Should W3 get cheaper nobles?

DeletedUser

Guest
First time post from me :)

Whilst part of me thinks that cheaper nobles would be better because, my god, they are getting expensive. I do however agree that it could be the death-knoll for some of the smaller (yet still active) players....so I am torn!
 

DeletedUser1728

Guest
AngelBear said:
I was asked to poll my members on this by the leader of TFF which I have done. The majority have voted No to cheaper nobles.

The main reason is that the smaller players of the tribe feel they would be wiped out much easier if larger players have resources to make 1000's nobles along with their nukes. They also feel that is should continue to be harder the larger your account gets.

Im not against cheaper nobles in general but dont think that it should be changed during late stages of the game. There are lots of things id like to be changed during late stages of the game ie sitting rules & co-ordinated attack rules etc but this would also benefit some more than others so wouldnt be fair.

I hope this makes sense as I have never posted on the external forums before although I do read them!!

Angel :)
Click to expand...

I think this is where people confuse the issue. Speaking from several years experience leading a tribe, it is down to attitude. Smaller players will remain smaller because:
1. they dont have the activity
2. they play "defence" misunderstanding that the best defence is usually to attack and not just sit stacking other peoples villages
3. they hate villages

The actual cost of nobles wont make any difference. The only time they risk being "wiped out" by a change in noble costs is if the game dynamics are significantly changed, such as reduction to 1 packet nobles after playing an increasing cost world.

Now, I can't see that happening, it is likely to follow a percentage decrease in costs which will maintain game dynamics while encouraging activity - which is good for all players large and small.
 

DeletedUser5582

Guest
Poll has opened and is a majority of votes cast so ty Tracey for setting it up and for having a fair outcome (as inactives/non voters are ignored)

Lets make sure we all vote (whether yes or no) and have our say as that way whatever the outcome can be no moans about the result.

Will cheaper nobles make a difference?

Is no simple answer but for large accounts will mean probably one extra noble per day. For smaller accounts think maybe three or four. Nukes and def still take the same amount of time so game mechanics not being altered on clearing and rebuilding. So all players will be able to grow at the same rate so no advantage given to large accounts v small or vice versa.

What it does mean is that the element of fun will be enhanced and that growth will no longer be slowed forcing folk to wait until next spurt of growth. This means less folk will go inactive which means more fun for us all.

Personally I donlt want to play a world with a sea of grey or brown of dead and dying accounts with huge distances between active players. Using up packets to take dead villas just to get closer to the enemy?! I want red dots close and the banter flying as savour triumph or disaster in equal measure.

If a tribe is strong and vibrant then cheaper nobles will enhance the gameplay whether you are in a large tribe like TFF/shroud Wearers or in a smaller feisty one like Rev!

How you vote is up to you and our poll in TFF had yeses and no's and no pressure put on anyone to vote one way or the other.

Whatever you decide please DO vote!
 

DeletedUser7165

Guest
Looks like its a done deal allready. Where is the option to vote for No Cheaper Nobles At All?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
It's A Yes/No vote and then if 'YES' wins depending on the % majority will reflect the cost reductions. If 'NO' than theres nothing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser5582

Guest
it doesn;t say what will happen if a majority vote no so maybe we will get some clarification. However, you cannot have a world (realistically) with no reduction in price at all as eventually the cost would be so high that no one would noble at all.

Would players sit there (paying premium) for a few months waiting to save up to go noble another villa?

The aim of this poll was to see what reduction people want (quick reduction, steady or slow) as Innogames needs to keep its customers interested in continuing to pay for premium.

The option for no change ever is not there as long term it is not a viable option if you think about it?

Cheap nobles will not benefit large accounts indeed it is smaller players not at their maximum growth level that will benefit most and indeed some in my tribe will vote no as they think that cheap nobles will mean even more 500 points barbs get nobled.

You may want no change at all now but seriously think about the what the UK3 gaming community needs collectively and some reduction (quick or slow) must happen at some point. We are voting on when that process starts. (I guess if majority votes no then poll is run again in the future asking the same question when only Tracey knows). Read the UK1 forum to see what happened and the confusion there and a poll is being run again in May I think.

Folks never like change but on this it must happen or UK3 will die a death from inactivity.
 

DeletedUser4

Guest
[tt]It simple if the No vote wins you get the chance to vote again in 3 months [/tt]
 

DeletedUser1728

Guest
LightyJo said:
Is no simple answer but for large accounts will mean probably one extra noble per day. For smaller accounts think maybe three or four.
Click to expand...
Actually, without putting my maths head on to work it out...

