Army Camp

[DeletedUser1189]

I cant see the thread you refer to in the questions about the new rules thread for discussion on the v6 release so I will just post this here.

Have you guys totally lost it. Yes, on paper its a nice sounding idea and seems cool as it removes the slowness of long range nuking but your totally changing the dynamic of the game.

Firstly, it will favour those elite tribes which start the game at the beginning and build quickly with there pre mades, as they normally get blocked in, or cant be bothered to long range noble. By introducing this system, you just penalize the tribes starting in the outer rim areas or which form later in the game. Normally it would be a long time for tribes to expand, especially the larger ones. The distance factor in the game is what limits rampant growth by larger tribes.

This limiting factor is removed and made redundant by this army camp. It seems purely designed in essence for the large and more skilled tribes that will emerge in worlds, to be able to rapidly expand and gain in power at an exponential rate beyond what is normally seen.

For everyone else, all the army camp will represent is a location that yes they can use as intended and have some fun with but what seems to of been overlooked is the broadening of the gap between elite core tribes and the community aspect we have which makes up the rest of the world as wars become even more one sides.

Example.

Tribe 1 (Core started):
5000 Villages
Large area covered, 4-5 continents.
Furtherest member away 150 hours nuke.

Tribe 2 (later start)
1500 Villages
Clustered in a small area 1-2 continents.


In the normal pattern of combat, tribe would would fight and skirmish along the front lines back and forth while the smaller tribe fought a valiant defending battle and had some fun. Stacking against the long range incomings from further a field members while ducking and diving defending the closer range nukes.

If my understanding from the german wiki article is any where near accurate, the new system of combat will be. The large tribe is able to open up several army camps due to size vs maybe only one of the smaller tribe, putting them at an even greater disadvantage barring sheer size and numbers, while the large tribe is able to pre stack a larger number of offensive units along the front line. All which can be launched boom. It even takes away a lot of the need for so much timing as all your units and that or your tribe start out at the same point.

Without knowing how many nukes tribes can put into the army points, ive searched here and .net but not found that info yet, it just seems this is being implemented to keep the hardcore element of TW appeased cause they cry about long range nuking and time and screws over the little guys.

If its mearly being put into place to speed up combat and the crushing of the under dogs in world wars, then fair enough, but I would rather someone just said that, rather than trying to dress it up in how it will add extra tactics and spice into the game. Because it wont. Lets face it, its nothing more than a tool for large tribes to nuke smaller ones into the dust all the more quicker.

Anyone?

 

[DeletedUser]

I haven't read into it much but this is what it seems. yes :icon_confused:

 

[DeletedUser5915]

Cue Nauzhor coming in and telling you to stop be a whining noob just because your bad at the game etc etc /ego /ego /ego...

I agree largely with what you say though, I already think the game is being over complicated with modern units (archers etc) without still more (bad!) features being added...

 

[DeletedUser]

It most likely will pan out that way in the longer term however in the short term smaller tribes could use it to dislodge stacked single villages from tribes attempting to set up in their Ks.

 

[DeletedUser]

/becomes nauzhror

I cant see the thread you refer to in the questions about the new rules thread for discussion on the v6 release so I will just post this here.


Have you guys totally lost it. Yes, on paper its a nice sounding idea and seems cool as it removes the slowness of long range nuking but your totally changing the dynamic of the game.

Firstly, it will favour those elite tribes which start the game at the beginning and build quickly with there pre mades, as they normally get blocked in, or cant be bothered to long range noble. By introducing this system, you just penalize the tribes starting in the outer rim areas or which form later in the game. Normally it would be a long time for tribes to expand, especially the larger ones. The distance factor in the game is what limits rampant growth by larger tribes.

You still have to send troops to the camp, if that takes 250 hours...fine, and the enemies can destroy it, even before(?) the first troops arrive.

This limiting factor is removed and made redundant by this army camp. It seems purely designed in essence for the large and more skilled tribes that will emerge in worlds, to be able to rapidly expand and gain in power at an exponential rate beyond what is normally seen.

Read above. Also, only leaders can make them. Also also, max of ten villages, no uber stacking.

