Tribal Wars, A Dying Game?

[DeletedUser]

All this will become a long lasting and hard world. This can prove to be fun for old players who want a challenge.

You don't think that making a world last longer than 4-5 years would be a bad thing?
Most old players, aren't interested in the long term game play, they are interested in the start up where all the excitement is. (in my opinion at least)

 

[DeletedUser103644]

You don't think that making a world last longer than 4-5 years would be a bad thing?
Most old players, aren't interested in the long term game play, they are interested in the start up where all the excitement is. (in my opinion at least)

You may be absolutely right, I'm no expert. But wouldn't this create a hard start up aswell? could speed up the world when first tribe reach 1mill as a part of the setup to make it a sample if this is the case :icon_razz:

 

[DeletedUser]

You may be absolutely right, I'm no expert. But wouldn't this create a hard start up as well

No you have suggested a horribly slow and boring start up...

 

[DeletedUser103644]

No you have suggested a horribly slow and boring start up...

Then make it speed 2.0 or 3.0, Just trying to give ideas, even bad ones. Maybe some other will get a brilliant idea because of my horrible ones.

Why not share your views on a world you think would be great to play and believe others will enjoi?

 

[DeletedUser]

Then make it speed 2.0 or 3.0, Just trying to give ideas, even bad ones. Maybe some other will get a brilliant idea because of my horrible ones.

Why not share your views on a world you think would be great to play and believe others will enjoi?

There is a suggestions thread for new world settings, but your ideas just slow the world down, not make it any harder...

 

[DeletedUser54677]

You don't think that making a world last longer than 4-5 years would be a bad thing?
Most old players, aren't interested in the long term game play, they are interested in the start up where all the excitement is. (in my opinion at least)

I -loathe- startup. Give me 1m+ points off the bat and I'd be a happy camper.

 

[DeletedUser103644]

There is a suggestions thread for new world settings, but your ideas just slow the world down, not make it any harder...

Slow it down? I only change the fact you have to think allot, it is so many more aspects into the world when it usually are.

It can be a bit slow but many worlds are slow already? It do make it harder at startup.

You have many possibilities to defend as well as attack, It honestly put things in a different light. It make the statement: ''Knowing is half the battle'' into the game. If you don't know what the enemy village is containing your army can be dead.

I will be like Red alert or any strategy games where certain units are good vs others aswell as it has its weakness.

Could make Sword horrible against any cavalry unit and spear horrible against any infantry units. They're already not good, but what if they barely can defend against it? Would make supporting and defending a different.

Why not tell me how to get some speed into this suggestion instead of pointing it out :icon_neutral:

Ill surely go to that suggestions thread and have a look, thanks mate :icon_smile:

 

[DeletedUser]

Then make it speed 2.0 or 3.0, Just trying to give ideas, even bad ones. Maybe some other will get a brilliant idea because of my horrible ones.

Why not share your views on a world you think would be great to play and believe others will enjoi?

Speed 2 - 3 would increase the co - players on an account, nubies getting rimed at startup, if it's nohauls, then I'm all in for it. Although in any other case it would get boring right after startup...

 

[DeletedUser103644]

Speed 2 - 3 would increase the co - players on an account, nubies getting rimed at startup, if it's nohauls, then I'm all in for it. Although in any other case it would get boring right after startup...

Yes thanks, nohaul aswell. I think this will be a challenge in many ways.

What also would be fun if there was no barbarian villages, sample being if a player quit his villages disappear. However this needs to get some side rules like only villages under 2k disappear. If all villages disappear it will create a huge gap between players and make the world boring, so if this is taken to action you need to lay down some things around it.

A easier way of this would probably be no bonus village where you could also add that barbs will not grow at all.

It is many possibilities, And it would be great to get new players in. Having newbie friendly worlds would help but how can you make such a world?

If it was possible to only have new players at a world that would be interesting, however this will be next to impossible.

 

[DeletedUser]

Having newbie friendly worlds would help but how can you make such a world?

W60 was a pretty good stab at a newbie friendly world.

 

[DeletedUser104171]

I'm just throwing in my two cents in here, but I don't think that Tribal Wars is a dying game.:icon_razz::icon_evil:

 

[DeletedUser96073]

I don't think that TW is dying, I just think that less people are playing then before. It's far from dying though, maybe a small case of the common cold, but it's not going to die.

 

[DeletedUser103644]

Tribalwars will probably never die, what we rather want are to get more players, would like to see a world be full once again

 

[DeletedUser22924]

Well look who decided to show his face. Haven't seen you in forever. :icon_eek:

hehe, haven't seen you in 4ever either bro :icon_biggrin:

 

[DeletedUser]

Slow it down? I only change the fact you have to think allot, it is so many more aspects into the world when it usually are.

slowest unit speed and world speed,

Slowing everything down right there.

church, no support outside tribe,

Can't time support to land after nobles, and with a church can't even time from a D vill with your final noble to get some d in there outside your church radius = easy defending.

You have many possibilities to defend as well as attack,

Defending is already easier then attacking, just stack the vill...

