the planned gifting that is), because I think it reduces this game to who can get the most friends to join and form a super account from there. It's not really requiring much thought or effort and is very little change. As for being peeved for not thinking of it, heh that relies on the assumption I didn't (actually I did -- I just think it unbalances the world, and I'd rather not feel like I'm "cheating to win" (cheating by my definition, not the rules) and I'm not co-playing). Also using a skill doesn't mean it doesn't unbalance the game, I don't see where you got that definition from.

I haven't said gifting is cheating once, I said it borders on cheating. I'll refer you to my earlier point about your lack of comprehension.

As for the co-playing thing you mentioned in brief, it's ridiculous to say "I didn't see you posting in a thread" when I didn't know it existed. I don't think it were a serious argument, but if it were it's frankly ridiculous.

My apologies! I was just putting across my viewpoint in the context of my tribe's actions as you mentioned my acc and two of my tribemates (see what I did there Phil huh?!) and forgot to talk about your points in more loving detail!

Well you claimed it wasn't unbalancing the game, whilst not actually responding to my points of why it does unbalance the game. So yes, you should have mentioned my points why it does unbalance them... :icon_rolleyes:
Also are you saying all 3 were actually gifts, because if not then I only spoke about 2 of your tribe (can't be bothered to guess if you or not) :S

I still say/think that if you have the skills to get a gifted villa then that is a legitimate tactic, Am sure you mail folk in your 15x15 at the start of the game and you do this why? As you love to talk or you are building bridges and making sure no one slows your growth down?

So I did really answer your points I just didn't agree with them. Each of us plays this game in their own way. Diplomacy can be the way forward, aggression or barb munching and we have seen folks do well and do badly using these techniques (and been flamed for on these very forums).

Am sorry I used a context to get my replies to your thread over I should have answered them straight up for you.

Nah you didn't respond to my points, let me once again refer to your lack of comprehension. Really you'd think TW would test their mods for this. >.<

I've made one simple claim wrapped up in my text justifying it: that is that a gift gives all the benefits of a well built village, with none of the (heightened for this world) risks of taking a player, and hence by virtue of this unbalances the game as it allows those who have gifts to get ahead -- this is clearer when the player is building for somebody despite knowing they are giving the village away. It is virtually (<-- NOT IS, BUT NEARLY IS to avoid your earlier reading issues) pushing.

Ok first up see the bit I put in brackets?! Of course having a better/bigger acc will help but trust me it won't be the main factor in achieving success here unless a tribe goes the old fashioned route of world domination.

This is my opinion and solely based on the previous world to use special powers so is silly arguing over it we can just see who was right or wrong when UK11 is won.

Geography and diplomacy will be way more important than having the biggest acc.

Sorry I missed the "not much" bit of your post, which means I actually agree with you here.

 

[DeletedUser10327]

haha, I think the best response to that would be to quote your signiture, krazy

 

[DeletedUser5582]

I didn't say it was multi accounting, I said it was similar. Comprehension not a strong point? It is similiar because it is one planned account, but has 2 accounts at the time. If you are failing to see how they are similar, please consider multi accounting = 1 player, 2 accounts and my comparison comes from 1 planned account, 2 accounts at present. Quite similar, no?

If you need me to spell it out any more, I will do but I don't think I should have to as this is at a very, very, very basic level.

As for the adaption, well I guess it kind of is. I just disagree with it on many levels (the planned gifting that is), because I think it reduces this game to who can get the most friends to join and form a super account from there. It's not really requiring much thought or effort and is very little change. As for being peeved for not thinking of it, heh that relies on the assumption I didn't (actually I did -- I just think it unbalances the world, and I'd rather not feel like I'm "cheating to win" (cheating by my definition, not the rules) and I'm not co-playing). Also using a skill doesn't mean it doesn't unbalance the game, I don't see where you got that definition from.

I haven't said gifting is cheating once, I said it borders on cheating. I'll refer you to my earlier point about your lack of comprehension.




Well you claimed it wasn't unbalancing the game, whilst not actually responding to my points of why it does unbalance the game. So yes, you should have mentioned my points why it does unbalance them... :icon_rolleyes:



Nah you didn't respond to my points, let me once again refer to your lack of comprehension. Really you'd think TW would test their mods for this. >.<

I've made one simple claim wrapped up in my text justifying it: that is that a gift gives all the benefits of a well built village, with none of the (heightened for this world) risks of taking a player, and hence by virtue of this unbalances the game as it allows those who have gifts to get ahead -- this is clearer when the player is building for somebody despite knowing they are giving the village away. It is virtually (<-- NOT IS, BUT NEARLY IS to avoid your earlier reading issues) pushing.



Sorry I missed the "not much" bit of your post, which means I actually agree with you here.

first up lets drop the little digs and petty slurs please as it demeans you way more than me.

Insinuating someone is nearly running a push acc whilst stopping short of saying is a push acc is, in my view saying that they are in fact no better than a push acc by dint of smear or whatever you wish to call it. Saying where did I say folks were cheating is not really the issue here is it? "You are cheating" is pretty much the same as saying "You are nearly cheating" and in fact in some ways far worse but I'll let you go figure out why by yourself

Folks might say that getting all your friend crammed into one acc on other non low haul worlds to outfarm everyone has the same effect? Where's the difference?

Now does gifting accs unbalance the game. My view. No

Get over it

 

[DeletedUser6695]

Of course it unbalanced the game :/ that's a bit of a silly statement. It give those who do it an advantage similar to co playing