DeletedUser
Guest
Your all reaping the rewards of your own doing. Nobody told you all to noble every barb in sight. Oh boo hoo, now that the worlds gone and done it the world asks for cheaper nobles lol!
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.
DeletedUser
Guest
Your all reaping the rewards of your own doing. Nobody told you all to noble every barb in sight. Oh boo hoo, now that the worlds gone and done it the world asks for cheaper nobles lol!
Now thats not quite true is it. W1N nobles lots of enemies not barbs:icon_rolleyes:
DeletedUser
Guest
In fact cheaper nobles are not, as someone said, of equal benefit to everybody. They most benefit those whose noble costs are a limiting issue - the largest players.
I had always assumed that this was a design feature, helping to make contests between larger and smaller players more interesting, for the pleasure of both. The tendency I see implicit in many comments on this thread - to smooth the way of the largest players - is one that I can't approve of (obviously - I'm a minnow) but is also one that would change the dynamic of UK1. A tribe of smaller players cooperating closely has a few valuable advantages against larger opponents - it would be a shame to see those reduced.
I had always assumed that this was a design feature, helping to make contests between larger and smaller players more interesting, for the pleasure of both. The tendency I see implicit in many comments on this thread - to smooth the way of the largest players - is one that I can't approve of (obviously - I'm a minnow) but is also one that would change the dynamic of UK1. A tribe of smaller players cooperating closely has a few valuable advantages against larger opponents - it would be a shame to see those reduced.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser1942
Guest
Everyone has had the same opportunities to become a large player.
Its how people go about it that makes the difference. There arent many BIG time barb noblers left in the top 20/40 - therefore most of these players have finished off local enemies, and players instead of barb hunting.
The smaller players on this world get enough bonuses as it is with morale - despite having just as much time to grow and become a force.
So in my eyes, cheaper nobles should be introduced, so that the small crappy players on this world in ORC, AK, FW, + others can be eradicated, leaving only the BIG war at the end.
Its how people go about it that makes the difference. There arent many BIG time barb noblers left in the top 20/40 - therefore most of these players have finished off local enemies, and players instead of barb hunting.
The smaller players on this world get enough bonuses as it is with morale - despite having just as much time to grow and become a force.
So in my eyes, cheaper nobles should be introduced, so that the small crappy players on this world in ORC, AK, FW, + others can be eradicated, leaving only the BIG war at the end.
DeletedUser
Guest
All very well, old mate, but it misses a point. That point is that not everybody has the same objectives in playing. Some, certainly, wish to grow; they give their time to that, move from tribe to tribe to advance that cause. They think of the tribe in terms of how it can advance their success - they may even gut their own tribe in order to move on and up - and that is in fact a perfectly valid way to go.
Others are more interested in the team aspects, the idea of succeeding and being the best you can - but in the company of a given group of friends with who much has been done. They like the idea of seeing how far that group can go as a group. These players may not individually be so large - some of them at least - because that is not their only goal and they forgo growth opportunities for the benefit of the team, but their close cooperation is an asset. Those players who are in the last analysis playing for themselves will inevitably have a different set of priorities from the folk who are looking to see their team succeed as much as they are to succeed themselves.
Since this is called Tribal Wars and not Devil Take the Hindmost, it is entirely appropriate that the team-oriented people should have their advantages too. And it is not appropriate at all that individualists should whinge because the whole game isn't carefully tilted in their favour.
Others are more interested in the team aspects, the idea of succeeding and being the best you can - but in the company of a given group of friends with who much has been done. They like the idea of seeing how far that group can go as a group. These players may not individually be so large - some of them at least - because that is not their only goal and they forgo growth opportunities for the benefit of the team, but their close cooperation is an asset. Those players who are in the last analysis playing for themselves will inevitably have a different set of priorities from the folk who are looking to see their team succeed as much as they are to succeed themselves.
Since this is called Tribal Wars and not Devil Take the Hindmost, it is entirely appropriate that the team-oriented people should have their advantages too. And it is not appropriate at all that individualists should whinge because the whole game isn't carefully tilted in their favour.
DeletedUser
Guest
Your all reaping the rewards of your own doing. Nobody told you all to noble every barb in sight. Oh boo hoo, now that the worlds gone and done it the world asks for cheaper nobles lol!
Maybe W1N + CHE!!! shouldn't have merged then :icon_rolleyes:
DeletedUser
Guest
not known as a great poster here, I think once in the last blue moon, but follow with some interest.
I think one possible option would be to ban co-players and limit it to one account/1 player. My view here is that it would provide more opportunities to attack as each account would have a period of "down time". This wouldn't stop Reef - I think he has a computer implanted in him - but for a lot of other guys, in all tribes, co-playing has created 24 hr accounts which limit opportunities for some of their opponents. Even sitters dont provide the same level of support on the account, as Reef knows when I last took time off for a wedding.
This is not an attack on any individual or tribe so guys don't react accordingly; It's just a post to open up the debate a bit more.
IMO "cheap" nobles wouldn't make for a better game; the fact that the top players have had to work hard to get where they are by farming/raiding shows that you can get the nobles you want if you work hard enough.
