Failed Vote Limiting Barb Nobling

[One Last Shot...]

This suggestion is an entirely new setting. It could be used on some worlds with an element or customization included.

Here's the proposal:

Barbarians upon spawning are assigned either an 'able to noble' or 'unable to noble' value.

Villages with 'unable to noble' wouldn't allow any noble attacks to be sent at them.

This would be customizable so would be able to vary from world to world. It could be a 50/50 split, 60/40 split in either direction etc.

The purpose of this suggestion is bullet pointed below.

1. Allows players to continue farming resources if desired.
2. Leaves some grey villages on the map that could be used for strategic purposes (dodging troops comes to mind).
3. Reduces density within the game which allows users to spread out further and (hopefully) make worlds a little bit bigger.

This is just a suggestion, but I've tried thinking about the most likely questions and answered them below.

Q/A

What about bonus villages?
The setting would be specific to barbarian villages. Including bonus villages would defeat the point of their bonuses (so they'd all be able to be nobled).

What about when players barb / lose villages due to a ban?
This setting would only affect villages as they start on a world. If a village starts player owned or has been conquered, it would never be affected by this setting.

What if all the barbarians we can't noble all end up in one direction?
This would work like the current placement algorithms to spread relatively evenly across the four starting directions. There may be the odd mini cluster as happens with current barbs, but that all adds to planning a strategy...

What if I like nobling Barbarians?
You can still noble plenty! It would vary from world to world whether the setting is active and the ratio being used.

 

[JawJaw]

Approved for voting. Good luck!

 

[RedAlert]

If this is implemented correctly like have this setting configurable as the rest of world config settings. So instead of having a fixed amount of 50 or 60 or 40 %, there is the possibility to have like a dropdown that can chose starting from 0% up to 100% (with a scale of 10% for each step).

So 0% means 0% of the world's barbarian villages can be nobled (this could replace the current settings against no barb nobling).
50% means that only 50% of the world's barbarian villages can be nobled, the rest can not.
100% means that all of the barbarian villages can be nobled.

It is important, if this is to be implemented that the algorithm that spreads the barbs, spreads them correctly otherwise it will be a constant bonus for the players near these un-noblable barbs and a constant disadvantage for the players that have less such barb vills around them.

 

[Eakshow McGee]

I like the suggestion, however i think for this to be used, the amount of players per barb need to be decreased (i think its now like 5 players/barb or smth) so villages that you can noble is still near the same. And as stated in suggestion, spread the villages out more.

Lastly, never forget, Barb Is The Enemy.

 

[Eakshow McGee]

Instead of not allowing nobles to be sent at the village, it should be loyalty cannot be lowered. This would allow using those villages to dodge or cancel snipe when nobles are in the village

Elie just lazy to actually write for herself...

 

[SwedishBlueCheese]

Without the generation being handled better this is a no from me. If you get bad rng you will have a harder time to cluster up or with even bigger parts of the map being empty of vills

 

[One Last Shot...]

Without the generation being handled better this is a no from me. If you get bad rng you will have a harder time to cluster up or with even bigger parts of the map being empty of vills

I've tried to cover this at the bottom:

This would work like the current placement algorithms to spread relatively evenly across the four starting directions. There may be the odd mini cluster as happens with current barbs, but that all adds to planning a strategy...

Could you expand on this further? Would you want the volume of barbs per player increased, a different algorithm uses entirely to guarantee X amounts of barbs in a 5x5 box etc?

 

[SwedishBlueCheese]

@One Last Shot... Well we just had a vote on this kind of thing but in short words. Max vills per 5x5 box, min vills per 5x5, max barbs per 5x5, min barbs per 5x5 would all need to be closer together. Right now we get some super dense areas then you get areas without vills at all. For example compare 117 rim to the rest of the world.

If the village generation was closer to the median everytime it would be a good suggestion to make some barbs non nobled but with what we got today it would just be a pain in the ass

 

[Deleted User - 848994288]

Yes because:
1# people restart - world gets bigger - spend pp's again on the rim
2# less barb nobling - more competition through attacks rather than packs
3# more old school players might return - we like to farm but with current settings scavenging is more productive and we only find TW joy in FARM
4# more customer happiness
5# higher profits for innogames = the only way for innogames to do anything

 

[0.2 Percent Nigerian]

Get a second job to fund the barb nobling conquest.

 

[DaWolf85]

@One Last Shot... Well we just had a vote on this kind of thing but in short words. Max vills per 5x5 box, min vills per 5x5, max barbs per 5x5, min barbs per 5x5 would all need to be closer together. Right now we get some super dense areas then you get areas without vills at all. For example compare 117 rim to the rest of the world.

If the village generation was closer to the median everytime it would be a good suggestion to make some barbs non nobled but with what we got today it would just be a pain in the ass

In my opinion, this is actually an argument for this suggestion, and here's why.

We know the effect of weird barb placement. It's something players already have to deal with. This suggestion would not, therefore, add a new problem to the game that players would have to re-learn how to solve. There is always a relocation item or the option of restarting if you're genuinely unhappy with your area. So the negatives you are pointing out, are not actually very significant.

Meanwhile, the potential benefits of this suggestion are fairly significant. It allows for barbs that stick around for troop dodges, barb bounces, and farming. It slows down the growth of pp whales. And it is configurable so that more 'casual' worlds can allow for lots of barb nobling, and more 'hardcore' worlds can allow for very little.

When you weigh this suggestion on the positives versus the negatives, I don't believe it's close - it adds more to the game than it would have a chance of taking away. A suggestion having some negatives isn't a reason to reject it - the negative side has to be worse for the suggestion to be bad.

 

[Serious George]

I feel like you could just have a world setting for no barb nobling, so players that struggle with it can play a world with those settings.

 

[One Last Shot...]

I feel like you could just have a world setting for no barb nobling, so players that struggle with it can play a world with those settings.

This suggestion would allow for that to be used if desired

 

[YeOlde Raven]

In my opinion, this is actually an argument for this suggestion, and here's why.

There is always a relocation item or the option of restarting if you're genuinely unhappy with your area. So the negatives you are pointing out, are not actually very significant.

There is one problem with the relocation tool, you may be happy with your area, only for mass movement to made into your area making you unhappy with your area, however your relocation tool could have expired by then..