Open up the game

[DeletedUser]

Seriously though, one bundle/one noble seems the only way to make this game playable. Yes, there will be huge increases for some players. It would seem that this should be the reward for playing long and well. Or, in some cases, just playing long...:icon_rolleyes:


I know that the original game had one bundle/one noble. Why was this changed for the US/English version? What were the issues encountered in those servers that a change was deemed necessary?

 

[Paint13aller]

I guess they figured if it was 1 bundle per noble it would be the most active person who takes the lead, so say someone who works or goes to school would be out of the picture

 

[DeletedUser5432]

I think the Classic server has 1bundle/1noble ratio still.

 

[DeletedUser]

Seriously though, one bundle/one noble seems the only way to make this game playable. Yes, there will be huge increases for some players. It would seem that this should be the reward for playing long and well. Or, in some cases, just playing long...:icon_rolleyes:


I know that the original game had one bundle/one noble. Why was this changed for the US/English version? What were the issues encountered in those servers that a change was deemed necessary?

Isn't it obvious they wouldn't make any money out of it, not as much as they are making now that is.

 

[DeletedUser]

That is probably the one downside about cheaper nobles, the cheaper they are the more it swings the advantage towards those who can be online a lot, potentially shrinking the overall number of players, reducing the income for Innogames.

 

[DeletedUser]

There is 26 worlds, World 1 is virtually a dead world anyway and from what I suspects amounts to a pretty small percentage of overall profits. Though I guess there is a cost for running the server and profit is needed to be made on all individual worlds?

I don't know I suck at this stuff.

 

[ender_wiggin]

We're talking to the dev inbetween about options. We're trying to see if there'd be any possible way to make it possible to lower price, even if there isn't one now.

 

[DeletedUser]

We're talking to the dev inbetween about options. We're trying to see if there'd be any possible way to make it possible to lower price, even if there isn't one now.

and will we likely be seeing any changes in the next 60months?

 

[DeletedUser5432]

or two years?

 

[DeletedUser]

We're talking to the dev inbetween about options. We're trying to see if there'd be any possible way to make it possible to lower price, even if there isn't one now.

ugh.

Lowering the price will do nothing to spark wars. Everyone will still be limited to the same noble rate and no one can effectively catch up to a larger player.

Changing the price does not fix the problem. Players will still choose the easier, less time consuming, faster nobling rate, overly defensive position and continue to noble the left over abandons created from the mass exodus of players bored out of their minds. Any game where a 1000 village player must only maintain 30-35 offensive villages (3.5%) to maintain the maximum speed of game progression has a serious flaw. You can't place an artificial limit on the game's progress mechanism. This is supposed to be a war/resource management game.

I've said this a billion times now and I don't understand why the devs don't fix it right, especially when they broke it when they removed the transporting packets requirement. I don't even care if they don't fix it at this point. Just say whether or not it is going to change and how. Because if they are just going to cheap out and lower prices across the board, then I will just quit now. There is no point continuing if the people running this game haven't got a clue.

The communication between the admins and the players of this game is absolutely horrid.

 

[DeletedUser]

At this point, smaller to medium sized players have absolutely no hope of catching up, the top 15 players probably own a very sizeable % of total number of villages in the world.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well if you are only counting abandons, maybe. However, you could always take away villages from the player who has more than you. Well, not at the moment because the O/D balence is way lopsided, but IF THEY FIXED THE GAME YOU COULD!

am i annoying them yet?

 

[DeletedUser]

DO NOT lower the price of nobles. This allows for defensive turtles to expand.

Give bonus packets for nobling villages (red/bright red villages only).

A village worth 12355 points would earn you 100% of the packets needed for your next noble.

A village worth 10000 points would earn you 81% of the packets you need for the next noble.

A defensive slacker nobling worth 128 pts would earn you 1% of the packets needed for the next noble.

This solution awards offensive players, forces point whores to streamline their villages a bit, and basically leaning out the ability for defensive players to keep pace with offensive players, thus ending the age of the turtle.

This would also drive up page hits for ads and revenue. I'd have to come here more often to queue troops. As it is now, of my 400+ armies, I am only ever really using 30 because I don't have enough nobles.

BTW, we've covered this many times and nothing has been done. See http://forum.tribalwars.net/showthread.php?t=60000

Now the only down side people can point out is how this sort of change would change new worlds and make things harder to contend with at the beginning, well that is a simple fix. You just put a little catch on it that uses this on worlds that close. Just like they change the moral on changed worlds so that people that have been here forever don't have as much advantage. actually this could almost bring that topic in to be looked at again if it worked well enough. The moral diffrences would need to be changed just enough to make nobling slow or speed up pending on the activity of the person.

idk just brainstorming

 

[DeletedUser]

Now the only down side people can point out is how this sort of change would change new worlds and make things harder to contend with at the beginning, well that is a simple fix.

World 1 had packet bonuses from the start. It was fun and active and you had to attack an active player to progress. There were very few, if any, abandons to take.

If you abuse the bonus packets and noble too fast, you end up spreading yourself too thin. The game becomes an army/resource management game rather than packet storing game.

 

[DeletedUser]

Very good point, as resource management is just as much a part of war as the actual fighting is, such as the Germans in ww1 taking the long way to Paris and having to guard their routes to the their resources.

Thinking a couple steps ahead of me. :icon_razz:
I would hate to be on the wrong side of the battle field from you. :lol:

 

[DeletedUser]

Believe me, I have thought about this way more than I should. I just wish I would have realized the cause of the problem a long time ago.

 

[DeletedUser]

Believe me, I have thought about this way more than I should. I just wish I would have realized the cause of the problem a long time ago.

Well now we wait for some mod to see your idea and get it passed into part of the game.

 

[DeletedUser5201]

World 1 had packet bonuses from the start. It was fun and active and you had to attack an active player to progress. There were very few, if any, abandons to take.

I remember the packet bonus, that was awesome. They took that away and never gave us anything back in return. It used to be so nice when you took someone over and you already had 20 packets stored. Those were the days.

 

[DeletedUser2248]

I remember the packet bonus, that was awesome. They took that away and never gave us anything back in return. It used to be so nice when you took someone over and you already had 20 packets stored. Those were the days.

It was great - but imagine, now, having to get all the bundles into one village just to build a single noble!

Remember how much transporting bundles sucked? It would take forever to build a noble train.

 

[DeletedUser]

I say for a starters, while the Admins and Creatorts of this game are thinking or well "discussing" cheaper noble prices, why not just:

Remove ALL the abandons in world 1?

this will make the game a little more interesting until we get that noble problem sorted.