Discussion: Recap and update: Settings changes on older worlds

[DeletedUser]

I don't understand why keeping these dead worlds open is such an issue to tribal wars. I bet if the older worlds, or those that have been clearly won and are just mopping up ended now, you would see most of those players keep playing, most likely short-term world hopping, but pp paying none-the-less. However dragging it out will see both the winners and the losers of the world most likely never playing again.

If our current world was to end now, most of my tribe and all the others in the world would probably still stick around and play new worlds or speed or etc, but making us "beat this dead horse" forever will see most of us never return when its finally over.

As was said by Morthy, they don't make much money out of these older worlds, so why bother, when a world is clearly dead? 85% dominance is too high realistically, most worlds are over when a tribe reaches 50 or 60%, realistically. I don't understand the logic behind it.

If there is 500 players on a world, there will only be about 200 actives at most. Out of those, 60-100 will be in the top tribe. Making them play forever to mop up will see most never return. So keeping a world open to try and keep the 100 losing players, but losing the 100 winning players? It really does feel like all these tiny, terrible players are far, far more important. Some random logging in once every two weeks with no premium is more important than someone logging in twice a day with an active premium for 2 years?

To be honest, I will never recommend this game to anyone who would be good at it. Success here, is more of a punishment than failure.

 

[DeletedUser]

Tribeless players:
Rank Player Points Villages
110 Gucci77 1,818,901 201
128 tom741 93,172 10
129 zodiacmaster231 60,770 5
139 orsamannen 273 1
141 Salme 226 1
142 ice titan6 186 1
143 ryan 1107 155 1
144 Faui89 139 1
145 pariah jax 137 1


Tribes as "enemies":
5 Bear 1,247,060 127
6 ~SA~ 312,971 32
7 ~GOH~ 138,856 15
8 B2B 56,973 6
9 FIRE 39,054 4
10 Eagles 29,264 3
11 PUT 18,918 2
12 NOMORE 9,232 1
13 IMT 463 2
14 ~DW~ 357 0
15 L.W.K. 298 0
16 Bears 227 0
17 ~KO~ 137 0
18 +KN+ 31 1


foe and rip are allied throughout years. and boo are inactives that we booted as we dont think the owners will return (ofcouse they still have the chance untill the 120 days limit and they will be let back in)

1 TheFOE 667,681,428 71,153
2 R.I.P 498,574,288 53,600
3 TheF0E 29,051,152 2,931
4 BOO!!! 27,124,093 2,781


"winners" of the world: 130.465 villages.
against us: 406 villages (above 500 points)

this means we own ALL but 0.003% of the playerowned villages and our world has not even been closed for respawn yet.

so everone else feeling their world should end becouse hey get near the 70 or 80% ownership of a world.. sorry but thanks for the laught :lol:

which leads me to say (again) W14 should have been first world to be given end game!

sorry for the rant here guys, and mabye this post is not that constructive, but the duke from my allied tribe and I have been trying to end respawn in W14 for more than a year and all we get is.. "we go through the worlds on a timely basis"

not even the post I have made in this thread, as I first made as a support ticket, has been answered
(post #213: http://forum.tribalwars.net/showpost.php?p=5993318&postcount=213

so I mailed Morty directly, but looks like the mail drowned in the masses, so yesterday I made the post as a support ticket again.



Have fun

Nic
Duke of R.I.P @ W14
/hoping to end the world soon!!!

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes, but you have that between four tribes. You cannot possibly share a world between 4 tribes.

In my opinion a world should only be won with 100% of player-owned villages owned by a tribe. Ending it early is just silly.. why not just finish it off. If nobles are reduced to one package each it can't take that long to noble out everyone else. Just a suggestion

 

[DeletedUser]

Sean - that is possible but morale and re-starts need to go once the mopping up stage starts, which could differ from world to world. Once the stats become severely lop-sided, you're mopping up. Its as simple as that.

The more I think about it, the more I think the voting part is bad. To get a custom end-game you're asking the winners (the minority) to vote against the losers (the majority) and pray for their goodwill. We're talking potentially about people who keep re-starting just to prevent a world from ending.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes, but you have that between four tribes. You cannot possibly share a world between 4 tribes.

In my opinion a world should only be won with 100% of player-owned villages owned by a tribe. Ending it early is just silly.. why not just finish it off. If nobles are reduced to one package each it can't take that long to noble out everyone else. Just a suggestion

Sean


did you even look at the two other "tribes"?? *L*

like I said, they are inactives that are booted. (we could just move them into our two tribes)

but even if we take those villages into the calculation it would be.

6115 villages not in the top two allied tribes
making it 4.48% not in these two tribes.

and again.. this is just to end RESPAWN!, as a lot of all these players still there, have been rimmed a lot of times.
had respawn been closed, the world would have ended more than a year ago (with ALL playerowned villages nobled into two allied tribes)

Resurrection
You have started over 5 times in this world!

