End to a World

DeletedUser1410

Guest
Now I know that TW is a Business and needs to make money, but would it not be better to have an end to the game? IE 10 Mill points or take 90% of all player villages, would make the worlds last less time but it might give the players of the world something to play for, instead of having to nobles every none Barbs village to win?

Thoughts
 

tehRancid0ne

Guest
Yes, imo having a more realistically acheivable aim would be beneficial; however i think a better solution would simply be for worlds to be smaller. Having the map grid as a 5x5 instead of 10x10 as far as continent squares go.
That way the aim of a world is still the same, but it'll take half the time to acheive it.

I wouldn't be arsed playing a world for 2 years in order to win it.
 

DeletedUser3194

Guest
They have recently introduced this actually Ruffus, not sure if any worlds have it as an active setting yet though, it was also an option in the recent survey that were sent around.

I personally feel it would be a good addition to future worlds and would keep a lot more players active in the worlds until the end of the world. First tribe to 100 million?
 

DeletedUser1410

Guest
Ye and they have made a smaller world on UK to help end it sooner, but like you said Rob, the survey was there for people to vote, I'm just getting or trying to get others to look at the end game settings, to make the game faster and like tehRancidOne said not last 2 years or more.

I think thats the way forward.
 

Nauzhror

Well-Known Member
Reaction score
105
5x5 wouldn't change much, UK worlds fill up slowly anyway, some of the older worlds are barely bigger than 5x5 still. I'd personally love to see a 2x2 4 continent world.
 

DeletedUser1410

Guest
I think we all know that will never happen, 5x5 would be a good size, and say first tribe to have 40 of its members with 100 villages each and a limit of 60 members in each tribe, and 40 members have to have a minimum of 100 villages, no barbs in that 100
 

King Allan

Guest
I think the solution can be more elegant. The distance between village is based on 2D geometry but the world could be a sphere. That way expansion folds back on itself. I tried it out on a globe playing war games and the result is fantastic the wilderness gets smaller and smaller not larger.

Now the problem comes with the maths. The 2 D pythag which we all do in our heads becomes harder but then who actually calculates anymore? We all use distance and attack planners now so its the computer who does the work. Anyhow the time for calculation of spherical surface geometry is the same for pythag so no problem.

Just an idea but think about it folks. If google can do a 3 D globe then TW can do a 3D map.
 

DeletedUser1410

Guest
nice idea, but lots or problems I think. You could do it, but do it in 2 D lay it flat but have the ends run into each other, so you go off the map to the east and come on to the map from the west, Would be hard for peeps to remember but could work either way, a world map or a flat map
 

tehRancid0ne

Guest
IIRC the "round" map suggestion was brought up on .net a while ago, i forget the outcome of the discussion but i'm fairly sure that most people liked the idea. As Ruffus is saying, the map still gets displayed as a flat map, but move off it to the south and you emerge on the north of the map, and so on with the other directions. That method would be the best setup if it were to happen imo.
 

DeletedUser7602

Guest
Why not have a village evolution world..?? Each vill starts in an era (stone age) and evolves up through iron, etc up to a modern era where planes and tanks are an option. The downside I can see is players with modern villages/towns/cities would massacre lower era players, so i would put a system in place to not allow players to attack more than 1 or 2 below their era level. If such a game already exists...can some kind soul point me in its direction please
 

DeletedUser7848

Guest
that wouldnt work thats a completely different game instead of a new world