nobles on sale or not on sale

DeletedUser

Guest
lets discuss the half price nobles abit shall we? :icon_wink:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Honestly, unless you plan to noble every 26 point barb there is on this world, I see no point in half priced nobles. The problem that people seem to face more in this world is not lack of packets/nobles, but less targets, or if they do have targets, nukes to use upon them.

And since every 26 point village nobled by an enemy is another village I have to noble to win, I voted no.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
i personally won't benefit from this, so it doesnt make a huge difference to me either way
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Yep i voted no as well. This will help the small players that noble groups of barbs. Not really the people who noble targets all over.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Yep i voted no as well. This will help the small players that noble groups of barbs. Not really the people who noble targets all over.

Thats the reason i voted yes. I dont have many packets stored, so if we got half priced nobles then it would be much easier for me to noble. But the big guys who already have like 5 million packets stored dont want it because they know it will be easier for the smaller players to catch up a bit...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Honestly, unless you plan to noble every 26 point barb there is on this world, I see no point in half priced nobles. The problem that people seem to face more in this world is not lack of packets/nobles, but less targets, or if they do have targets, nukes to use upon them.

And since every 26 point village nobled by an enemy is another village I have to noble to win, I voted no.

totally agreed
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Thats the reason i voted yes. I dont have many packets stored, so if we got half priced nobles then it would be much easier for me to noble. But the big guys who already have like 5 million packets stored dont want it because they know it will be easier for the smaller players to catch up a bit...

You wont catch up by nolbing barbarians.. And big palyers dont have 5 mill packs stored.. if they have 5 mills packs stored is because they are inactive and dont nolbe effectivly or dont have a big amount of nobles trains around their villages.

I voted no.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
You wont catch up by nolbing barbarians.. And big palyers dont have 5 mill packs stored.. if they have 5 mills packs stored is because they are inactive and dont nolbe effectivly or dont have a big amount of nobles trains around their villages.

I voted no.

You didnt think i was being serious did you? I know they dont have like 5 million packets stored! But i was trying to point out that bigger players have way more packets stored than smaller players, even if it does cost more. And did i say i was going to noble barbs?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
totally agreed

Whoa, Bartesz agreed with me...Maybe I voted wrong :icon_confused:

Jk, jk

And Alex, I believe you are doing something wrong if you are short on packets based on your nobling history. You've nobled 20 villages in the last 40 days. At worst you should be able to store enough packets to build 2 nobles every 3 days. Most should be at a point where they can store enough packets to build a noble a day. I myself can usually store enough packets for at least 2 nobles a day, and that's without farming.

So that either says that you are doing something wrong, or that you are training a ton of nobles without using them, which is wrong in itself.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Thats the reason i voted yes. I dont have many packets stored, so if we got half priced nobles then it would be much easier for me to noble. But the big guys who already have like 5 million packets stored dont want it because they know it will be easier for the smaller players to catch up a bit...

The big guys will also be able to take you out alot easier. I currently am being slowed down by lack of nobles, with farming, as I assume many other players inside the top 50 are. I would (hopefully) continue to grow at the rate the nobles allow me to. I voted no because it makes it even easier for people to just munch on barbs and inactives. Unfourtunatly for me everyone I start to attack seems to become inactive :/

End of the day, if it is implemeted, most top players will stay where they are, while gaining an even bigger lead.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
The big guys will also be able to take you out alot easier. I currently am being slowed down by lack of nobles, with farming, as I assume many other players inside the top 50 are. I would (hopefully) continue to grow at the rate the nobles allow me to. I voted no because it makes it even easier for people to just munch on barbs and inactives. Unfourtunatly for me everyone I start to attack seems to become inactive :/

End of the day, if it is implemeted, most top players will stay where they are, while gaining an even bigger lead.

I gotta disagree. Top 10 player here, yet I have not had a shortage of packets or nobles in nearly 8 months now. Since the war with LSHRV started, the only thing I find myself with a shortage of is nukes.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I gotta disagree. Top 10 player here, yet I have not had a shortage of packets or nobles in nearly 8 months now. Since the war with LSHRV started, the only thing I find myself with a shortage of is nukes.

Sorry, I should have cleared that up. In a non war situation, running small ops and such. War situations are always going to be different.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
One interesting point is that wars will benefit by having more nobles...

This is because there will be loads more nobles being shot at each other which should result in more war target villages being nobled. More opportunist trains being launched etc.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
One interesting point is that wars will benefit by having more nobles...

This is because there will be loads more nobles being shot at each other which should result in more war target villages being nobled. More opportunist trains being launched etc.
I disagree with this. In the example of the LSHRV war, I think the limiting factor is the number of nukes available, not the number of nobles. Of course, you could argue that if you sent enough nobles, the enemy's defenses would be stretched too thin and you would at least noble some of the targets, but I doubt this strategy would be highly effective.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I disagree with this. In the example of the LSHRV war, I think the limiting factor is the number of nukes available, not the number of nobles. Of course, you could argue that if you sent enough nobles, the enemy's defenses would be stretched too thin and you would at least noble some of the targets, but I doubt this strategy would be highly effective.

QFT

I would've posted much the same if Shadow hadn't beat me to it
 

AxlTheCat

Guest
Sounds like they should half the production time for axes and lcav, that would make things lively.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Yes 252 67.92%

No 119 32.08%

I must say I thought there would have been a few more votes. Maybe this gives a more accurate view of the activity levels on this world?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I disagree with this. In the example of the LSHRV war, I think the limiting factor is the number of nukes available, not the number of nobles. Of course, you could argue that if you sent enough nobles, the enemy's defenses would be stretched too thin and you would at least noble some of the targets, but I doubt this strategy would be highly effective.

Which is exactly why i said 'More opportunist trains being launched etc.' - this means more random trains going further into enemy territory or more nukes being followed by trains. The point being more nobles flying round the battlefield will result in more opportunist nobling.

You all say that there r not enough targets to make cheap nobles viable... u forget that on a battlefield there is limitless targets and therefore everyone in a war benefits from the cheaper noble costs...

Just my view on it all anyway :icon_wink:
 
Top