If you don't know what the enemy village is containing your army can be dead.

Redundant statement, defence can be dodged, stacked, trains can be sniped so you never know exactly what your gonne be hitting...

Could make Sword horrible against any cavalry unit and spear horrible against any infantry units. They're already not good, but what if they barely can defend against it? Would make supporting and defending a different.

Is this a serious point? Swords suck against cavalry, spears get cleared by axes already... Every unit is already balanced by having strengths and weaknesses...

I will be like Red alert or any strategy games where certain units are good vs others aswell as it has its weakness.

Red Alert is a totally different game, the comparison is pointless :icon_rolleyes:
Lets add tiberian harvesters, or total control over battles like Total War, or civilisations style research trees...

 

[DeletedUser103644]

1. How does that prove any point? You have many worlds with slowest unit speed, movement speed aswell as world speed. Many players are playing these worlds like any other.

2. That was a bit of my point all along, I often see that Offensive attacks are often stronger than defending. Why not make it easier to defend? Noobs don't know how to defend do they? Of course they don't they don't even know how to play the game, and most of them seem to recruit defensive units.

3. Again this was pointed to get new players and make experienced players more unexperienced in this world. It is suppose to be a hard world didn't I say so?

4. ''They're already not good, but what if they barely can defend against it?'' As you see I already stated what you wrote before you even wrote it. Point being that today if you stack with enough swords you can defend against cavalry, What if they can't at all? It would change the game drastically and player have to think more about mixing their units for good Defense.


5. I never compared anything else then stating about red alerts balancing, Did I compare the game in it self? Did I say we should add anything from red alert ? No I did not. Read what I wrote:
''I will be like Red alert or any strategy games where certain units are good vs others aswell as it has its weakness.''

I do realize units has its weaknesses at tw but not as much that people actually have to think about what they are sending as support / attack.

Again I stated this would create a hard world did I not? As well as it is just a suggestion from my part. :icon_smile:

 

[DeletedUser]

It's been some time since I even looked at the TW website. I guess boredom has a way of drawing us all back lol.

Tribal Wars has Early-game players and End-Game players. It really doesn't matter how you set up a world people are going to play it because it will appeal to someone. Whether it's a quick start where everyone has round the clock co's or a slow game where it lasts 5 years, people will play it.

The balancing act comes in when you look at the statistics of what world settings bring in new players and what world settings retain the old players. No one can really offer up a cure-all to the decline or rise of a game, just enjoy it in your own way and it will be worth playing.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think one thing that could also bring the game back. Because it is pretty fare to say it is dying or has died some. Would be advertisement just like anything else you are trying to sell. Getting the game known more would bring loads more people in. Although the game is hard to keep people around just because of the slow pace.

Advertisement would be a big thing i believe.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes more advertisements. I started playing in 07 after clicking on an ad and instantly became addicted than left for a few years because it was ruining my relationship and then decided to give it another go recently.

There's a whole new generation out there surfing the web and playing free online games that don't know about Tribal Wars. Getting the name out there again would definitely help. Getting the ad onto sites like Kongregate will draw people.

As for keeping a larger percentage of current players you really need things that speed up worlds. Maybe this means smaller maps released more often, full size maps released less often. More endgame situations and so on.

I guess we'll see how secrets works out but it seems like you're moving in the right direction.

 

[DeletedUser]

1. How does that prove any point? You have many worlds with slowest unit speed, movement speed aswell as world speed. Many players are playing these worlds like any other.

He was simply pointing out your contradictory statements.

2. That was a bit of my point all along, I often see that Offensive attacks are often stronger than defending. Why not make it easier to defend? Noobs don't know how to defend do they? Of course they don't they don't even know how to play the game, and most of them seem to recruit defensive units.

Wrong, it is much easier to defend. Against a good defender, an attacker will rarely ever win unless they are crafty, unpredictable, far larger, or have the support of a tribe. Few of which happen to newbs.

3. Again this was pointed to get new players and make experienced players more unexperienced in this world. It is suppose to be a hard world didn't I say so?

Yes but you are simply making it even more unbalanced toward defending than it already is.

4. ''They're already not good, but what if they barely can defend against it?'' As you see I already stated what you wrote before you even wrote it. Point being that today if you stack with enough swords you can defend against cavalry, What if they can't at all? It would change the game drastically and player have to think more about mixing their units for good Defense.

They already can barely defend against it. What you are proposing is not very much actual change, if any.

I do realize units has its weaknesses at tw but not as much that people actually have to think about what they are sending as support / attack.

It's not because they don't have to, it's because they can't.
Tell me exactly what attack I will be sending at you. I have 5 or 6 different nuke builds, you have no idea which one I will be using. And that's even assuming I'm using all my troops in one attack, which is not always the case.
Tell me what defense I will have in any given village, how many villages' worth, how much support I will have. That's right; you can't.
You cannot predict what troops your opponent will have if they are even half-decent. The best you can do is guess based on what troops they have used in the past, maybe even what others in their tribe use. There's simply no way you can know.