Half priced nobles... Something to look forward to?

[MichielK]

Time based morale, which I don't think had been thought of when w16 started, was implemented after the server was 1 year old. Changing morale from 33% to 51% for big players hitting small players was a big change.

True, I forgot about that one. Guess all bets were off for a while :icon_wink:

While doubling nobling rate would be a change, I don't see any huge changes in game play, it would still take 20 days to build a nuke. There would just be more inactive eating.

And a lot more eating of small barbs, an advantage to tribes that depend on a few great players to do all the work, more clustering, more lopsided wars, more deep noblings, a smaller penalty for losing villages, more fake trains, etc.

Tough to argue that these are all good things, while the morale rule change only gave a disadvantage to lazy and grossly incompetent players...something not many people would object against.

 

[Seagryfn]

If Seagrfyn were to stop nobling for 1-2 months and do nothing but farm and store packets...she would have a surplus of stored resources.

Oh, I do. But, actually, the single best farming troop in the game is the Noble. A nuke (say, 3000LC) used to farm with would bring home a maximum of 3000*80 = 240K resources a day. That would be if all troops went out every day and brought home a full load, no exceptions whatsoever. Even my best farming villages average just 75% of their potential capacity, or 180K resources a day, and farming is worse on the rim. Also, not every village you own is needed to farm your whole environment. Suppose that only one in nine villages is needed to farm your complete territory. As an active farmer that drops the average farming income yet further, from 180K down to just 20K per day per village owned. Further, if you fail to farm on any given day (holiday or war), those 20K resources are often lost.

On the other hand, a nobleman used to "farm" with brings home nearly 130K resources a day with no additional effort on your part. This is the daily production of a maxxed village's resource pits. Since a packet costs 83K resources to store and a nobleman "makes" nearly 130K a day for you (by ruling a conquered village), each village you have yields a net surplus of resources. The difference goes (mostly) into troops. The faster you grow, the faster you continue to grow. Personally, I "farm" with all assets available to me, which means ground troops and nobles too.

a lot more eating of small barbs, an advantage to tribes that depend on a few great players to do all the work, more clustering, more lopsided wars, more deep noblings, a smaller penalty for losing villages, more fake trains, etc.

Tough to argue that these are all good things, while the morale rule change only gave a disadvantage to lazy and grossly incompetent players...something not many people would object against.

The morale change eliminated an entire tribal battle strategy from W16. At one time during war, a tribe coveted its small front-line players, and in fact, placed them there on purpose! A 20K/20K stack in a village owned by a target attackers have 33% morale against defends as if it were stacked 60K/60K. :icon_eek: Nowadays, Plight still values its small players, but many tribes no longer do, preferring points over ability.

As for your other statements... lets look at the math.

Changing the rules mid-game hurts gameplay
You're watching a football match, and at halftime the referees decide that a touchdown is now worth 12 points. Does this help the game? Make it more fair? More interesting to play or watch?

Many television game and reality shows currently use this exact format as a method of maintaining viewership of their program. People don't get bored of the show as quickly when the stakes (risk & rewards) become ever greater after each commercial break. TW is not a chess match; it is a pay-to-be-entertained game. As such, it is more likely to follow industry trends that reliably maintain an audience.

W16 has 309,955 villages, which means that over 300,000 players started or restarted on this world. Out of that massive amount, only 1000 of us are left.

False conclusion. Lets do the proof by looking at a world that *just* opened, W43.

Total Villages (on W43) = 27K. Abandoned Villages = 5K.

Now, look at the bar graph rate of change. Identical, yes? This is NOT because that many players have already quit or restarted in W43... in fact, W43 has only been open 3 days, not even long enough for a deleted account to go gray. When a world is created, the TWStaff manually "populate" the world, gradually, by ADDING new barbs. The added barbs allow a player to farm and/or noble something other than each other. Lets look at W42 which is already limiting new enrollment: 50K players and 96K villages. Innogames will add more barbs as well when they re-open W42 for non-premium joining. Does this really 'dumb down' the game? Or, did you depend on those extra farming resources from nearby grays when you built your first village?

W16 has 309,955 villages, which means that over 300,000 players started or restarted on this world. Out of that massive amount, only 1000 of us are left. We've all proven that we could survive and prosper while 99.7% of the competition is already dead.

There were never more than 100K accounts, tops, on W16 (I am thinking it was about 78K but my stats-memory is foggy after 21 months, especially when I wasn't paying attention to, nor recording, these kinds of stats back then.) Meh, 99% vs. 99.7%, big deal. :icon_wink: But, the "starting player numbers" come into play further on....

There may be 310K villages on W16, however 240K of these are barbs! A mere 70K of all villages on W16 are in the hands of live players. The top 80 tribes have, between them all, just 64,456 villages and 639 players. That is an average of 100 villages per W16 player, not counting those who are tribeless or exist in under-top-80 tribes-of-one (a statistically small one-in-fourteen villages). (I didn't go below top 80 tribes because most the remaining "data" on the really small tribes are just glitches in the database.) Every day, more players quit. So, that is 100 new barbs/gifts on W16 per each player who quits. (True, many of the quitting players are small, but the huge players quit too... it evens out).

MK predicted a decline rate of 30% per month on W16, but that trend has slowed. Lets assume it is 25% now for the sake of argument. There are currently 1,122 players on W16 (including pointless players waiting to go gray). 1122 players x 100 villages each (average) x 25% drop out = there will be 28K new gift/barb villages appear in the next month on W16. 840 players will remain to show an interest in them. 840 players x (just under) 1 noble per day = capacity to conquer about 25K villages. The rate at which player occupied villages are vanishing from the game exceeds the rate at which those vacant villages can be conquered. As a world, W16 has become awash in a sea of gray, and it gets worse every month!

Do we really want to ruin that sense of pride and achievement by making the game easier?

So, ignoring the math above and just looking at currently occupied villages on W16, the trends show that there are MORE grays on W16 now (240K) than there were ever players. If 100K players started W16 and only 70K villages now belong to players, the grays are increasing at a rate FAR faster than the population can absorb them! Nobling grays and inactives isn't fun... its sim-city! THAT is what is too easy. :icon_sad:

I'd rather those villages be occupied by a player who will fight back and do battle... that is what makes the game challenging and exciting. But... tribes MUST noble out barbs and inactives in their territory. Why? As the math presented in the C² vs. LSHRV thread clearly shows, the real gains in war conquers are made against the inactives and not against the players who are fighting back. So, to protect themselves, a tribe must not leave weak links in their harbor defense chain. But, under the current system, the weak links (barbs/gifts) are growing faster that ANY tribe's ability to repair the rot. That applies to aggressors as well as defenders.

SO... that brings us to a needful solution. 240K barbs and 1K players, and the numbers get ever more staggering every month. Even if not one single player left W16 after today, and every last player was 100% active and actually nobled one village per day, it would take eight months to noble them all. And, you KNOW (even with the self-updating maps broken again) that I am the only player on W16 with a noble rate of 1 full village per day. You KNOW that player attrition will continue. You know the growth of barbs will continue to exceed the nobles available to the remaining population of W16 players. Since tribes cannot avoid being forced to manage the growing population of grays/gifts to stay secure, and the growing problem requires more noble assets than the game provides, tribes spend more time dealing with routine territorial management and less time engaged in genuine battle. I thought the 'challenge of the fight' was what are here for, no?