For everyone else, all the army camp will represent is a location that yes they can use as intended and have some fun with but what seems to of been overlooked is the broadening of the gap between elite core tribes and the community aspect we have which makes up the rest of the world as wars become even more one sides.

Example.

Tribe 1 (Core started):
5000 Villages
Large area covered, 4-5 continents.
Furtherest member away 150 hours nuke.

Tribe 2 (later start)
1500 Villages
Clustered in a small area 1-2 continents.




In the normal pattern of combat, tribe would would fight and skirmish along the front lines back and forth while the smaller tribe fought a valiant defending battle and had some fun. Stacking against the long range incomings from further a field members while ducking and diving defending the closer range nukes.

Yes, true.
But this doesn't matter

If my understanding from the german wiki article is any where near accurate, the new system of combat will be. The large tribe is able to open up several army camps due to size vs maybe only one of the smaller tribe, putting them at an even greater disadvantage barring sheer size and numbers, while the large tribe is able to pre stack a larger number of offensive units along the front line. All which can be launched boom. It even takes away a lot of the need for so much timing as all your units and that or your tribe start out at the same point.

I think that the points will change form world to world, most screenshots say 10K points per though.

Without knowing how many nukes tribes can put into the army points, ive searched here and .net but not found that info yet, it just seems this is being implemented to keep the hardcore element of TW appeased cause they cry about long range nuking and time and screws over the little guys.

a max of ten, as I said before.

If its mearly being put into place to speed up combat and the crushing of the under dogs in world wars, then fair enough, but I would rather someone just said that, rather than trying to dress it up in how it will add extra tactics and spice into the game. Because it wont. Lets face it, its nothing more than a tool for large tribes to nuke smaller ones into the dust all the more quicker.

Anyone?

It saddens me that no one but me has figured out the most obvious and powerful use of the army camps. I am hoping someone does it soon though.

 

[DeletedUser]

I cant see the thread you refer to in the questions about the new rules thread for discussion on the v6 release so I will just post this here.

Have you guys totally lost it. Yes, on paper its a nice sounding idea and seems cool as it removes the slowness of long range nuking but your totally changing the dynamic of the game.

Firstly, it will favour those elite tribes which start the game at the beginning and build quickly with there pre mades, as they normally get blocked in, or cant be bothered to long range noble. By introducing this system, you just penalize the tribes starting in the outer rim areas or which form later in the game. Normally it would be a long time for tribes to expand, especially the larger ones. The distance factor in the game is what limits rampant growth by larger tribes.

This limiting factor is removed and made redundant by this army camp. It seems purely designed in essence for the large and more skilled tribes that will emerge in worlds, to be able to rapidly expand and gain in power at an exponential rate beyond what is normally seen.

For everyone else, all the army camp will represent is a location that yes they can use as intended and have some fun with but what seems to of been overlooked is the broadening of the gap between elite core tribes and the community aspect we have which makes up the rest of the world as wars become even more one sides.

Example.

Tribe 1 (Core started):
5000 Villages
Large area covered, 4-5 continents.
Furtherest member away 150 hours nuke.

Tribe 2 (later start)
1500 Villages
Clustered in a small area 1-2 continents.


In the normal pattern of combat, tribe would would fight and skirmish along the front lines back and forth while the smaller tribe fought a valiant defending battle and had some fun. Stacking against the long range incomings from further a field members while ducking and diving defending the closer range nukes.

If my understanding from the german wiki article is any where near accurate, the new system of combat will be. The large tribe is able to open up several army camps due to size vs maybe only one of the smaller tribe, putting them at an even greater disadvantage barring sheer size and numbers, while the large tribe is able to pre stack a larger number of offensive units along the front line. All which can be launched boom. It even takes away a lot of the need for so much timing as all your units and that or your tribe start out at the same point.

Without knowing how many nukes tribes can put into the army points, ive searched here and .net but not found that info yet, it just seems this is being implemented to keep the hardcore element of TW appeased cause they cry about long range nuking and time and screws over the little guys.

