W1 Discussion - Mods please read

[DeletedUser]

I am totally appalled at what has just happened!!! I totally disagree Luke Bishop! If you and the others feel at such a 'disadvantaged' or bored,,, then you QUIT. Why should other players who are thoroughly enjoying the game as it is (other than 'dirty dealings behind the scenes') have to pay for your alls boredom?

I see players up and quiting more out of what appears to be 'favoritism' toward those who 'squawk' the loudest. For once grantic, I agree rules should only be changed due to 'unfair' methods of play,,,NOT because some 'big boys' are acting so immature and whining about things not going their way.

Players joined this world for a reason, and have stayed playing for a reason,,,,they like it the way it is! Yes there will always be ppl who get bored and quit, or have to quit for reasons of 'rl'. But to get a game changed for just a few players,,,,NO,,,that is NOT RIGHT!!!

 

[DeletedUser6932]

Put it to a vote for w1 make it more democratic after all without players there is no game

Mods think ye should put a little more input into this if any suggestions are viable

 

[DeletedUser]

Put it to a vote for w1 make it more democratic after all without players there is no game

Mods think ye should put a little more input into this if any suggestions are viable

VERY GOOD idea!!!

 

[DeletedUser]

I been thinking about this since this thread was started,,,Ok on the cheaper nobles, BUT how about a 'cap' on the number of nukes a player can send at another player!!! Ya wanna make this 'fair'! How about large players are allowed only a certain number of nukes they can attack a smaller player with. Say per every other day or even per week. Let's make things REALLY interesting!!!

 

[DeletedUser]

Put it to a vote for w1 make it more democratic after all without players there is no game

Mods think ye should put a little more input into this if any suggestions are viable

I entirely agree. Before any rule is changed, Admin should explain why a rule is to be changed and what they are changing it to. Then every player on the world affected should be able to vote YES or NO. Or you could limit voters to Premium Accounts.

It would also remove any possible claims of bias on the part of Admin.

 

[DeletedUser6951]

Really don't get the problem here.
I belong to one of the 'smaller' tribes and I can only see this as a good thing.

We need to remember a few things:

1. All the mods have done so far is close the world to new players and stop rimmed players restarting. At this point that is a sensible move as it would take exceptional circumstances for a 'new' player to make a real impact on the world.

2. Reduced noble cost is being discussed at the moment. As long as it is for everyone then it's fair enough, it will help move things on towards a conclusion. I enjoy this world but I don't want to see it go on for another 5 years tbh.

3. The idea of limiting the number of nukes that can be sent is already done in a way through morale. Putting a numerical limit on it would simply lead to stacking and turtling and effectively 'stalling' the world.

All the things the mods have mentioned have already been implemented on .net, they are nothing 'new'. I've know about the 1000 player rule since it was first implemented on .net. It may be an idea to have these rules stated on the forums though, so they are clear to all.

I agree that any suggestions should be put to a vote but the discussions need to happen. You may enjoy the world as it is but when you have played a world full of mass deletes and ended up surrounded by K after K of barbs you realise that it is in the interests of all players to give the world an opportunity to mature and end.

 

[DeletedUser]

No real issue with the world being close to new players .. there barely were any any-ways.
No issue with the 1000 player, cheaper nobles as that is common practice on .net.

BUT changing any basic game setting such as game speed or resources totally changes the world and shouldn't happen, we all knew the settings when we joined.

May as well say, remove travel limits for nobles and get rid of churches .... such changes change the whole basis of the game ... and if their changing the game, then I would like a refund .. if I wanted a high speed world or massive barbs , no churches and unlimited travel distances or no fake limit .. then I would have joined that sort of world.

 

[DeletedUser]

I been thinking about this since this thread was started,,,Ok on the cheaper nobles, BUT how about a 'cap' on the number of nukes a player can send at another player!!! Ya wanna make this 'fair'! How about large players are allowed only a certain number of nukes they can attack a smaller player with. Say per every other day or even per week. Let's make things REALLY interesting!!!

Wouldn`t work, the player defending could re-stack between each hour of attacks. Plus it`s not fair on the attacking player, if he/she has worked too get all there vills and cant use there O to its full potential because the cap.

