DeletedUser
Guest
Fair enough, and thankyou for being straight with us, and giving us the option to vote in the first place 
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
DeletedUser6944
Guest
Perhaps we should also look at the fact that how can 50% of world one not be bothered to vote on a issue so important as reduced cost of nobles?
Those that didnt bother to vote obviously are not playing this game in any sort of serious level.
rank
500 golden slayer LRAG 227.227 28
600 dacc *FW* 67.724 13
700 lukeisme *B~D* 13.484 3
rank 500 player is 200k points
rank 600 is 67k points
rank 700 player is 13k points......how many times does he log on? once a week? once evry 2 weeks?
these players dont even need to buy premium.
rank 666 cripnipp WULFFS 21.812 6
whilst all the hardcore players are spending bundles of cash on premium for a world that is not going anywhere, im sure people here will understand what i am trying to say.
its along the lines of, your holding the whole world hostage for players on this world that do not even play.
Was there not a promise of reduced nobles once the world player count falls below a 1000?
i or any other 5-6 million point player can conquer every player above rank 500-1000 all by myself, and i can guarantee that, even if every player from rank 500 to rank 1000 works against me.
i can think of some choice words to use but this a joke, waited for so long for cheaper nobles and stil have to put up with this turtle speed game and sim city style internal wars,
dont even have the nobles to internal let alone conquer the enemy.
look at the points of players from rank 1-1000 and then judge how many of the active population votes you need to justify the direction this world leads but its not 66.6%
you dont even have 66.6% of these players buying premium...
Those that didnt bother to vote obviously are not playing this game in any sort of serious level.
rank
500 golden slayer LRAG 227.227 28
600 dacc *FW* 67.724 13
700 lukeisme *B~D* 13.484 3
rank 500 player is 200k points
rank 600 is 67k points
rank 700 player is 13k points......how many times does he log on? once a week? once evry 2 weeks?
these players dont even need to buy premium.
rank 666 cripnipp WULFFS 21.812 6
whilst all the hardcore players are spending bundles of cash on premium for a world that is not going anywhere, im sure people here will understand what i am trying to say.
its along the lines of, your holding the whole world hostage for players on this world that do not even play.
Was there not a promise of reduced nobles once the world player count falls below a 1000?
i or any other 5-6 million point player can conquer every player above rank 500-1000 all by myself, and i can guarantee that, even if every player from rank 500 to rank 1000 works against me.
i can think of some choice words to use but this a joke, waited for so long for cheaper nobles and stil have to put up with this turtle speed game and sim city style internal wars,
dont even have the nobles to internal let alone conquer the enemy.
look at the points of players from rank 1-1000 and then judge how many of the active population votes you need to justify the direction this world leads but its not 66.6%
you dont even have 66.6% of these players buying premium...
DeletedUser
Guest
a shambles.
DeletedUser1942
Guest
Yep being handed a 6 million account or higher you dont need ability you just keep using the nukes! Some of us have started from ground up. And would like to keep it that way. We know for a fact there are SEVERAL w1n players NOT the original players.
You are clueless.
Yes, W1N have new owners on accounts - it saves mass internalling. To only mention W1N in this though is ridiculous. ORC, LRAG, FPB, T4H, AK - all of these tribes ALSO have accounts where the owners are not originals.
Some people on this world do need to wake up a lot, and look at the bigger picture - W1N arent actually the only tribe on this world, we will be one day, but until then there are still a few other tribes.
DeletedUser2961
Guest
I am so angry about this, that I am actually tempted to speak to a solicitor, and as a close family member is a solicitor, its not a bad suggestion.
In a general election, the government doesn't say "Oh we cant count that as only half the country could be bothered to vote"
Watch this space........
In a general election, the government doesn't say "Oh we cant count that as only half the country could be bothered to vote"
Watch this space........