If its mearly being put into place to speed up combat and the crushing of the under dogs in world wars, then fair enough, but I would rather someone just said that, rather than trying to dress it up in how it will add extra tactics and spice into the game. Because it wont. Lets face it, its nothing more than a tool for large tribes to nuke smaller ones into the dust all the more quicker.

Anyone?

Also takes Nauzhror's place...

Wrong. On many different levels. Particularly the bold. The truth is, we don't truly know WHAT is going to come as a result of Army camps, we've not been given a great deal of information. All I've read is what's come from Tracey and/or Morthy. Which amounts to "okay, there will be Army Camps, troops move through them, cost gold coins, can be destroyed".

The strategic benefits are huge, not just for large tribes. In fact, large clustered tribes are at a disadvantage as a result. I have already thought of some great strategies. Many of them ideas from early in my TW career that simply couldn't work due to the way nobling and village conquering works. The strategic benefit of potentially making an army camp in the middle of an enemy tribe is pretty huge. Especially against al arge tribe. The ability to make an army camp toward the rim, or toward the core means that players could wage war with enemies on the other end of the map. It eliminates the problem of players starting stuff that can't be finished. Instead of encountering the problem of continental divides, or other tribes separating two tribes that would make interesting combat, people can simply make a line of army tents and create an artificial front line with an enemy. That is what excites me about Army camps. Gives a new idea to the whole idea of an invasion or war. Later in the game things become stagnant due to a lack of tribes that want to war. One major problem is that players grow huge, and some become their own front lines. This allows tribes to lengthen, widen, thicken, and manipulate a war front on so many different levels.

That is unless army camps will not function as I hope they will. As it stands, I don't think any of us know enough about Army Camps to love them or hate them. Personally, I think they'll open a new level of gameplay. New levels of gameplay are always great. Instead of the perpetual "nuke, train..." "Stacked village" you can make an army camp right next door, and send 10 nukes in quick succession. There won't really be quite such a thing as a village too stacked to conquer. The benefit is too often granted to the defenders, it's about time something was made that might feasibly counter that. (Though this could also be turned into a huge benefit for defenders as well, we will have to wait and see.

 

[DeletedUser1189]

Its nice of you to say Discord that I'm wrong on many levels, lets look at the strategic benefits you have put down then.

1. The strategic benefits are huge, not just for large tribes. In fact, large clustered tribes are at a disadvantage as a result.

Large cluster tribes gain an advantage because there clusters can now work in greater unison by the deployment of an army camp. This allows each individual large cluster to then stack a cluster elsewhere on the map and lead a combined close range assault on the enemy tribe without distance being a limiting factor vs the smaller tribe.

2. The strategic benefit of potentially making an army camp in the middle of an enemy tribe is pretty huge. Especially against al arge tribe.

Due to travel times to get troops into the actual army camp and there ability to be destroyed makes me even wonder if you were thinking about what you were writing.

3. The ability to make an army camp toward the rim, or toward the core means that players could wage war with enemies on the other end of the map.

Yes, exactly what I said. Although your missing the point of how this imbalances the game in favour of the larger elite core tribes and the quickening of there expansion over the larger player base of more community less skilled tribes which make up the bulk of each world.

4. It eliminates the problem of players starting stuff that can't be finished.

I don't get that one. I'sin't that just laziness.

5. Instead of encountering the problem of continental divides, or other tribes separating two tribes that would make interesting combat, people can simply make a line of army tents and create an artificial front line with an enemy. That is what excites me about Army camps.

See 2

6. Gives a new idea to the whole idea of an invasion or war.

Yes, it does, but creating an even bigger class divide in favour of larger tribes over the underdogs. Core vs Rim to sum it up.

7. Later in the game things become stagnant due to a lack of tribes that want to war.

Poor leadership and direction. No amount of changing game mechanics will combat that.

8. One major problem is that players grow huge, and some become their own front lines. This allows tribes to lengthen, widen, thicken, and manipulate a war front on so many different levels.

See all of the above.

Next time before you go just poo poo'ing out of the water my attempt at a serious discussion on the implications for the general TW player base and community in games, and the imblanace such a system has the potential to create, and the broadening of the divide between premades and groups of skilled players and the casual player base which makes the game playable. Before you decide to post with some self indulgent drivel trying to make yourself look like a tactical genius, stop and think.

