Tribal Wars, A Dying Game?

DeletedUser104215

Guest
gotta say my experience in tw,
i joined w41, i think in k25. (rim). managed to take the 1000 pointed barb next to me, and i automatically had a train incoming of a core player

My deductions there: Barb nobling was wrong
What i did: i mailed the guy, asking for tips/help
The guy teached me some basis and then he nobled me,

after that i joined another world, and did better. got up to rank 100 whit 15 villagues or so. Got rimmed too, wasnt very good whit the talking by then, and diplomacy is important whitin this game.

Then i joined w58, and here i am. alife whit a 2millons acc.

i think noob/new players can get a chance if they will to learn... :icon_rolleyes:

One suggestion would be give a introducion whit all the basis of the game when you join a world, just to start knowing the terms like "nuke" "train" "nobles".

I think it's better to try a fwe world, so you understand the meaning of the game.
Theyr are on the forum a few post about the best start, but theyr are many good start it depend where u are located and how much u can farm.
After 4-5 round you can get really good with the concept of the game. But if sum1 tell u wat toe do at evry step, that take out a big chunk of the fun.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

twenty-five

Guest
I need to read threads I post in more often!

As opposed to an account running 3 or 4 people destroying an account run by one person when they are offline? Are you actually calling that more fair?

The fact is co-players means less accounts per world and little to no chance for new players to survive. Which all translates to a whole lot less accounts playing TW.

I made no claims: I asked a question. I don't think either are fair, although I do believe co-playing is more "fair" than being able to destroy somebody's hard work whilst they are offline (which he said co-playing was stopping pretty much), which you may notice is entirely different to your question, but it is what I suggested in the quoted post. The person I quoted implied surprise attacks are good, which they most certainly are not. They do not make the game competitive, they do not make it difficult; they simply make it annoying.

I never made mention of an account run by 3 or 4 people destroying an account run by one person, and frankly it's tangential to my point at best, at worst it's you being ignorant. It is surely quite clear by my point that I would believe that to be unfair too, equally unfair to be more precise, they both have the same outcome and that's what I am judging it based upon. My point was was clearly that surprise attacks are bad. The post I made was focused on the fact he said co-playing stops surprise attacks, which I actually believe to be beneficial to development and competitive nature of this game.

The second point is a different argument and not a direct reply to me, although it could be said to be a valid argument against co-playing: the question is would more accounts quit if co-playing was removed than would begin to play if it were removed. I think removing co-playing would reduce the amount of players currently playing, as you are directly cutting people off rather than stopping them developing and arguably if a new player quits because they don't survive on their first world they aren't going to continue to play TW for a long time like most co-played accounts do so TW loses long-term customers in exchange for a few who will stay for a small amount of time. I know which as a business model makes more sense, and also which makes sense for the community: keeping the long-term customers/players. Let's not forget some co-played accounts don't always play together, but the removal of the ability to co-play may still drive them away. i.e. they like the option but don't always use it.


Are you serious? how ridiculous, i cant believe you just said that. Is it tribal hugs so you dont get attacked because your always got someone online? this game is dying because they allowed that interaction on accounts.

Does this post actually contain an argument? Why does being online mean you don't get attacked? Sorry I don't see any sort of requirement to being attacked that you must be offline. Your post seems to indicate they must be linked in some way, which is frankly nonsense.
 

DeletedUser104215

Guest
I couldnt read it all but...

I would agree with a world with no sitter, the only problem would be that the oldy wouldnt play it, it would be more fair.

Or I would suggest a time limit shorter on the account sit, so 1 player cant control a second account(max sitting is 3 day's)
so if you have to go for the weekend sum1 can take over your account(period).

I do not think that sitting ruin the game that much , since no1 wish to play that much and the oldy that play in group , just use script and send it 5-6 time a day.

but then again if you bother complaining about admin, you are either really new to these game or you are like me and really need a new world to start.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I would recommend Innogames to advertise this great game more to make it publicy. All my friends don't know what is tribalwars when i i have asked.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I would recommend Innogames to advertise this great game more to make it publicy. All my friends don't know what is tribalwars when i i have asked.

