So, in hindsight, No Hauls settings...

[DeletedUser]

No Hauls for me was the only option for me playing another world. I enjoyed this world very much although I did only play the start of the world due to other commitments. Farming is such a waste of time. Out smarting a player and taking their village is much more fun.


The problem with the game for me and many others is that it is so addictive and if your circumstances allow, you can get a very good advantage by just being online 24/7.

I did think of a cool setting where players are limited to an accumulated 3 or 4 hour login period per day. This would really make things interesting and even things up.

The final stages of this game are far too drawn out and this needs looking at more closely for sure.

As for the noob v's skilled aspect, I don't think it makes any difference with this world. You either get hooked or you don't. Your either a quick learner and know how to play well in a team or you don't. There's always rim tribes too.

TW's is an excellent strategical team game although some tweaks are still needed to keep it practical and fun for many to keep playing for the full duration of a world.

 

[DeletedUser]

I did think of a cool setting where players are limited to an accumulated 3 or 4 hour login period per day. This would really make things interesting and even things up.

It would make defending nearly impossible. A tribe could just plan on a time to get online, launch 10,000 attacks at someone, and watch the chaos.

 

[DeletedUser]

Anyone have an opinion on whether or not increasing speed might change the whole mergefest aspect of this game?

Never played speed, is it huggy there too?

 

[DeletedUser]

Just theorising here, but I imagine that faster worlds means less turnover of members (due to RL in particular), meaning less recruitment/merges needed to maintain tribes at a constant memberbase...

That said, I think the main factor involved in merges is the membercap. As far as I'm concerned, toss that to 30 or 40 and you'd see far less merges.

 

[DeletedUser]

An accumulated period. This would mean your time logged in would be valuable. Unlimited login's, maximum time period online 3-4 hours. Team work and sits would be essential in the case of mass attack, but this is in place already.

This is just my thoughts to make for better game play. I know it's not in everyone interests.

It's a great game that I've enjoyed so much. I've just seen so many negative aspects and very good players quit the game through the demands of time.

 

[DeletedUser]

Anything which promotes less merging/mass recruitment is a win imo. Ruins the game.

 

[DeletedUser]

Just theorising here, but I imagine that faster worlds means less turnover of members (due to RL in particular), meaning less recruitment/merges needed to maintain tribes at a constant memberbase...

That said, I think the main factor involved in merges is the membercap. As far as I'm concerned, toss that to 30 or 40 and you'd see far less merges.

Did they ever make a world at 30-40 member cap?

This figure is looking more like creating a fighting force than a mass recruit were used to seeing.

 

[DeletedUser95593]

But the more merges/recruitment the better chance others have of winning. We can just noble barbs and internals the whole world Ben. Why would you dislike that?

 

[DeletedUser]

W58 has a 40 member cap.

 

[DeletedUser]

That said, I think the main factor involved in merges is the membercap. As far as I'm concerned, toss that to 30 or 40 and you'd see far less merges.

Lower member limits = moar families.
Past worlds have proved that already.

 

[DeletedUser]

W58 has a 40 member cap.

As far as I can tell, all the major tribes there are family tribes. So smaller member cap doesn't really decrease hugging, could encourage it in some cases.

 

[DeletedUser95593]

W51 has a 50 member cap, and there is nothing wrong with that world.

 

[DeletedUser84667]

Changing the member cap wouldn't do anything. Tribal Wars does do a thing to stop merges, which is where you are permanently stuck in your tribe till deletion. All that happens is more people become families.

People will find a way to cheapen a world so the can say "OMG I DID IT!!!!!!1 I WON THE WORLD!!! I AM AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" no matter what the circumstances is.

 

[DeletedUser]

Member caps are a redundant setting in any world that allows support outside of tribe.

 

[DeletedUser]

Changing the member cap wouldn't do anything. Tribal Wars does do a thing to stop merges, which is where you are permanently stuck in your tribe till deletion. All that happens is more people become families.

People will find a way to cheapen a world so the can say "OMG I DID IT!!!!!!1 I WON THE WORLD!!! I AM AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" no matter what the circumstances is.

Do they really feel amazing! Like they really "Did" something amazing!

No!

The BEST part of TW's has got to be the team work and the friends you meet along the way. It's just a shame for me that alot of these friends have jobs, family and commitments and cannot commit even half of the 24/7 that this game can demand.

The game is evolving, but its the same game we played many moons ago. Just needs something to keep decent players from quitting due to the demands of the game.

The same decent people from world 5 are still about here in 56. Players who you can trust and respect and have fun with.

Only difference, the time it takes to win a world has bored people to death. And they quit or moved on to a start up world to get the buzz.

 

[DeletedUser]

Do they really feel amazing! Like they really "Did" something amazing!

No!

Is that what he said! Have you misinterpreted something! Has the exclamation mark replaced the question mark!

Yes?

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm fond of the 'no outside-of-tribe support' setting myself. It's true that lower membercaps breed family tribes, but it's a trade-off, I guess, more indirect hugging, but less recruitment.
As for locking people in tribes until deletion... Hasn't worked well in the past, because if you get stuck with people that end up being unkind (or moronic), it pretty much guarantees a shitty run for you. Similarly, if a tribe 'runs out' of leadership, the leftovers are left to flounder.

For me, a solution would be allowing people to switch tribes only once per x months, where x is 3 or higher, possibly even 6. Promotes loyalty, decreases recruitment, might induce more participation (since you're stuck with the tribe anyway, might as well make the most out of it). Downside; trigger-happy dukes. :icon_razz:

 

[DeletedUser]

Is that what he said! Have you misinterpreted something! Has the exclamation mark replaced the question mark!

Yes?

It's good we agree :icon_wink:

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm fond of the 'no outside-of-tribe support' setting myself.

It's horrible, trying to hold a war conquer without it being re-capped, when you can't send support to it until after it has been conquered.
Sure, you can send a full D village with the last noble, but that only works once before the enemy gets wise to it.
Basically, the setting doesn't allow for anything other than close range ennoblements.

 

[DeletedUser84667]

For me, a solution would be allowing people to switch tribes only once per x months, where x is 3 or higher, possibly even 6. Promotes loyalty, decreases recruitment, might induce more participation (since you're stuck with the tribe anyway, might as well make the most out of it). Downside; trigger-happy dukes. :icon_razz:

There is also a setting like this. I know it has run in many HP worlds, world lasted 3 months, but ever month tribes were forced to disband and re form or move on.