I mean to get this award on a world as old as 14 is just .. well, pick your own bad word for it!


EDIT:

. We're talking potentially about people who keep re-starting just to prevent a world from ending.

AMEN... this is exactly what is happening in W14!

 

[2hot2handle]

In my opinion a world should only be won with 100% of player-owned villages owned by a tribe. Ending it early is just silly.. why not just finish it off. If nobles are reduced to one package each it can't take that long to noble out everyone else. Just a suggestion

Take an account on w45 at the moment and you can find out why finish it off . Cos it is god damn boring and pointless . The outcome of the world isn't going to change between now and the end , so why drag it out ? It is no fun . It's a game , you are meant to play it because you get enjoyment out of it , not sign in month after month just faffing about bored out of your brain .

<3

 

[DeletedUser]

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.

That is purely a commercial decision - a free ticket to a new round so you can remain a regular p(l)ayer.

From the players' perspective, it's not that bad though, as there are always players who would jump into a new world - these PPs can be given to these guys. Frankly, if you played for years with them and won the game together, splitting the PP between those who want to stay isn't a big deal. You lost a thousand times more real money in the past years anyway for your monthly premium, this won't hurt much.

Winning "cash" wasn't a reason for playing either.

 

[DeletedUser]

Reposting my question so it might not been simply jumped over this time:

if an alliance of more than 2 tribes (ie. 3-4) managed to destroy everyone else, and were historically independent tribes (not a family), could they be counted as the winning side without having to merge into temp tribes just to fit to the original wording or should they throw away their tribes after playing for like four years in their colors just to create two temp tribes to meet the exact wording?

Given they have the required percentage (70 or 85% vs. the rest of the world), they don't have more people than two tribes could take in (so it's not for having more people on the given side, merely to remain in the tribe they were actually winning the world with...), and they are all allied to each others.


For me this is rather a question about wording and flexibility (and respecting the history of ages old tribes and players) than a request for a rule change since such a group must fulfill the very same domination criterias and maximum allied player count...

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't think any of my tribe could care less about the prize. The best prize, is finishing itself. I would probably actually pay to finish it now, without having to delete and waste all that effort.

But it seems like their mind is mind up, it is a bit better than it was though.

 

[DeletedUser]

Reposting my question so it might not been simply jumped over this time:

if an alliance of more than 2 tribes (ie. 3-4) managed to destroy everyone else, and were historically independent tribes (not a family), could they be counted as the winning side without having to merge into temp tribes just to fit to the original wording or should they throw away their tribes after playing for like four years in their colors just to create two temp tribes to meet the exact wording?

Given they have the required percentage (70 or 85% vs. the rest of the world), they don't have more people than two tribes could take in (so it's not for having more people on the given side, merely to remain in the tribe they were actually winning the world with...), and they are all allied to each others.


For me this is rather a question about wording and flexibility (and respecting the history of ages old tribes and players) than a request for a rule change since such a group must fulfill the very same domination criterias and maximum allied player count...

kind of the same question as mine, if "only rank one tribe will be winner" if this is ONLY the RANK 1 tribe or eg. a tribe with acad/brother/sister tribe and/or two long lasting allies.

 

[DeletedUser]

Repost, as told by supportticket, that the only way to get an answer/comment on this is to post in this thread, so I now try posting it for the fourth time (two times in this forum and two times in support tickets)

sorry for the spam




http://forum.tribalwars.net/showpost.php?p=5993318&postcount=213

okay, I´m a little late on this thread, but I had made a ticket about some questions about these new changes.

first I´d like to say, I dont mind if the rules say the winner should have 100% of player owned villages in a world, not even it was 100% of all villages. I just want to know what goals I have to set for my tribe.

I´m duke in W14, wich has the 6th lowest players of all worlds, and long b4 any world closed was set for death and no fighting and has stayed that way for more than a year.

We have tried to end respawn for most of that time too, so we welcome any changes that can clarify what you have to do to get a world closed, for respawn, to end moral and finally to win the world.

We are long lasting allies, we had 2 tribes each. 1 year ago I cut my own two tribes down to one, so now we are 1 tribe + two allied tribes that have declared to be "family" and not to war each other as we see us as winnders.
(EDIT: we have now cut it down to just two tribes, which has a total of more than 95% of all villages, plus the rank 3 and 4 tribes are under our controle, thus making only 0.3% of all villages not under the controle of the two lead dukes)

we were told, that no worlds would be "won" by a family again, for quite some time (this was several months b4 christmas) and we still havn´t got an end to respawns. (thanks a million for the 1/5th coin prices though, gotta love it! :icon_biggrin:

right now we are about to cut the 3 tribes down to two , due to this secon of the rules, although we have always seen us as two tribes (even though we technically are three): EIDT: this is done now

The criteria for the removal of morale and disabling of restarts are:

The world must be at least two years old.
The player count must be below 300.
The overall dominance of the top 2 tribes must be at least 85% *.

and this brings me to my questions (from the ticket, was told to post them here)

Hi there, I have a few questions to the "new" "how to end a world"

We just got 1/5 noble price, lovely.. thanks
now we just need to end moral and respawn, nutch nutch, know what I mean

back on topic. The following:

"One or two tribes can win a world by owning 100% of all player owned villages. Shortly after this happens a world will be permanently closed to all players, the winners will be announced and premium prizes will be awarded.

