Feedback - world 122

[JawJaw]

Please drop the feedback here!

 

[Guesswhosback]

I feel like a 20 limits any way of recruiting ingame if you have a premade going and therefor a 25-30 limit would be a lot better.

 

[Ippe]

I agree. 20 man limit is too small. I think 25 - 30 limit would be ideal. Also, would prefer a rune world with no fake limit/WT. Thank you for allowing feedback on the settings.

 

[TheBoyInQuarantine]

20 tribe limit with domination is just bad, make it atleast 25 or 30 tribe limit. Or make it a rune world. Everything else seems kinda perfect, great job mods!

 

[norkan88]

I'd much rather see it being changed to runes than increasing tribe limit. Larger tribes just makes really boring worlds with too few strong tribes in my opinion.

 

[I-AM-GROOT]

Would it be possible to add 25-30 tribe limit instead of 20? There's too many "family tribes" when the member count gets so low I feel like it would help everyone to just increase the limit. Also another thing would be to add "Rune" setting to this world, with these settings it would be a perfect world.

 

[SwedishBlueCheese]

Please no domination WITHOUT a remake of the morale system in lategame. Or maybe just do 60% instead of 70%
With only 20 tribelimit and 70% dominance without morale nerf it will take years to finnish

Or just run runes, its so much more fun

 

[Deleted User - 848983838]

I like the 20 tribe limit and Uber arrival. If only there was a setting to prevent constant tribe movement like you saw on 112 to help limit the impact of family tribes.

 

[Eakshow McGee]

Would it be possible to add 25-30 tribe limit instead of 20? There's too many "family tribes" when the member count gets so low I feel like it would help everyone to just increase the limit. Also another thing would be to add "Rune" setting to this world, with these settings it would be a perfect world.

Family/academy tribes gonna exist no matter what

 

[Griffin140]

I don't feel like repeating myself on this again but I just want to say I feel this world should have a fake limit OR WT enabled. Having neither makes attacking too easy. Having both makes defending too easy. I think at this point worlds should have one or the other for a good balance. The players that like no fake limit AND no WT have w120 and pretty much everybody that cares for that hard core setting is already fully committed to that world. The no fake limit AND no WT setting results are predictable and like my suggestion / warning on the w120 feedback topic, we already are seeing severe burn out among those players that are playing that world. These settings change the dynamics of the game in such a way that it takes a lot of skill, planning, and organization out of the equation and replaces it with just sheer attritional determination; boiling wars down to who can send the most fakes and dodge the most attacks 24/7.

Please reconsider this setting for world 122.

I've quoted my w120 comments below.

-Griff

Aside from that, I'm of the opinion that worlds ought to have EITHER fake limits and no WT or WT and no fake limit. A world without a fake limit and no WT just increases the intensity of defending drastically and makes defending nearly impossible for most players. Having to dodge 1k attacks an hour for days, weeks, months on end is a major reason a lot of players in the past quit playing the game entirely because it was just too ridiculous for 99.9% of players to handle... There's a reason why this game has relatively so few players that have stuck around for world after world, year after year in the past. I think balancing a world with EITHER a WT or Fake limit setting makes defending barrable for more players and less people will go running for the hills away from the game then. Being on the offensive should have some challenge to it, there's not much of a challenge if you and a few guys can just spam 80k fakes at a defender and sprinkle in 1k nukes and just win villages through burning people out of the game and spamming fake scripts.

-Griff

And those older worlds killed most players enthusiasm for the game. People grudgingly finished out their world and never returned lol. I have a skype with thousands of contacts from over the years and it's crazy how few of them still play. When asked if they would like to come off their 5-7 year break, it's a universal"hell no, never that game again".

I get why people like no WT and no Fake limit, it makes attacking so easy but there ought to be a balance that doesn't require players to either have a 4 - 6 man account or having to give up your whole life to play seriously. I'd say the balance is having either a WT or fake limit on the world's. Just my opinion though

 

[tbonedavis13]

I would like to see either a fake limit or WT enabled on this world. The competitive settings are very favorable to attackers, and archers alone don't counteract that. A balance that gives attackers leeway while keeping defenders sane and engaged in the game can be achieved either enabling WTs or a fake limit, to give faking nuance and not turn it into a spam and dodge fest that burns out even the best of players. I would personally prefer to see WTs enabled with no fake limit, as the building type incentivizes intelligent planning, giving defenders a sense of sanity at a cost, (farm space, resources, build time) while also providing an additional layer of strategy to attacking (catting WTs) and defending (stacking WT villas, etc.). Attacking in a WT world also incentivizes clever strategies such as confounding players by hiding different troop compositions in an attack to subvert generally assumed attack types (fake/fang/nuke/split train etc.)

Mental stamina and attrition are still components of a world with WTs or fake limits, its just a more methodical manner of overloading a player instead of the reductive fake/dodge loop that disincentivizes players to stick with TW.

 

[I-AM-GROOT]

It’s a speed 2 nobody good wants a fake limit world that would be trash

 

[DeletedUser124797]

Tbh its a bit funny that a WT option was the second most voted for on w120 settings and we have not seen any WT since then

 

[Hoztrish]

I agree with previous answers, 25-30 members per tribe would have been perfect, also rune instead of domination...

 

[Flinkeen]

I must say a very good job with the settings, changing tribe limit for the greater (25-30) and making win condition rune would make it perfect tho!

 

[Bjorn Ironside]

Tribe limit 20, is great!

 

[Black Hammer138]

10 tribe member limit would be OP. You'd see a ton of competition and potentially get a bigger world out of it. Oh and throw in no coplaying. Mmmm would be fantastic

 

[xlea]

The world settings are pretty good with some expections!
Some changes that would make this world golden.
A tribe count of 25-30 members to prevent family tribes but also to have some extra spots in those lategame scenarios
Rune world instead of domination.
(Don't agree with tbonedavis13 to change these settings bellow)
No Fake-limit
No WatchTower
A challenging world is what i love about TW and with these settings you get that!

 

[Deleted User - 848983838]

Increasing the tribe count just increases the players in a family

 

[I-AM-GROOT]

Increasing the tribe count just increases the players in a family

That makes no sense, only 1 tribe wins and if your tribe always has a family tribe then stop surrounding yourself with noobs lol if anyone needs family tribes in an "Uber-Support" world they don't use their brain as it's useless.