UK10 Survey

DeletedUser

Guest
Tracey said:
Over the weekend I was asked my opinion on an issue relating to the tribe loock and being extremely sick, I should not have answered, however as i have always tried to deal with issues as soon as they arrise I made a decision which was wrong.


My proposal is in three parts:-


1. Clarification of the word Internal in relation to sit accounts - this means the villages are for the tribe the account is in, if you wish to give your villages to another tribe whilst under a tribe lock situation then you have to play your own account whilst its broken up.


2. When in a tribe lock world no sitters outside the tribe will be allowed, should a sitter be set that is not part of your tribe then a duke can ticket the support system to have your sit ended.


3. and this is in relation to UK10 only the tribe lock will be lifted until such time as the first mega village is nobled. 24 hours after the nobling has occurred the tribe lock will be reinstated for the rest of the world.


Please accept my apologies for a mistake I made and I hope that the above will rectify this. I have set up a poll which you can locate under settings then surveys to gain your agreement to this. Will be a short run poll lasting 36 hours only so you will need to ensure that you encourage your tribe members to vote.


My apologies once again,


Tracey

Was kind off hoping there could be options to agree/disagree to each individual point but not causing a fuss, its not a big deal.

But anyway, made this thread so UK10 players can discuss the matter and engage in forum debate (no flaming ideally, but meh).

Sorry in advance if Tracey doesn't want this thread up, if so, just delete it, I'm not sure whether surveys can be discussed or not, but delete this thread if its not allowed.

~Adellion
 

DeletedUser

Guest


I'm actually very confused with the last point. Why would tribelock be removed? What connection has it to do with mega village?

Anyone got a better understanding of it than me?

 

DeletedUser

Guest


I'm actually very confused with the last point. Why would tribelock be removed? What connection has it to do with mega village?

Anyone got a better understanding of it than me?


Yeah, I personally don't see the need to remove tribelock, but that's just me... Anyone have any ideas? :eek:
 

DeletedUser7369

Guest
I think that this thread should be more active.....is like politics, need an open discussion and debate before voting to ensure you are fully informed and not voting in ignorance.

I like the proposal but then i have a mate in war that doesnt want to be there so i am biased.
 

DeletedUser10658

Guest
2. When in a tribe lock world no sitters outside the tribe will be allowed, should a sitter be set that is not part of your tribe then a duke can ticket the support system to have your sit ended.

So if I was to take a sit from a player from another tribe (which I do every so often for friends in smaller tribes) am I technically breaking the rules? I mean the dukes of those tribes dont mind me doing it, but if they wanted to be funny about it, could I get in trouble?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
So if I was to take a sit from a player from another tribe (which I do every so often for friends in smaller tribes) am I technically breaking the rules? I mean the dukes of those tribes dont mind me doing it, but if they wanted to be funny about it, could I get in trouble?

The way I read it, is that a duke can get the sitter removed, he doesn't have to
 

DeletedUser10658

Guest
Thought that. But as well as getting the sit removed will I be getting in trouble?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Thought that. But as well as getting the sit removed will I be getting in trouble?

I would hope not.

Though tbh, sitting an account in another tribe the sat account informing the duke of said tribe is asking to get booted.
 

DeletedUser10658

Guest
I would hope not.

Though tbh, sitting an account in another tribe the sat account informing the duke of said tribe is asking to get booted.

Very true.

3. - Does this not make a bit of a mockery of all the hard work the top two tribes put in leading up to tribelock? Based on recent events I understand the first 2. But the 3rd one does not fit into what I think these rules are trying to achieve!

These rules are trying to stop another tribe having a permanent sit in an opposition tribe? I think they probably achieve them quite well, all except 3. Unless I am missing something.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I like the proposal but then i have a mate in war that doesnt want to be there so i am biased.

The trouble with this is where does it end? I dislike a lot of the settings on this, mainly the inability to support outside of tribe. Should we put that to the vote?

Or perhaps the fake setting? Another area that was detailed in the settings page before the world opened. But hey ho, My tribe no longer like this setting, so can the mods put this up for a vote to be removed?

