nobles on sale or not on sale

DeletedUser

Guest
Which is exactly why i said 'More opportunist trains being launched etc.' - this means more random trains going further into enemy territory or more nukes being followed by trains. The point being more nobles flying round the battlefield will result in more opportunist nobling.

You all say that there r not enough targets to make cheap nobles viable... u forget that on a battlefield there is limitless targets and therefore everyone in a war benefits from the cheaper noble costs...

Just my view on it all anyway :icon_wink:

The problem usually isn't nobles, but lack of escorts for said nobles.
 

DeletedUser78416

Guest
They should implement shields for nobles, of all different levels. I'll take the one from Dragonslayer, made of the dragons scales and be able to noble avill with 5k/5k and not die!

:icon_razz:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Which is exactly why i said 'More opportunist trains being launched etc.' - this means more random trains going further into enemy territory or more nukes being followed by trains. The point being more nobles flying round the battlefield will result in more opportunist nobling.

You all say that there r not enough targets to make cheap nobles viable... u forget that on a battlefield there is limitless targets and therefore everyone in a war benefits from the cheaper noble costs...

Just my view on it all anyway :icon_wink:

Personally, I have more than enough noble trains for this war effort. Actually, I think I have more than necessary, as mine spend quite a bit of time just sitting around. I just lost 4 trains on four villages I thought were clear a couple days ago, and I still have more just sitting around. There's really no benefit gained from half-priced nobles for me, so why would I want others to have it?
 

DeletedUser78416

Guest
Personally, I have more than enough noble trains for this war effort. Actually, I think I have more than necessary, as mine spend quite a bit of time just sitting around. I just lost 4 trains on four villages I thought were clear a couple days ago, and I still have more just sitting around. There's really no benefit gained from half-priced nobles for me, so why would I want others to have it?

I think what you mean is that you have enough nobles to last if you pace yourself. Anybody can make nobles last if they aren't used, especially if you leave them sitting around doing nothing as you say some of yours are. Im a firm believer of you dont load your gun unless you plan to use it, so an idle noble to me is a waste of resources. It takes half a day to build a train, so saying they are already made is just being proactive...meh, to each their own. If nobles are just sitting around made, they either aren't in the place you need them to be (i.e. close to targets) or the players planning could use a bit of a refresher course.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I think what you mean is that you have enough nobles to last if you pace yourself. Anybody can make nobles last if they aren't used, especially if you leave them sitting around doing nothing as you say some of yours are. Im a firm believer of you dont load your gun unless you plan to use it, so an idle noble to me is a waste of resources. It takes half a day to build a train, so saying they are already made is just being proactive...meh, to each their own. If nobles are just sitting around made, they either aren't in the place you need them to be (i.e. close to targets) or the players planning could use a bit of a refresher course.

I can noble two villages a day and still store extra packages. I would have to noble three villages a day for around a month to completely deplete my noble trains and packet stores. And if I was nobling three villages a day for a month, I wouldn't be complaining about package shortage. That'd be ~90 villages, more villages total than I've taken thus far from LSHRV.

As for the gun quote, I also believe the same thing. However, I also take the time to aim and make every shot count, rather than spray and pray. I use all of my trains on a regular basis, but that doesn't mean I send them out as soon as they return to my villages. I plan out my attacks, set up the nuking and support as necessary, and then send. Sometimes this takes weeks, especially when waiting for nukes or support to build.

I also have the problem of waiting on escorts to train. A noble train takes ~16 hours, give or take depending on academy level, while a nuke takes at least 3 weeks. Like I stated above, I lost 4 noble trains the other day, meaning I lost 4 nukes acting as escorts, so those trains would be ineffective sent early without an adequate escort. But then again, this also just shows how it really is good for me to have so many trains. I lost four, and I continued to noble villages from you guys.

Now I believe we are starting to get off topic.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
There's really no benefit gained from half-priced nobles for me, so why would I want others to have it?

Selfish much? :icon_sad:

I find that what often happens for me, is that I will make a train in one place, use it and then a couple of days later realise that it is too far away from my next target to coordinate properly (due to the fact I have to sleep and just generally forget about these things...).

So I then have to make a new train closer which is why I'm often low on stored packets. Secondly for me it often comes down to convenience. Impatience demands that I build a new train closer to the target to save time.

So in conclusion, hopefully 1/2 price packets will make things easier for uncoordinated n00bs like myself :icon_biggrin:
 

Seagryfn

Guest
Survey: Should half priced nobles be enabled on this world?
When half priced nobles are enabled, each package or coin (depending on the world) you store will cost half of the normal amount. If at least 2/3rds of players vote yes, the setting will be implemented on Monday the 15th of February.

Yes 255 67.82%
No 121 32.18%

Votes cast: 376
Votes haven't changed for a few days. Currently, it will pass, but...
Just SEVEN more votes fo "No" and the measure fails! :icon_eek: Close vote.