 

[DeletedUser2918]

not sure if anyone has put forward the idea of getting rid of churches or the noble distance to be honest..........

so in principle i am against any other changes that have not been explicitly mentioned, discussed, or brought up by anyone at anytime whatsoever

:icon_rolleyes:

and Kilroy - you do know the aim of tribalwars is not to keep the longevity of the world going for evermore dont you? in case you're not aware the aim is world domination.....i.e. a world does not keep going without ever stopping.

 

[DeletedUser]

and Kilroy - you do know the aim of tribalwars is not to keep the longevity of the world going for evermore dont you? in case you're not aware the aim is world domination.....i.e. a world does not keep going without ever stopping.

Alas, it is not me who is complaining about being bored of W1 and demanding change. Moreover, it is predominantly W1N members who are.

My idea was simply to make it more of a challenge for W1N by restricting the number of actual nukes that can be sent; this would alieve the boredom, yes?

Kilroy

 

[DeletedUser]

Wouldn`t work, the player defending could re-stack between each hour of attacks. Plus it`s not fair on the attacking player, if he/she has worked too get all there vills and cant use there O to its full potential because the cap.

Would be just as fair in truth,,,as it takes a lot longer building that defense that it does the offense nuke. So looks to me it would prove to even things out just a bit more. Like I said,,,makes things more interesting,,,besides challenging.

 

[DeletedUser5175]

Would be just as fair in truth,,,as it takes a lot longer building that defense that it does the offense nuke. So looks to me it would prove to even things out just a bit more. Like I said,,,makes things more interesting,,,besides challenging.

Not really more interesting :icon_rolleyes:

It may take longer to build the defense but the full defensive nuke is stronger

Limiting the amount of nukes will only encourage turtling

 

[DeletedUser]

3. The idea of limiting the number of nukes that can be sent is already done in a way through morale. Putting a numerical limit on it would simply lead to stacking and turtling and effectively 'stalling' the world.

Not really just means a player has a better chance vs a huge player dont help when 10 guys all throw 200 nukes at you i think there should be some kind of limit on attacks that can be sent but i dont see any fair way of implimenting it that the defender couldnt find a work around the fact that some one can have over 1000+ inc is laughable (you would have to have no life to sit at the pc every day sorting out 1000+ inc lol)

 

[DeletedUser]

Would be just as fair in truth,,,as it takes a lot longer building that defense that it does the offense nuke. So looks to me it would prove to even things out just a bit more. Like I said,,,makes things more interesting,,,besides challenging.

You can make defense thats very affective just a tad slower than a nuke only takes ages when you make defence out of pure spear sword archers

 

[DeletedUser]

I been thinking about this since this thread was started,,,Ok on the cheaper nobles, BUT how about a 'cap' on the number of nukes a player can send at another player!!! Ya wanna make this 'fair'! How about large players are allowed only a certain number of nukes they can attack a smaller player with. Say per every other day or even per week. Let's make things REALLY interesting!!!

Morale and being able to stack defence (but not offence) takes care of big players v small players. Already unrealistic enough!

 

[DeletedUser]

Would be just as fair in truth,,,as it takes a lot longer building that defense that it does the offense nuke. So looks to me it would prove to even things out just a bit more. Like I said,,,makes things more interesting,,,besides challenging.

Well if its fair too put a cap on nukes, then is it fair too give an attacker hitting a stacked vill an att bonus, like 20% more OFF power.

 

[DeletedUser4]

[tt]Having read this thread again today I feel a couple of things need to be made clear

As of now all that has been put in place is the world is being closed to new registrations and restarts after rimming. This is not something that has been done due to this thread, I requested it about a month ago and only got the reply yesterday hence my announcement.

Reduced noble costs MAY come in, it is not something that is guaranteed in any way but it will not even be considered until there are less than 1000 players on UK1. Once these numbers have been reached an ingame poll will be run to see what the players want. This outcome will be discussed with those above me and a decision will then be made on the way forward for the world.

As for the other suggestions within this thread on caps, bonus's etc none of these will happen. The world will be played out with the setting it has now with the one exception of the cost of nobles should that be agreed.

These decisions are not something that will be made to benefit any one particular tribe/player if it is not something that the majority of players want then it will not proceed any further. The closing of the world to new registrations was a sensible decision made due to the world now being active for 19 months and no new player would stand a chance of getting anywhere if they joined now.