 

[DeletedUser]

Its nice of you to say Discord that I'm wrong on many levels, lets look at the strategic benefits you have put down then.

1. The strategic benefits are huge, not just for large tribes. In fact, large clustered tribes are at a disadvantage as a result.

Large cluster tribes gain an advantage because there clusters can now work in greater unison by the deployment of an army camp. This allows each individual large cluster to then stack a cluster elsewhere on the map and lead a combined close range assault on the enemy tribe without distance being a limiting factor vs the smaller tribe.

2. The strategic benefit of potentially making an army camp in the middle of an enemy tribe is pretty huge. Especially against al arge tribe.

Due to travel times to get troops into the actual army camp and there ability to be destroyed makes me even wonder if you were thinking about what you were writing.

3. The ability to make an army camp toward the rim, or toward the core means that players could wage war with enemies on the other end of the map.

Yes, exactly what I said. Although your missing the point of how this imbalances the game in favour of the larger elite core tribes and the quickening of there expansion over the larger player base of more community less skilled tribes which make up the bulk of each world.

4. It eliminates the problem of players starting stuff that can't be finished.

I don't get that one. I'sin't that just laziness.

5. Instead of encountering the problem of continental divides, or other tribes separating two tribes that would make interesting combat, people can simply make a line of army tents and create an artificial front line with an enemy. That is what excites me about Army camps.

See 2

6. Gives a new idea to the whole idea of an invasion or war.

Yes, it does, but creating an even bigger class divide in favour of larger tribes over the underdogs. Core vs Rim to sum it up.

7. Later in the game things become stagnant due to a lack of tribes that want to war.

Poor leadership and direction. No amount of changing game mechanics will combat that.

8. One major problem is that players grow huge, and some become their own front lines. This allows tribes to lengthen, widen, thicken, and manipulate a war front on so many different levels.

See all of the above.

Next time before you go just poo poo'ing out of the water my attempt at a serious discussion on the implications for the general TW player base and community in games, and the imblanace such a system has the potential to create, and the broadening of the divide between premades and groups of skilled players and the casual player base which makes the game playable. Before you decide to post with some self indulgent drivel trying to make yourself look like a tactical genius, stop and think.

Nauzhror number 1 notices you don't respond to him...
anyway, I would respond in detail, but in general:
point 1:
A. you don't know enough about them , army camps may have to be made within X spaces of a village owned by you
B. you still have to send the troops there
point 2:
you contradict your entire argument here
Point 3:
It really doesn't, as they can be destroyed as soon as the first nuke arrives (which causes a noticeable change in the picture on the map)
point 4:
somewhat
Point 5:
see 2
point 6:
not really, see 1 and 3
point 7:
dead wrong, I could go into it, but DEAD wrong (knowing from experience)
point 8:
actually roch is correct (this coming form a player who has played on a 4mil account for a matter of years, constantly "warring")

 

[DeletedUser1189]

Oh well, if I must zarddeath200

1. you don't know enough about them , army camps may have to be made within X spaces of a village owned by you

a. We can extrapolate from the data available that army camps can be created by the tribe leader only. They can also be created anywhere on the map. As has been mentioned by the 2nd Nauzhror and also in the documentation available on them.

b. Your able to send the troops there without the enemy tribe ever knowing that troops are incoming into that army camp. Im not sure why you make the B point to be honest.

2. you contradict your entire argument here

Explain this point or have it struck off from the list as it makes no sense either

3. It really doesn't, as they can be destroyed as soon as the first nuke arrives (which causes a noticeable change in the picture on the map)

It really does. Firstly, due to the general nature of 'elite' tribe vs 'standard rim tribe' the elite tribe could build up as many as there points allow and the standard tribe wont dare attack them due to fear factor and the already large size differential between the two tribes.

4. somewhat

I'm still going with lazy players dont finish things.

