Feedback World 120
- Thread starter JawJaw
- Start date
wildwang
Non-stop Poster
- Reaction score
- 606
yeye i agree 100%. I honestly would prefer a fake limit but 5th option is still by far better then everything offered on table so far
DeletedUser124797
Guest
If the settings get changed then we want the second most wanted option for 121
wildwang
Non-stop Poster
- Reaction score
- 606
DeletedUser124797
Guest
Just preparing for our usual all front war
world8vet
Still Going Strong
- Reaction score
- 316
Obviously people like different things and a world can never please the whole player base, which is why it is important to look at the settings of current worlds.
W118 has night bonus and pally w skills, w119 has WT, it would really be off putting to seasoned players to have 3 worlds in a row with quite defensive settings. Hence why the majority of people in this thread agree to disable watch towers.
W118 has night bonus and pally w skills, w119 has WT, it would really be off putting to seasoned players to have 3 worlds in a row with quite defensive settings. Hence why the majority of people in this thread agree to disable watch towers.
du verlierst
Member
- Reaction score
- 3
world8vet
Still Going Strong
- Reaction score
- 316
Only the fake limit was removed, you're also completely disregarding how w118 also had Pally w skills and Night Bonus, which are two settings which really help defenders.
Also you are disregarding how w119 just had WTs, how w118 has NB, having a world with both is just overkill , especially given how w116 was the last world geared towards "seasoned" players.
Really funny how you think people only play when the settings are "perfect", that isn't the case. People put up with settings that they dislike, it's a combination of NB and WT that is just too much.
If people in this thread are able to say that they are fine with NB if WT is taken out, why are you not able to compromise as well.
Curious George
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 224
I'll start with the positives, it's great that you've listened to all the feedback, and it's quite refreshing to see the opinions of the player base taken into account for decisions like this - so massive props to JawJaw for that. I'll also say that the new quest system looks strong and I'm looking forward to trying it out and I'm particularly happy with the paladin setting this world - I feel with full skills it's competing with Watchtower for the single worst setting in the game, so it will be particularly refreshing to have an option to move def around quickly without the obscene boosts that often come with the paladin.
Moving on to a couple of the disappointing settings that are seemingly going to remain, that being the 10 tech and 40 tribe limit (when paired with full outside support).
40 member limit for a 70% dominance world I don't actually hate, the grind to push for dominance at the end of a world is boring and drags on far longer than it should, 40 members will help limit this, but to pair 40 member tribes with no support restrictions is just begging for world wide coalitions to try and stall 1 tribe - my suggestion would be to add the updated Uber support rule instead, with 40 members there's no tribe that should also then be reliant on further outside help.
The other setting I have an issue with is 10-tech. I believe, once upon a time, it had it's place in the game, but the way the market is set up now, this setting is prone to heavy spenders bumping up their techs early game and getting an even further immediate advantage just through their willingness to spend, rather than any display of skill or tactical thinking. The setting itself, in my opinion, also becomes defunct after the first few months of the world. I would really suggest this setting in particular is removed (even if not for this world, just generally moving forward) as there's not much nuance or skill to it. It's a PP drain early game for those willing to spend and a resource drain thereafter.
Moving on to a couple of the disappointing settings that are seemingly going to remain, that being the 10 tech and 40 tribe limit (when paired with full outside support).
40 member limit for a 70% dominance world I don't actually hate, the grind to push for dominance at the end of a world is boring and drags on far longer than it should, 40 members will help limit this, but to pair 40 member tribes with no support restrictions is just begging for world wide coalitions to try and stall 1 tribe - my suggestion would be to add the updated Uber support rule instead, with 40 members there's no tribe that should also then be reliant on further outside help.
The other setting I have an issue with is 10-tech. I believe, once upon a time, it had it's place in the game, but the way the market is set up now, this setting is prone to heavy spenders bumping up their techs early game and getting an even further immediate advantage just through their willingness to spend, rather than any display of skill or tactical thinking. The setting itself, in my opinion, also becomes defunct after the first few months of the world. I would really suggest this setting in particular is removed (even if not for this world, just generally moving forward) as there's not much nuance or skill to it. It's a PP drain early game for those willing to spend and a resource drain thereafter.
a.K.a elmoo
Non-stop Poster
- Reaction score
- 802
Agree, to be more friendy towards defenders, 10lvl might be bad
Skill Issue
Skilled Soldier 2020
- Reaction score
- 1,908
First of all, wanted to say thank you as well for listening to the community and putting up a poll with different possibilities to vote for. One more thing that I want to add regardless of the result of this poll is that the tribe limit being 40 and outside support being enabled. Yes I do understand people's complaints about the world having 10-tech system, as I personally am not a fan of that, but I do think that the higher member limit in combination with outside supporting is a bigger problem in the long run than techs. It promotes a "Merge2win" kind of playstyle where several tribes will hold hands and merge accounts throughout the whole world. 40 member limit is something we barely see nowadays considering the player-base is smaller compared to the ones we had in the past. W113 and W117 are the 2 biggest .NET worlds we have seen in the recent years, and I would say that's at least one positive that Covid brought to this game. Both of the above mentioned worlds had a smaller tribe limit (20 for W113, and 30 for W117) than current limit on W120 and did/are doing completely fine without too much diplomacy.