Since inactive accounts (sat accounts) cannot vote, the number of votes cast is probably indicative of the true number of players left on W16, and not the 701 that show as having points.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Votes haven't changed for a few days. Currently, it will pass, but...
Just SEVEN more votes fo "No" and the measure fails! :icon_eek: Close vote.

Voting closed a couple of days ago. :icon_razz: Ended Feb 11,2010 01:41.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Selfish much? :icon_sad:

I find that what often happens for me, is that I will make a train in one place, use it and then a couple of days later realise that it is too far away from my next target to coordinate properly (due to the fact I have to sleep and just generally forget about these things...).

So I then have to make a new train closer which is why I'm often low on stored packets. Secondly for me it often comes down to convenience. Impatience demands that I build a new train closer to the target to save time.

So in conclusion, hopefully 1/2 price packets will make things easier for uncoordinated n00bs like myself :icon_biggrin:

It's a game. I want to win the game. Currently, I'm one of those winning. Why would I vote to pass something that'll give an advantage to those I've already passed, but won't equally benefit me?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Because you like giving the underdog a chance? :)

I reckon it'll make an immediate impact on internal nobling. I expect to see the top four become more active. In terms of everything else, I agree that it'll either be more of a long term impact or next to no impact.

Sadly every tribe that I have ever had the pleasure of being in has had a cap on the amount on internal noblings a player can do. So the number of villages a player can noble will still stay the same. It wont make much of a difference if your travels time are over a day or two because going by the current prices you would of already been able to coin the next noble. Right?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Because you like giving the underdog a chance? :)



Sadly every tribe that I have ever had the pleasure of being in has had a cap on the amount on internal noblings a player can do. So the number of villages a player can noble will still stay the same. It wont make much of a difference if your travels time are over a day or two because going by the current prices you would of already been able to coin the next noble. Right?

That's a true statement, but I've always been a believer that if you have the nobles, you can claim extra if no one else wants them. I see no reason why any tribe would not allow players to go over the limit if it gets rid of inactivity faster and doesn't mean anyone missing out on a claim/s they want. I for one know that if I claimed 10-15 vills which no one else wanted, no one would complain about it cos they know I've never not taken something I've claimed on this world within 4-5 days, usually 1-2 days.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
If you have free villages that no one wants to take, your inactivity problem is even worse than you think.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
If you have free villages that no one wants to take, your inactivity problem is even worse than you think.

I wasn't talking about my tribe, I was talking about tribes in general.

Your statement all depends on the situation. If all internals are in the same area, you've only got so many players in that area and so many who are willing to relocate to that area. All depends on how many villages you have up. How people noble...do they keep on nobling constantly or noble a lot of villages, take a break, then noble again. Who reads the forums...even in a very active tribe, there's always some who don't read forums/don't read them often enough. I don't think I've ever been in a tribe that hasn't had extra villages going at some point or another that just aren't claimed and which allow you to take more than the allocated amount. I'm talking about very active tribes as well.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
CBK, you do realize that you just stated that inactivity isn't a problem in your tribe (which it is), and then proceeded to use inactivity as an excuse for your tribe not eating inactives very quickly.

Also, as for the area in which inactives are, and people not wanting to noble them, I would say this also adds to inactivity. Like I said, they are free villages. Unless it was in say K62 (hypothetically), where it would be very undesirable since it'd almost definitely be lost again, it should really matter where the villages are located. Take myself for example. I have villages stretching from the very southern portion of K92 to the northern portion of K36. My villages are spaced across half the world, and I have no problems with that.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
CBK, you do realize that you just stated that inactivity isn't a problem in your tribe (which it is), and then proceeded to use inactivity as an excuse for your tribe not eating inactives very quickly.

Wait...where did I say that it isn't a problem in my tribe? :icon_confused:

I've only ever seen one tribe that has had all green and no sat accounts and that was my W25 tribe. Other than that, never have I heard of a tribe that doesn't have inactivity problems after the first month of a world. C2 and LSHRV have inactivity problems whether you believe it or not. Inactivity can be dealt with very well, but next to no tribes don't have inactivity problems Almost all tribes will have someone go yellow or red every now or then and some will have to sit accounts for long periods of times. That's inactivity problems and almost all tribes have them. I'd be an idiot to say that we have 100% green and unsat accounts cos that's the only way you can reach no inactivity problems in my opinion. Maybe our opinions differ on that, but I'm sure you get my point.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
You seem to be lumping all the specifics together into one big idea when you say "inactivity problem"

I see it as two different specifics.

1. C2 - Do we have inactive members? Yes. Is it a problem? No, we eat them rather quickly and easily.

2. LSHRV - Do they have inactive members? Yes. Is it a problem? Yes, more and more players seem to go inactive, and LSHRV is slow to do anything about it.
 

gn0me

Guest
Yes 252 67.92%

No 119 32.08%

I must say I thought there would have been a few more votes. Maybe this gives a more accurate view of the activity levels on this world?

371 is pretty good IMO considering I haven't played my account in two months and I am ranked 406
 
Top