Discussion: Recap and update: Settings changes on older worlds

DeletedUser

Guest
I hate endings...but it is true that keeping a world that lasts forever would be terrible.

I just hate leaving a world that i have been playing so long. Makes me want to quit.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Every game should have an ending process - unless we wish it to be like RL & train our children to take over our empires lol
But that would diminish the standards just as it often did in Medieval monarchies.

So long as there is an agreed process then we will do what is necessary to ensure that we eventually get the win on W40, but I believe that these updated guidelines will enable us to get there somewhat quicker than the last version.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'm having an issue with the 1 or 2 tribe part. That late of the game, if an alliance of 3-4 tribes managed to destroy everyone else, and were historically independent tribes (not a family), it's a shame if they have to merge only to fit to the end game rules if otherwise their player counts and village ownage percentage would meet the criteria.

Not if they couldn't possibly do it, but forcing them to abandon their ages old stats and achievements only to create a 'temp tribe' for a (from their perspective) not so well thought-over rule sounds like a final (plainly burocratical) obstacle rather than a celebration of their achievement.

I mean, these rules meant to help the final winners actually ending the game and moving to the next one, not impeding them by bad wording (ie, if that would be a group of tribes having no more members than 2*tribe limit AND having a village ownership over 70-85% AND allied to each others for at least X months, it would sound a lot better and wouldn't change the message either, since there are hardly even half-filled tribes in a real end-game but there might be more than 2 on a side if they were adamant enough during the years to survive independently)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
However, we are aware that all worlds are different and so for some it would take a very long time to trigger the vote. We will also accept requests from tribe leaders for the vote to start on a case by case basis. These will be carefully considered by our team and then either accepted/declined. If declined you must wait another 3 months before sending in a request. Please do not send in a request unless your tribe or your alliance has at least 70% domination.
Click to expand...


W15 was also at the 70% mark and just a tiny bit over...so we should have by the old standards been in closing...

We could be the half cup is empty type in AXE but we are not, just because the rules changed yet again doesn't mean our request will not be heard and granted, I would think the same goes for the other older worlds that are in the same position as us...This is not as good as the 70% ownership and the world goes into end mode, but it is also not as bad as us having to have 85% of the world owned, or where 2 allied tribes have to own 100%
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Just one thing i would like to know, why will it take another couple of weeks for this new announcement to take effect? In W33 we are already on 84.2% dominance by the time admin has finally gotten to this we will already be on 100% dominance. When this whole crap started we were almost on 75% which by old standards (or your called experiments) would start end game, now we are at basically on 85% and we still need to wait.

Why cant this just be done right now why weeks? is it really that difficult to set up a poll and say ok guys this is how your world will end.
 

DeletedUser79518

Guest
world end

rather eerie you refusing to answer an honest question morthy

when it was you, who opened the conversation :icon_rolleyes:
 

angrim

Guest
So are we really stuck with having to wait for the world to be 2 years old before we can end the restarters? World 45 has passed 99% dominance by a single tribe, but based on this we'll have to wait around 6 more months to end the restarting and get our 100% dominance. Since there are more restarters than members of the winning tribe, it looks like they can block us from getting a custom endgame.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
angrim said:
So are we really stuck with having to wait for the world to be 2 years old before we can end the restarters? World 45 has passed 99% dominance by a single tribe, but based on this we'll have to wait around 6 more months to end the restarting and get our 100% dominance. Since there are more restarters than members of the winning tribe, it looks like they can block us from getting a custom endgame.
Click to expand...

Reading is fundamental.

Morthy said:
However, we are aware that all worlds are different and so for some it would take a very long time to trigger the vote. We will also accept requests from tribe leaders for the vote to start on a case by case basis. These will be carefully considered by our team and then either accepted/declined. If declined you must wait another 3 months before sending in a request. Please do not send in a request unless your tribe or your alliance has at least 70% domination.
Click to expand...

He's talking about worlds that have rather unusual settings like your world. All you have to do is make it to 70% (which you've done) and then write a very well though out ticket to plead your case. Which I would imagine would be accepted considering your world. No morale and exponential nobles, I don't think anyone expects your world to be around as long as the others.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Morthy, is there any flexibility at all to request for removal of morale and restarts for special circumstances?

