The beginning of the end of world 18

[DeletedUser]

I just want to point out that in this snipet you said you guys played your game the way you wanted to.
The game is not yours first of all, second of all everyone expects the game to be played the way it is intended to be played. Which is, by the way Jagex have things set up and explained, for 1 tribe to win a world and not 4 tribes.

Absolute rubbish. The world players define the game. Those that set the world up merely define some of the paramaters in which players operate.

This is why they made it a war game with a tribal limit.

Another parameter. So how do explain the ability to share forums/claims?

With the win of this world it will change the history of TW and maybe even the way Jagex sets up its worlds and so forth.

If they weren't learning from previous worlds they wouldn't be doing their jobs.

Because they can no longer make it seem like tribes need to win by being the only tribe remaining with all others defeated.

I'm not aware of them ever defining hard and fast victory conditions (see my previous on the subject).

I also highly doubt anyone will come to world 7 and flame us when we close besides you people from w18 because some of w7 members flamed you.

I'm sure you will get your share of flaming, not least because there will always be malcontents who are not happy about the result. I, personally, will give credit where credit is due. It's a shame the same can't be said of the majority who have posted in this thread.

Other then that i think we will be congratulated for defeating all our enemies despite the fact that some people still remained out of -WE-s tribe. Like i said before..there are always survivors in a war and since this is a war game it should be no different..with few survivors with thier dead tribes that have already been defeated(because you defeat a tribe not a player thats why it is TRIBAL wars and not PLAYER wars) or 0 survivors and 1 remaining tribe.

I love it. Completely taken in by your own propaganda!

 

[DeletedUser53550]

Another parameter. So how do explain the ability to share forums/claims?

Probably because some family tribe requested it; and technically it wasn't hard to implement?

I requested free biscuits and milk for all players, to be hand delivered by Innogames staff and/or TW admins. It wasn't implemented in the last update but I have my fingers crossed

 

[DeletedUser]

.... since his tribe had to do it the long way, and now they're seeing you lot managing what seems like an easy way out.

What seems to be is not always so.
As Andrew rightly noted, if the TW Admins told us that we needed to be in one tribe to end the world, then there would've been a mass-deletion by the winning alliance members who had no intention of continuing to play. After all enemies (or, as w7 calls them "other players not in the number 1 tribe) are killed, then there would be a mass-deletion and a convergence of all remaining players into the single tribe.

That's actually pretty easy. It's harder to keep the alliance together and see the inanity posted in the forums.

What's particularly noteworthy to me is that for 2 years we've seen all arguments against families made. We were told the family and the alliance would never last - let alone win. But now it has. I would think the natural reaction would be more: "Wow. I didn't think a family could actually survive and win. This is pretty rare." But instead, the reaction is more base. It's essentially a new crop of people complaining about how families suck and how alliances should not be kept. You learn something new about people all the time! LOL

I just want to point out that in this snipet you said you guys played your game the way you wanted to.
The game is not yours first of all, second of all everyone expects the game to be played the way it is intended to be played. Which is, by the way Innogames have things set up and explained, for 1 tribe to win a world and not 4 tribes.

This is why they made it a war game with a tribal limit.

With the win of this world it will change the history of TW and maybe even the way Innogames sets up its worlds and so forth. Because they can no longer make it seem like tribes need to win by being the only tribe remaining with all others defeated.

Andrew pointed out the flaw in this logic. If InnoGames wants to prohibit alliances & families it can do so. Unfortunately for you and your argument, InnoGames has actually developed new tools to HELP families and alliances. The facts do not support your assumptions. This has been a long-standing argument by the "We hate families" crowd. But here's where your argument falls apart:
1. There is no statement by InnoGames that you can reference indicating an opposition to families and alliances.
2. The creation of various tools (shared forums, shared noble planner, diplomacy features) to aid families.

I also highly doubt anyone will come to world 7 and flame us when we close besides you people from w18 because some of w7 members flamed you. Other then that i think we will be congratulated for defeating all our enemies despite the fact that some people still remained out of -WE-s tribe. Like i said before..there are always survivors in a war and since this is a war game it should be no different..with few survivors with thier dead tribes that have already been defeated(because you defeat a tribe not a player thats why it is TRIBAL wars and not PLAYER wars) or 0 survivors and 1 remaining tribe.