Tracey[/tt]

 

[DeletedUser589]

Alas, it is not me who is complaining about being bored of W1 and demanding change. Moreover, it is predominantly W1N members who are.

My idea was simply to make it more of a challenge for W1N by restricting the number of actual nukes that can be sent; this would alieve the boredom, yes?

Kilroy

Actually Kilroy it is not mostly W1N players moaning about things. I the leader of W1N have been discussing such ideas with other Tw leaders and players and decided to open it up for discussion amongst the whole community. What I didn't expect was to get narrow minded responses from the likes of you and black falcon who are simply whining about the fact I like to look at ways to improve a product/service I'm paying for and enjoy a discussion about it all. THe cheaper nobles were taken from something .net all ready does and thought it would be a good idea for W1 so that every player can grow faster. W1N are the most successful tribe on this world with the current settings so I'm not going to be too bothered if nothing changes. But I'd like to think that as a community we are in a position to be able to openly discuss ways that could improve everyones gameplay.

Reading back over the more sensible posts I agree changing the settings with regards to resources wouldn't be a benefit to all and I accept that and thank those who contributed as I can not see it from everyones points of view. Similar to the deletion option, there are clearly a lot of issues with this, but it's always good to keep discussing.

Cheaper nobles though I see no reason why anyone would stop this?
As for limiting nukes thats punishing players with the skill to out grow others which is stupid in my eyes. Also his exists in a way with the moral penalty I have to pay.

Blackfalcon and killjoy, get off the anti W1N wagon and start joining in a community discussion without your blinkers on and we can get someway to improving a good game without your whinging!

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually Kilroy it is not mostly W1N players moaning about things. I the leader of W1N have been discussing such ideas with other Tw leaders and players and decided to open it up for discussion amongst the whole community. What I didn't expect was to get narrow minded responses from the likes of you and black falcon who are simply whining about the fact I like to look at ways to improve a product/service I'm paying for and enjoy a discussion about it all. THe cheaper nobles were taken from something .net all ready does and thought it would be a good idea for W1 so that every player can grow faster. W1N are the most successful tribe on this world with the current settings so I'm not going to be too bothered if nothing changes. But I'd like to think that as a community we are in a position to be able to openly discuss ways that could improve everyones gameplay.

Reading back over the more sensible posts I agree changing the settings with regards to resources wouldn't be a benefit to all and I accept that and thank those who contributed as I can not see it from everyones points of view. Similar to the deletion option, there are clearly a lot of issues with this, but it's always good to keep discussing.

Cheaper nobles though I see no reason why anyone would stop this?
As for limiting nukes thats punishing players with the skill to out grow others which is stupid in my eyes. Also his exists in a way with the moral penalty I have to pay.

Blackfalcon and killjoy, get off the anti W1N wagon and start joining in a community discussion without your blinkers on and we can get someway to improving a good game without your whinging!

Did I accuse W1N of moaning? No. I stated that they were bored, which you cannot deny, as your members have said as much on this thread. As such, I was suggesting a way of promoting a more challenging element; allowing smaller players to have more of a chance to defend themselves against larger members if, for example, their was a ratio on size difference per nuke.

You accuse me of being narrow-minded? Hardly. A limitation on nukes would provide a greater challenge for W1N to use fakes and such, rather than brute force when battling smaller players - if anything, I consider this to be broad-minded, as it gives a challenging element to the W1N players and a reasonable chance of success for the other tribes.

When have I said anything anti-W1N in here? As far as I am aware, I am partaking in a community discussion from a neutral perspective.

As you say, W1N are the most successful tribe on here, and do not necessarily need rule changes. One minute, you are attempting to promote a fairer chance for smaller members to survive, and then criticise me for offering a theory.

Contradiction.

Kilroy

 

[DeletedUser589]

Kilroy your previous posts opens with the comment that W1N are predominantly the ones moaning, so yes you did say it.

Your idea is like making a faster man in the olympics run with weights to slow him down so that others have a chance. That to me makes no sense in a competition based game. That's why I made my comments.

It is no secret you fly the anti-W1N flag and it shows within your posts.
Can you honestly say that cheaper nobles And the world closing is bad for w1?