Discussion: Recap and update: Settings changes on older worlds

[DeletedUser]

Does this mean that the 1st tribe could force the poll at lets say 71% if NOT allied to the 2nd at 29%, even if the 2nd tribe does not agree with the 1st tribe wanting to start the end game phase? Or does the 2nd tribe have some say in the matter if they choose not to play tribal hugs for the sole purpose of ending the world?

Let me clarify my question, my world is already in the endgame phase & pretty much down to 2 real tribes, where morale has been turned off, no restarts, etc...
I'd like to know if the 3 month countdown for declaring a winner of the world can be requested by the tribe that holds 71% if NOT allied to the tribe that holds the other 29%. At what point/percentage can they request to be declared the "winners" of the world?

 

[busamad]

Firstly, a small change to the disabling of restarts/morale: Worlds that have been closed for at least 9 months will have the criteria dropped from 85% to 70%.

A good starting point I fully understand you have to start at some point. This addresses the problems that older full worlds have.

The poll for endgame will still happen at 85%. An option will require at least 50% of the votes to be used. If no option reaches 50% votes, we'll rerun the poll using the two most popular options.

It maybe me being thick but could you explain this again please. Does this mean that 50% of the players left on the world need to vote for one option? Or 50% of the votes cast need to vote for one option?

I only ask as when we had the vote for 1/2 price nobles we had to me a very low turn out:

Yes 245 81.4%
No 56 18.6%

Votes cast: 301

That was less than a 1/3rd of accounts left on the world.

Again with the vote for just 2 options is that out of total players?

 

[DeletedUser656]

Out of total votes

 

[DeletedUser]

The 3 month wait for an appeal would be an eternity in TW. I would die if they said another 3 months.

Also what is the specific criteria to turn off restarts on a world?

 

[DeletedUser]

Each world is different.

So each world should have it's own world settings,and ending setting in place.

it's all good having setting in place and changing them as the games play.(this would be considered cheating)and very upsetting for the players who have worked for years building their accounts up.

On world 45 Omen dominate the map(if you've not looked)the world has no morale and the nobles were cheap to start with.

The world closed to new starters a while ago,It should have been closed to re-starters at the same time.

We would like to own 100% but the fact they can re-start is stopping us from hitting 100% dominance.


Please have some thought for us who want World 45 closed to re-starters so we can finish the world.


SOMEONE WILL POST NEXT AND PLEA ADMIMS CASE,BUT IT'S STILL DON'T SHOW US THAT YOU GUY'S ARE LISTENING TO OUR CRYS IN WANTING THE WORLD 45 TO END.

1 less world for morthy to worry about.

 

[DeletedUser]

Much better, although I still think Morale needs to go earlier. We have 490 players now and a lot of them are just small people refusing to go. It seems like its dropping by 2-3 per day so maybe another 2 months to go as long as we don't hit a point where it stops dropping!

As Busa said only 301 people voted for half price nobles, at the time there was a whopping 1000 players. Only 30% cared to vote, which quite frankly says a lot about their commitment to the world.

 

[DeletedUser]

I believe what it refers to is this:

1 tribe: 70% dominance. OR a family tribe at 70% dominance, OR two allied tribes at 70% dominance.

If the two allied tribes at 70% dominance cease their alliance, I believe it will no longer be 70% dominance, hence the end-game I imagine would be post-poned as per the previous methods, as no single "entity" then has 70% dominance I believe it is put on hold until a sing tribe/family/alliance then has 70% dominance again.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was the way it worked. (I'm not Morthy though.)

Edit: Having re-read your post I think I misinterpreted. If 1 tribe is at 70%, and an enemy at 30%, Most of the time the wars are long over and the 70% tribe will be dominating, I'm sure when they review they will take that into account, for example on my world our tribe is only at 50% dominance, our enemies are at 20%, but its like 600 - 3 conquers a month. I wouldn't consider it "tribal hugs" for the losers to be declared losers, and winners winners, in fact to me it would be more tribal hugs to keep the world open due to a small number of players who lost, but that we don't want to hurt their feelings by informing them officially they lost. But that's just my opinion.

Exactly....at some point you have to just admit you have lost and move on with a little bit of dignity and say job well done, game well played

but I think the question is this, or something like this.....Lets say the world has been closed for 9 months, and the #1 tribe holds maybe 80% and the only other tribe holds 20%, will the poll go up at this point or will the #1 tribe still have to acquire the 85% for the poll...or is he saying that it will revert back to the 70% and a poll will be put up at that point...I hope I have clarified what was being asked

 

[Wallam]

Thanks for the changes Jon, it looks a lot better now.

 

[DeletedUser]

Okay, all sorted I hope. Here's a brief summary for those who have been providing feedback here (very grateful for that by the way).

Firstly, a small change to the disabling of restarts/morale: Worlds that have been closed for at least 9 months will have the criteria dropped from 85% to 70%.

The poll for endgame will still happen at 85%. An option will require at least 50% of the votes to be used. If no option reaches 50% votes, we'll rerun the poll using the two most popular options.

However, we will also accept requests for 'custom' starts of the endgame phase from the leader of the winning tribe because some worlds have such unique settings. You can do this in the form of a ticket where you'd need to outline all the reasons for why your world should go into endgame phase. You would only be able to do this once you've reached 70% dominance (either 1 tribe or 2 allied tribes). Your request would be discussed/voted on by our admin team and if at least 3 out of 4 of us agree we'll take the request to the product manager for TW at InnoGames. If they give it the go ahead, you'll get a vote for endgame. If declined, you would not be able to appeal this but you could resubmit your request after 3 months.