By your standards, DNY would have rights to flame the hell out of you - for not killing all your enemies (or, as w7 calls them "other players not in the number 1 tribe).
But what I found hilarious about your statement here is how you attempt to justify leaving some of these enemies (or, as w7 calls them "other players not in the number 1 tribe) by saying that REAL wars leave some opponents alive. Hahahaha! Seriously? You are now going to use RL as a justification for not clearing out all the other players?

Because....

Have you ever noticed how in REAL wars that an alliance of nations will win a war... and not kill each other after disposing of the common enemy?

 

[DeletedUser]

That's fine but Redneck didn't present an "in my view" comment, he esentially *defined* the reason for an alliance and applied it to w18. In short he presented his opinion as fact, which it isn't.

Lets review my statement:

An alliances are great as long as it serves a purpose and benefits both tribes. When they serve no purpose then you drop the alliance and battle it out.

The bolded part is a fact and it applies to W18 but the rest of my comment are my opinions. In W18 you feel that your alliances are still a benefit to you as you need them to win the world. Had Morthy refused to end your world then the alliances would have been no benefit to you and you would have had to figure something else out. In W12 our intent was to use the alliance until we were the last 2 tribes remaining. Whether your way or my way is right or wrong is not for me to decide. I merely posted some opinions on the matter since there will be only 1 tribe that gets awarded anything. If you guys enjoy winning a world by recruiting and hugging a world then so be it. It is going to create some strong opposing opinions from other worlds because they had to do it the hard way while the way you did it seems to be easy.

IMO, the way you are going about it is not the way worlds were intended to be won. IMO, there should only be 1 tribe left standing at the end. This is a war game meant for players to band together in tribes and defeat opposing tribes. The way W18 did it was lets all ally together, overwhelm any small opposition, and say we won. This style of play could be damaging to the way this game gets played in future worlds. Nothing will stop future worlds from just allying themselves together and start petitioning Morthy to say they won.

But if this is the way you guys/gals want to end the world and Morthy allows it, then congrats.

 

[DeletedUser]

This style of play could be damaging to the way this game gets played in future worlds. Nothing will stop future worlds from just allying themselves together and start petitioning Morthy to say they won.

But if this is the way you guys/gals want to end the world and Morthy allows it, then congrats.

The biggest difference that I see, is that new worlds already have large amounts of family tribes, recruiting everything that moves (or doesn't move). However, the amount of time and perseverance that it would take to be able to keep the tribe running, and keep 99% of the members in line is one of those things that is considered a lot easier than it actually is. So all those families that form already, or that try to emulate W18, will most likely not be able to work.

If the alliance/family in new worlds won't just break down internally, any tribe attacking them (-mm- for example) would cause it to fall apart unless they had quality players, and good leadership who was able to organize everything.

Not saying a victory like this will never happen again, but I don't see it very likely.

Also, apologies if this makes no sense, taking some relatively strong meds right now :s

 

[DeletedUser]

Absolute rubbish. The world players define the game. Those that set the world up merely define some of the paramaters in which players operate.
Another parameter. So how do explain the ability to share forums/claims?
If they weren't learning from previous worlds they wouldn't be doing their jobs.
I'm not aware of them ever defining hard and fast victory conditions (see my previous on the subject).
I'm sure you will get your share of flaming, not least because there will always be malcontents who are not happy about the result. I, personally, will give credit where credit is due. It's a shame the same can't be said of the majority who have posted in this thread.

I love it. Completely taken in by your own propaganda!

Shared forums etc were made for alliances to work together, obviously. At some point in the game those features become invalid as they have no use any longer when there is only you and your last opponent left(your ally).

 

[DeletedUser]

Andrew pointed out the flaw in this logic. If InnoGames wants to prohibit alliances & families it can do so. Unfortunately for you and your argument, InnoGames has actually developed new tools to HELP families and alliances. The facts do not support your assumptions. This has been a long-standing argument by the "We hate families" crowd. But here's where your argument falls apart:
1. There is no statement by InnoGames that you can reference indicating an opposition to families and alliances.
2. The creation of various tools (shared forums, shared noble planner, diplomacy features) to aid families.