5. see 2

See point 2

6. not really, see 1 and 3

See 1 and 3

7. dead wrong, I could go into it, but DEAD wrong (knowing from experience)

Yes, there is a million and one reasons this may be the case, but at the end of the day, it still comes down to what I said above, and I will also add lazyness. Any worlds that are full of people not wanting to war each other I would ask them, why do you even play, you hoping to out live in real life the other players. Pathetic playing. Might as well just quit.

8. actually roch is correct (this coming form a player who has played on a 4mil account for a matter of years, constantly "warring")

Woohoo, cheers


Now does anyone else have anything serious to discuss on the above and my worries over the imbalance and advanatage these will give to the tribes which are the ones least likely to need any advanatge.

 

[Nauzhror]

your totally changing the dynamic of the game.

And that is bad why? Change is not inherently evil.

Normally it would be a long time for tribes to expand, especially the larger ones. The distance factor in the game is what limits rampant growth by larger tribes.

Good, maybe worlds will close quicker. As is, the biggest flaw with this game is the size of each world and that there's no tunnel at the end of the light. If there was an end in sight people would be more likely to stick it out till the end. If this helps encourage that then it is a good thing.

 

[DeletedUser]

It saddens me that no one but me has figured out the most obvious and powerful use of the army camps. I am hoping someone does it soon though.

Gosh, you would think that you invented the darned things with that attitude. :icon_eek:

 

[Nauzhror]

8. actually roch is correct (this coming form a player who has played on a 4mil account for a matter of years, constantly "warring")

It took you years to get to 4 million? I wouldn't be advertising that. Especially not with the record being someone whom hit 6 million in 8.5 months on speed 1.

 

[DeletedUser]

Oh well, if I must zarddeath200

1. you don't know enough about them , army camps may have to be made within X spaces of a village owned by you

a. We can extrapolate from the data available that army camps can be created by the tribe leader only. They can also be created anywhere on the map. As has been mentioned by the 2nd Nauzhror and also in the documentation available on them.

b. Your able to send the troops there without the enemy tribe ever knowing that troops are incoming into that army camp. Im not sure why you make the B point to be honest.

2. you contradict your entire argument here

Explain this point or have it struck off from the list as it makes no sense either

3. It really doesn't, as they can be destroyed as soon as the first nuke arrives (which causes a noticeable change in the picture on the map)

It really does. Firstly, due to the general nature of 'elite' tribe vs 'standard rim tribe' the elite tribe could build up as many as there points allow and the standard tribe wont dare attack them due to fear factor and the already large size differential between the two tribes.

4. somewhat

I'm still going with lazy players dont finish things.

5. see 2

See point 2

6. not really, see 1 and 3

See 1 and 3

7. dead wrong, I could go into it, but DEAD wrong (knowing from experience)

Yes, there is a million and one reasons this may be the case, but at the end of the day, it still comes down to what I said above, and I will also add lazyness. Any worlds that are full of people not wanting to war each other I would ask them, why do you even play, you hoping to out live in real life the other players. Pathetic playing. Might as well just quit.

8. actually roch is correct (this coming form a player who has played on a 4mil account for a matter of years, constantly "warring")

Woohoo, cheers


Now does anyone else have anything serious to discuss on the above and my worries over the imbalance and advanatage these will give to the tribes which are the ones least likely to need any advanatge.

point 1:
A: I have seen all of the data on them , no where does it say that they can be made anywhere (it actually seems to show it to be more likely the opposite)
B: Again, the image on the map chanegs when troops arrive (a building site becomes an army camp)

point 2:
you talk about how this will make it easier for the uber tribes, but what it all comes down to is that you still have to send the troops on the 200 hour journey to get to the 200 hour away village. Here you admit that.

Point 3:
again, assumption. If there is a war occurring, fear is thrown out the window

Point 4:
I agreed, did I not?

Point 5:
see 2

point 6:
see 1 and 3

point 7+8:
it doesn't though. Players grow so huge, it is hard to find a way to war. I have been "warring" a tribe on an old .net world for over 2 years. I am off the front line by more than a K and a half. I barely do more than noble barbs, inactives, and a few precleared villages, and send fakes. It is hard to get a chance to do any attacking, because of the distance and because of the fact that I own half the K which is controlled 99% by my tribe.

