Why Restrict Growth?

DeletedUser

Guest
TW People,

Why do we have a game mechanic in place that restricts the growth of active players?

I speak of this 20:1 ratio between attacker and defender for a specific period of time. If I attack someone's village when we are the same point level after beginner protection ends and I manage to kill all his troops, destroy all necessary villages, etc., why then am I effectively penalized once I outgrow that person by the 20:1 ratio. Basically I grow too fast and I lose my immediate farms. If they go barb this is obviously not an issue. An example right now is there are 20 x "potential farms" for me that I am not able to attack. It means I need to farm further away which is less efficient, thus stunting my growth.

Surely between beginner protection, and morale you have enough in place to protect new / smaller players? Why must this 20:1 ratio be in existence at all? It is a frustrating aspect of the game that I wish could be removed or at least to see a reduction in the amount of time the ratio is in effect.

Anyways, I look forward to your feedback.

Enjoy The Game!
Wil.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
The rule is aimed to apply to players who join on the rim but land near huge players waiting to gobble them up. It's an annoyance (a huge one at that) we must face for the great good simply put.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Could that could be addressed by expanding the rim quicker? Adding distance and overall travel time would likely make those smaller players less appealing for larger players that would "farm" them. Barbs could be used to infill where otherwise a player may have been added to ensure a consistent density of targets for farming? I don't know, just ideas to allow players to to be rewarded for their clearing efforts vs. being penalized for it.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Wilgore said:
Could that could be addressed by expanding the rim quicker? Adding distance and overall travel time would likely make those smaller players less appealing for larger players that would "farm" them. Barbs could be used to infill where otherwise a player may have been added to ensure a consistent density of targets for farming? I don't know, just ideas to allow players to to be rewarded for their clearing efforts vs. being penalized for it.
Click to expand...
That simply makes everyone grow slower, which will be compounded for smaller players, so it wouldn't help.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
MontyPython said:
The rule is aimed to apply to players who join on the rim but land near huge players waiting to gobble them up. It's an annoyance (a huge one at that) we must face for the great good simply put.
Click to expand...

Hrmm!

I started a bit late and didn't like that rule, but I didn't think of it that way ^_^

I guess, since these UK worlds are so small (4 Kontinents as opposed to 100 Kontinents) the "rim" never ends up far from the "core"; In fact the "core" on the average international servers is those 4 central Kontinents that make-up the entire UK world.

Here's a good laugh:

GO BRAINS!
topktribes.png
 

DeletedUser

Guest
michealPW said:
Hrmm!

I started a bit late and didn't like that rule, but I didn't think of it that way ^_^

I guess, since these UK worlds are so small (4 Kontinents as opposed to 100 Kontinents) the "rim" never ends up far from the "core"; In fact the "core" on the average international servers is those 4 central Kontinents that make-up the entire UK world.

Here's a good laugh:

GO BRAINS!
topktribes.png
Click to expand...

Think you're underestimating the size of UK worlds;
topktribes.png
 

DeletedUser

Guest
UK2 is one of the bigger UK worlds. ( compared to UK5 onwards ) . UK worlds are never gonna be of the same comparison as .net. In fairness though the average player on .net is way worse as a player than the average player on .co.uk. Alas the upper echelon of player on most .net worlds is miles ( light years ) ahead of the best of .co.uk. :icon_cry:

in my opinion anyway
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Lakadaem said:
Alas the upper echelon of player on most .net worlds is miles ( light years ) ahead of the best of .co.uk. :icon_cry:
Click to expand...

Mmm, I'd consider myself to be in the upper echelon of .uk and .net, and would, well, disagree. I'd say the upper echelon on both servers is roughly equivalent in skill, but not in size. that is to say, .uk has fewer really good players, but it's best players are roughly on par with .net's best. The problem is you can only compare say, the top 5 on both servers and have this be true, if you compare a larger amount like say, the top 20 from each server, then .net quickly gains an advantage due to having a larger pool of players to select from.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Well I can only give my own limited personal experience. On .co.uk we have a lot of semi-decent players. We also have a lot of good players.

The best players I've had the pleasure of playing alongside on .co.uk were great players. The best players I've played with on .net have raised the bar so much higher that it's incomparable. In fairness, .co.uk is limited by more rules with regards scripts/rally point rules etc, but I will stand by my opinion that....

AVG .NET Player < AVG .CO.UK Player
Really Good .NET Player>>>Great .CO.UK Player.



I'm only basing this on my limited experience. I'm still fairly new the game. But in my playing experience, .co.uk is more intense. You don't get a chance to "hide in the grass". I've played on.net, started 2 months into a world, gained K dominance and never challenged once. But perhaps it's my own experience, and the fact I tend to start .net worlds much later ( ~month into game)
 

DeletedUser9918

Guest
:mad:why don't we also announce that there is a new uk world on net so more net plyers come over or make uk worlds realy diffrent to any other world so that it attracts more ppl:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top