I think one possible option would be to ban co-players and limit it to one account/1 player. My view here is that it would provide more opportunities to attack as each account would have a period of "down time". This wouldn't stop Reef - I think he has a computer implanted in him - but for a lot of other guys, in all tribes, co-playing has created 24 hr accounts which limit opportunities for some of their opponents. Even sitters dont provide the same level of support on the account, as Reef knows when I last took time off for a wedding.
This is not an attack on any individual or tribe so guys don't react accordingly; It's just a post to open up the debate a bit more.
IMO "cheap" nobles wouldn't make for a better game; the fact that the top players have had to work hard to get where they are by farming/raiding shows that you can get the nobles you want if you work hard enough.
DeletedUser1942
Guest
The point here Dogwart, is that the larger players taking enemies out, are finding themselves restricted, due to nobles becoming very expensive. Sometimes, farming is not possible, due to a lack of activity.
This makes the game slightly boring, and frustrating - as time is spent scrambling for resources, instead of taking out the enemies.
Your idea of banning co-players would continue the boredom even more. Wheres the fun in hitting inactive accounts? There arent that many co-played accounts on world 1 i think - so i doubt its an issue really.
The more active an account is, the better the battle - it means you just have to play the game well, and do so sensibly.
This makes the game slightly boring, and frustrating - as time is spent scrambling for resources, instead of taking out the enemies.
Your idea of banning co-players would continue the boredom even more. Wheres the fun in hitting inactive accounts? There arent that many co-played accounts on world 1 i think - so i doubt its an issue really.
The more active an account is, the better the battle - it means you just have to play the game well, and do so sensibly.
DeletedUser
Guest
My laptop controls me, not the other way around, unfortunately :icon_eek:
Back on point, I personally don't like the idea of banning co-players as it would mean a lot of good players who still enjoy the game but find that they don't have the time, would be lost.
When accounts get sizeable, it makes good sense to optimise them, I think, in terms of time, attention and activity i.e a co-player.
I also think it would be pretty difficult to regulate. Would you only be able to log in from certain IPs, say 5? It would be nearly impossible to determine unless I'm missing some glaring technological trick :icon_biggrin:
To back up Stutzy's point, usually the accounts have been built by good players and there's a challenge and ultimately, a sense of satisfaction in fighting and taking those vils.
There's always an opportunity to attack, and if you fight an opponent for long enough, you're able to get some idea of how they play/how they're set up.
Targeting inactives is strategical and very useful but I think it would get boring after a while as it takes out the fighting element which the game is about.
This isn't a dig at ORC but it wouldn't be much different from continuously nobling barbs and would also add to boredom.
For my tuppence-worth on the noble debate, I find it frustrating and annoying but I'd like to see a "cap" as opposed to half-price. After 500 vils, noble costs ceiling at that number of coins.
I think it would give people an incentive to grow to that size as a "reward" for time, activity and commitment, and wouldn't inhibit the players/accounts who achieved that too much or overly undermine the advantages smaller players have (morale). After all, we're still talking about a fair number of coins and res.
Back on point, I personally don't like the idea of banning co-players as it would mean a lot of good players who still enjoy the game but find that they don't have the time, would be lost.
When accounts get sizeable, it makes good sense to optimise them, I think, in terms of time, attention and activity i.e a co-player.
I also think it would be pretty difficult to regulate. Would you only be able to log in from certain IPs, say 5? It would be nearly impossible to determine unless I'm missing some glaring technological trick :icon_biggrin:
To back up Stutzy's point, usually the accounts have been built by good players and there's a challenge and ultimately, a sense of satisfaction in fighting and taking those vils.
There's always an opportunity to attack, and if you fight an opponent for long enough, you're able to get some idea of how they play/how they're set up.
Targeting inactives is strategical and very useful but I think it would get boring after a while as it takes out the fighting element which the game is about.
This isn't a dig at ORC but it wouldn't be much different from continuously nobling barbs and would also add to boredom.
For my tuppence-worth on the noble debate, I find it frustrating and annoying but I'd like to see a "cap" as opposed to half-price. After 500 vils, noble costs ceiling at that number of coins.
I think it would give people an incentive to grow to that size as a "reward" for time, activity and commitment, and wouldn't inhibit the players/accounts who achieved that too much or overly undermine the advantages smaller players have (morale). After all, we're still talking about a fair number of coins and res.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser5808
Guest
I also think it would be pretty difficult to regulate. Would you only be able to log in from certain IPs, say 5? It would be nearly impossible to determine unless I'm missing some glaring technological trick :icon_biggrin:
It's possible, but I agree that its a bad idea.
DeletedUser
Guest
For my tuppence-worth on the noble debate, I find it frustrating and annoying but I'd like to see a "cap" as opposed to half-price. After 500 vils, noble costs ceiling at that number of coins.
I think it would give people an incentive to grow to that size as a "reward" for time, activity and commitment, and wouldn't inhibit the players/accounts who achieved that too much or overly undermine the advantages smaller players have (morale). After all, we're still talking about a fair number of coins and res.