 

[DeletedUser]

Its nice of you to say Discord that I'm wrong on many levels, lets look at the strategic benefits you have put down then.

1. The strategic benefits are huge, not just for large tribes. In fact, large clustered tribes are at a disadvantage as a result.

Large cluster tribes gain an advantage because there clusters can now work in greater unison by the deployment of an army camp. This allows each individual large cluster to then stack a cluster elsewhere on the map and lead a combined close range assault on the enemy tribe without distance being a limiting factor vs the smaller tribe.

2. The strategic benefit of potentially making an army camp in the middle of an enemy tribe is pretty huge. Especially against al arge tribe.

Due to travel times to get troops into the actual army camp and there ability to be destroyed makes me even wonder if you were thinking about what you were writing.

3. The ability to make an army camp toward the rim, or toward the core means that players could wage war with enemies on the other end of the map.

Yes, exactly what I said. Although your missing the point of how this imbalances the game in favour of the larger elite core tribes and the quickening of there expansion over the larger player base of more community less skilled tribes which make up the bulk of each world.

4. It eliminates the problem of players starting stuff that can't be finished.

I don't get that one. I'sin't that just laziness.

5. Instead of encountering the problem of continental divides, or other tribes separating two tribes that would make interesting combat, people can simply make a line of army tents and create an artificial front line with an enemy. That is what excites me about Army camps.

See 2

6. Gives a new idea to the whole idea of an invasion or war.

Yes, it does, but creating an even bigger class divide in favour of larger tribes over the underdogs. Core vs Rim to sum it up.

7. Later in the game things become stagnant due to a lack of tribes that want to war.

Poor leadership and direction. No amount of changing game mechanics will combat that.

8. One major problem is that players grow huge, and some become their own front lines. This allows tribes to lengthen, widen, thicken, and manipulate a war front on so many different levels.

See all of the above.

Next time before you go just poo poo'ing out of the water my attempt at a serious discussion on the implications for the general TW player base and community in games, and the imblanace such a system has the potential to create, and the broadening of the divide between premades and groups of skilled players and the casual player base which makes the game playable. Before you decide to post with some self indulgent drivel trying to make yourself look like a tactical genius, stop and think.

Alright, you sir just proved my earlier assessment. I was not being condescending, or even trying to be an ass. I see now that you're too narrow-minded to see a view other than your own. If you dont like Army Camps, don't play them.

1.) The game is, and always will be in favor of the defender. Anything that has the potential to change that is a plus. Period. Beyond 100k points, if you get rimmed you are doing something wrong. Period. Full stop. Army Camps make that a wee bit more of a challenge.

2.) It's called coordination. The Army Camps will not be built until the first troops land there. So simply solution? Time evreything to land at the same time. That is really not that hard to do. Sorry, I was thinking about what a decent tribe was capable. Clearly you've never been in such a tribe. Coordination as always, is key in this game.

3.) Imbalance Imshmalance. That is an overused excuse. You keep talking about how unfair it is that core tribes can better fight rim tribes, but the same applies to rim tribes, yet you do the same thing you're accusing me of doing. How does it make it unfair? Rim tribes tend to have started weeks to months after core tribes. I started a month after everyone in my area in uk3 (I was in a situation where when I joined, the world was filling backwards to further load up the "core"). I am top 60, and hardly even bother to noble anymore. Using time as an excuse is downright silly. After several months, the tiny head start core tribes got is quickly negated. As for core tribes actually being dominant, that is also a joke. Tribes focusing primarily on the core often fail for good reason. The core is never a good thing to fight over. Rim tribes (nearly) always squash tribes located solely in the core, as the core is "more competitive" and results in much greater loss and growth reduction. If you want to get technical, then rim tribes are at the advantage in this then, no?