W16 is losing its challenge as a game of combat strategy and has become a game of asset management. Look at the enoblement record of the duke of EVERY leading tribe: myself, Rag1, Zvone1979, Kerbogha... even Endemonadia! An occasional war capture, but as more and more players quit W16, our personal enoblement records have become almost entirely grays/gifts. Why? Is it because we can't fight? Or don't want to? Heck no! Like the ancient rulers of one of the most impregnable and sought after territories in history, Constantinople, leaders must try their utmost to keep the chain that guards their harbor free of weak links. It is how they protect and serve their tribe. As the C² vs LSHRV war clearly shows, a tribe suffers the most casualties when the links in its defensive chain are weak. The demands of managing INFRASTRUCTURE are currently exceeding the ability of remaining W16 players to get about the REAL business of Tribal Wars... WARS!

So... is there anything that could fix this issue and serious threat to the enjoyability of W16?

Ok just so everyone understands it here is what the staff gave to w2 when they were deciding.
So no it will not double what is in your stored resources already.
What will happen is that the number of packets you can store per village doubles once it is initiated.

In the current state of w16 you are suppose to be able to build one noble per day with the resources you can store each day. Meaning you can noble one village per day. The only change would be that that increases from 1 to 2.

Blitzen09's assessment is flawless, no misconceptions or misrepresentation of facts. Consider this: even if no one on this server ever quit again, if everyone on this server was suddenly 100% active and 100% aggressive (like that would EVER happen?), and if we NEVER attacked any other player again and -only- took barbs from here on out ... it would take 8 months (see above) to fill up this world! :icon_eek:

Bottom line: a vote for half-priced nobles is a vote for more randomness, less fair gameplay, and dumbing the game down. The only people who would vote for that are the people who lack a spine and can't cut it under normal circumstances, and they should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

Personally, I would RATHER fight worthy opponents and face real challenges than spend my "entertainment time" just managing assets. The *current* noble availability rate actually PROMOTES the long term survivability of 'spineless players who cannot cut it' (to paraphrase MK). The ever-growing sea of gray that W16 has become adrift within allows such players the freedom to go about their shameful existences virtually unfettered. There are not enough remaining nobles "budgetted" by attackers to oppose ("rim") any sizeable target any longer. Think about it... how often are players in a war actually rimmed nowadays? Wars are no longer fought for villages; they are fought for players. The unwanted who are left behind, who do not quit, continue to exist because the nobles required to remove them are needed elsewhere to maintain a tribe's infrastructure. If we WANT to remove the under-skilled, those who are "lazy and grossly incompetent players" (to quote MK), we need a tool to do it with!

Bottom line: a vote for half-priced packets is a vote for MORE WAR, LESS WHORE! Half priced FUTURE packet storage will do *nothing* to cause an imbalance between players who have stored thousands and players who's academies are empty.... it will affect all players equally, just as Blitzen09 presented it. Furthermore, the "lazy and grossly incompetent players" will continue in their sloppy mismanagement habits and will gain no advantage from the change. The players who stand to benefit are the aggressive ones; the players who will be enabled to stop the fruitless chore of mending weak chain links and take the field of battle in conquest once again!! Isn't THAT what we want?

 

[Dopeas]

Wow. :icon_eek:

I'm deeply in love, marry me Seagryfn? :lol: Very nice work and research!

 

[MichielK]

The morale change eliminated an entire tribal battle strategy from W16. At one time during war, a tribe coveted its small front-line players, and in fact, placed them there on purpose! A 20K/20K stack in a village owned by a target attackers have 33% morale against defends as if it were stacked 60K/60K. :icon_eek: Nowadays, Plight still values its small players, but many tribes no longer do, preferring points over ability.

It didn't eliminate it, but I agree it's less effective at 50% than at 30%.

Many television game and reality shows currently use this exact format as a method of maintaining viewership of their program. People don't get bored of the show as quickly when the stakes (risk & rewards) become ever greater after each commercial break. TW is not a chess match; it is a pay-to-be-entertained game. As such, it is more likely to follow industry trends that reliably maintain an audience.

First off, I'm not sure "television game and reality show" is really what we're all looking for in TW :icon_wink:

Secondly, the stakes are increasing, even without artificial influences. When looking at rewards, C² went from fighting to secure part of the rim (TIF) to fighting for access to the core (CND) to fighting for dominance of the southern hemisphere (HRV). The risks went from loss of face (TIF) to loss of territory (CND) to loss of everything (HRV). Other tribes have followed the same pattern.

False conclusion.

I stand corrected on the math, but the point still stands; we've come a long way.

I'd rather those villages be occupied by a player who will fight back and do battle... that is what makes the game challenging and exciting. But... tribes MUST noble out barbs and inactives in their territory.

I'd rather have those villages occupied by a player who will fight back as well, but this requires nobling grays and inactives, and:

Nobling grays and inactives isn't fun... its sim-city!

And there's the problem. Your whole logic hinges on the fact that half-priced nobles will increase the nobling rate (true), increase the ratio of player-owned villages to barbs (true), and provide more fun in the future (true)...assuming people are willing to spend their time nobling more small barbs and building them.

It's in this last assumption where everything falls apart, IMO. Half-priced nobles force people to spend more time doing things they hate to do to keep up. Instead of fighting wars, we'll be taking every little 116-pointer in our area simply because we can afford it.

Half-priced nobles don't eliminate the "sea of barbs" problem. They speed up the time it takes to collect the resources necessary to noble a barb, but do not reduce the time it takes to find the barb, send the attacks, assign it to groups, improve the buildings, recruit the troops, or do the research.

The only time that is reduced by half-priced nobles is the time required to wait until you can noble your umpteenth barb...I can hardly control my glee :icon_rolleyes:

So, to protect themselves, a tribe must not leave weak links in their harbor defense chain. But, under the current system, the weak links (barbs/gifts) are growing faster that ANY tribe's ability to repair the rot. That applies to aggressors as well as defenders.

Not any tribe. True, some tribes choose not to spend the appropriate time dealing with inactives and leave them under long-term sitting for extended periods...only to find they're a liability in war. Other tribes deal with inactives as they come, and while they may have some at any given time, it's a minor distraction instead of a major problem.

SO... that brings us to a needful solution. 240K barbs and 1K players, and the numbers get ever more staggering every month. Even if not one single player left W16 after today, and every last player was 100% active and actually nobled one village per day, it would take eight months to noble them all. And, you KNOW (even with the self-updating maps broken again) that I am the only player on W16 with a noble rate of 1 full village per day. You KNOW that player attrition will continue. You know the growth of barbs will continue to exceed the nobles available to the remaining population of W16 players. Since tribes cannot avoid being forced to manage the growing population of grays/gifts to stay secure, and the growing problem requires more noble assets than the game provides, tribes spend more time dealing with routine territorial management and less time engaged in genuine battle. I thought the 'challenge of the fight' was what are here for, no?

It is, and half-priced nobles will distract from that. Besides, they will not even offer the solution you suggest, and you've mentioned the reason yourself: you are the only player on W16 with a noble rate of 1 full village a day.

Why is this? You seem to suggest that packets are too expensive for people to keep up a 1 village a day nobling rate. I doubt that. The only reasons why people would be unable to get 1 noble worth of packets together are A) grossly inefficient resource management (red warehouses, etc), or B) spending too many resources rebuilding troops. A seems unlikely, and B is a luxury problem...these players are probably getting plenty entertainment :icon_wink:

I'll suggest a different explanation: people are not nobling 1 full village a day due to a lack of worthy targets. That's right...a lack of worthy targets. I think that most people simply cannot motivate themselves to take small barbs if they could not find a worthwhile target that day. I know I'd personally have trouble motivating myself to take another 116-pointer to take...and you're asking us to do it twice as often!