I agree with you Reef. It seems much fairer to cap it than to cut it to half price. I mean the obvious point would be that in time the costs would become the same as they are now because you've nobled even more, and then what? a cut again? Whereas a cap sorts it.
DeletedUser
Guest
a cap would give larger players an advantage, once you hit the cap it will get easier and easier the more you grow to mint coins and make nobles. Changing the cost for all would be the best way of bringing a change fairly.
DeletedUser
Guest
Hadn't considered that. Seeing as I disagree that a uniform change in price to nobles is fair, even if everyone gets it, I guess the only conclusion that there isn't a fair way to change the noble price. Therefore, I guess we can leave it as it is. People have to realise waiting for a noble is part of the game. Early on it's HARD to get a noble, you have to wait, it makes sense that it should be just as hard now, and you should have to wait.
DeletedUser
Guest
a cap would give larger players an advantage, once you hit the cap it will get easier and easier the more you grow to mint coins and make nobles. Changing the cost for all would be the best way of bringing a change fairly.
Yeah, that's a fair point. You could also add staggered caps to alleviate that fact somewhat e.g. 500-750 - capped at the cost of 500; 750-1000 - capped at 750; 1000 - 1250 - capped at 1000 etc. but I guess that would placate few.
Saying that, in line with what Marek pointed out, there is still that excitement in having to work/wait for a noble I still kind of enjoy. I think there's still the overriding sense that the bigger you get, the more you feel punished for being that size in noble terms. Some of the mind boggling formulae I saw posted previous would dispute that though :icon_biggrin:
DeletedUser
Guest
I find it's more the fact that the growth rate is limited not by skill, firepower, tactics, or another players defence, but by having to mint coins. When I fire nukes I want to be able to take advantage of that and gain villages, and destroy my enemy.. not just take a wall down, tedium kicks in from not being able to play the game.
But having said that, I have to look at it from my oponents point of view, how can they ever fight back if they are permanantly being knocked backwards by someone who has got the jump on them or the upper hand, noble costs controls the speed and slows the pace down, easy to ask for the pace to increase when you are in a comfortable winning position I suppose. A faster pace is always going to give the most advantage to the biggest and most active players.
But having said that, I have to look at it from my oponents point of view, how can they ever fight back if they are permanantly being knocked backwards by someone who has got the jump on them or the upper hand, noble costs controls the speed and slows the pace down, easy to ask for the pace to increase when you are in a comfortable winning position I suppose. A faster pace is always going to give the most advantage to the biggest and most active players.
DeletedUser
Guest
Fundamentally growth is determined by minting coins (no coins, no nobles) but totally disagree that skill, luck, position, tribe are secondary to this.
You can have all the coins and nobles in the world but they have to be used properly, at the right time, against the right players. Growth is determined by a number of the factors which you listed, not solely just noble costs.
I agree with the sentiment of taking advantage of every nuke but sometimes the game necessitates taking some selfless offensive hits for the good of the tribe.
Players in the past (namely the Flux guys) proved that size isn't always the determining factor, ultimately the game is won and lost on the strength of activity.
Ultimately, any adjustment to the noble process is always going to benefit the larger players but without sounding too sanctimonious, it's likely they're also the ones who've put in the most time and effort into the game and will be the determiners when it reaches its climax.
I guess if someone doesn't ask, they don't get but, personally, if it happens, great. If not, well, you'll find me farming :icon_sad:
You can have all the coins and nobles in the world but they have to be used properly, at the right time, against the right players. Growth is determined by a number of the factors which you listed, not solely just noble costs.
I agree with the sentiment of taking advantage of every nuke but sometimes the game necessitates taking some selfless offensive hits for the good of the tribe.
Players in the past (namely the Flux guys) proved that size isn't always the determining factor, ultimately the game is won and lost on the strength of activity.
Ultimately, any adjustment to the noble process is always going to benefit the larger players but without sounding too sanctimonious, it's likely they're also the ones who've put in the most time and effort into the game and will be the determiners when it reaches its climax.
I guess if someone doesn't ask, they don't get but, personally, if it happens, great. If not, well, you'll find me farming :icon_sad:
DeletedUser
Guest
I didn't mean growth is determined by coins, but it is controlled/limited by it, hence the reason for the request in the first place. No matter how well you may play the game, or how active you are and how everything falls into place, your growth will still be limited by noble costs.
We're not talking about game play styles, just the fact that for those who are theoretically doing everything right and within their means, their growth might be limited by noble costs.
We're not talking about game play styles, just the fact that for those who are theoretically doing everything right and within their means, their growth might be limited by noble costs.
DeletedUser
Guest
Ah, apologies, you did say limited - helps if I read the post.
Anyway, back to farming.
Anyway, back to farming.
DeletedUser4479
Guest
[tt]We are following the same rules as .net for noble cost reduction these being:~
< 1000 for 0.5
< 500 for 0.333
So sorry to say you have a bit of a way to go yet before you hit these figures[/tt]
From the other topic Players left: 1944 posted on the 28.12.10, 11:49
Like you looked at the top 1000 players?? the 1000 placed player 4.862 points 3 villages.
So we cant be that long away from it. The 1st zero point guy is sitting at 1637.
Share:
