Your help is needed

[DeletedUser]

Dear Tracey

I think there should be an end game option of after a year and not many are playing

you make it a speed round -

so the settings are the same for the world which it is but the speed of creating, building and recruiting is a lot faster. Making nobling faster and people generally more active.

The other is to make tasks for users to do.

so tribe lands, each tribe has to capture and retain for a period of time each gang hideout which makes them more points etc. If one tribe gets all, how ever many tribe lands they are, the game ends.

an objective is better than what there is now, just an endless game with 'below average' settings (well w5 is anyway)

w1 and w3 had the best settings but they are getting /b/oring. need to add stuff to them, chuck in a few mods or something and their objective is to wipe out player 1 and 2 rank. that would make it interesting!

Kind regards
TAB

 

[DeletedUser]

Going completley away from what you are all talking about here..

But new idea..

Why not have a very simple game..

No alliences.
No NAP's

About 40 Tribe member limit.

Every tribe for themselves.

And then 1 tribe which has the majority of the Mods, [Who decide to play]


Which ever tribe, takes the most villages off the Mods tribe, which will go on for a while wins!

 

[DeletedUser]

Like it says, alliances and NAP's are non-binding within the game and their only real use is to make it useful to mark out who not to attack. Not having them doesn't mean tribes won't have 'allies' they just won't be marked on the map, which makes everything a lot more complicated.

Anyway:

People can join for 3-6 months, but after that the world is closed. Once this happens everyone must be in a tribe (the tribe limit will be at around 80), if they are not, they're kicked from the world and villages become barb. You cannot restart. Now the tribe limit gradually begins to decrease by 1 each week (for the sake of argument, say every friday). Tribes can only have 1 duke. If the tribe is at it's member limit, the duke must dismiss someone before that deadline (friday), or someone will be randomly kicked. The person who is dismissed (or kicked) is immediately eliminated from the game. This continues until the tribe member limit is at around 10-20, then it's simple game of domination, once a tribe surpasses a certain limit of villages/points/domination, the world ends.

No idea if this would work but meh, I think it'd be fun, and add an entirely brutal edge to the game.

 

[DeletedUser]

At a certain point of the game 3 buildings are release for each tribe to work on; they are harder/longer/cost more the larger the tribe is. When these three buildings are complete you move forward to a future technology and the game ends. It's like your technology grows more advanced than the rest of the world so you win.

 

[DeletedUser]

Like it says, alliances and NAP's are non-binding within the game and their only real use is to make it useful to mark out who not to attack. Not having them doesn't mean tribes won't have 'allies' they just won't be marked on the map, which makes everything a lot more complicated.

Anyway:

People can join for 3-6 months, but after that the world is closed. Once this happens everyone must be in a tribe (the tribe limit will be at around 80), if they are not, they're kicked from the world and villages become barb. You cannot restart. Now the tribe limit gradually begins to decrease by 1 each week (for the sake of argument, say every friday). Tribes can only have 1 duke. If the tribe is at it's member limit, the duke must dismiss someone before that deadline (friday), or someone will be randomly kicked. The person who is dismissed (or kicked) is immediately eliminated from the game. This continues until the tribe member limit is at around 10-20, then it's simple game of domination, once a tribe surpasses a certain limit of villages/points/domination, the world ends.

No idea if this would work but meh, I think it'd be fun, and add an entirely brutal edge to the game.

That is harsh. What did I do to get kicked and what did the leader do to the mods to make his 80 tribal mates go down to 79?

Thats just too brutal. Maybe that you have to stick with your tribe and not just jump to the next biggest thing *cough*lxZerOxl *cough*

 

[DeletedUser]

Like it says, alliances and NAP's are non-binding within the game and their only real use is to make it useful to mark out who not to attack. Not having them doesn't mean tribes won't have 'allies' they just won't be marked on the map, which makes everything a lot more complicated.

