Searching for ideas

[DeletedUser6726]

I don't really understand what you mean by player vs. barb. If you're not allowed to attack players and will never be attacked (since barbs don't attack) there's no point in having defense and the goal becomes just farming and nobling barbs as fast as you can, which'd get boring, really really quick.

I have to agree with this.

What i see as a possible option is a training world. It could possibly work like the BETA world does, so it would be kept at a relatively small size.

After a month or two a player is sent to the latest available game world with a larger village say 3 or 4K. If a player is grasping the basic mechanics of the game quicker then this can be sooner.

Ingame mods would be present to overlook accounts and give pointers. This would be bespoke to each account (although time consuming).
Theses pointers could be in the way of a pop-up box like you get when you first join a world.

The only down side of this idea is that current players *may* create an account on this world to see who can get promoted to the real game worlds quickest (Some kind of bragging rights i suspect).

 

[DeletedUser]

Sorry i didn't think about the lack of willingness to attack by barbs - suppose the idea wouldn't work then unless of course barbs could attack with varying levels of force and numbers.

 

[DeletedUser1508]

Unless you restrict farming times, if you cannot farm between 24:00 till 08:00 there is no need to team up with someone from Canada or New Zealand.

That is an insanely stupid idea. Incredibly so. What happens if you ARE from New Zealand, as I am? Huh? :icon_neutral:

 

[DeletedUser]

I disagree and from a business perspective 2-3 people playing 1 account is reducing fees the game will receive in income.

Top 10% of players on each servers is dominated by players it completely unbalances the whole game.

If there are no servers in New Zealand, take the game over there.

 

[DeletedUser]

I disagree and from a business perspective 2-3 people playing 1 account is reducing fees the game will receive in income.

Top 10% of players on each servers is dominated by players it completely unbalances the whole game.

If there are no servers in New Zealand, take the game over there.

If Innogames want to constantly upset customers then they will do what you just said.
Just because you may not have a co-player does not mean that no-one should be able to play when you are asleep, what if someone from the UK works all day and wants to play for a few hours at night. "Due to a new rule, you can't farm and effectively do anything". This will take away customers and the co-playing thing has already been discussed.

 

[Nauzhror]

Ingame mods would be present to overlook accounts and give pointers. This would be bespoke to each account (although time consuming).

One potential problem is that would require the ingame mods be particularly good players, which isn't always the case.

 

[DeletedUser]

One potential problem is that would require the ingame mods be particularly good players, which isn't always the case.

Yeah, otherwise you wouldn't be modding :icon_wink: :lol:

In all seriousness, it would be incredibly time consuming for those moderators and would deter many.

 

[DeletedUser]

An idea I considered would be a regular world focused on catting. No nobling, much like a cat round in speed. But, once a player is catted to a certain # of points, he's out. No rebuilding or restarting. I think it would be interesting how coordination would work in something like this. Might only be possible for HP but it's an idea.

 

[DeletedUser]

An idea I considered would be a regular world focused on catting. No nobling, much like a cat round in speed. But, once a player is catted to a certain # of points, he's out. No rebuilding or restarting. I think it would be interesting how coordination would work in something like this. Might only be possible for HP but it's an idea.

It MIGHT work but wouldn't some people just cat there enemies like normal and farm them so they give up anyway?
Although the idea could work I doubt people would go catting there farms pits down to only lose farms and possible ways of winning :icon_sad:

 

[DeletedUser]

^ might be interesting with unlimited rapid barb growth. i think i'd get bored of a world that you can't conquer in pretty quickly, though.

 

[DeletedUser]

Fresh thought

What about a speeding up the cycle of new worlds, say one a month.

You cannot restart you have to wait for a new world.

Awards for making into last 100, 10 and top spot - sort of gold, silver & bronze medals.

 

[DeletedUser]

[clt]This idea wouldnt be possible im afraid, worlds are run on servers, and servers cost money, to have a load of empty servers wouldnt make good business sense.

However, you may be interested in our Speed Server, check it out - http://forum.tribalwars.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=60[/clt]

 

[DeletedUser]

[th]In my personal point of view one of the major flaws in this game (which also is one of the most important reasons for new and players and those with low to mediocre time to play to quit) is

the attacker decides, when a defender has to be online.​

I would like to hear some opinions from the community about it and whether they have ideas, how to prevent this. This may also include ideas, which would mean a major change in the game play. I'm not saying, that any of them would happen. Yet I'd like to know them nevertheless. ;-)[/th]

Is it possible to incorporate a new feature where the the meeting of the armies can take place outside of the village, on route even ?
Just saying, then the defender can have a hand in deciding what time the battle takes place.

there'd be concessions to make of course, if the defender chooses to meet the attackers army on route to his village, he does not get wall bonuses, maybe even tech penalties, dunno.