Bottom line: a vote for half-priced packets is a vote for EQUAL WAR, MORE WHORE. If you really want to do the same things as you're doing now and noble a tiny barb and build the ~50 barbs that you've taken that are not fully built yet, all of this simply to keep up...by all means, vote for it.

If you do not want to spend your spare time raising HQs from level 5 to level 6, raising research on spears from 1 to 2, and moderating claims lists that are filled to the brim with the same B-word, the only answer possible is a strong and resounding NO TO HALF-PRICED PACKETS.

 

[Seagryfn]

MichielK, we normally see eye-to-eye on topics, but you seem to be basing the full weight of your arguement on an assumption that was neither endorsed nor implied in my presentation. The case you made against the packet-price seems founded exclusively on the fact that nobling 116-pointers and builing them up is not enjoyable, nor is it battle. (If taking 300 pointers is so upsetting to you, I suggest you simply stop taking them.)
I could not agree more. Extra nobles should be for....

(when essential for tribal security), and/or extra nobles should be used against live players.

The "noble increase" has nothing to do with rampant 116-pointers, and everything to do with the fact that at least 10% of the fully developed & maxxed villages that go gray every day from quitting/gifting players exceed the total available nobles produced on the entire W16 server. FORGET the 240K currently existing barbs! IF no one on this server ever nobled another player again, and nobled -only- large barbs/gifts, forever more... the number of large barbs on W16 will continue to grow every day. The player attrition rate exceeeds the remaining noble production rate. :icon_cry: And, I am in no way endorsing that this is where the extra nobles go either! I would rather fight other players. But the very players we want to eleminate as unworthy are simply growing fat on all the excess carrion.

In my post, I talked about the (on average) 3-5 new large grays that, each and every day, appear in every continent. These fully developed, ready-for-an-army villages appear at a rate that exceeds the available nobles that the resident tribe can make in a day. I'm sorry to put it this way, but look in the mirror if you want to know what I am refering to... My tribe also (to a lesser extent). I am, at least, not wanting to hide it.
[SPOIL]

(249|847) K82 1,447 Abandoned MichaelDav [C²] 13th Nov 2009 - 22:47:53
(432|405) K44 5,131 Abandoned ranman007 [C²] 13th Nov 2009 - 19:13:55
(444|462) K44 4,191 Abandoned dalemoulding [C²] 13th Nov 2009 - 18:04:40
(353|546) K53 3,599 Abandoned carminevinga [C²] 13th Nov 2009 - 16:18:51
(199|944) K91 2,619 Abandoned Lord Jesaar [C²] 13th Nov 2009 - 16:16:51
(192|898) K81 2,281 Abandoned DWPE [C²] 13th Nov 2009 - 16:06:38
(458|650) K64 727 Abandoned realkazman [C²] 13th Nov 2009 - 10:17:04
(227|734) K72 8,925 Abandoned MichielK [C²] 13th Nov 2009 - 09:12:26
(369|858) K83 9,692 Abandoned Lord Jesaar [C²] 13th Nov 2009 - 07:06:57
(189|722) K71 10,040 Abandoned meatloafff [C²] 13th Nov 2009 - 06:32:33
(185|893) K81 2,238 Abandoned DWPE [C²] 13th Nov 2009 - 05:25:35
(437|463) K44 3,847 Abandoned dalemoulding [C²] 13th Nov 2009 - 05:18:14
(88|960) K90 4,523 Abandoned carminevinga [C²] 13th Nov 2009 - 04:59:29
(438|788) K74 85 Abandoned kingbernie [C²] 13th Nov 2009 - 04:38:23
(312|473) K43 7,458 Abandoned wezzel [C²] 13th Nov 2009 - 02:20:51
(513|413) K45 378 Abandoned Veriel [C²] 13th Nov 2009 - 02:09:33
(249|711) K72 9,019 Abandoned adamjrose2 [C²] 12th Nov 2009 - 20:52:46
(282|660) K62 555 Abandoned Funkmun [C²] 12th Nov 2009 - 14:27:31
(185|715) K71 1,588 Abandoned bj2060 [C²] 12th Nov 2009 - 14:01:23
(190|933) K91 9,851 Abandoned ranman007 [C²] 12th Nov 2009 - 11:53:58
(29|811) K80 3,071 Abandoned Yoroyo [C²] 12th Nov 2009 - 10:02:49
(238|719) K72 9,377 Abandoned crosamich [C²] 12th Nov 2009 - 07:17:15
(15|851) K80 8,530 Abandoned ACCarnall [C²] 12th Nov 2009 - 07:03:12
(224|716) K72 9,480 Abandoned bj2060 [C²] 12th Nov 2009 - 06:46:34
(107|965) K91 3,524 Abandoned ranman007 [C²] 12th Nov 2009 - 06:27:46
(589|444) K45 1,680 Abandoned carminevinga [C²] 12th Nov 2009 - 05:47:30
(428|763) K74 73 Abandoned kingbernie [C²] 12th Nov 2009 - 05:27:21
(308|974) K93 2,913 Abandoned rag1 [C²] 12th Nov 2009 - 04:32:46
(232|713) K72 9,309 Abandoned bj2060 [C²] 12th Nov 2009 - 03:40:50
(312|465) K43 6,710 Abandoned wezzel [C²] 12th Nov 2009 - 02:14:37
(247|712) K72 8,899 Abandoned adamjrose2 [C²] 12th Nov 2009 - 01:33:56
(183|717) K71 9,278 Abandoned meatloafff [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 23:22:33
(7|856) K80 8,432 Abandoned ACCarnall [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 23:19:35
(223|739) K72 10,186 Abandoned MichielK [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 22:41:26
(218|715) K72 9,536 Abandoned bj2060 [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 22:37:10
(48|924) K90 4,254 Abandoned merje [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 21:30:45
(131|964) K91 10,953 Abandoned merje [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 20:14:12
(212|723) K72 9,921 Abandoned MichielK [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 17:22:33
(447|459) K44 3,336 Abandoned dalemoulding [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 16:56:14
(495|993) K94 309 Abandoned MichielK [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 16:35:29
(310|845) K83 557 Abandoned Lord Jesaar [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 15:14:55
(74|771) K70 10,678 Abandoned fab5487 [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 12:27:14
(165|735) K71 9,344 Abandoned adamjrose2 [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 12:13:52
(293|774) K72 8,837 Abandoned MichielK [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 10:41:25
(57|810) K80 9,027 Abandoned fab5487 [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 09:47:34
(321|479) K43 6,879 Abandoned wezzel [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 09:18:34
(302|982) K93 3,444 Abandoned rag1 [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 07:31:21
(373|916) K93 2,577 Abandoned rag1 [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 07:23:39
(237|754) K72 9,494 Abandoned MichielK [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 06:37:48
(236|723) K72 9,094 Abandoned crosamich [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 06:21:32
(437|464) K44 4,376 Abandoned dalemoulding [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 06:21:20
(226|734) K72 11,063 Abandoned MichielK [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 05:29:48
(331|941) K93 2,182 Abandoned rag1 [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 03:43:57
(126|725) K71 1,369 Abandoned pikepole10 [C²] 11th Nov 2009 - 03:37:38

[/SPOIL]That's just 3 days and doesn't even touch upon the in-tribe enoblements. (the teensy enoblements came as a genuine shock to me when I saw them)
It is a gruesome ordeal that every tribe on W16 is facing, every day, not just yours and not just mine. And when the chore is done, there is prescious little left over for "live" targets.

