Next HP Settings

[JawJaw]

Guys,

I need some opinions on multi-village start.
Would you play a world where you start with, let's say, 2 villages that you need to build up? Why (not) ?

Let me know! I'm actively considering this for our next HP!

 

[Salvador Dali]

Personally I would like this, makes the game more interesting. One defensive, one offensive instead of committing early.

 

[bobertini]

I'd possibly have the rough build:

L10 HQ
L5 Barracks
L15 Pits
L8 WH
L6 Farm

That should be a good enough starting position.

 

[JawJaw]

I'd possibly have the rough build:

L10 HQ
L5 Barracks
L15 Pits
L8 WH
L6 Farm

That should be a good enough starting position.

I'm not sure we will be able to raise building levels, which is why I didn't mention it in my post. So for the feedback, please assume both start with 26pts.

 

[bobertini]

I'm not sure we will be able to raise building levels, which is why I didn't mention it in my post. So for the feedback, please assume both start with 26pts.

hm, something different then. I'm not against the idea of 26pts and would make the world slightly bigger so there's a win for that.

Presuming the barbs ration will be altered accordingly?

 

[JawJaw]

hm, something different then. I'm not against the idea of 26pts and would make the world slightly bigger so there's a win for that.

Presuming the barbs ration will be altered accordingly?

Barb ratio is already taking into account number of player villages, not number of players, so that gets automatically (or rather, should) adjusted.

 

[Aretas]

Multiple village start would be interesting. My main concern would be that it would make common pushing start up tactics twice as effective. Where now when your future cos or friends who join the world will have 2 free villages to build for people, instead of just 1, meaning that these accounts that do this will have an even bigger head start. This would be particularly true of big family tribes that are often used to push the main tribe. Perhaps disabling scavenging would help curve this as it would mean potential pusher accounts would have to put more time and effort into their village building. Turning off support from outside tribes would also prevent people from having friends make 2 D villages to support them if they go more offensive for a faster start. I think that a multiple village start could be really interesting, but it would need setting that compliment starting with a second village, such as small tribes and no outside support imo for it to balance out. That aside, how would a multiple village start look like? ie how would your second village be placed on the map? Would it be similar to say inviting a friend, where it will just be randomly placed inside a certain radius, right beside, or would you be able to choose direction separately for both villages?

 

[Deleted User - 10770065]

Yeah, boosting would be off the scales... not sure that would be good.

 

[crimsoni]

Hence forth, by the power of JawJaw I declare this thread geschlossen.

 

[Junior Jr]

Please have scavenging on too!

 

[Arcward]

Multiple village start would be interesting. My main concern would be that it would make common pushing start up tactics twice as effective. Where now when your future cos or friends who join the world will have 2 free villages to build for people, instead of just 1, meaning that these accounts that do this will have an even bigger head start. This would be particularly true of big family tribes that are often used to push the main tribe. Perhaps disabling scavenging would help curve this as it would mean potential pusher accounts would have to put more time and effort into their village building. Turning off support from outside tribes would also prevent people from having friends make 2 D villages to support them if they go more offensive for a faster start. I think that a multiple village start could be really interesting, but it would need setting that compliment starting with a second village, such as small tribes and no outside support imo for it to balance out. That aside, how would a multiple village start look like? ie how would your second village be placed on the map? Would it be similar to say inviting a friend, where it will just be randomly placed inside a certain radius, right beside, or would you be able to choose direction separately for both villages?

Completely agree with this. Settings must keep the "pushers" in check here if a multiple village start is allowed.

- Scavenging Deactivated
- No Outside Support
- 10 player tribe limit (Less? Potentially Tribelock?)
- Paladin Activated without skills

I am also interested in what the maximum distance can be for a multiple village start. Of course the most "fair" option is for every account to start with 2 villages the same distance from each other. Is this possible to set to maybe 5-7 fields? Personally, I think that 2 villages a bit spread creates a much more interesting startup than 2 villages adjacent to each other. However, starting with 2 villages across the world from each other seems a bit too hectic at first thought (but maybe would end up much more fun that way).

 

[One Last Ride]

I agree with everything Arc and Aretas have said. Would be down to play some small tribe limit round like this. Definitely do your best to nerf multi accounting/coplayer gifting. This would be twice the aids as it already is.

 

[One Last Ride]

However, starting with 2 villages across the world from each other seems a bit too hectic at first thought (but maybe would end up much more fun that way).

I think this could be fun idea, if you are able to select location and relocate both villages. The other villages had to be say at least 100 fields away or in Opposite Ks. For example 1 village in K45 and the other in K54. Diplomacy would be interesting as far as gifting and using clusters in different Ks as diplomatic tokens. I see this 2 village start as an interesting idea. Would definitely need smaller tribe limits though as both Arc and Aretas stated.

 

[Serious George]

General Settings:
- Building speed: 4 I think 5 may be a bit too fast. Just a personal preference
- Unit Speed: 0.5

Game:[/B]
- Archers: Activated There have been more worlds lately without archers and I like using archers
- Paladin / Statue: Activated without skills
- Bonus Villages: Deactivated
- Barbarian Villages: Grow to 3000 points
- Church and Belief: Deactivated
- Watchtower: Deactivated
- Militia: no preference
- Morale: Points based
- Achievements: Activated
- Noble production: Coins
- Loyalty: 25-35
- Technologies:Simple Personal preference.
- Beginners protection: 2 days Why drag it out longer. Make players start battling early on.
- Beginners protection ratio: Deactivated. Doesn't make sense for HP
- Scavenging: Deactivated No need for scavenging in an HP world

Other:[/B]
- Nightmode: Deactivated
- Choose starting direction: Yes
- Attack timing: 25 Milliseconds Might as well make it harder to snipe trains as this world is about skill
- Fake limit: Deactivated I honestly just don't like fake limits.
- Limit Nobleman walking distance: Deactivated

Extra :[/B]
- Victory conditions: Dominance (Hold 70 % for 3 days) once you hit 70% on HP the world is already won. No point in continuing it longer
- Tribelock: Yes Certainly could make the world more interesting
- Tribe limit: 10 Smaller tribe can potentially make the world more competitive and challenging.
- Flags: No HP is about skill. Players with a lot of flags would have an advantage.
- Haul: Yes I enjoy farming. Players need to put in the time to get ahead.
- Farm limit: No I have never enjoyed the farm limit setting
- Support outside tribe: No Smaller tribe limit with no outside support will make the world more challenging

I really would push for the lower tribe limit and no outside support. I only wish there was a way to prevent family tribes further but I would love a world that is really competitive and has a harder path to victory before the world is over.

Some players have talked about starting with multiple villages. It might help make the world bigger from the beginning which could make for some tougher early world battles. However it may make it even easier for push accounts to boost players early on.

 

[samuel4699]

I like Jorge's settings.

Also I would like to see a world without boosts of all sorts such as flag booster etc. Maybe that is already disabled on HP worlds as per standard (I don't remember) but it would be refreshing to play without that shit.

 

[El Bahattee]

I like Jorge's settings.

Also I would like to see a world without boosts of all sorts such as flag booster etc. Maybe that is already disabled on HP worlds as per standard (I don't remember) but it would be refreshing to play without that shit.

Yeah theres no boosts on HPs

 

[Curious George]

I like Jorge's settings.

Also I would like to see a world without boosts of all sorts such as flag booster etc. Maybe that is already disabled on HP worlds as per standard (I don't remember) but it would be refreshing to play without that shit.

Second the point about Jorge settings, I'm not a huge fan of no outside support but it seems to be the best way to curb family tribes. I'd also prefer no morale, on a HP world I don't think players that manage to outgrow others should be punished, but that setting is neither here nor there to me.

HP worlds don't have the boosts, though the last round a few players received a +5 noble booster in error.

 

[samuel4699]

Thats good

 

[Mr.Paratoner]

Add tribe lock so none can change tribe for support

 

[El Bahattee]

Add tribe lock so none can change tribe for support

Don't need tribelock for that. If the settings are Über that means supp gets pulled automatically if a player leaves the tribe