And since we're talking about large elite tribes. I'd like to know what tribes you consider to be large and elite... Usually the two rarely are used in conjunction with one another. Not saying it's not possible, but you're using logical fallacies in order to drive your point home. I hate the church system, I think it forces players to limit their growth and troop capacity in order to focus on clustering and other such nonsense. Many agree with me. I don't go complaining about how it hampers a higher tiered player's ability to compete. I complain about the obvious imperfections in the system, and/or ask that it not be included on so many worlds. I don't care if it exists, I just don't want it on a world in which I play. So once again, if you don't like the Army Camps, don't use them. That's no reason to start a thread with the sole purpose of lynching them. They're obviously not going to just disappear.

4.) Ahhh, maybe I shoudl explain a bit more. It means that a player (or tribe) can't run around talking crap about everyone and their cousin and get away scott-free simply because they're on the other end of the world. After all, there is this funny thing called max noble distance. This means that there can be less complaining about inaction, and more action. If a player has a problem with a tribe and openly causes mischief, the solution is easy. Army Camp, a few nukes and nobles... Lesson taught. Once again, further stimulation of activity.

5.) Once again, Army Camps are a coordinated thing. Clearly, as they're built on a tribal level. A poor tribe incapable of working in cohesion is of course going to be inept with Army Camps, but with a wee bit of practice even such a tribe could use them effectively. Just because your imagination doesn't allow for variance, doesn't mean the rest of us are incapable of doing so.

6.) Once again, this is your crowning argument. "Oh noes... The better tribes can further prove that they're the better tribes". I bet you were the kid on the playground who said that the fastest runner couldn't play tag because he was too fast to catch. There are tribes and players who are inherently better than others. The implementation of Army Camps is not going to drastically change that. (Shockingly similar to your response to 7 eh?).

7.) I disagree wholeheartedly (clearly). The game becomes stagnant due to a lessened capacity to accomplish anything in war. As I said before, if you are above 100k points, and you get rimmed, something has gone wrong. Yes, entire tribes could gang up on you, but even in light of this it is not hard to survive. As has been stated, the defender always has the advantage. Offense might build faster, but two or three defensive villages can squash several nukes with little to no loss to the owner. And if that's spread between several villages, it can be rebuilt in a matter of hours.

8.) So you're against anything that changes the way the game can be played? And you're against anything that could possibly mean more decisive wars? I find that rather ironic to be quite perfectly honest.

Now before you go calling my statements drivel, try looking up what a discussion is. You act like I personally assaulted you because I disagreed. You then got upset and started throwing around insults. I don't care about your opinion, and I can guarantee that I have a clue about what I'm talking about (If you'd rather not take my word, there are a fair many players you can ask I am sure.) Are there quirks and annoyances in the Army Camp system? Of course, but what doesn't have problems these days?

Next time before you go "pooing" an attempt at a rebutle in response to my response to your attempt at a discussion, stop and think. You've done nothing to earn my respect, and this thread is doing nothing to help with that fact. All you have done is complain about phantom problems that do not even exist yet. People like things that are new. It is not your place to call them idiots simply because they want something new from the game. This thread didn't start as a debate, it started as a rant. In order to have a debate, one must have an opponent. Lookie here, <--- An opponent. Looks like I made your discussion into more than just you and a few others complaining about the newest fad.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think they've got great potential to change the game in a positive way. Three things stand out -

It's important to note that it will take gold coins to make the army camps. Not sure exactly how it will work, but I guess it will be something along the lines of 100 coins to set up and then maybe 10 coins for every 1k troops you want to add to the camp. Or make the number grow exponentially. Whatever, I hope it make it very hard indeed just to dump 20 nukes in there. This means the larger players will be hassled to donate their coins instead of merrily nobling away in their own self interest.

Secondly, they can be destroyed. How, when? Don't know, but it's hard to be too disparaging when this important information hasn't been revealed yet.

Thirdly, i'm assuming that not every world will have these army camps activated. So just like with worlds including churches, if you really don't like them (even after the full detail is revealed) then you simply don't join the world.

 

[DeletedUser1189]

It took you years to get to 4 million? I wouldn't be advertising that. Especially not with the record being someone whom hit 6 million in 8.5 months on speed 1.

Could you not of quoted me as the author of that, I'm closing in on three million and I've only been playing since server open thank you very much :icon_razz:

 

[DeletedUser]

nauz, that was me, on my first world
I had been at war since 1.5 mil, and almost rimmed twice.