Vacant large barbs in your territory are perfect magnets for "bullet-proof" operations. Maybe fear of such a scenario has much to do with the vast majority of C² nobles currently being spent on barbs/gifts and not against war targets? Or is that standard? (I haven't looked to be perfectly honest.) Obviously, within even the most battle-hardened tribes on the server, massive noble allocations are being made every day to grays/gifts and very few to actual live captures. And this is the way you WANT it to stay? :icon_eek:

What I would hope for with half price packets, is that there would be enough nobles in a tribe to do "damage control" for players in their territory who quit... and there would STILL be enough nobles left over to throw into war efforts against plenty more live targets that will fight back! Suggesting that the extra nobles be used on 300-ponters is something I find personally revolting. :icon_rolleyes:

 

[ravensbane3468]

Oh, I do. But, actually, the single best farming troop in the game is the Noble. A nuke (say, 3000LC) used to farm with would bring home a maximum of 3000*80 = 240K resources a day. That would be if all troops went out every day and brought home a full load, no exceptions whatsoever. Even my best farming villages average just 75% of their potential capacity, or 180K resources a day, and farming is worse on the rim. Also, not every village you own is needed to farm your whole environment. Suppose that only one in nine villages is needed to farm your complete territory. As an active farmer that drops the average farming income yet further, from 180K down to just 20K per day per village owned. Further, if you fail to farm on any given day (holiday or war), those 20K resources are often lost.

On the other hand, a nobleman used to "farm" with brings home nearly 130K resources a day with no additional effort on your part. This is the daily production of a maxxed village's resource pits. Since a packet costs 83K resources to store and a nobleman "makes" nearly 130K a day for you (by ruling a conquered village), each village you have yields a net surplus of resources. The difference goes (mostly) into troops. The faster you grow, the faster you continue to grow. Personally, I "farm" with all assets available to me, which means ground troops and nobles too.


The morale change eliminated an entire tribal battle strategy from W16. At one time during war, a tribe coveted its small front-line players, and in fact, placed them there on purpose! A 20K/20K stack in a village owned by a target attackers have 33% morale against defends as if it were stacked 60K/60K. :icon_eek: Nowadays, Plight still values its small players, but many tribes no longer do, preferring points over ability.

As for your other statements... lets look at the math.


Many television game and reality shows currently use this exact format as a method of maintaining viewership of their program. People don't get bored of the show as quickly when the stakes (risk & rewards) become ever greater after each commercial break. TW is not a chess match; it is a pay-to-be-entertained game. As such, it is more likely to follow industry trends that reliably maintain an audience.


False conclusion. Lets do the proof by looking at a world that *just* opened, W43.

Total Villages (on W43) = 27K. Abandoned Villages = 5K.

Now, look at the bar graph rate of change. Identical, yes? This is NOT because that many players have already quit or restarted in W43... in fact, W43 has only been open 3 days, not even long enough for a deleted account to go gray. When a world is created, the TWStaff manually "populate" the world, gradually, by ADDING new barbs. The added barbs allow a player to farm and/or noble something other than each other. Lets look at W42 which is already limiting new enrollment: 50K players and 96K villages. Innogames will add more barbs as well when they re-open W42 for non-premium joining. Does this really 'dumb down' the game? Or, did you depend on those extra farming resources from nearby grays when you built your first village?



There were never more than 100K accounts, tops, on W16 (I am thinking it was about 78K but my stats-memory is foggy after 21 months, especially when I wasn't paying attention to, nor recording, these kinds of stats back then.) Meh, 99% vs. 99.7%, big deal. :icon_wink: But, the "starting player numbers" come into play further on....

There may be 310K villages on W16, however 240K of these are barbs! A mere 70K of all villages on W16 are in the hands of live players. The top 80 tribes have, between them all, just 64,456 villages and 639 players. That is an average of 100 villages per W16 player, not counting those who are tribeless or exist in under-top-80 tribes-of-one (a statistically small one-in-fourteen villages). (I didn't go below top 80 tribes because most the remaining "data" on the really small tribes are just glitches in the database.) Every day, more players quit. So, that is 100 new barbs/gifts on W16 per each player who quits. (True, many of the quitting players are small, but the huge players quit too... it evens out).

MK predicted a decline rate of 30% per month on W16, but that trend has slowed. Lets assume it is 25% now for the sake of argument. There are currently 1,122 players on W16 (including pointless players waiting to go gray). 1122 players x 100 villages each (average) x 25% drop out = there will be 28K new gift/barb villages appear in the next month on W16. 840 players will remain to show an interest in them. 840 players x (just under) 1 noble per day = capacity to conquer about 25K villages. The rate at which player occupied villages are vanishing from the game exceeds the rate at which those vacant villages can be conquered. As a world, W16 has become awash in a sea of gray, and it gets worse every month!



So, ignoring the math above and just looking at currently occupied villages on W16, the trends show that there are MORE grays on W16 now (240K) than there were ever players. If 100K players started W16 and only 70K villages now belong to players, the grays are increasing at a rate FAR faster than the population can absorb them! Nobling grays and inactives isn't fun... its sim-city! THAT is what is too easy. :icon_sad:

I'd rather those villages be occupied by a player who will fight back and do battle... that is what makes the game challenging and exciting. But... tribes MUST noble out barbs and inactives in their territory. Why? As the math presented in the C² vs. LSHRV thread clearly shows, the real gains in war conquers are made against the inactives and not against the players who are fighting back. So, to protect themselves, a tribe must not leave weak links in their harbor defense chain. But, under the current system, the weak links (barbs/gifts) are growing faster that ANY tribe's ability to repair the rot. That applies to aggressors as well as defenders.

SO... that brings us to a needful solution. 240K barbs and 1K players, and the numbers get ever more staggering every month. Even if not one single player left W16 after today, and every last player was 100% active and actually nobled one village per day, it would take eight months to noble them all. And, you KNOW (even with the self-updating maps broken again) that I am the only player on W16 with a noble rate of 1 full village per day. You KNOW that player attrition will continue. You know the growth of barbs will continue to exceed the nobles available to the remaining population of W16 players. Since tribes cannot avoid being forced to manage the growing population of grays/gifts to stay secure, and the growing problem requires more noble assets than the game provides, tribes spend more time dealing with routine territorial management and less time engaged in genuine battle. I thought the 'challenge of the fight' was what are here for, no?

W16 is losing its challenge as a game of combat strategy and has become a game of asset management. Look at the enoblement record of the duke of EVERY leading tribe: myself, Rag1, Zvone1979, Kerbogha... even Endemonadia! An occasional war capture, but as more and more players quit W16, our personal enoblement records have become almost entirely grays/gifts. Why? Is it because we can't fight? Or don't want to? Heck no! Like the ancient rulers of one of the most impregnable and sought after territories in history, Constantinople, leaders must try their utmost to keep the chain that guards their harbor free of weak links. It is how they protect and serve their tribe. As the C² vs LSHRV war clearly shows, a tribe suffers the most casualties when the links in its defensive chain are weak. The demands of managing INFRASTRUCTURE are currently exceeding the ability of remaining W16 players to get about the REAL business of Tribal Wars... WARS!