Please note that the rank 1 tribe will be declared as the overall winner, and only players in the rank 1 tribe will receive premium prizes."


first question:
"One or two tribes can win a world by owning 100% of all player owned villages."

the two tribes part, is that two seperate tribes? or are a family tribe of two tribes counted as two and not one?

This leads to question two.
if above is counted as two tribes and let´s say the rank 1 player of the world is in the "junior" tribe, with least points, he will not be given the price of rank 1 in the world, but the highest ranked player in the biggest tribe will?

or how should this be interped?

And an additional question. if a family tribe of two are to be calculated as "one unit", must they have similar named, like "tribe" and "tribe2"? or can they have different names, as long as the dukes of both tribes declare they are family/the same tribe?

EDIT: these questions is mostly becouse of the tribe playerlimits, as some tribes that has won a world have had more than 100 players in them, but W14 has a limit of just 60, so we see it was unfair if only 60 players will be winners, when other worlds can have the double numbers as winners.

Regards

Nicolai

aditional in last support ticket:

Basicly we are two tribes that have been allied for years and in some way sees us as one tribe!
In past closed worlds, large groups of allied tribes have been given a win and in some worlds the tribe limit is 100 or even 150, where world 14 is limited to just 60 players.
If the rule is really inforced to just the rank 1 tribe as winners, I can only imagine how pissed off and angry ppl would get, as they have played this world for years now and compared to other closed worlds would see it as very unfair!
plus, what if the rank 1 player is not in the rank 1 tribe? does he really not get the "glory" of beeing winner of the world?

Please take the time to anser this issue, as ppl in my tribes are already started to talk about this.

fx. DNY had 61 members when the world closed.
we had 102
and world 18 was even won by an alliance of 3 tribes with a total of 203 players.

taking this into consideration, it would be more than fair to declare our two tribes the winner and whom ever are rank 1 at the time, regardless of the tribe beeing ranked one, whould be declared winner of the world.

Regards

Nicolai
Duke of RIP, rank 2, with the rank 1 player in the tribe.

 

[DeletedUser]

when all enemy opposition has been nobled out of the world

Does this include players that are tribeless?

 

[DeletedUser]

Morthy are the latest updates set in stone or are you still open to what we're saying?

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes, it does, PDXCook.

 

[DeletedUser]

Morthy are the latest updates set in stone or are you still open to what we're saying?

Probably not i mean why would they let us finish anymore worlds. probably will chance to you need to own 110% of all player owned villas just to keep us waiting and trying to figure out how to do this.

 

[DeletedUser]

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:

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:

I would love some guidance to an answer to my question here if you don't mind please. Even a PM would be awesome.

 

[darkaniken2]

I would love some guidance to an answer to my question here if you don't mind please. Even a PM would be awesome.

As per my understanding of the new requirements, 1-2 tribes are allowed to have the dominance needed to win the world. It does not say that either tribe actually has to be rank 1, though by the time you reach 70-85% dominance, I should think at least one of the three tribes would be.

 

[Shadryk 01]

The final end-game criteria is close to what our members would like to see. However, we would appreciate more consideration for further reducing the cost of coins, as our world is huge. If special consideration could be offered via Support Ticket from the leader of the top tribe, that would be adequate. Outside of that, no major complaints.

Thank you.

 

[angrim]

I'm still waiting for a reply regarding the 2 year requirement for restarts to end. On world 45 we have one tribe controlling 99.8% of player owned points, and around 200 players who just keep restarting over and over as we noble them off. We started in Dec 2009, so it's another 5-6 months till we reach the two year requirement, and with nothing to do except noble restarters for that time, that really doesn't make for a fun play experience. Is there any way to get that time limit reconsidered?
Note that I am not talking about the end of the world, just about ending the restarts. We'll have 100% dominance within a week or two of restarts ending(depending on how far away some noble trains have been sent from).

 

[A humble player]

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.

There are probably some legal issues with this, and the fact that payout would require a paypal (personally, I despise paypal, and I wouldn't), and for many of the people who play TW, 30-40$ worth of prem is quite nice for winning a world.

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.

You will find that there are 9 developers/coders for tribalwars as a whole, 4 .net community managers, something like 30 community managers for other language versions, 19 in game admins for .netalone, and 30-40 other staff members, again for .net alone. That is certainly more than one, and none of them count prem.
Go over to a walmart, or a target, or any other large (or medium sized) buisness, and ask them how they decide what to do, I would be surprised if the person you asked even knew the answer, and even more so if they told you.