In addition to W45's problem in the post above, we are close to meeting the required criteria except for player count. Right now it is 485 and most of these are just people who refuse to go away. Just look at their size and growth rate. A lot of this also happened because the player count surged massively before the world closed and continued to surge (I recall there was a blip and people could continue joining for another week or so). To me it looks like its dropping by about 1 per day which means we need to sit and wait another 6 months for the player count to go below 300.

I hope you can understand W21 is 3 years old and it is getting stale. Stats are lop-sided and the clean up is not fun. I'm having more fun farming barbarians in W57 would you believe?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
FruitFilledEvil said:
Reading is fundamental.



He's talking about worlds that have rather unusual settings like your world. All you have to do is make it to 70% (which you've done) and then write a very well though out ticket to plead your case. Which I would imagine would be accepted considering your world. No morale and exponential nobles, I don't think anyone expects your world to be around as long as the others.
Click to expand...

Actually angrim was talking about the possibility of getting out-voted by the very people who are blocking their 100%. There are more of them than he has players.

Looking at it again I think its always likely that those not in the winning faction will outnumber those that are. Having a vote even at 85% dominance is going to leave a lot of room for screwing over the winning tribe.

My question is, when something is already clear-cut why do we even need to vote?
 

DeletedUser910

Guest
The reward for winning the world is horrid. Premium points? Most players aren't going to start a new world, why would they want premium points? I'd rather have cold hard cash. You can PayPal it to us the same way we PayPal for Premium Points. I think most players would prefer that over Premium Points which will be useless in the end.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I see alot of posts from my W21 friends. (I'm mac555 on that world), but I'm posting as a long standing member of one of the oldest worlds, W3.

Ive read almost all of this thread and want to put in my 2 cents for the super-old worlds. I'm unsure of the politics of Worlds 1 and 2, but with the rules previously proposed, W3 would never end. While my side is taking more villages than my enemies, it is at a snail's pace in comparison to what it would take for 100% control. We have 266 players so now we will have to lose 66 players to get the final reduced 1/5 noble price?

I have one more question regarding tribe rank:
The overall dominance of the top 2 tribes must be at least 85%
Click to expand...
In W3, the top tribe (the bad guys :icon_twisted:) has 93,000 villages, it stands alone as its enemies (the good guys :icon_wink:) have 66,000, 60,000 and 48,000 villages respectively in three different tribes. (for a total of 174,000 villages)

Yes, I know that's not enough to win right now. But my question is: would those three tribes (aka the "good guys" have to merge to knock the large single enemy tribe? Or in this case, does the rank not matter because the enemy is in one tribe while the close allies are in three tribes?

This is why, again, I appreciate the mods understanding the subtle differences between the worlds. Yes it would be easier on the mods to have one list of rules for endgame for all worlds. But seriously, no one who signed up for worlds 1-5 would even have dreamed about endgame when they started. Now that the game has grown and changed, I wouldn't start a new world with a clear vision on how to win. I don't want to be stuck on another world for 5 more years. :icon_razz:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
XanderZane said:
The reward for winning the world is horrid. Premium points? Most players aren't going to start a new world, why would they want premium points? I'd rather have cold hard cash. You can PayPal it to us the same way we PayPal for Premium Points. I think most players would prefer that over Premium Points which will be useless in the end.
Click to expand...

I know most agree with you , but that way it will cost them money. Which they dearly love. So rather dish out some PP , which in effect is not money.
Think about it , you pay PP for 3 years on a world who had 5000 players at one point , win it , and 40 Players get free premium for a couple of months . Doesnt really make sense to us. But to the accountants at Innogames it makes huge sense. But who are we to decide. We are just the paying customers.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Morthy said:
I can't really discuss our internal procedures, sorry.
Click to expand...

Geez , very drawn out archaic procedures by the look of it. Seems like its only you running the servers (The rest is probably counting the Premiums Cash) on TW hence the workload is immense , and in the end it takes months for simple procedures to be implemented. Kinda sounds like the normal Government kinda red tape bureachracy , overcomplicating straight forward tasks.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
soumalinna said:
rather eerie you refusing to answer an honest question morthy

when it was you, who opened the conversation :icon_rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Thanks soumalinna for backing me up.

@ Morthy: i care not about your internal procedures, i care because your decisions effect me ingame thus it is not an internal thing anymore and i want to know why it will take weeks. As a paying client i feel i have the right no know why it will take weeks and i expect an answer other the one liners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top