By your standards, DNY would have rights to flame the hell out of you - for not killing all your enemies (or, as w7 calls them "other players not in the number 1 tribe).
But what I found hilarious about your statement here is how you attempt to justify leaving some of these enemies (or, as w7 calls them "other players not in the number 1 tribe) by saying that REAL wars leave some opponents alive. Hahahaha! Seriously? You are now going to use RL as a justification for not clearing out all the other players?

Because....

Have you ever noticed how in REAL wars that an alliance of nations will win a war... and not kill each other after disposing of the common enemy?

1:Correct there is not. Obviously familys and alliances are perfectly fine, i am not debating that. I am however debating the fact that 4 tribes won this game on this world when for as far as i can remember this game has always been about 1 tribe killing all other tribes. Meaning like you would need to rid your dead weight(people who just hid behind your name and did nothing for your tribe or did do something but only did something for a short time then stopped helping or went inactive or w/e, which i dont know how many people that is) and just wait it out until members get bored enough and quit until you can fit everyone into 1 tribe. Thats why they gave tribal limitions. On other worlds there are huge limits and on some there are smaller limits. That would suggest that the aim is for only 1 tribe to win..not 4 different tribes under the same name. They gave the limit for a reason and that reason cant be because they wanted a tribe to make 2 other tribes and call them all the same thing and then declare 4 winners of a world.
2: DUH you have allies and obviously youd want to work more closely with those allies, not run into snags of you and your ally nobling the same villas, etc. Thats what those tools were made for.


I highly doubt that they would though..maybe they have the right because they finished thier world with 1 tribe remaining and 0 players in other areas..but i dont think so, lol.
People here have the right to flame you all because you won with 4 winners and not 1 winner.


Yes.
And i do believe that in some cases allies do turn on each other irl. But irl alliances are a tad different because it is RL after all, it is NEVER ending so you need those allies to remain..unlike this where it is a game and it eventually ends and eventually you no longer NEED your allies an they no longer need you. Instead you have a fun fight with each other to see who wins.

 

[DeletedUser]

Shared forums etc were made for alliances to work together, obviously. At some point in the game those features become invalid as they have no use any longer when there is only you and your last opponent left(your ally).

I hate to point out yet another flaw in your on-going campaign but...
We are still using all the features that support collaboration between tribes and will continue to do so until not a single red or brown dot remains. Of course after that point in time the world will be closed. So, clearly, there is no point at which those features become invalid.

Lets review my statement:The bolded part is a fact and it applies to W18 but the rest of my comment are my opinions.

Thank you for the clarification.

In W18 you feel that your alliances are still a benefit to you as you need them to win the world.

You got it.

Had Morthy refused to end your world then the alliances would have been no benefit to you and you would have had to figure something else out.

Incorrect. It's actually the other way around. Our criteria to end the world were defined well before Morthy defined what the end game would look like. Check out the w18 forum (not just this thread!) Before Morthy defined the end game criteria I, and many of the other allied leadership, had clearly stated that our objective was to turn the world blue (any shade) and, on the day that was achieved, hit delete.

In W12 our intent was to use the alliance until we were the last 2 tribes remaining. Whether your way or my way is right or wrong is not for me to decide.

Or, indeed, anybody but the player population of the world inquestion. Hence my response to retro1324.

If you guys enjoy winning a world by recruiting and hugging a world then so be it.

It is unforunate that you can't resist your baser urges to descend in pergorative terminology. It speaks more poorly of you than it does of us.

It is going to create some strong opposing opinions from other worlds because they had to do it the hard way while the way you did it seems to be easy.

I think you need to try to build and maintain a strong alliance that weathers a 3 year hate-war by its opponents, and sticks together right up to the end game before you are qualified to describe the path we took as easy. Anyone who says it is simply betrays their own ignorance.