But it would be true to the medieval roleplay of the game. Not all battles are sieges.

P.S. To elaborate further, I mean when you see an incoming attack, you can send out your troops to intercept that attack. The point of interception depends on the travel time for your troops to reach the attacking troops.

For example, if a 6 hour attack is launched and three hours later an interception at the same troop speed was launched, then the battle would take place an hour and a half before the landing time.

P.S.S. I had only read the op before posting, but my idea is identical to KV's.

 

[DeletedUser]

^^ How would that then work with support from other players?

Would the tribe be able to also send theres to intercept that said attack on one of thier members?

If the defenders troops were defeated outside the village would the attackers conintue to the village?

Or would it still say the same , you can only support said players villages.

 

[DeletedUser]

Is it possible to incorporate a new feature where the the meeting of the armies can take place outside of the village, on route even ?
Just saying, then the defender can have a hand in deciding what time the battle takes place.

there'd be concessions to make of course, if the defender chooses to meet the attackers army on route to his village, he does not get wall bonuses, maybe even tech penalties, dunno.

But it would be true to the medieval roleplay of the game. Not all battles are sieges.

P.S. To elaborate further, I mean when you see an incoming attack, you can send out your troops to intercept that attack. The point of interception depends on the travel time for your troops to reach the attacking troops.

For example, if a 6 hour attack is launched and three hours later an interception at the same troop speed was launched, then the battle would take place an hour and a half before the landing time.

P.S.S. I had only read the op before posting, but my idea is identical to KV's.

[clt]^ something ive wanted since i started this game![/clt]

 

[DeletedUser]

^^ How would that then work with support from other players?

Would the tribe be able to also send theres to intercept that said attack on one of thier members?

If the defenders troops were defeated outside the village would the attackers conintue to the village?

Or would it still say the same , you can only support said players villages.

Well I'd suggest that tribal support which is already in the defender's village should be able to be sent to intercept the attack, but it cannot be launched by the defender, it can only be launched by the person who's troops it is.

Makes communication and coordination more important. Additionally in order for the support to make a difference, the various intercepts would have to be launched together so that they'd meet the attacking army at the same time. I'm sure a window of a few seconds or even a minute should be okay to permit.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ah now I get you, I never thought of that.

The consept of it is good but I just could't get my head around some of the things that could happen.

And as you suggested the defender wouldn't get his wall bonus, what advantages would the defender have of putting his troops out to fight outside of the village?

 

[DeletedUser]

Ah now I get you, I never thought of that.

The consept of it is good but I just could't get my head around some of the things that could happen.

And as you suggested the defender wouldn't get his wall bonus, what advantages would the defender have of putting his troops out to fight outside of the village?

He doesn't have to wait for the attack to land. Its an answer to the question Thargoran raised.

 

[DeletedUser]

I see that.....but I just can't see why the defender would put himself at a dissadvantage of lossing his wall bonus, and potentially losing the battle.

Unless if the defender sends out his troops to meet the attackers, it also shows up on the attackers account and lowers the attackers tech levels?

 

[DeletedUser]

No the attacker's troops always fight outside the home village and their tech levels aren't reduced, this should not be changed in an intercept.

However, Vheydur and Meechan ask me the same question, why would a defender want to give up his wall bonus and meet the attacker on route ?

For this you need to read Thargoran's OP:

Originally Posted by Thargoran :

In my personal point of view one of the major flaws in this game (which also is one of the most important reasons for new and players and those with low to mediocre time to play to quit) is
the attacker decides, when a defender has to be online.

Under the current system, the defender has to wait for the attack to arrive, and this dictates when he must be online.

Under my proposed model, the defender can influence when the battle takes place and thus schedule his online time's more to his convenience.


I do not think think its a good idea for other villages to be able to also send interceptions to an attack on a particular village, that would over complicate issues, and make the idea difficult to implement.

However if a player has his own support in a village, he may send it to intercept an attack on the village.

Separate attacks should be intercepted separately, if a defense army is sent to intercept one attack, it cannot be sent to intercept another. However this has a major flaw that it makes sniping the easiest thing ever, that has to be corrected.