W3 closed?

[DeletedUser5582]

Ok so most of us will have seen the excellent thread on W1 (and lets face it reading other world forums slightly more interesting than this one no?!) discussing if their settings should be altered to inject some life back into their world as the levels of active players falls steadily. Now leaving aside their amusing thoughts on W1's desire to farm there were various suggestions on ways of breathing new life into W1. From cheaper nobles -) ), to stopping attacks on players that leave to stop the endless tribe internal efforts going on :icon_razz:.

Now personally I think that you join a world because you like the settings and for me cheaper nobles would benefit the huge tribes and end any hope of the smaller ones having their chance at glory but we in W3 have seen the number of players fall to around 850 and who out of the top 5 tribes can really see a way to total domination?

So should W3 be closed to new players and should a player logging on and finding themselves on the rim be stopped from restarting?

The one interesting change from the W1 thread was the stopping of attacks on players villages when they leave to stop the incessant internalling (is that a word :icon_confused so we can get back to sending Spear nukes at our foes rather than at former tribe mates?

So discuss (this will involve some of the 850 remaining players actually posting on here). Do you want the settings changed and if so which ones to aid W3? Should W3 be closed to new players?

 

[DeletedUser]

Looking at UK1 compared to UK3 top tribes...TFF are bigger than all the other tribes put together on 3. Therefore I would say UK3 has more reason to close.

 

[Triarii2D]

Definitely, players shouldn't be stopped from restarting yet, or the world closed, as the world is still fairly small, but cheaper noble prices i know we at TFF would love to see

 

[DeletedUser1728]

I think care needs to be taken when requesting altering settings so that the game mechanics is not disrupted in favour of a few..

A good example is cheaper nobles.

It's been argued and voted about on many worlds over on .net. Basically a radical change like single packet nobles would disrupt the game and be severely in favour of larger players.

However, a reduction in packet cost is fair. No matter how big you are you can only produce nobles at the same rate per village as a smaller player. The difference? The larger player has more villages, therefore can produce more nobles over all. That doesnt change regardless of if packets cost the same now or half price (or any other fraction).

It's an issue that could be put to the vote of current players. Do we want the world speeding up with faster noble production with less emphasis on farming? Personally yes, I hate farming! I can think of better things to be doing with my time. Once you get to a significant size, farming isnt a 10 minute job to be done, to maintain a good growth you need to be constantly at it.

What I wouldnt like to see is what happened over on the old worlds .net where larger players slept for weeks on end storing for nobles to ready for a campaign. That isnt fun, it's a war game, lets play war, not log in twice a week to store for a month. Thats when interest in playing wanes and players lose motivation to play.

UK3 while a youngish world is already quite advanced, the lines have been drawn, players are established. With having no morale it is difficult for anyone to join now and survive to grow to a reasonable size. I think more than any other world, UK3 needs to close to new players for that reason.

 

[DeletedUser]

Saw these type of figures produced on UK1 so heres UK3

greater than 5million 11
between 4 and 5 million 15
between 3 and 4 million 15
between 2 and 3 million 30
between 1 and 2 million 32
between 500,000 and 1 million 20
between 100,000 and 500,000 41
between 50,000 and 100,000 11
between 10,000 and 50,000 51
between 1,000 and 10,000 183
less than 1,000 412
zero 41
total players 851

 

[DeletedUser]

-

 

[DeletedUser]

dude graphs are wrong

 

[DeletedUser]

Sorry - forgot to change the second graph's axis! :icon_redface:

 

[DeletedUser5528]

So what is your opinion on the topic, Iakovosian ?

 

[DeletedUser]

I think UK3 should be closed to new recruits in much the same way as UK1. That seems obvious but as for other game mechanic and settings changes, I'm not too sure. It could be hard to find a good combination that keeps things fair whilst not advantaging or disadvantaging a minority of players more than others (with the exception of the hoards of sub 1K players or those with a single village - the world is already too advanced for them to expect to stay).

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with a closure. This world with no morale leaves little chance for anyone new who joins.
Starting off with a single village of less then 1000 points, next to a player with 5mio points it pointless and suicidal.
There is no benefit for people to join this world at all.

 

[DeletedUser5528]

I think UK3 should be closed to new recruits in much the same way as UK1. That seems obvious but as for other game mechanic and settings changes, I'm not too sure. It could be hard to find a good combination that keeps things fair whilst not advantaging or disadvantaging a minority of players more than others (with the exception of the hoards of sub 1K players or those with a single village - the world is already too advanced for them to expect to stay).

I totally agree with this. The settings seem ok as they are. Closing the world seems acceptable.

 

[DeletedUser8800]

i agree that it is pointless new players joining
i also think that if you get rimmed you cant start again as it is exactly the same as a new player starting on the rim
i like the settings on world 3 i think they are probably the best of all 7 uk worlds

 

[DeletedUser8782]

i have to agree with the ferret by far the best settings except maybe UK6 which is probs on par with UK3

 

[DeletedUser8800]

i also think that with barbs only growing to 500 points it does stop alot of barb munching, if that is what you choose to do it does take along time in building them up,
hence why i like this world so keep the settings please as they are

 

[Triarii2D]

i also think that with barbs only growing to 500 points it does stop alot of barb munching, if that is what you choose to do it does take along time in building them up,
hence why i like this world so keep the settings please as they are

really don't know why you like them, you have whole pages of barbs munched

best benefit is half(quartered, fingers crossed) price packets if the world was closed, because our nobles are so expensive the rest of the world continually noble a similar village count even though we have many more

 

[DeletedUser8800]

im being internalled lol have been for a while
but my barb munching is carefully planned lol

 

[DeletedUser]

^ ferret illness is contagious amongst the death tribe

 

[DeletedUser8800]

and tff by the looks of it
although my barb munching is very well co ordinated lol

 

[DeletedUser]

^

BARBS NOBLED SINCE 2 dec under 5k points

TFF = 25
DEATH = 265

yeah obviously the virus is stronger in death tho eh?