This style of play could be damaging to the way this game gets played in future worlds. Nothing will stop future worlds from just allying themselves together and start petitioning Morthy to say they won.

See my previous comment. We are talking about w18. There are another 30+ Enlgish speaking worlds (and many others besides). If it were that easy and the "risk" was as dire as you suggest then I think we should have seen a significant shift in the strategies adopted by those worlds to one that more closely approximates w18 than w7. I, personally, am not aware of any worlds that have been able to sustain what w18 has done. (I'm happy to be corrected.) Surely that fact and that fact alone would suggest that, if any strategy could be regarded as "easier", then it is the one that you subscribe to? [FYI: I am not suggesting winning a world is easy, regardless of strategy adopted]

But if this is the way you guys/gals want to end the world and Morthy allows it, then congrats.

It was a long time coming and could have done without the qualification but... thank you!

 

[giantsfrey]

i'd like to see a TW-wide poll conducted by the admins to find out whether players in all gameworlds prefer that coalitions/families/allies can win a world, or if it should have to be 1 single tribe. of course, w18 will close no matter what now, but maybe the admins could set standards for future closings based upon these results.

<<< morthy? eh, eh? whaddya think??

 

[DeletedUser]

1:Correct there is not. Obviously familys and alliances are perfectly fine, i am not debating that. I am however debating the fact that 4 tribes won this game on this world when for as far as i can remember this game has always been about 1 tribe killing all other tribes.

This is just false. This game is not about one tribe killing all the other tribes. The reality is that this game is about one thing: Making money for InnoGames.

But more to your attempted point...
Yes, the name of the game is called tribal wars. The principle organizing structure of the game is a tribe. However, the creators allowed greater degrees of organization and cooperation. Indeed, the very EXISTENCE of alliances and the mechanisms that aid alliances proves that this game is NOT about 1 tribe killing all the others. The game REWARDS cooperation and organization.
To be successful, tribes should find advantages they can exploit -- so your game can continue and your enemies' games can be ended. That's it.
Who you choose to befriend, betray, and attack is up to you. But there are plenty of people who play this game alone. Do they win? Not usually. (Although I did notice a top player on w7 is tribeless. Odd.)

Meaning like you would need to rid your dead weight(people who just hid behind your name and did nothing for your tribe or did do something but only did something for a short time then stopped helping or went inactive or w/e, which i dont know how many people that is) and just wait it out until members get bored enough and quit until you can fit everyone into 1 tribe. Thats why they gave tribal limitions.
On other worlds there are huge limits and on some there are smaller limits. That would suggest that the aim is for only 1 tribe to win..not 4 different tribes under the same name. They gave the limit for a reason and that reason cant be because they wanted a tribe to make 2 other tribes and call them all the same thing and then declare 4 winners of a world.

So, let me get this straight... you admit that TW has never given directives or guidance on whether families are bad or good... but then you conjure up this exact motive when explaining the tribal pop limits. Nice. Speak paradoxically much? Different worlds have different rules for different reasons... but the MAIN reason: InnoGames wants to make money. If they give more people different options, more people play. That makes the company more money. It's quite simple.
As for cutting "dead weight"... as was stated... oh... I don't know... about 40 times by now... we won't turn on friends and teammates just because others want us to. If we must pare down to a single tribe, we'll do it through mass-deletions. It'll be voluntary. As you said - many people are bored already, and just hanging around to see the world end. If we need to delete to bring that about, then we'll do so. I don't see how this is so difficult to understand among you w7ers.

2: DUH you have allies and obviously youd want to work more closely with those allies, not run into snags of you and your ally nobling the same villas, etc. Thats what those tools were made for.

BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS TRIBAL WARS! NOT ALLY WARS!! WAAAAA!!!

People here have the right to flame you all because you won with 4 winners and not 1 winner.

We're all winners.
And your "right" to flame here is not actually a right, BTW. It's a privilege bestowed upon you by TW. Try to break the rules and see how your "rights" get shut down. lol

And i do believe that in some cases allies do turn on each other irl. But irl alliances are a tad different because it is RL after all, it is NEVER ending so you need those allies to remain..unlike this where it is a game and it eventually ends and eventually you no longer NEED your allies an they no longer need you. Instead you have a fun fight with each other to see who wins.