All things being equal, not building villages or recruiting troops, I'm pretty sure everyone can make the same number of nobles per day regardless of village numbers. This is because the noble price increases with each village taken. So you have more villages producing more res, but pay through the nose for nobles, or less villages, less res and cheaper nobles..

I'm sure somebody can go away and do the math. Basically, if for example we can all produce 4 nobles per day, a reduction in 25% costs will mean everyone can produce 5 nobles per day.

A percent reduction in costs doesn't benefit larger players over smaller players, just active players over inactive (which sometimes is one and the same thing...)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Well I have cast my vote on the issue and although I do not think it will make a massive difference I have voted yes
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Tracey said:
[tt]It simple if the No vote wins you get the chance to vote again in 3 months [/tt]
Click to expand...

So if its yes do we get another vote in 3 months as well???? fair or not mmmmmm

plus thought No meant No, not %'s of no.....
 

DeletedUser5528

Guest
batter time said:
So if its yes do we get another vote in 3 months as well???? fair or not mmmmmm

plus thought No meant No, not %'s of no.....
Click to expand...


Yes its fair. You have never said no and changed your mind later ?

Lighten up!!!!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
zzdan480zz said:
Yes its fair. You have never said no and changed your mind later ?

Lighten up!!!!
Click to expand...


Lol.. well dont wanna state the obvious but have you ever said yes and changed your mind later ??

The point of a poll is a definitive answer, not a do over later or compromise, have you ever voted before??
 

DeletedUser

Guest
We vote at least every 5 years....so whats wrong with voting every 3 months?
 

DeletedUser5582

Guest
batter time said:
Lol.. well dont wanna state the obvious but have you ever said yes and changed your mind later ??

The point of a poll is a definitive answer, not a do over later or compromise, have you ever voted before??
Click to expand...

Have never changed my mind :icon_redface:

look the poll was quite clear in two things.

1. That we will get cheaper nobles if a majority wants it

2. That the amount of reduction depended on the size of the majority.

That is definitive I think.

look think folk need to accept that at some point you need cheaper nobles to keep the world (or indeed any world) alive. So if not now then maybe in 3 or 6 months or whenever.

Please don't complain that there is no NOT EVER option as this not feasible for UK3 as a whole not just for an individual player.

If a majority click no then nothing changes until next poll in three months. How is this not fair?

Look Tracey does an impossible job and no way she can keep a 3k player on the rim as happy as well as a larger player but the poll is fair to everyone as we all have an equal say. Please move on from the "its a stitch up and unfair" and instead tell us why cheaper nobles is a bad thing so we can discuss it?

Is that not fair?

So Batter Time why would cheaper nobles be a bad thing for UK3!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
SuicidEd said:
We vote at least every 5 years....so whats wrong with voting every 3 months?
Click to expand...

nothing, the way I read Tracy's statement was that we would vote again in 3 months if poll was no and not if yes..

to put Tracy's statement in context it was a reply to a previous post.

I was commenting on the fact that that seemed unfair, not on the actual issue of cheaper nobles..
 

DeletedUser

Guest
LightyJo
So Batter Time why would cheaper nobles be a bad thing for UK3!
Click to expand...

for some it would not be a bad thing and I can see the advantages of it, but the advantage of waiting for players to save up for new nobles, once killed, can replace lost troops for others,

and I really like w3 and dont want it to end....
 

DeletedUser

Guest
for some it would not be a bad thing and I can see the advantages of it, but the advantage of waiting for players to save up for new nobles, once killed, can replace lost troops for others,
Click to expand...

Sorry totally lost with what you are saying. You lose packets to save for nobles by having to rebuild after attacking, this cost resources. The game is called tribal wars and I believe the idea is to war with other tribes and not just build villages from 500pt barbs.
 

DeletedUser5582

Guest
Just a day or so left on Poll and is very close with a slight majority for the Yes Give me cheaper Nobles now against the No lot. Will be interesting to see why folks voted why they did and see only the one No person has posted their reasons which seems a shame?

Also only 81 folks voted?

So please if you are reading this then mail your tribemates and remind them to vote (yes or no whatever your pleasure) but for goodness sake let us not have it said that only 81 folk voted in UK3 the uber (flicks hair) world of the UK TW site?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top