So... is there anything that could fix this issue and serious threat to the enjoyability of W16?


Blitzen09's assessment is flawless, no misconceptions or misrepresentation of facts. Consider this: even if no one on this server ever quit again, if everyone on this server was suddenly 100% active and 100% aggressive (like that would EVER happen?), and if we NEVER attacked any other player again and -only- took barbs from here on out ... it would take 8 months (see above) to fill up this world! :icon_eek:


Personally, I would RATHER fight worthy opponents and face real challenges than spend my "entertainment time" just managing assets. The *current* noble availability rate actually PROMOTES the long term survivability of 'spineless players who cannot cut it' (to paraphrase MK). The ever-growing sea of gray that W16 has become adrift within allows such players the freedom to go about their shameful existences virtually unfettered. There are not enough remaining nobles "budgetted" by attackers to oppose ("rim") any sizeable target any longer. Think about it... how often are players in a war actually rimmed nowadays? Wars are no longer fought for villages; they are fought for players. The unwanted who are left behind, who do not quit, continue to exist because the nobles required to remove them are needed elsewhere to maintain a tribe's infrastructure. If we WANT to remove the under-skilled, those who are "lazy and grossly incompetent players" (to quote MK), we need a tool to do it with!

Bottom line: a vote for half-priced packets is a vote for MORE WAR, LESS WHORE! Half priced FUTURE packet storage will do *nothing* to cause an imbalance between players who have stored thousands and players who's academies are empty.... it will affect all players equally, just as Blitzen09 presented it. Furthermore, the "lazy and grossly incompetent players" will continue in their sloppy mismanagement habits and will gain no advantage from the change. The players who stand to benefit are the aggressive ones; the players who will be enabled to stop the fruitless chore of mending weak chain links and take the field of battle in conquest once again!! Isn't THAT what we want?

Wow. I hate to throw up a real in game fact in the face of all this logic. From what you are saying, it would be impossible for a tribe to keep up w/ the barbs/inactives growing around/inside it.

Well, in my personal experience, I went semi-inactive here in W16. RL came up, many of my friends quit, etc. However, I did log on every 3 days or so and store packets and log off. So, when I came back to play I had 5,000 ish packets and still had my 60 ish villages.

Now, the first thing I did was move from a fading academy/family to the big tribe. Explaining my situation to leadership - they said "grab up all our barbs/inactives". In about 3 weeks, I had all the inactives and barbs over 1k nobled up. Since then, in the past 2-3 months, we've had ZERO additional inactives to eat. I can't find them ANYWHERE around me/us - and I"m talking for like 4-5 K's.

So, someone spotted a field of 9k barbs in the midst of the enemy. So, I sent trains - about 400 hours one way? to them. By the time they arrived, about 3/5 of the targets had already been taken by the enemy.

Therefore, my actual ingame real experience tends to indicate that there are not rampant barbs all over just waiting to be eaten up but for the lack of nobles to do so. Now, if other's have different experiences, then perhaps I'm just in an unlucky or active area/tribe. But, I suspect most people don't see many 9k barbs laying around their maps.

I don't know where your thinking went off track - I'm too tired to run through it right now. But, if most people agree - that there are not 9k barbs all over, then you have to be wrong.

 

[ravensbane3468]

Just to check myself, I ran a TW stats search, for all of the barbs near me, 4,000 points or more. I came up with 6. Now, there are at LEAST 6-10 players also centered in/near my k - so I can't see how barbs are an issue.

In fact, before this gets back to my tribe, I'm posting these up on our claim boards POST HASTE! <grin>

** edit ** due to some bug in TWSTATS, one barb got listed 3 times, so there are really only 4 barbs for me to go after. And, they are spread over 3 k's.

Perhaps TWSTATS missed some, I"ll go looking just to be sure.

 

[MichielK]

It is a gruesome ordeal that every tribe on W16 is facing, every day, not just yours and not just mine. And when the chore is done, there is prescious little left over for "live" targets.

Now, the first thing I did was move from a fading academy/family to the big tribe. Explaining my situation to leadership - they said "grab up all our barbs/inactives". In about 3 weeks, I had all the inactives and barbs over 1k nobled up. Since then, in the past 2-3 months, we've had ZERO additional inactives to eat. I can't find them ANYWHERE around me/us - and I"m talking for like 4-5 K's.

SG, this combination of quotes is why we differ in opinion.

Ravensbane is exaggerating somewhat, but the general point is recognisable for me and my tribemates. Do we occasionally have inactives to eat? Sure. Do we occasionally have (non-C²) players going barb in our area? Sure. Do people go inactive or barb at a rate where we cannot cope? Absolutely not.

By my nature, I am pretty much the go-to guy in the tribe when it comes to eating inactives. I'm spread across a large area, generally have a big packet surplus, and am always willing to donate nukes and support to tribemates. As a result, the majority of my conquers have been against inactives and barbs. However, this does not prevent me from participating in war, and does not mean that the majority of my time is spent doing inactives management. The very fact that I have a big packet surplus despite being one of the most active inactive-eaters proves that...I can't remember the last time my packet-count went below 5000, and five figures is standard for me.

Now, imagine if packets were suddenly twice as cheap for me. What on earth would I do with them? And if I'm asking myself that question, how must my tribemates feel given that they are not responsible for eating as many inactives? The bottom line is that C² does not have the problem you described, because A) we secured our rim early, B) our mergers have always gone well, and C) our members rarely go inactive. All three things are not just luck, they are things we work(ed) hard on. As Ravensbane indicated, our problem is generally a lack of inactives and barbs needed to move players rather than a surplus. For my tribe, half-priced packets would create exactly the nightmare scenario I've described; being forced to either eat small barbs or watch our packet count skyrocket.

Would I feel differently if I was in another tribe? Possibly. A tribe like BANG has quite a few inactives to noble out after their recent merge, and are fighting a rim tribe that for all purposes has lost already. A tribe like Plight has recently secured their rim and is now dealing with a massive cleanup operation. However, in both cases these problems are temporary; once they are fixed, you're stuck with cheap packets and no place to spend them. We were in the same situation after the CND merger, and while it took us a while to secure our territory, this was clearly a temporary problem given the comments above. I see both Plight and BANG being very proactive in cleaning up their territory, so I expect this will be a temporary problem for them as well.

That leaves HRV, who have a long history of inactivity which is only increased by the pressure they're under right now. However, they have this problem because they spent months and months refusing to eat the inactives they had. Many of the accounts that are currently giving them trouble have been inactive since the ~I~ war! If they had been in the same situation with half-priced packets, nothing would have changed. They didn't lack the packets to eat these accounts, they lacked the willingness. If they had a more proactive approach towards inactives, they wouldn't have had a problem to begin with.

Yes, if I were in their tribe now, half-priced packets would feel like Christmas coming early. Their problem is neither temporary nor easy to fix, and while I sympathise (a little :icon_wink, I am neither responsible for the mess they created nor should I be punished for getting them out.

Even if we're talking about big barbs instead of small barbs, the value of half-priced packets is based on the willingness of tribes and players to use them to keep their territory under control, and I see plenty evidence that this willingness is not widespread.

If people don't like eating rotten food, I suggest they make sure that the food doesn't go rotten. Your solution is to hand them a bigger fork.

