End Game

[DeletedUser]

So forget current wars and which tribal clothing we all wear and lets us discuss end game on this world. Now the tribal limit is 30, which in my eyes, is about right but even if it were higher we would still see alliances, end game pacts and so forth just as even on worlds with 500 point barbs folks will still noble them.

Now has been talk about why anyone would stick in a tribe allied to a much larger one where was no possibility of that player being on the winning side.

But is being in the winning tribe the be all and end all if you achieve your own personal goals? Should it matter if one tribe won with say a sister tribe of folks left out if they all knew they won it together? Is being in that "winning" tribe be the be all and end all? Would a player that jumped right at the end to "win" be applauded for there gamesmanship or raspberried for their actions?

I have won a world with a tribe which had a tribe win condition in place and even though we had better war stats, ODA you name it we romped it we were still shouted at for not really having "won" that world. I have also been in the winning tribe that had to keep going taking villa after villa even when it was clear that no one else could win (this is why whatever mods do they are always abused poor souls!!)

So should it matter that any tribe on here has multiple alliances in place and agreements to only war as "last tribes standing".

My view is that the tribe that will win will be battle hardened with a "core" of committed players who trust each other. I also think that getting into a major war too early can be fatal.

W72 has a win condition of 60%.

Is the right tactic to make players merge to form huge accounts to get to that 60% or should you go all out to kill every other tribe out there?

Is constant merging going to kill the interest of another world for a lot of the players? With the noble rules as they are, with no cheap rebuild, does this encourage or discourage the multi merging of accounts as the "safe" way to win?

Discuss

 

[DeletedUser]

I have won a world with a tribe which had a tribe win condition in place and even though we had better war stats, ODA you name it we romped it we were still shouted at for not really having "won" that world.

DWF didnt romp anything, you simply merged 2 tribes to hit the 50 mil win condition, FATE were utter rubbish, had the win condition been 80/90% dominance everyone knows we would have won that world.

 

[velibor]

Iam not here to win by being alongside the biggest tribe around. Iam here to play with friends and enjoy the game. If we win the world great if not we lost trying. Not everyone shares our views but I couldn't care less

 

[DeletedUser]

I would rather lose a world fighting it out, then win a world merging to a victory

 

[DeletedUser]

I think sometimes it's about the people you're with too. Maybe you don't have alot of time to spend on TW but you're in a tribe with your friends. Most academies are just for numbers but like the people above said, winning isn't everything, if you have fun with other players. If you enjoy war, attack people. If you enjoy Sim City, get rimmed and go play Casual haha seriously though it is just a game. However, top tribes shouldn't go on about eliteness. They recruit who they think they need whether that's big point players or spies or whatever. I don't think AN academy is bad, however a family of 120 players is just going overboard plus fewer people means a tighter group and more loyalty.

 

[rich26ca]

Personally i will strive to be apart of the winning tribe that is my personal goal... with that said.

I have seen end game where an alliance/family takes most if not everyone out. the tribes are then split geographically between the two and a final battle is done to get a victor.

 

[DeletedUser]

Personally i will strive to be apart of the winning tribe that is my personal goal... with that said.

I feel this is most peoples opinions nowadays.
Never seen so much backstabbing and conniving people. I know this is a game and people play it however they want but... Games are meant to be played to have fun, are they not?

 

[rich26ca]

shows where your mind is at... that you think you have to back-stab to get anywhere...

Or

Perhaps you earn your way to a top tribe then fight to prove yourself... hmmm seems like a familiar story ;P

 

[aine1169]

Never seen so much backstabbing and conniving people.

Could not agree more, I've encountered more backstabbers playing in this world over the last few months than I've experienced over four/five years on world 13!

 

[DeletedUser]

I feel this is most peoples opinions nowadays.

Dunno what's wrong with wanting to be on the winning team, of a game that has an ultimate winning side.
I mean I assume that is the most logical end goal. Having fun is of course the goal during the entire course of the world, but anybody who intends to stick it out to end game would likely want to win as well, no?

 

[DeletedUser]

Oh god, this argument will now become two sides that is constantly becoming a recurrent theme throughout the threads:

1. It is OK to do anything to win. It is a game and any strategy applies.

2. It's not a game if you internal, merge, etc. where you take away all the main aspects of what makes the game fun.


So rather than have redundant threads and calling each other hypocrites, which this thread is basically coming back to, why don't you guys post something original for once.

There's nothing wrong with expressing your opinions and defending your tribe, but if the same people post the same crap over and over again, this is going nowhere.

Now my opinion:

I think this is a stupid thread as it is an indirect bash towards Turtle. I am not saying it is stupid because the points brought up by Blame Your Mother are necessary wrong (or right), but it is worded in a way and will be read in a way as to invoke harsh criticism right off the bat, which is essentially getting nowhere so rather than having a proper debate we are remaining narrow minded and blindly sticking to our ideals.

This topic has been brought up in public posts over and over again and needless to say, unless you are coming here to post constructive feedback/criticism regarding what the thread asks, you guys are adding fuel to an unnecessary fire.


So express your ideas, refute your points, and don't make it a repetition of every single thread posted on W72 externals.

 

[DeletedUser]

Personally I think the 60% win condition is rather stupid, it's not high enough that a tribe attaining that percentage is guaranteed to be able to wipe the rest of the map, and combined with the expensive noble build definitely does encourage more safe play than might otherwise exist on the world. Since it's counted as total number of player villages and not points totals, a tribe could set off the end-game conditions and maintain a 60% dominance by nobling barbs for 90 days even if they were losing in a war to the tribe that owned the other 40% of the world.

I haven't played in a while, but I always expected that a win was 100% of the world, and it would be very unsatisfactory to be forced off of the world with anything less in my opinion. If there is enough in-game support can the victory condition be changed?

Also, if a tribe has the 60% necessary to begin the end-game phase but falls lower than that during the course of the 90 days, is the end-game condition reset?

 

[rich26ca]

My orginal post had no flame or baiting in it i was trying to keep the thread on topic...

and your right most threads end up with a turtle/fam vs anyone who is willing to post against them with some rare changes...

If it helps this week i intend to create the world @ war thread again lord knows there are enough wars going on now... a stat war page like before... and like before i will remain neutral with the thread.