DeletedUser6323
Guest
You can't be serious...getting a solicitor for an online game? Key operative words being online game. It's just a game for frick's sake. The stipulations of the vote have not been met. 66.6% did not vote. Therefore your 'solicitor' will have no case.
lol come on people, it's a GAME...me thinks that anyone who brings in a lawyer to w1nge about reduced noble costs in a GAME needs to get outside a little more...
lol come on people, it's a GAME...me thinks that anyone who brings in a lawyer to w1nge about reduced noble costs in a GAME needs to get outside a little more...
DeletedUser2918
Guest
well from what ive heard all those who wanted it can thank, in part, pOrcers - who mass ticketed the mods yesterday to complain. But then again seeing as they have a net loss of 125 villages a week when we get to the new vote in a few months time their votes arent really gonna be a problem :icon_biggrin:
all i can suggest to those wanting cheaper nobles is to start taking out those tiny players down to zero points so they get removed. Unfortunately most of them are on the rim so i cant get to them :icon_twisted:
all i can suggest to those wanting cheaper nobles is to start taking out those tiny players down to zero points so they get removed. Unfortunately most of them are on the rim so i cant get to them :icon_twisted:
DeletedUser6323
Guest
well from what ive heard all those who wanted it can thank, in part, pOrcers - who mass ticketed the mods yesterday to complain.
lol did they really? What on earth were they trying to accomplish other than to piss off the mods?
I absolutely do think that Tracy and co came up with a brilliant comprimise between those of us who did and did not want reduced nobles. But even that wasn't good enough for some...so way to go those that complained. Instead of getting what you wanted, or even eventually getting what you wanted, you've just gone and ruined the chances for another few months instead of taking a pretty reasonable comprimise.
Thumbs up to you all!
DeletedUser2961
Guest
This whole thing is a farce......
Originally Posted by Tracey
We are following the same rules as .net for noble cost reduction these being:~
< 1000 for 0.5
< 500 for 0.333
Then we retract on that, then we go to a poll, then we retract on those rules, then we come up with another poll, then we retract on that.
Traceys first statement should have stayed and not been retracted on.
Its no hardship for me. I just mention it in our daily chats, he looks into it.
Originally Posted by Tracey
We are following the same rules as .net for noble cost reduction these being:~
< 1000 for 0.5
< 500 for 0.333
Then we retract on that, then we go to a poll, then we retract on those rules, then we come up with another poll, then we retract on that.
Traceys first statement should have stayed and not been retracted on.
Its no hardship for me. I just mention it in our daily chats, he looks into it.
DeletedUser
Guest
Perhaps we should also look at the fact that how can 50% of world one not be bothered to vote on a issue so important as reduced cost of nobles?
Those that didnt bother to vote obviously are not playing this game in any sort of serious level.
THIS ^
This is the main point.
Not voting has penalised those who did vote.
On the basis of the vote, around 25% of the world wanted cheaper nobles (slight majority), 25% didn't.
But the non-vote of 50% has been weighted on the "no" side so it becomes "only 25% of the world wanted cheaper nobles." Tracey's words.
This is wrong and defeats the point of the vote.
Hopefully the next vote will be set at a 50% majority that will encourage everyone to vote and will give some definitive clarification.
As it stands, it's been a mess.
DeletedUser6944
Guest
This whole thing is a farce......
Originally Posted by Tracey
We are following the same rules as .net for noble cost reduction these being:~
< 1000 for 0.5
< 500 for 0.333
Then we retract on that, then we go to a poll, then we retract on those rules, then we come up with another poll, then we retract on that.
Traceys first statement should have stayed and not been retracted on.
Its no hardship for me. I just mention it in our daily chats, he looks into it.
Thank you, i remember reading that, but that's not what we are geting, we should technically have half price nobles right now.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser1942
Guest
Thank you, i remember reading that, buts that not what we are geting, we should technically have half price nobles right now.
Thats right we should - but apparently it would be unfair to smaller players for this to happen :icon_rolleyes:
Despite the fact that everyone has had similar time to build there accounts, and get it into strong positions.
Looks like larger members will just need to nuke the world into oblivion
DeletedUser
Guest
I guess we shall have to voice our frustrations direct to InnoGames then?