How about some of the settings which weren't public knowledge, such as the slow growing barbs. On the settings page it says barbs grow to 3.75k points. Talk about misleading! The average barb in my area is 450 points after 5 months. At this rate it will be a couple of years before they reach their maximum size. That's been an annoyance for many players, and even caused me to play a way I don't like to play. This setting was misleading, but alas no vote for this.

The mega villages is perhaps another one. I'd love any mod to play this world for a few weeks, and tell me they're designed as intended. In truth their strengths is extremely overbearing, and are clearly designed for a world much much bigger than this one has turned out to be. The number of nukes it will take to clear this first mega village, would a top tribes total nuke capacity two-threefold. The mega villages will continually get harder and harder to clear. The percentage of a tribes nukes it will take to clear, even later in the game, will be so high, that I'd be suprised to see 1/2 of them nobled by end game. A nice idea for a settting, but one which needs ammending to the current worlds abilities in my opinion.

In comparision, the Tribe Lock is a massive, pivotal component of this world. Over 5 months of preparations, selections, strategical forethought and ambitions went into adjusting to this setting. To say each tribe built on this foundation stone is an understatement.

The powers that be have already changed a massive part of this setting. I have mixed feelings about the changes put in place at the weekend, but this goes way beyond the "In the Spirit of the Game" mentality. By already adjusting the settings, they have nullified plans that those, who tried to be prepared, had made.

And not there's a vote to remove tribe lock altogether? I'm still actually really confused where this idea came from and why this proposal was put in? I can sort of see reasons for the other 2 points, but this third one is so random in my eyes, and to all accounts, a game changer.


 

DeletedUser

Guest
i don't think tribe lock should be suspended. my plan has long been to persuade/dupe a baron of one of the top 2 to invite me so i can thereafter just log on every fortnight and be in with a chance of winning.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
The trouble with this is where does it end? I dislike a lot of the settings on this, mainly the inability to support outside of tribe. Should we put that to the vote?

Agree.

Or perhaps the fake setting? Another area that was detailed in the settings page before the world opened. But hey ho, My tribe no longer like this setting, so can the mods put this up for a vote to be removed?

Agree.

How about some of the settings which weren't public knowledge, such as the slow growing barbs. On the settings page it says barbs grow to 3.75k points. Talk about misleading! The average barb in my area is 450 points after 5 months. At this rate it will be a couple of years before they reach their maximum size. That's been an annoyance for many players, and even caused me to play a way I don't like to play. This setting was misleading, but alas no vote for this.

Couldn't agree more, the barbs here are too slow, they need to be upped in growth speed.

The mega villages is perhaps another one. I'd love any mod to play this world for a few weeks, and tell me they're designed as intended. In truth their strengths is extremely overbearing, and are clearly designed for a world much much bigger than this one has turned out to be. The number of nukes it will take to clear this first mega village, would a top tribes total nuke capacity two-threefold. The mega villages will continually get harder and harder to clear. The percentage of a tribes nukes it will take to clear, even later in the game, will be so high, that I'd be suprised to see 1/2 of them nobled by end game. A nice idea for a settting, but one which needs ammending to the current worlds abilities in my opinion.

Again, couldn't agree more. The mega village is too powerful at present, I think the mods expected both tribes to hit it, but they put it too far from EvoLTR territory, and deep enough in WAR territory to make EvoLTR unwilling to hit it at all. That is why W.A.R on their own are struggling to take it. Because its designed to soak up the biggest tribe's nukes, but since only half the world is bothering with it, and the other half ignores it, the mega village is unlikely to be cleared before the next one turns up.

And now that the first one turned up in W.A.R territory, the other will have to turn up in EvoLTR territory to make it fair and balanced, which measn EvoLTR will burn nukes wiping out the 2nd mega village.

Then I would hope the next one is LITERALLY on the frontline with both tribes. Let's not bother considering any other tribes in this world, they hardly matter, and they have no chance of taking the village, so the mods need not try and involve them; they are beyond hope.


In comparision, the Tribe Lock is a massive, pivotal component of this world. Over 5 months of preparations, selections, strategical forethought and ambitions went into adjusting to this setting. To say each tribe built on this foundation stone is an understatement.

The powers that be have already changed a massive part of this setting. I have mixed feelings about the changes put in place at the weekend, but this goes way beyond the "In the Spirit of the Game" mentality. By already adjusting the settings, they have nullified plans that those, who tried to be prepared, had made.

Totally agree. Points 1 & 2 I agree with, but I disagree with removing tribelock.

And not there's a vote to remove tribe lock altogether? I'm still actually really confused where this idea came from and why this proposal was put in? I can sort of see reasons for the other 2 points, but this third one is so random in my eyes, and to all accounts, a game changer.

I wouldn't want tribelock removed. ^ No idea where the idea came from. And yes, don't see the point of removing tribelock.


Red.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Yeah think everyone agrees the removal of tribe lock is random n unnecessary :S Don't see how it has anything whatsoever to do with resolving the situation that kicked this all off in the first place! First 2 do the job though =) Going to assume majority of the No's in the survey are aimed at the third suggestion and the Yes' are aimed at the first two xD So not very helpful!
 

DeletedUser7369

Guest
The trouble with this is where does it end? I dislike a lot of the settings on this, mainly the inability to support outside of tribe. Should we put that to the vote?

Or perhaps the fake setting? Another area that was detailed in the settings page before the world opened. But hey ho, My tribe no longer like this setting, so can the mods put this up for a vote to be removed?

How about some of the settings which weren't public knowledge, such as the slow growing barbs. On the settings page it says barbs grow to 3.75k points. Talk about misleading! The average barb in my area is 450 points after 5 months. At this rate it will be a couple of years before they reach their maximum size. That's been an annoyance for many players, and even caused me to play a way I don't like to play. This setting was misleading, but alas no vote for this.

The mega villages is perhaps another one. I'd love any mod to play this world for a few weeks, and tell me they're designed as intended. In truth their strengths is extremely overbearing, and are clearly designed for a world much much bigger than this one has turned out to be. The number of nukes it will take to clear this first mega village, would a top tribes total nuke capacity two-threefold. The mega villages will continually get harder and harder to clear. The percentage of a tribes nukes it will take to clear, even later in the game, will be so high, that I'd be suprised to see 1/2 of them nobled by end game. A nice idea for a settting, but one which needs ammending to the current worlds abilities in my opinion.

In comparision, the Tribe Lock is a massive, pivotal component of this world. Over 5 months of preparations, selections, strategical forethought and ambitions went into adjusting to this setting. To say each tribe built on this foundation stone is an understatement.

The powers that be have already changed a massive part of this setting. I have mixed feelings about the changes put in place at the weekend, but this goes way beyond the "In the Spirit of the Game" mentality. By already adjusting the settings, they have nullified plans that those, who tried to be prepared, had made.

And not there's a vote to remove tribe lock altogether? I'm still actually really confused where this idea came from and why this proposal was put in? I can sort of see reasons for the other 2 points, but this third one is so random in my eyes, and to all accounts, a game changer.



so many valid points.

I agree the 3rd point is a game changer and should not be part of the vote. I just happen to see a personal benefit to it. that doesnt mean i agree with it...

points 1 and 2 i think are perfectly justifiable and would like to see them implemented. Specifically the internal part as i had much fun debating with moderators how they could define the nobling of silent warrior as internalling given all the villages ended up external to both his account and tribe.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Hopefully Tracey will see this and consider :)

A player in EvoLTR sent a ticket on behalf of the council stating that the majority of people agree with 1) & 2) but not with 3), perhaps Lakadaem/GIXXER, you could suggest the same with a ticket, marked as "Other"? :)
 

GIXXER

UK10 Winner
Reaction score
12
Firstly, i will say Im not going to or have a pop at any evoL member here, I've gone far past caring about flame wars and personal vendetas.

Child Lock.
I feel I must air my thoughts and views on world 10 and the failings of the TW staff. Clara and myself have prepared our tribe for many, many months leading up to tribe lock, recruiting only the best available players, and covering every eventuality that should arise in a tribe lock situation. Our passion for building such a tribe is even well known amongst some IG staff.