I'll hold off on announcing so everyone can give feedback on this. Better/worse than the original compromise?

If this is the best we can get on the 85% dominance then that is better than nothing....... thank you for that

 

[Shadryk 01]

Jon/Morthy

I have informed our full tribe of this current proposal. We will internally discuss this 2nd compromise & vote. I will return and post our consensus opinion. Thank you for your efforts to find the best "common ground" solution.

 

[2hot2handle]

We would like to own 100% but the fact they can re-start is stopping us from hitting 100% dominance.


Please have some thought for us who want World 45 closed to re-starters so we can finish the world.


SOMEONE WILL POST NEXT AND PLEA ADMIMS CASE,BUT IT'S STILL DON'T SHOW US THAT YOU GUY'S ARE LISTENING TO OUR CRYS IN WANTING THE WORLD 45 TO END.

1 less world for morthy to worry about.

However, we will also accept requests for 'custom' starts of the endgame phase from the leader of the winning tribe because some worlds have such unique settings. You can do this in the form of a ticket where you'd need to outline all the reasons for why your world should go into endgame phase. You would only be able to do this once you've reached 70% dominance (either 1 tribe or 2 allied tribes). Your request would be discussed/voted on by our admin team and if at least 3 out of 4 of us agree we'll take the request to the product manager for TW at InnoGames. If they give it the go ahead, you'll get a vote for endgame. If declined, you would not be able to appeal this but you could resubmit your request after 3 months.

Time to write a ticket col

Like the idea to be able to request a custom start of endgame phase.

<3

 

[DeletedUser95913]

Morthy, this is much better, but I have to agree with myterms1, the time should be 6 month instead of 9 months

or stair step in, but it makes it more complicated for you
6 mos - 85%
7 mos - 80%
8 mos - 75%
9 mos - 70%

 

[DeletedUser]

I'd like to add that we're getting close to 70% now but the player count is still 489. At times it looks like it will never come down, dropping by maybe 1 per day. 300 is so far away. That means if we hit 70% we can put in for a custom endgame, without morale having ever been removed.

It sounds kinda weird, skipping the natural progression. If morale can be removed instead, I will be more motivated to try to go for a proper 85% rather than trying to force a custom endgame phase.

 

[DeletedUser45372]

I said it before and i will say it again... Morale and restarts should end when the world closes... By that time, you have had ample time to grow. If you get rimmed, you are not coming back to do work at that stage in the game.

 

[DeletedUser]

I said it before and i will say it again... Morale and restarts should end when the world closes... By that time, you have had ample time to grow. If you get rimmed, you are not coming back to do work at that stage in the game.

We don't live in should-land though. In our land, bad players have more rights than good players, losers are valued more than winners and un-paying rim players have more rights than 2 year long pp paying serious players.

It's funny how the world(s) work.

 

[DeletedUser45372]

We don't live in should-land though. In our land, bad players have more rights than good players, losers are valued more than winners and un-paying rim players have more rights than 2 year long pp paying serious players.

It's funny how the world(s) work.

At times, it feels like that.

 

[Shadryk 01]

I have consulted with our tribe. We appreciate the movement in our direction. Here are the areas that continue to cause us some concern:

1) Removal of morale & restarts at 70% is inadequate. The system gives everybody ample time to excel and to play the game as an underdog. In the early game, it shelters smaller & newer players while the bigger players fight one another. This is good in spirit and does not unduly affect the larger players.

In the late game, it enables deadbeat or defeated players a chance to survive only because of their small size. This is unbalanced and not in the interests of equitable gameplay. As we run low of large targets, it slows the natural progress of the game and frustrates the larger players. It becomes onerous and is widely subject to abuse. Some tribes report that their targets are all at a substantial morale penalty, or that they are playing whack-a-mole with restarting players. This "haha you can't get me" is an absurd exploitation of the system. A modification is in order beyond what is currently proposed.

2) For large worlds with many playable villages (including large barbs), reduce the price of coins beyond 1/5 of cost. Perhaps have 1/8 at 160 players and removal of coin/packet system at 120 players. Perhaps the "Custom end-game" could be extended to the price of coins. W13 has 318,000 full-size villages and a 60-member tribe limit. We have a need for cheap (or free) coins that is greater than most.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would like to propose an alternate criteria for morale/restarts. I propose they end when 1 of these 2 conditions are met:

1) Morale/restarts ends 6 months after the world closes AND when one tribe/family/alliance reaches 70% domination.

2) Morale/restarts ends 9 months after the world closes, period.

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to voice our opinion.

 

[DeletedUser]

We don't live in should-land though. In our land, bad players have more rights than good players, losers are valued more than winners and un-paying rim players have more rights than 2 year long pp paying serious players.

It's funny how the world(s) work.

Works exactly the same in a democrasy . The Tax Paying job creating billionare has exactly the same right as the non contributing open hands at the robot beggar.

Funny indeed.

 

[DeletedUser656]

Thanks for the feedback from everyone. We have decided to go with my latest proposal.

 

[valk]

There is no "traditional" 3 month window. There have not been any end-games for quite some time. It was an experiment on 4 worlds that didn't go terribly well.

This change speeds up the end of worlds dramatically and so loses us money.

Im guessing world 36 was one of them?
Where we are now warring because of it

Even though you have already decided i would have said any chance would have been a better change