 

[DeletedUser1189]

I would like to think you were being condescending Discord as your opening sentence dismissed everything I had put written about and you then went on to write a load of rubbish. I feel you are being narrow minded and pretty short sighted in your opinions and assertions and I was almost going to respond to your new rant but it was embarrassing reading some of the rubbish, particularly your assumptions about myself and the kind of people I play with, and I figure I best leave you alone rather than embarrass you further.

Oh, one point I guess, I never said I disagree with army tribes. If I am ever to play in a world with them, I would make sure they are used to full tactical advantage. This is a given. It would be foolish not too. You though I see now that you're too narrow-minded to see a view other than your own, have totally ignored my concerns and the point of my thread which was trying to express and discuss there perceived benefit over what will amount to the negative consequences for the people and tribes who play the game at a slower pace, the general player base.

The real Nauzhror is the only one so far which has posted anything sensible by agreeing that worlds could finish quicker. Something which has never been addressed and might also lead to an explation as to why the game gets stagnant.


Edit: I would be worried Phropp if its only 100 coins to set up, I would be able to build several a day had there been no limit and size restrictions to go with them. I would hope this figure is high, maybe several thousands coins or similar amount of resources. Although that again leads to an increasing of the class divide between the skill level and time spent in game between the general player community and the elite more hardcore tribes which all worlds start with.

 

[Nauzhror]

Gosh, you would think that you invented the darned things with that attitude. :icon_eek:

Aye. Made me giggle. Especially as I know how they work better than anyone else who has posted in this thread because I was given an in-depth explanation of how they work from a .net admin.

 

[DeletedUser]

I would like to think you were being condescending Discord as your opening sentence dismissed everything I had put written about and you then went on to write a load of rubbish. I feel you are being narrow minded and pretty short sighted in your opinions and assertions and I was almost going to respond to your new rant but it was embarrassing reading some of the rubbish, particularly your assumptions about myself and the kind of people I play with, and I figure I best leave you alone rather than embarrass you further.

Oh, one point I guess, I never said I disagree with army tribes. If I am ever to play in a world with them, I would make sure they are used to full tactical advantage. This is a given. It would be foolish not too. You though I see now that you're too narrow-minded to see a view other than your own, have totally ignored my concerns and the point of my thread which was trying to express and discuss there perceived benefit over what will amount to the negative consequences for the people and tribes who play the game at a slower pace, the general player base.

The real Nauzhror is the only one so far which has posted anything sensible by agreeing that worlds could finish quicker. Something which has never been addressed and might also lead to an explation as to why the game gets stagnant.


Edit: I would be worried Phropp if its only 100 coins to set up, I would be able to build several a day had there been no limit and size restrictions to go with them. I would hope this figure is high, maybe several thousands coins or similar amount of resources. Although that again leads to an increasing of the class divide between the skill level and time spent in game between the general player community and the elite more hardcore tribes which all worlds start with.

I'm the narrowminded one? As I said, your only concern is how unfair it's going to make the game for smaller players and tribes, simply because someone can place an army camp closer to the rim. (Regardless of the other benefits, and limits in which the army camps have). Any other boons an army camp may provide are completely tangential to your agenda. Yet I am the narrowminded one? What's more, I'm the one taking the moral low ground, and my posts are simply rubbish because you do not like them? We finally got rid of this nonsense in uk3. :icon_neutral: Seems not everyone has had such luck.

Regardless of moral highground or lowground, you cannot dismiss valid points without any evidence to make them false. I consider your opinion rubbish, regardless of whatever achievements you've made on a below average world. Does that mean I dismiss them regardless of what they are? No. I showed why I dismissed what you said. Coincidentally, no one else has agreed with you. Stop acting like a child and throwing around insults. I said you were wrong, I showed why. You simply ignored my points and used a sentence or two (maybe less) to attempt to "prove" me wrong. Alas, the bulk of your posts simply said "You're missing the point" or "you're wrong". That's not how logic works... :| You don't just say someone is wrong and that is true. You prove that they are wrong.