DeletedUser
Guest
lets discuss the half price nobles abit shall we? :icon_wink:
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.
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.
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.
totally agreed
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.
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.
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.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.
Sounds like they should half the production time for axes and lcav, that would make things lively.
I 2nd the motion...carried...ok, now put it into effect admins/creators.
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.