 

[DeletedUser]

stop wit teh long messages

 

[MichielK]

stop wit teh long messages

This is an issue that has potentially disastrous or fantastic consequences on W16, depending on who you ask. So no, I don't think I'll skimp on length...the topic is complicated and important, has many aspects, and will get the attention it deserves.

Feel free not to read it though.

 

[DeletedUser]

stop wit teh long messages

Learn to read faster :icon_biggrin:

Anyway, MK brought up a good point that I thought he was gonna forget about LSHRV's inactivity.

My problem is that any vote for this would simply be unfair on certain tribes. For reasons MK has stated, C2 as a whole would vote for NO half prices nobles. Dust would vote for NO half priced nobles for obvious reasons. LSHRV would vote FOR half prices nobles, so would BANG and so would Plight. It simply suits each of those tribes to go those ways. What about the rest of the world?

I assume Coal would vote NO and MK probably have nothing to lose from it so they'd vote YES, but when we get down to tribes who really have no idea about the system, they will simply vote YES for it cos all they think about is that they will have more nobles.

Therefore, most of the world would vote YES for half priced nobles and it would be unfair on tribes like C2, Dust and Coal who gain nothing from it. A vote now would therefore be unfair and should not happen for a long time to come.

 

[MichielK]

Anyway, MK brought up a good point that I thought he was gonna forget about LSHRV's inactivity.

I didn't forget, but I am very hesitant about bringing politics into this thread. Before you know it, the whole thread gets railroaded into a bunch of propaganda, and it's too important for that. I felt I had no choice but to bring up individual tribes in this case, but don't intend to make a habit out of it.

In fact, the last thing I'd want is for people to vote along "party lines" simply to get a temporary advantage...this change is permanent, and should be seen from a longterm perspective. I want every player to look at their own situation: are they frequently short on packets? Are they willing to noble small barbs once targets dry up? Do they think tribes that are losing in a war should be able to noble small barbs in an attempt to prolong the inevitable?

If people vote for it without understanding the consequences and then later discover it piles a ton of work onto their daily time in TW, that could be a disaster for W16...that's what I'm trying to prevent. If half-priced nobles get voted in because most people answer yes to all three questions, so be it. I'll shut up, eat my extra barbs and accept that the majority is not in the same situation as me.

 

[Seagryfn]

I'm spread across a large area, generally have a big packet surplus, and am always willing to donate nukes and support to tribemates.

I would expect no less of you, MichielK. Any tribe member worth keeping in the tribe should act the same.

You are a rim player. I am a core player. We grew up differently. I remember W16 in far more dangerous, exciting and chaotic days... when 60 tribes were struggling neck-and-neck for dominance and no one had the luxury of hiding behind continents (or even mere fields) of safe territory. There was danger in every direction, and you dared not noble faster than you could populate armies to protect your captures.
When I took 20 villages in a month, and I had 40 to start with, I was growing 50% a month! Not like now when I have 600 and take 30 a month = 5% gowth. I feel stagnant. :icon_sad:

Back in the early days, every noble was a calculated expenditure that had to make for you an army as quickly as you could if you were to survive. Only the finest villages were noble-worthy. It was a shame and disgrace to ever spend a noble on a barb. If you wanted to rim an enemy owning 9 villages, you and two friends spent a couple days planning a surprise ops, and then he was rimmed in a day. Why so fast? 9 villages = 3 attackers * 3 days of noble production. You yourself, MK, didn't even have 9 villages when you left TIF for C².

Because of my up-bringing in the core, and my "You be Food?!" war spirit, I will freely admit that my method of thinking about villages in this game tends to fall into a pattern called "stereotype profiling." In my own mind, a player quitting/gifting is already as useless as a barb, even though he does not show up on the map as a gray to the outside world. (One of the reasons I kept saying barbs/gifts.) In my own opinion, a player who, for months, only logs in twice a week to store packets and never does anything with them is equally as useless. No personal offense intended... just picking examples out of thin air. Ravensbane3468 is in C². In the last 5 months, he has not spent a single noble on a live target.) So, is that Carnage? Or should a player like that be Euthanised? (Read on, I will explain.)

the value of half-priced packets is based on the willingness of tribes and players to use them to keep their territory under control, and I see plenty evidence that this willingness is not widespread.

C² is at WAR. Against an opponent that might have been able to make-or-break you! And are any of Raven's noble packets assisting in the war effort? No, possibly just troops; where is the glory of conquest? Of battle? During the Euthanasia/PnX war, a Plight player of comparable size to Raven (DiveKing) launched himself from K29 all the way to K05 to participate in the war. Many worthy victories did he achieve, and he is still growing strong in battle. DiveKing is but one of many tribe mates who summoned the courage to make the same six-continent-journey to join the war! ... to participate with his team Euthanising the "lazy and grossly incompetent players" that deserved to put out of their W16 misery.

SG, this combination of quotes is why we differ in opinion. Do people go inactive or barb at a rate where we cannot cope? Absolutely not.

When a tribe 'copes' by swapping new lamps for old (replacing players), you keep your stored packets intact. Fat lot of good that does a tribe that won't be using most of those packets against an enemy. Of course you don't see any need for more packets. Okay, now your position makes more sense. In the process of writing this, I've put myself in your shoes and seen the difference in perspective.

Earlier, I gave an example of old times when 3 players could plan an ops to rim another in one fell swoop. Nowadays, the average player on W16 has 100 villages. If you and 2 friends want to plan an ops to rim him, you simply can not do it in one strike. You have to wait over a month to save up enough nobles between you all. By then, he's grown and you require another two weeks more for the needed nobles. 6 weeks of noble production for the three of you to eliminate the one opponent. BUT, if you invite him into your tribe instead, viola! Overnight conquest can still be attained! Plus, you still have all your (and his) noble packets unspent.

D'oh! Now it all sinks in. I guess that combination of quotes did, indeed, shed light on why you and I view the world differently. I prefer to Euthanise, not assimilate. Such a task requires nobles to be used to conquer, instead of resulting in a noble surplus.

If people don't like eating rotten food, I suggest they make sure that the food doesn't go rotten. Your solution is to hand them a bigger fork.

If my icebox goes bad (we have a lot of hurricanes and power outages where I live) we eat perishables before they go rotten. If your icebox goes bad, you get a new icebox? If you avoid eating in the first place you won't need a fork. But, yes! I say, hand them a fork! Lets EAT! You Be Food?!

I am very hesitant about bringing politics into this thread. Before you know it, the whole thread gets railroaded into a bunch of propaganda, and it's too important for that. I felt I had no choice but to bring up individual tribes in this case, but don't intend to make a habit out of it.

I could not agree more, my friend. But apparently a discussion of tribal political viewpoints was essential to understanding the whys/why-nots of the debate. And to do so, required examples. I simply did not understand your viewpoint until it was expressed in those terms.

I understand how hard you worked to build your empire the way you wanted it to be. I still don't think any one tribe's 'surplus' of idle nobles is a good thing. And I've already proven how a tribe working together can help any member with a surplus to put these nobles to greater use for the tribe. Despite replacements, world-wide, players are still leaving this world faster than packets for new nobles can be stored.
_________________

Bottom line: a vote for half-priced packets is a vote for MORE WAR, LESS WHORE!

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with axlthecat, it only speeds up the nobling factor, but nukes will still take same amount of time to build. If oyu have million nobles but no army, they are no good, right? Michielk has good point as well though. if we start tinkering with game mechanics, where do we draw the line? I love the bring up the HC attack and defense idea! better than the half price noble packets one...