Thanks for wasting our time to discuss, vote and discuss further Tracey. You are a credit to Mods.
Thanks for wasting our time to discuss, vote and discuss further Tracey. You are a credit to Mods.
DeletedUser
Guest
Thank you, i remember reading that, buts that not what we are geting, we should technically have half price nobles right now.
I think these expectations are completely wrong, and I'm sure that any solicitor would laugh of the idea of actually sueing. (mainly because almost all online games say we reserve the right to do whatever we like with the game)
Templars I notice you said, "dont even have the nobles to internal let alone conquer the enemy." Firstly why is the proprity on internals if you dont want to play sim city? and secondly as buch proved, by shooting me down :icon_redface:, everyone has the ability to make 2 nobles per day. So hit the enemy with that.
I have to say I think for the next poll itshould go to the majority verdict, rather than the majority of the world. Seems fair that everyone has the opportunity to vote and be counted. I then think, based on the % success (if it is) they should propose a system that reflects this (similar to what was going to be done)
DeletedUser
Guest
I have to say I think for the next poll itshould go to the majority verdict, rather than the majority of the world. Seems fair that everyone has the opportunity to vote and be counted. I then think, based on the % success (if it is) they should propose a system that reflects this (similar to what was going to be done)
Can't agree with that enough.
DeletedUser
Guest
Can't agree with that enough.
Assuming you voted yes, an I did vote no, that is comming from people on both sides of the initial argument. Seems atleast like its worth considering.
DeletedUser6944
Guest
I think these expectations are completely wrong, and I'm sure that any solicitor would laugh of the idea of actually sueing. (mainly because almost all online games say we reserve the right to do whatever we like with the game)
Templars I notice you said, "dont even have the nobles to internal let alone conquer the enemy." Firstly why is the proprity on internals if you dont want to play sim city? and secondly as buch proved, by shooting me down :icon_redface:, everyone has the ability to make 2 nobles per day. So hit the enemy with that.
I have to say I think for the next poll itshould go to the majority verdict, rather than the majority of the world. Seems fair that everyone has the opportunity to vote and be counted. I then think, based on the % success (if it is) they should propose a system that reflects this (similar to what was going to be done)
Deathstars buddy, no one wants a red dot pop up next to them, which is what happens when you leave a big barb next to you long enough. Then you would have to waste 10-20 nukes pounding the target to clear it.
Also when it comes to attacking and taking multiple vills from then enemy at the same time is better than taking one village waitng a few days for nobles then to find all the vills near the one you nobled are stacked to the moon and back, whereas before you might have already cleared them along with the vill that you conquered or been lucky enough to find a bunch of vills in a previously weakly defended area.
i hope that makes sense
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
Assuming you voted yes, an I did vote no, that is comming from people on both sides of the initial argument. Seems atleast like its worth considering.
Yup, I voted yes but saw the suggested measures as a fair representation of the actual vote.
My main concern from the start was that the vote was flawed and was going to cause more problems than it would solve, appease no-one and that's definitely been the case.
Still amazed how something as tried and tested as a yes/no vote has been so spectacularly messed up.
DeletedUser2918
Guest
it does make sense templars
end of the day i joined a church world - churches are supposed to add an extra bit of tactics to a game. However - if i can only noble 1 village a day - even if this is the persons church - then they have 24 hours to build a new church in the village next door. Ample time :icon_rolleyes:
end of the day i joined a church world - churches are supposed to add an extra bit of tactics to a game. However - if i can only noble 1 village a day - even if this is the persons church - then they have 24 hours to build a new church in the village next door. Ample time :icon_rolleyes:
DeletedUser
Guest
Templar, I do understand the reasons for taking internals. It must be done or you're lkeaving a tactical gap foryour enimies to exploit.
Chris: Explan to me why everyone doesnt have that problem? :icon_wink:
Chris: Explan to me why everyone doesnt have that problem? :icon_wink:
Share:
