DeletedUser
Guest
[pp]Nevertheless it was a world with "much less premades" so I pointed it out[/pp]
But still irrelevant yes :icon_razz:
Your thoughts on the general idea, or is comedy the word of the week :icon_wink:
DeletedUser
Guest
I hated W27 - EXIT choose the guy who said he had epic points on a french server and was legendary... :| I quit as soon as I could :icon_biggrin:
As for this Idea I am loving it
As for this Idea I am loving it
DeletedUser2118
Guest
[pp]Nevertheless it was a world with "much less premades" so I pointed it out
psssha I was totally in a premade there
DeletedUser
Guest
Like this idea, don't have much to add. Hopefully will get widespread approval.
P.S. Like "The wasteland". Very appropriate:icon_wink:
P.S. Like "The wasteland". Very appropriate:icon_wink:
DeletedUser
Guest
After reading your statement there is one major flaw you forget. Alot of the pre-mades do not last very long.
My first proper premade that I was involved in was W8 .net being part of CEG, they did last about 1-2 years though so this contradicts my answer. My next premade was Hippo in W16. Me plus the actual leadership lasted about 1 month, after this we grew bored and many of the 'recruited' players was getting power hungry.
W21 was Sexy! we lasted quite a while actually, about 2-3 months. We had a very good leadership and were a tribe full of experienced players and we all knew eachother.
Lastly, was MaccyD of W41 in 3 months we actually had more points than the 2nd, 3rd and 4th ranked tribe put together, we totally owned. Disbanded due to internal struggle after the main leadership left.
From my .net experience 3/4 of my premade tribes I was part of only lasted the first 3 months, and now are part of other tribes.
My first proper premade that I was involved in was W8 .net being part of CEG, they did last about 1-2 years though so this contradicts my answer. My next premade was Hippo in W16. Me plus the actual leadership lasted about 1 month, after this we grew bored and many of the 'recruited' players was getting power hungry.
W21 was Sexy! we lasted quite a while actually, about 2-3 months. We had a very good leadership and were a tribe full of experienced players and we all knew eachother.
Lastly, was MaccyD of W41 in 3 months we actually had more points than the 2nd, 3rd and 4th ranked tribe put together, we totally owned. Disbanded due to internal struggle after the main leadership left.
From my .net experience 3/4 of my premade tribes I was part of only lasted the first 3 months, and now are part of other tribes.
DeletedUser
Guest
[th]Sorry, I haven't read all the thread's postings (will probably catch up later), yet I want to add what kind of settings we technically could turn on or off to aid this idea, which I generally like. One problem will stay none the less: InnoGames would have to approve them, but this is something we could care about later.
If you have some more ideas about what settings probably should be changed, let me know. We cannot adjust every single setting, most of them are nothing but a "pick one of 1-6 possibilites" rather than possible own values. Nevertheless there may be something, which I missed.
Edit: The settings have to be mostly mass-compatible, tho. The "people will drop off the list after xx days, if they aren't ranked top yy" may work internally by agreement, yet they should be able to continue the game - as should everyone be able to play the world properly, who doesn't want to participate the idea at all.
[/th]
- Random placement / no choice of orientation at start. This would make it harder for premades to gather in one area.
- Appropriate member limit (depends on the whole discussion's results)
- No attacks on tribesmates. It won't prevent internal carnage, but outside tribes/enemies will find inacitve targets from other tribes much faster, because they would have to dismiss inactive members before they could noble them.
- Sadly the "account cannot attack after being sat for 60 days within the last 120"-setting is an on/off-switch. It would have helped to enter own values here to make inactive accounts ineffective much earlier (like sitting of 12 days within the last 24).
If you have some more ideas about what settings probably should be changed, let me know. We cannot adjust every single setting, most of them are nothing but a "pick one of 1-6 possibilites" rather than possible own values. Nevertheless there may be something, which I missed.
Edit: The settings have to be mostly mass-compatible, tho. The "people will drop off the list after xx days, if they aren't ranked top yy" may work internally by agreement, yet they should be able to continue the game - as should everyone be able to play the world properly, who doesn't want to participate the idea at all.