I am not arguing about the application of RL standards to a game. That was actually you who did that. You cited RL as an explanation for the continued existence and growth of enemies -- oops! sorry -- non-threatening other players that aren't in your tribe. When I used your same rationale to undercut your argument, you now say RL is not comparable.
Talk in circles much?

 

[DeletedUser]

Yeah - clearly I'm the idiot because I destroyed your arguments in a few lines. Stupid Andrew! Must not try to debate with empirically superior intellects!
(Just because you are a superior intellect I feel I better make it clear: Sarcasm!)

Destroyed my arguement ? Are you retarded ? You didn't even answer my arguement, instead you missed the point and what you said in your next few lines in that you would not be able to fulfil my challenge because you'd rather all hug and mass delete is the closest thing to answering it. And by answering, accepting that I'm right and that you'd fail.

You guys just love walking into these don't you...

Yes we are. The reason we have lots of nobles stockpiled is we have, for the most part, eliminated all our enemies (or whatever you call players that aren't on your side that stand between you and world victory).

You've got loads because you've never had enough enemies to use them all on.

 

[giantsfrey]

*...on which to use them.

Tisk tisk, Lazerus.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is just false. This game is not about one tribe killing all the other tribes. The reality is that this game is about one thing: Making money for InnoGames.

But more to your attempted point...
Yes, the name of the game is called tribal wars. The principle organizing structure of the game is a tribe. However, the creators allowed greater degrees of organization and cooperation. Indeed, the very EXISTENCE of alliances and the mechanisms that aid alliances proves that this game is NOT about 1 tribe killing all the others. The game REWARDS cooperation and organization.
To be successful, tribes should find advantages they can exploit -- so your game can continue and your enemies' games can be ended. That's it.
Who you choose to befriend, betray, and attack is up to you. But there are plenty of people who play this game alone. Do they win? Not usually. (Although I did notice a top player on w7 is tribeless. Odd.)




So, let me get this straight... you admit that TW has never given directives or guidance on whether families are bad or good... but then you conjure up this exact motive when explaining the tribal pop limits. Nice. Speak paradoxically much? Different worlds have different rules for different reasons... but the MAIN reason: InnoGames wants to make money. If they give more people different options, more people play. That makes the company more money. It's quite simple.
As for cutting "dead weight"... as was stated... oh... I don't know... about 40 times by now... we won't turn on friends and teammates just because others want us to. If we must pare down to a single tribe, we'll do it through mass-deletions. It'll be voluntary. As you said - many people are bored already, and just hanging around to see the world end. If we need to delete to bring that about, then we'll do so. I don't see how this is so difficult to understand among you w7ers.




BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS TRIBAL WARS! NOT ALLY WARS!! WAAAAA!!!




We're all winners.
And your "right" to flame here is not actually a right, BTW. It's a privilege bestowed upon you by TW. Try to break the rules and see how your "rights" get shut down. lol





I am not arguing about the application of RL standards to a game. That was actually you who did that. You cited RL as an explanation for the continued existence and growth of enemies -- oops! sorry -- non-threatening other players that aren't in your tribe. When I used your same rationale to undercut your argument, you now say RL is not comparable.
Talk in circles much?

pretty much i just skimmed whatca wrote, lol

i dont really have much to say to any of it except for..you just make excuses for the tribal limits set out by innogames. those tribal limits indicate the size of a tribe. tribal limits indicate that only 1 tribe wins a world and not 4.

ur not turning on friends when you get rid of them when they are no longer of service. its part of the game...has nothing to do with honour or anything. they should just know that hey man when i stop helping my tribe my tribe will stop helping me.

allys are good at some point in the game but eventually they become useless..i dont think you guys see this point. i never whined about allys being a bad thing..dunno where you got that from. we had our own allys..which many of us knew for a long time. but i guess our allis and ourselves were more mature then yours and we all knew we would need to fight it out and never whined about it or found it to be dishonorable/backstabbing/etc.

hey you asked a question and i answered..if you didnt want to discuss that part of my post then you shouldnt have responded to it. and no i clearly said that allies in a game and irl are totally different because rl is never ending while a game ends. there are things that can be compared obviously and things that cant because a game and rl are just different in many aspects and the same in some.

 

[DeletedUser53550]

Shouldn't W18 simply be declared a draw? No tribe won, No tribe lost. Simples

 

[DeletedUser]

Destroyed my arguement ? Are you retarded ? You didn't even answer my arguement,

OK - I just wasted 10 minutes of my life reading your posts. Suddenly watching paint dry looks like a fun day in.

instead you missed the point and what you said in your next few lines in that you would not be able to fulfil my challenge because you'd rather all hug and mass delete is the closest thing to answering it.

So, in your head, what was your argument because, clearly, there's a lot happening in there that isn't managing to make it in to your posts!?!

And by answering, accepting that I'm right and that you'd fail.

Good grief! I seem to have wandered onto a school prayground. Please tell me you are 12...

You've got loads because you've never had enough enemies to use them all on.

Golly! I wonder where the other 80,000 players went? This from a guy that has taken nearly 50% more barbs than I have and has just over 10% (200) more villages despite playing for over 50% (1 year) longer.

 

[DeletedUser]

Shouldn't W18 simply be declared a draw? No tribe won, No tribe lost. Simples

No tribe lost? Have you ever used TWStats?

Never mind. According to TWstats, approximately 33,680 tribes lost.

Try again...

 

[DeletedUser]

pretty much i just skimmed whatca wrote, lol

Too long didn't read.
ur argument is fail! U r noob!



Is that better? Do you feel sufficiently equipped to read a post like this?

 

[DeletedUser]

Too long didn't read.
ur argument is fail! U r noob!



Is that better? Do you feel sufficiently equipped to read a post like this?

its more like i have a 2 1/2 yr old sitting on my lap, running around with me, yelling in my ear while im trying to do anything. so i just only had the time to skim but yes that was most deff much easier thanks.

 

[DeletedUser]

...you'd rather all hug and mass delete ...

So, when YOUR w7 enemies -- oops! I mean non-threatening inactive non-tribal players -- delete, rather than face the proposition of waiting for you to finally noble them after another year... does that make THEM huggers, too?
Or how about when your tribemates delete out of boredom -- when taking barbs and not finishing off enemies becomes too lame. Are they huggers, too? Just trying to narrow the definition here.

What is obviously lost on many of the w7 remnants is that the people who are still playing in BA (I won't speak for Apoc) are still here ONLY to see the endgame. That was the deal. If those parameters change, then many people in BA (myself included) will simply delete their accounts -- like they WOULD have done months ago.
I'm really not sure why this is so difficult to understand. The only reason many people are still playing is because of the alliance. They gave up caring (and paying) a while ago -- after the -PX- tribe fell apart so quickly.

I know for me, personally, I don't give a shit what people from other worlds or even this one think about how BA played this game of ours. We had fun. It lasted for 2+ years and I met some cool people. We lasted longer than any other tribe, I think, and we proved that the alliance with Apoc could be maintained and used to get us all to the end together. We had goals. We met them.
In a game that, until recently, had no endgame in sight... lasting as long as possible was the key. My goal as a tribal leader was to create the framework for as many people to keep playing their game as possible. To survive.

Perhaps others have a different idea of victory.
In some peoples' minds victory means one tribe is left, and no other players exist. (DNY)
In some peoples' minds victory means one tribe is left, and non-threatening other players still remain. (WE)

Go read some of the threads with Zurtle and Bella here in the w18 forum. You'll see that they had different win conditions, too.

I still fail to see how mass-deletion when the alliance has conquered every non-allied village is "hugging." Continuing to play a game we all agree we've beaten seems pointless ... and a waste of money.

 

[DeletedUser]

its more like i have a 2 1/2 yr old sitting on my lap, running around with me, yelling in my ear while im trying to do anything. so i just only had the time to skim but yes that was most deff much easier thanks.

Oh thank goodness. My aim to ensure you are as misinformed as possible for your next posting.