Anyway:

People can join for 3-6 months, but after that the world is closed. Once this happens everyone must be in a tribe (the tribe limit will be at around 80), if they are not, they're kicked from the world and villages become barb. You cannot restart. Now the tribe limit gradually begins to decrease by 1 each week (for the sake of argument, say every friday). Tribes can only have 1 duke. If the tribe is at it's member limit, the duke must dismiss someone before that deadline (friday), or someone will be randomly kicked. The person who is dismissed (or kicked) is immediately eliminated from the game. This continues until the tribe member limit is at around 10-20, then it's simple game of domination, once a tribe surpasses a certain limit of villages/points/domination, the world ends.

No idea if this would work but meh, I think it'd be fun, and add an entirely brutal edge to the game.

What happens if that person is hated and has no way possible of joining a tribe? or is very low points? :/ and about the duke choosing who gets eliminated from the game is NO WAY fair especially to paying PP customers who just get thrown out. Wouldn't work.

 

[DeletedUser]

What happens if that person is hated and has no way possible of joining a tribe? or is very low points? :/ and about the duke choosing who gets eliminated from the game is NO WAY fair especially to paying PP customers who just get thrown out. Wouldn't work.

Hmmm...

1) You'd have to be pretty hated not to be able to find a tribe in 3-6 months, and tbh, it'd be your fault that you've become that hated.

2) OK, tribal aristocracy instead of duke.

3) If you've got PP, you should know how to use it, and will be playing properly. By the time you've got to the point where the eliminating begins, you'll need to be in a tribe of 80 members to be in any danger of being dismissed and eliminated. If your active enough, your unlikely to one of those dispatched by the tribal aristocracy. Most of the leet early tribes tend to hover around the 40 member mark, and won't need to worry about the elimination for a longish time anyway...

 

[DeletedUser]

At a certain point of the game 3 buildings are release for each tribe to work on; they are harder/longer/cost more the larger the tribe is. When these three buildings are complete you move forward to a future technology and the game ends. It's like your technology grows more advanced than the rest of the world so you win.

sounds too much like travian for my liking

 

[DeletedUser]

i think worlds should just stop letting people into the world after about a couple months, then wait till there are about 75 people left in the world and they win

 

[DeletedUser]

But there will always be some players who want the world to continue. And as long as those players pay premium, it would be a financial loss for INNOGAMES if they shut worlds.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hmmm...

1) You'd have to be pretty hated not to be able to find a tribe in 3-6 months, and tbh, it'd be your fault that you've become that hated.

2) OK, tribal aristocracy instead of duke.

3) If you've got PP, you should know how to use it, and will be playing properly. By the time you've got to the point where the eliminating begins, you'll need to be in a tribe of 80 members to be in any danger of being dismissed and eliminated. If your active enough, your unlikely to one of those dispatched by the tribal aristocracy. Most of the leet early tribes tend to hover around the 40 member mark, and won't need to worry about the elimination for a longish time anyway...

1) Its possible or you'll end up having to join a nub tribe that probably doesnt even know anything just to stay in the world, + I've been on worlds where I simply don't want to join a tribe due to the fact of them ehh.. all sucking.

2) Difference being?

3) Tis not the point of someone doing bad enough to be eliminated but the fact they did while paying money + someone could just get dismissed because they are not liked or have a falling out, from what you've suggested it doesn't have to be the 80th member if the duke/aristocracy picks before right?

 

[DeletedUser]

Alright, I don't get the problem here with Blik's idea.

When France got knocked out of the world cup, noone complained (except the French) that it wasn't thier fault, and that it cost them money to get to South Africa to play.

Here's the way competition works: The worse teams, get knocked out. If you want to have a winner, that means you have to have losers. The smallest players should be the worst, therefore the losers, the ones who should be knocked out, are the worst ones. Obviously there needs to be regular rounds opening, so new players can join and not be insta-kicked, but if somene has to leave, it's fine to kick out the worst players.

If you can't find a tribe, you're a bad player, or a snob. Either way, play the game by the rules, or get kicked out. Tribal Wars is a team game, by playing solo, you're playing stupidly, so yeah, I don't see why we can't just tell them to get out when we start kicking out players. To me the non-team player is worse than the ranked 79th in the tribe team player, so kick out that noob.

 

[DeletedUser7966]

The smallest players should be the worst, therefore the losers, the ones who should be knocked out

Or they are new players, who wouldn't give the game a second look if it punished them simply because they are new.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, the problem with most end-game scenarios is the fact that the world could end in the middle of an epic war or something important that you wouldn't want to interrupt.

Personally I think that after a certain point (don't know what as I have not much late-game experience) all the tribes should be told to war each other. It is always pretty easy to tell the winner of a war. So whoever wins this final war, wins the world. Although it would probably be good to wait until current major wars finish before the final war.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, the problem with most end-game scenarios is the fact that the world could end in the middle of an epic war or something important that you wouldn't want to interrupt.

Personally I think that after a certain point (don't know what as I have not much late-game experience) all the tribes should be told to war each other. It is always pretty easy to tell the winner of a war. So whoever wins this final war, wins the world. Although it would probably be good to wait until current major wars finish before the final war.

You can't force a Tribe to attack another Tribe. They could just be set as enemies but still be helping eachother.

 

[DeletedUser]

Eventually all worlds go into a massive world war, however this rarely ends the world as the tribes that survive come out stronger. It literally can get to the stage where wars of attrition are fought between good tribes containing good players who are that evenly matched that there is little or no chance of either progressing against the other.

This produces a stalemate world which can be seen now on some of the early .net worlds.

I do not feel that any endgame should be enforced until a stalemate situation is obviously there. This will happen in different timescales on different worlds due to these worlds having varying settings and game speeds. Exactly what this endgame is, is a difficult question.

However the best way is number one tribe and number 1 player are declared winners at this point. However I do feel that if enforced game ends are introduced then there are some things to consider.

An example being premium points I feel it is only fair that residual premium points be refunded to players for use on their next world.

 

[DeletedUser]

Eventually all worlds go into a massive world war, however this rarely ends the world as the tribes that survive come out stronger. It literally can get to the stage where wars of attrition are fought between good tribes containing good players who are that evenly matched that there is little or no chance of either progressing against the other.

This produces a stalemate world which can be seen now on some of the early .net worlds.

I do not feel that any endgame should be enforced until a stalemate situation is obviously there. This will happen in different timescales on different worlds due to these worlds having varying settings and game speeds. Exactly what this endgame is, is a difficult question.

However the best way is number one tribe and number 1 player are declared winners at this point. However I do feel that if enforced game ends are introduced then there are some things to consider.

An example being premium points I feel it is only fair that residual premium points be refunded to players for use on their next world.

I feel that.

With premium points (off topic soz) i would suggest that instead of premium point for each and invidual world, you have a profile in which you buy outside the world and you can use it where you like and you can retract it whenever you want. (still retaining pts)

I want this as last time i quit due to un forseen circumstances in rl. I left with a PP of 3 months..doesn't really bother me, but to others that would.

 

[DeletedUser]

A year? After a year there isn't time for a big war. The biggest and most skilled wars are after 2 or 3 years, if people have at least 10 million points, then it are wars with over the 10.000 incomings!



I'd like that idea. But with 'extremely stacked', I hope you mean really extremely stacked. How about 1.000.000:spear:, 1.000.000 :swordsman: and 250.000 :heavycavalry:?



Why not? Every player would like to see that his or her world ends in a nice way. Every round needs a winner!

Nah, those can start at any time. They normally start near or just after 2-3 mil. But you could have one after 2 villages

 

[DeletedUser]

What about starting a world with a max number of tribes with a max number of members i.e 100 tribes x 30 members... max 3000 players...you cant leave the tribe and you cant recruit any once a member is rimmed, leaves, or becomes inactive, also you only have a couple of days to recruit, so tribes cant stay under the limit and look for the stronger players.. so sooner or later there would surely be a winner

 

[DeletedUser]

Winning conditions is if your tribe is so powerful in points/members, nobody else can win.

Or you could do a DNY...