Easier said than done. Where are the funds for all the advertisement costs going to come from? Most likely the players which would end up losing players and generally giving a negative mood, the best outcome would probably be new players to off-set the ones unhappy with costs, which is just back to square 1 really. Advertising is expensive.

For the level of exposure you are talking about (for it to be a "household name"), that is a rather lot of money.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Do it the cheap way, force TW staff to wear a t-shirt with a TW slogan on as uniform.

Oh, and force them outside too.
 

DeletedUser93439

Guest
Do it the cheap way, force TW staff to wear a t-shirt with a TW slogan on as uniform.

Oh, and force them outside too.

I actually have a TW shirt and wear it out frequently (its just a T-shirt with a logo... how's that different from wearing Dolce & Gabbana / Bikkembergs / Diesel or whatever garbage).

In this godforsaken land (haha) there were a couple of people who recognised it:

- One of my professors healthcare: He plays .nl along with another prof. in my school, he basically jumped me when he saw the shirt :lol:
- A few classmates, who didn't care
- One female specimen who stopped playing on .nl
- One dude in a pub, who's now on W62 here, but usually plays on .nl

(now where might I be from :icon_wink:)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Did the female specimen stop playing because she saw you wearing the shirt?
 

DeletedUser93439

Guest
Without meaning to insult the female specimen... lets say there was a whole lot of specimen, and as I know her a bit.. she probably is a bit angry at the world
 

DeletedUser

Guest
The game has changed since W10. It used to be more fun and involved. I quit during W42 b/c it became boring with all the code. Much easier to dominate your area in one sense, however, all the new code did help shorten the learning curve (which made the competition a bit better than earlier worlds)
 

King Sean04

Guest
I actually have a TW shirt and wear it out frequently (its just a T-shirt with a logo... how's that different from wearing Dolce & Gabbana / Bikkembergs / Diesel or whatever garbage).

In this godforsaken land (haha) there were a couple of people who recognised it:

- One of my professors healthcare: He plays .nl along with another prof. in my school, he basically jumped me when he saw the shirt :lol:
- A few classmates, who didn't care
- One female specimen who stopped playing on .nl
- One dude in a pub, who's now on W62 here, but usually plays on .nl

(now where might I be from :icon_wink:)

You're from Mexico. You gotta be from Mexico.
 

DeletedUser92753

Guest
I was talking with my co the other day about how the same names keep coming up every world and how slim the chances of new players are.

Worlds get plenty of new players coming in. Bringing them in hasn't really been an issue. Worlds are simply small due to the time between servers opening.

So what we came up with to explain the low percentage of players that move beyond their first village was the time investment to making progress in this game. Veterans (whether skilled or not) know whats in store for the game in a month's time. But a new player doesn't know that, and if you haven't played the game before why invest that time doing something that seems boring. We asked ourselves "Imagine how boring Mass Effect would be if you were stuck in the intro for a month before you actually got to play"

Not sure if I want this to change exactly as I enjoy the game as it is, but it may illuminate why the player base is radically shrinking.
 

twenty-five

Guest
We asked ourselves "Imagine how boring Mass Effect would be if you were stuck in the intro for a month before you actually got to play"

Much better than reaching that pile of crap they called an ending. :icon_razz:
 

DeletedUser103460

Guest
Why not make a world that has a sleep mode like the speed worlds so that it would be interesting. Also, new tactics will have to be formed because of this.
 

DeletedUser92753

Guest
Why not make a world that has a sleep mode like the speed worlds so that it would be interesting. Also, new tactics will have to be formed because of this.

because .net is international. Region servers have had sleep times I believe, but with so many different timezones that players come from, its impractical on .net
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Tweet or post something on your Facebook wall to encourage people to join the game.

No. I don't want the embarrassment of my friends knowing that I still play this game.

I'm sure it would also have disastrous effects on my already poor sex life.
 
Top