 

[ravensbane3468]

I would expect no less of you, MichielK. Any tribe member worth keeping in the tribe should act the same.

You are a rim player. I am a core player. We grew up differently. I remember W16 in far more dangerous, exciting and chaotic days... when 60 tribes were struggling neck-and-neck for dominance and no one had the luxury of hiding behind continents (or even mere fields) of safe territory. There was danger in every direction, and you dared not noble faster than you could populate armies to protect your captures.
When I took 20 villages in a month, and I had 40 to start with, I was growing 50% a month! Not like now when I have 600 and take 30 a month = 5% gowth. I feel stagnant. :icon_sad:

Back in the early days, every noble was a calculated expenditure that had to make for you an army as quickly as you could if you were to survive. Only the finest villages were noble-worthy. It was a shame and disgrace to ever spend a noble on a barb. If you wanted to rim an enemy owning 9 villages, you and two friends spent a couple days planning a surprise ops, and then he was rimmed in a day. Why so fast? 9 villages = 3 attackers * 3 days of noble production. You yourself, MK, didn't even have 9 villages when you left TIF for C².

Because of my up-bringing in the core, and my "You be Food?!" war spirit, I will freely admit that my method of thinking about villages in this game tends to fall into a pattern called "stereotype profiling." In my own mind, a player quitting/gifting is already as useless as a barb, even though he does not show up on the map as a gray to the outside world. (One of the reasons I kept saying barbs/gifts.) In my own opinion, a player who, for months, only logs in twice a week to store packets and never does anything with them is equally as useless. No personal offense intended... just picking examples out of thin air. Ravensbane3468 is in C². In the last 5 months, he has not spent a single noble on a live target.) So, is that Carnage? Or should a player like that be Euthanised? (Read on, I will explain.)

C² is at WAR. Against an opponent that might have been able to make-or-break you! And are any of Raven's noble packets assisting in the war effort? No, possibly just troops; where is the glory of conquest? Of battle? During the Euthanasia/PnX war, a Plight player of comparable size to Raven (DiveKing) launched himself from K29 all the way to K05 to participate in the war. Many worthy victories did he achieve, and he is still growing strong in battle. DiveKing is but one of many tribe mates who summoned the courage to make the same six-continent-journey to join the war! ... to participate with his team Euthanising the "lazy and grossly incompetent players" that deserved to put out of their W16 misery.



When a tribe 'copes' by swapping new lamps for old (replacing players), you keep your stored packets intact. Fat lot of good that does a tribe that won't be using most of those packets against an enemy. Of course you don't see any need for more packets. Okay, now your position makes more sense. In the process of writing this, I've put myself in your shoes and seen the difference in perspective.

Earlier, I gave an example of old times when 3 players could plan an ops to rim another in one fell swoop. Nowadays, the average player on W16 has 100 villages. If you and 2 friends want to plan an ops to rim him, you simply can not do it in one strike. You have to wait over a month to save up enough nobles between you all. By then, he's grown and you require another two weeks more for the needed nobles. 6 weeks of noble production for the three of you to eliminate the one opponent. BUT, if you invite him into your tribe instead, viola! Overnight conquest can still be attained! Plus, you still have all your (and his) noble packets unspent.

D'oh! Now it all sinks in. I guess that combination of quotes did, indeed, shed light on why you and I view the world differently. I prefer to Euthanise, not assimilate. Such a task requires nobles to be used to conquer, instead of resulting in a noble surplus.

If my icebox goes bad (we have a lot of hurricanes and power outages where I live) we eat perishables before they go rotten. If your icebox goes bad, you get a new icebox? If you avoid eating in the first place you won't need a fork. But, yes! I say, hand them a fork! Lets EAT! You Be Food?!

I could not agree more, my friend. But apparently a discussion of tribal political viewpoints was essential to understanding the whys/why-nots of the debate. And to do so, required examples. I simply did not understand your viewpoint until it was expressed in those terms.

I understand how hard you worked to build your empire the way you wanted it to be. I still don't think any one tribe's 'surplus' of idle nobles is a good thing. And I've already proven how a tribe working together can help any member with a surplus to put these nobles to greater use for the tribe. Despite replacements, world-wide, players are still leaving this world faster than packets for new nobles can be stored.
_________________

Bottom line: a vote for half-priced packets is a vote for MORE WAR, LESS WHORE!

Well, first a bit more about my situation. Yes, my nobling record since joining c2 from BFL is, well abismal. However, the nearest enemy village is about 300 to 400 hours away by noble. So, taking enemy villages is not an option for me.

What I can do is support the front lines - all my support is there save a small safety net. I can beat 400 hour nobles to my doors, easy. I've used my offense twice now to clear an enemy village for a tribe mate who got the conquer. I've got an operation in place to TRY and get me a few villages on the front.

So, this is my problem - I've got 3,000 packets and NOTHING to noble. So, more packets would do me NO good, except perhaps to lower the point barb I'm willing to noble. I HATE barb nobling. THE ONLY reason I took all the crap I did was they were on the forums for taking, so I cleaned off every village posted.

Now, on to your own arguement on 1/2 priced nobles. You state that if a group of us wanted to do an operation to take out a player with 100 villages we'd have to wait a month to save up for the nobles. This is entirely false. MK, I, and I believe almost all <I don't want to say all, as I've not asked> but almost all others in c2 have the ability to make 30 nobles. Today. Right now. No waiting. Why, oh WHY then do we not do more? Simple. Troop count. The limiting factor in taking villages is not nobles, but nukes. Gone are the days when you can take out a player with 9 villages with 27 - 40 nukes. You now need 20 nukes for a single village at the front! Now, perhaps as the enemy gets beat down, it will take less, but for now, it burns WAY more nukes than nobles to progress. So, all the while you are building nukes, your defense towns are making packets. And more packets.

To me, a change that would make much more sense for w16 would be to cut the time to produce troops in 1/2. THAT would speed things up. Now, is that a good goal? Perhaps, but isn't that the goal of 1/2 priced nobles? Speed things up?

Really, we have enough nobles to be made to take out the entire opposition in a week. What we lack is nukes.

 

[DeletedUser78416]

Learn to read faster :icon_biggrin:

Anyway, MK brought up a good point that I thought he was gonna forget about LSHRV's inactivity.

My problem is that any vote for this would simply be unfair on certain tribes. For reasons MK has stated, C2 as a whole would vote for NO half prices nobles. Dust would vote for NO half priced nobles for obvious reasons. LSHRV would vote FOR half prices nobles, so would BANG and so would Plight. It simply suits each of those tribes to go those ways. What about the rest of the world?

I assume Coal would vote NO and MK probably have nothing to lose from it so they'd vote YES, but when we get down to tribes who really have no idea about the system, they will simply vote YES for it cos all they think about is that they will have more nobles.

Therefore, most of the world would vote YES for half priced nobles and it would be unfair on tribes like C2, Dust and Coal who gain nothing from it. A vote now would therefore be unfair and should not happen for a long time to come.

I vote NO on the packets...dont need them.

And to MichielK...it's not so much the willingness as opposed to the very factor you are trying to secure (the inactives).

Inactives can't very well take other inactives! :lol:

I tried. As soon as I took over this account (and you can look at my conquers to verify) nothing but our inactives that went barb were on my plate. I couldn't believe how many big barbs were lying around, so I snatched them up as fast as I could. Bad thing is every single one of them had to be cleared (a bit of a waste of offense).