I think that if the tribe limit is 40 we should have the reworked Uber setting enabled instead of outside support, or if the limit could be reduced to 30 members, leaving outside support is fine. Nowadays in TW, you will not find a tribe with 40 active account in the end-game. It is literally impossible and it will lead to 2 or even 3 end game tribes setting up an Alliance in stone then merging in the end. Hence why I think Uber with 40 tribe limit would make the world perfect.
Also, dominance win condition works well with 40 member limit, as reaching the required dominance goal is very exhausting in the end. The dominance goal was and will always be met when the opposing enemy end game tribe gives up. Hitting 70% dominance for example is a very hard thing to do with the coin prices being regular. It would be nice to see a system where Dominance win condition works as exactly as the Rune win condition. For every 10% dominance reached = -10% price of the coins. Making it scale like that will make sure that the official ending of the world won't take months and months although the world is basically won.
I think that if the tribe limit is 40 we should have the reworked Uber setting enabled instead of outside support, or if the limit could be reduced to 30 members, leaving outside support is fine. Nowadays in TW, you will not find a tribe with 40 active account in the end-game. It is literally impossible and it will lead to 2 or even 3 end game tribes setting up an Alliance in stone then merging in the end. Hence why I think Uber with 40 tribe limit would make the world perfect.
Also, dominance win condition works well with 40 member limit, as reaching the required dominance goal is very exhausting in the end. The dominance goal was and will always be met when the opposing enemy end game tribe gives up. Hitting 70% dominance for example is a very hard thing to do with the coin prices being regular. It would be nice to see a system where Dominance win condition works as exactly as the Rune win condition. For every 10% dominance reached = -10% price of the coins. Making it scale like that will make sure that the official ending of the world won't take months and months although the world is basically won.
Last edited:
Newfie King
Member
- Reaction score
- 33
I'd love to know the amount of people who have voted to keep watchtowers that have actually played a watchtower world start to finish. They certainly wouldn't be voting for them again
GeeGee
Active Member
- Reaction score
- 67
No Watch Tower - It makes defending too easy and thus it makes for a slow, boring and long world. I dont mind (actually prefer) long worlds aslong as its due to size and competition, not because of the settings. Also it takes the fun out of OPs which are pretty much the key to victory and key part of playing together as a tribe which this game should be all about. Imo its a cool setting for a casual world but doesnt belong on a real world.
Lower the Tribe member limit - 40 is too much. This game doesnt have 39 other cool people for me to play with .... why force us to take in accounts we really dont want/like/respect/appreciate ? I know most people just care about winning but for me this game is actually about playing together with friends and having fun together. At the moment this game simply doesnt have the player field to warrant a tribe limit of 40 accounts. thats a minimum of 80 and realistically closer to 100+ people needed for just 1 tribe. in the past this was fine when there were alot of players but right now the list of players is so small that it just doesnt make sense. It will just create unnecesesary drama in tribes because tribes will be forced to take on extra accounts to meet the limit. 20 or 25 is ideal, 30 would be ok, anything above that is not realistic looking at the amount of players there are at the moment.
Lower the Tribe member limit - 40 is too much. This game doesnt have 39 other cool people for me to play with .... why force us to take in accounts we really dont want/like/respect/appreciate ? I know most people just care about winning but for me this game is actually about playing together with friends and having fun together. At the moment this game simply doesnt have the player field to warrant a tribe limit of 40 accounts. thats a minimum of 80 and realistically closer to 100+ people needed for just 1 tribe. in the past this was fine when there were alot of players but right now the list of players is so small that it just doesnt make sense. It will just create unnecesesary drama in tribes because tribes will be forced to take on extra accounts to meet the limit. 20 or 25 is ideal, 30 would be ok, anything above that is not realistic looking at the amount of players there are at the moment.
- Reaction score
- 39
I don't honestly care whether there are watchtowers or not. I just really hate the night bonus and fake limits. I don't even know why fake limits are a thing. Anyone who likes to run offensively it makes it harder to send fakes because it breaks up your nukes or causes you to build more cats and such in D villages just to be able to send some. It's a horrible addition that shouldn't exist.
wildwang
Non-stop Poster
- Reaction score
- 606