[/th]
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
This doesn't sound like a bad idea by any means and it may even be fun for all the people involved but if you're really looking for the best leader in Tribalwars (Who's currently active, I'll assume since a bunch of them have quit), this may not be the best way to do that. What you could do is, you could get a group of players and get them to play under each leader for a few months and then get them to judge who the best leader is. This would indeed be very time consuming and I doubt anyone would actually offer to do such a thing, especially if there's many competitors but this is the only way as far as I know that could give you somewhat accurate results.
The last man standing in this competition would not necessarily have to be the best leader, but the leader who had some luck with recruiting, of course a well written letter and this and that are a bonus, making the tribe appealing to the masses in order to get them to actually want to join you but at the same time it can have a lot to do with luck and timing and some may just happen to be in a continent with a bunch of active, decent players and some may be in worse continents with even worse players.
There's nothing that says premades have to be the best of all tribes either, as a matter of fact lately they generally are quick to fail, especially if the lineup seems to be the best you could possibly think of. I've been a part of these and yes, they do dominate for some time but eventually the vast majority of the players will lose interest in it because they've done this so many times before whereas a new player would be more likely to play more actively and last longer.
The last man standing in this competition would not necessarily have to be the best leader, but the leader who had some luck with recruiting, of course a well written letter and this and that are a bonus, making the tribe appealing to the masses in order to get them to actually want to join you but at the same time it can have a lot to do with luck and timing and some may just happen to be in a continent with a bunch of active, decent players and some may be in worse continents with even worse players.
There's nothing that says premades have to be the best of all tribes either, as a matter of fact lately they generally are quick to fail, especially if the lineup seems to be the best you could possibly think of. I've been a part of these and yes, they do dominate for some time but eventually the vast majority of the players will lose interest in it because they've done this so many times before whereas a new player would be more likely to play more actively and last longer.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser1508
Guest
But this way it is also a competition between the players, to make their leader look the best, and themselves also. There is never sole focus on the leaders, it is about the tribe they create, and the tribe involves the players. Therefore recruitment is part of the whole thing, as is trying to retain the good players that you have.
DeletedUser
Guest
I reckon creating another W27 would be a good launch for this idea.
With a suggestion that applications are to be sent to the mods to be leaders of tribes. Then when we have the proper amount then get the people randomly placed in tribes.
With a suggestion that applications are to be sent to the mods to be leaders of tribes. Then when we have the proper amount then get the people randomly placed in tribes.
DeletedUser
Guest
Personally, I disagree hugely. A large, perhaps one of the biggest parts of leadership, is recruiting, strategy, diplomacy, all limited by W27.
First of all, with leadership you can use the iceberg analogy. You only ever really see the tip of the iceberg. There are many different strengths a leader can have, some that may be immediately obvious, like motivation, cool headedness or just making friends with the tribe. But aspects such as strategy, tactics, recruiting, diplomacy, and everything else is often not seen so much, and things as you say may pull off and be seen as luck, making the leader look good when perhaps they intended something else.
A leader has to make a huge amount of decisions, take many actions, be flexible, able to adapt, with the huge amount of these things they have to do in just one world, where luck may be involved, the top leaders will inevitably come out on top eventually, then as you get further through the game luck becomes less and less of a factor. Without doubt this is the best way of testing how good a leader is. Think of it like this, flip a coin 5 times, you won't get a good know how on the odds of landing on each side, flip a coin a million times, and you will. The concept is much the same.
Yea I realise Innogames have a huge say on settings, which is why I think drumming up support for this idea is important, as I am sure they would go for the idea knowing that the world would bring in a large amount of players, and therefore moneys :icon_wink: Added ofcourse to influence admins have
First two of your settings I agree on, third one is interesting, though how important that is with Twstats monitoring now heavily in use, I don't know. I definitely agree that the settings have to be mass-compatible, and my ideas of who is out etc., only applies to those in the competition. Would not really be the same if we did not operate in the normal confines of a TW world.
One thing I think is important, is the rule on deleting account and creating a new one. I'm never sure what the status is on this. As in players to get round the start over rule, delete and create a new account. Sometimes several times to get near friends. I've heard 3 different interpretations on the rule from admins, one was that it is not allowed, one that it is, one saying technically it isn't, but you won't get caught. What is the rule, and is there anyway we can tighten it?
Blue
DeletedUser
Guest
I disagree. W27 was painful and took all the fun out of the game. It was boring and pure luck who you got put with. W27 has got to be the worst I have ever played but it had potential.
DeletedUser
Guest
I really like the sound of this idea BH , I would definetly be up for it if it went ahead.