I feel very, very, hard done by. Rules have been quick changed in favour of evoL on 2 occasions now. Firstly with the removal of an account from their tribe past the tribelock date. Secondly the sit is ended again in favor of evoL.

Now we are told accounts can be removed from tribes by simply requesting it. I am so angry, and it is unacceptable to have moderation interfering with either the sits (when we operate within the rules) and indeed our very own account.

We have followed all rules and have acted within all the set conditions in this world. Introducing yet another rule change (trying to cover previous failings) is just a further insult to us. These have clearly all been in evols favour, as they are the ones who hold the inactive accounts.

I have watched as the GIXXER name, having been accused of all sorts over this matter, and it's seriously not on. We used fore thought when the rest of you failed to.

Any trust I had in the uk server and staff is now non existent.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
In this situation obviously we have benefited because it was us who were being screwed over by a flaw in the set up and you guys who were benefiting from taking advantage of it! But in the long run it makes things better all round! Would have just got petty with both tribes having sits within each other's tribes. So yes ok you got a sit taken away from you but you should never have been allowed to have it in the first place. I dont think its entirely necessary to remove inactives from tribes. If players go inactive in tribe lock it should be tough poo really! But players should either have to pass the sit to a tribe mate or hit delete not pass the sit to the enemy. Least this way it can't happen again and means we cant take sits within your tribe now either =)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
In this situation obviously we have benefited because it was us who were being screwed over by a flaw in the set up and you guys who were benefiting from taking advantage of it! But in the long run it makes things better all round! Would have just got petty with both tribes having sits within each other's tribes. So yes ok you got a sit taken away from you but you should never have been allowed to have it in the first place. I dont think its entirely necessary to remove inactives from tribes. If players go inactive in tribe lock it should be tough poo really! But players should either have to pass the sit to a tribe mate or hit delete not pass the sit to the enemy. Least this way it can't happen again and means we cant take sits within your tribe now either =)

Totally agree. Yet again, GIXXER is unable to comprehend that he (inadvertently) exploited a loophole in the tribelock system, and is complaining about losing an unfair advantage. We (EvoLTR) fully support clarity and fairness, so that only our skill dictates who wins.

A chronic display of "nimbyism" GIXXER, if I do say so myself. You would support these changes if it weren't for your loss.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser7369

Guest
To my mind point 1 simply defines internal as being ...well internal... which is what evoltr took it to mean all along and which in turn is why, on a tribe lock world, we felt a player quitting would be unable to set an outside sitter to oversee their account being distributed externally. This was the cause of my many complaints to the moderators about the situation.

Gixxer repeatedly states we should have foreseen the possibility of an outside sit. Well I did, i also thought removing forum access would make it a pointless thing because of the rules on internalling. However, the moderators took the same view as Gixxer and felt that it was fine. We have to accept this and appreciate that the moderators have a thankless task overseeing the grey areas of the rules.

Point 2 is most certainly a complete change from what we started the game expecting and it would appear to favour EvoLTR because we have yet to take advantage of a sit in an enemy tribe. On the other hand we have been offered them but simply felt that it would be against the spirit of the game. I therefore welcome the proposal which will remove this temptation from me. Given that my willpower was failing I am 100% certain that this is therefore a benefit to WAR who took advantage of it whilst legal and will be saved from my petty retribution.

So, having determined WAR benefit from this change too I am left to wonder if it is a good change or not. Does it change the game significantly? yes. Will it help us? it offers as many disadvantages as advantages to not to any great extent. Therefore its down to whether it will improve the game. I think it will. The point of a tribelock world was (at least in my mind) to encourage closer co-operation and teamwork. With that in mind setting of outside sitters is completely against the objective of the world and not in keeping with the spirit intended. Therefore i support point 2.

Point 3. This does nothing to clarify the rules or to support the original objective of the world as i saw it. As a result i oppose this change.


In conclusion I wish that it was possible to pick and choose so we get 1 and 2 but not
point 3 is a complete change and not something that i would support.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top