The only thing packet surplus is going to have us do is to all be little mini acis III's with our mega wall of clusters.

I'll do that on my own with my own regular packet storing.

This world will truly last forever if we implement a factor to increase the number of vills populated.

Double our player owned village density and what would we get...more action? no...we would be chopping down a tree with a dull butter knife...no end in sight.

 

[MichielK]

Back in the early days, every noble was a calculated expenditure that had to make for you an army as quickly as you could if you were to survive. Only the finest villages were noble-worthy. It was a shame and disgrace to ever spend a noble on a barb. If you wanted to rim an enemy owning 9 villages, you and two friends spent a couple days planning a surprise ops, and then he was rimmed in a day. Why so fast? 9 villages = 3 attackers * 3 days of noble production. You yourself, MK, didn't even have 9 villages when you left TIF for C².

I didn't? Might want to doublecheck that one on TW Stats...I had 52.

Because of my up-bringing in the core, and my "You be Food?!" war spirit, I will freely admit that my method of thinking about villages in this game tends to fall into a pattern called "stereotype profiling." In my own mind, a player quitting/gifting is already as useless as a barb, even though he does not show up on the map as a gray to the outside world. (One of the reasons I kept saying barbs/gifts.) In my own opinion, a player who, for months, only logs in twice a week to store packets and never does anything with them is equally as useless.

I don't think this philosophy is due to upbringing, but rather common sense. If there are villages in a tribe that aren't used, they are part of the tribe in name only. This is why eating inactives quickly is vital, and why tribes that leave their inactives idle out of laziness or lack of focus tend to disappear over time.

C² is at WAR. Against an opponent that might have been able to make-or-break you! And are any of Raven's noble packets assisting in the war effort? No, possibly just troops; where is the glory of conquest? Of battle? During the Euthanasia/PnX war, a Plight player of comparable size to Raven (DiveKing) launched himself from K29 all the way to K05 to participate in the war. Many worthy victories did he achieve, and he is still growing strong in battle. DiveKing is but one of many tribe mates who summoned the courage to make the same six-continent-journey to join the war! ... to participate with his team Euthanising the "lazy and grossly incompetent players" that deserved to put out of their W16 misery.

LSHRV is not only bigger and more skilled than PnX, but they were fresh at the start of the war while DiveKing's contributions came after BANG delivered a royal ass-whooping to PnX first.

Given those circumstances, it's a lot more difficult to launch yourself halfway across the world to dig in. It's possible (merje is a good example), but much less likely to be succesful.

When a tribe 'copes' by swapping new lamps for old (replacing players), you keep your stored packets intact. Fat lot of good that does a tribe that won't be using most of those packets against an enemy. Of course you don't see any need for more packets. Okay, now your position makes more sense. In the process of writing this, I've put myself in your shoes and seen the difference in perspective.

Earlier, I gave an example of old times when 3 players could plan an ops to rim another in one fell swoop. Nowadays, the average player on W16 has 100 villages. If you and 2 friends want to plan an ops to rim him, you simply can not do it in one strike. You have to wait over a month to save up enough nobles between you all. By then, he's grown and you require another two weeks more for the needed nobles. 6 weeks of noble production for the three of you to eliminate the one opponent. BUT, if you invite him into your tribe instead, viola! Overnight conquest can still be attained! Plus, you still have all your (and his) noble packets unspent.

D'oh! Now it all sinks in. I guess that combination of quotes did, indeed, shed light on why you and I view the world differently. I prefer to Euthanise, not assimilate. Such a task requires nobles to be used to conquer, instead of resulting in a noble surplus.

Amount of new players joining since the start of August:
BANG: 48
Plight: 44
LSHRV: 26
C²: 7
While you write a compelling story about how my view is due to my tribe swapping players while your tribe conquers them, the stats clearly show it for what it is: fiction.

Not only has my tribe recruited far less players in the past 3.5 months than any of the other top tribes, but you'd have to back to April for us to have more than 44 recruits. We have a packet surplus not because we recruit players faster, we have a packet surplus because we lose players more slowly.

On the other hand, your tribe not only recruited more players than any other except BANG, and you're partially responsible for BANG's high number of recruits by recruiting a large number of players from them.

We're drifting off-topic though, so let's get back to half-priced packets:

I could not agree more, my friend. But apparently a discussion of tribal political viewpoints was essential to understanding the whys/why-nots of the debate. And to do so, required examples. I simply did not understand your viewpoint until it was expressed in those terms.

I'm afraid you still didn't.

Yes, my view on half-priced packets is based on the fact that my tribe does not need to eat many inactives. However, this is not due to efficient recruitment but rather due to not losing players to begin with. We spend a lot of time and effort making sure that every member in the tribe is happy and effective, and if we find a problem we try to fix it rather than Euthanising the player involved. As a result, our inactivity "problem" is far less serious than it is in other tribes.

Given the fact that I know a tribe can keep their members from quitting during all stages of the game (war against LSHRV, eating of accounts after the CND merger), I see no reason for artificial ways to make eating easier. If tribes are plagued with people quitting, why limit the damage?

Yes, full-priced packets make quitting players a more serious problem. However, I think this is a good thing. It forces tribes to focus on the cause of people quitting, which in turn keeps more players in the world...and we've both mentioned this as the ultimate goal. Don't fight the symptoms, fight the cause.

 

[jakeeboy]

Wow my eyes hurt...

 

[Seagryfn]

I didn't? Might want to doublecheck that one on TW Stats...I had 52.

None TIF 22nd June 2008 - 12:22:48 41,182
TIF C² 20th October 2008 - 19:00:02 452,336

:icon_redface: I was looking at the upper rather than the lower number. I stand corrected.
Still, back then, in 4 months your account grew over 1000%
Exciting times, eh? And now... meh, not so much. Growing 1000% in four months (then) is more entertaining than growing 20% in four months (now).

re: swapping players vs. conquering. I was referring to players taking over accounts they did not originally create. Conquering without nobling. I did not mean recruitment which does not impact an individul's packets. You lose "accounts" (not players) more slowly. Perhaps. These things are not apparent on TWStats. *shrugs*

However, this is not due to efficient recruitment but rather due to not losing players to begin with. I see no reason for artificial ways to make eating easier. If tribes are plagued with people quitting, why limit the damage?

True. Same "players," but playing different accounts, without spending the nobles required to conquer each village. Swap small players into the large quitters and noble out only the small player. It is, as you put it, an effective management strategy. It keeps the old, loyal player around and it drastically boosts his account size, without having to do battle or to use many nobles. The trade off? Personal pride, perhaps. I could not say. I would not care to go by any other identity than Seagryfn, even if I could become more powerful by "swapping." Do I really want to ruin that sense of pride and achievement by making the game easier? I like that it's difficult, since it gives me a better feeling if I succeed (on my own merits).

Anyhow, I see no point in belaboring the discussion further. You and I have each presented arguements based on personal preferrence. And it may, in fact, be moot, as the offer may not ever be made on this world. Still, it is very good that we had a chance to discuss our viewpoints here and now, before logging in one day and the survey is RIGHT THERE, in your face, without a possibility to discuss it first. :icon_biggrin:

 

[DeletedUser]

For crying out loud can you two stop flirting please! Sheesh.

I vote in favour of half price nobles. Simply because I will be able to rebuild my nukes quicker as I will have to store less.