V5.4 Discussion

[DeletedUser]

http://forum.tribalwars.net/showthread.php?p=3642591

Basically, what I want to discuss is the change to noble pricing.

While I doubt any of you will vote against it, I still do not think this is the solution we need.

Older worlds suffer from noble prices because we have less active players to send their nobles around. Since noble prices are currently determined by the player only we will always suffer from this problem, cutting the prices will just delay this by giving us some more nobles to go around.

At the same time we've recently seen changes or have had brought to our attention measures being taken against permasitting and multiaccounting.

I've had a bit of a think about it and I think there are more options we could explore, and with the possibility of a poll, decide whether it's worth implementing.

My proposed possible changes:

Option one:
Determine noble prices based on how many players are left in the world.

Disadvantage to this is that if it were implemented into a new world, either nobles would be impossibly expensive during the first year resulting in a dead server, or to fix that problem, nobles would become ridiculously cheap after the first year or two when there are far fewer players left. (Solution: time-based as well as player-count based)

Option two:
Determine noble prices based on how many players are in your tribe.

Fairly straight forward - the more players there are, the more expensive your nobles are.

I think this would also help combat permasitting and multi-accounting.



I'd like to hear more about what you of World 3 think of these two ideas or propose further changes.

 

[chucklefang]

Soudns like good idea's. However the draw back is the coding. It took them forever just to get this done so let's not push our luck when it comes to nobles. I am just happy that something is changing.

 

[DeletedUser]

Soudns like good idea's. However the draw back is the coding. It took them forever just to get this done so let's not push our luck when it comes to nobles. I am just happy that something is changing.

While I don't think one can really comment on the difficulty of coding without writing it themselves, I am fairly convinced it did not take long at all, and Morthy and the other devs are far more competent than you imagine. :icon_razz:

Mostly the time involved would have been on deciding whether to put it into effect - discussion over whether it would affect balance or not. (Or maybe just lack of ideas as to other solutions when this one was finally decided)

 

[chucklefang]

While I don't think one can really comment on the difficulty of coding without writing it themselves, I am fairly convinced it did not take long at all, and Morthy and the other devs are far more competent than you imagine. :icon_razz:

Mostly the time involved would have been on deciding whether to put it into effect - discussion over whether it would affect balance or not. (Or maybe just lack of ideas as to other solutions when this one was finally decided)

I am not the one saying it would be hard. :icon_razz: However after many topics on the w1 forums and months of discussion quite a few of those topics ended with either no reply or one that in terms meant " We can't or don't want to code it in." :icon_neutral:

Like I said I am just happy something is changing. It will be much nicer only having to pay around 600 bundles on one account than the 1200 per noble now. :icon_biggrin:

 

[DeletedUser]

Your first idea, I do not like but that is just me, no particular reason it just doesn't sound very good to me. Your second idea I also dislike like Luci, purely for the fact that all it would do would be to encourage families. Groups would split into 1 person tribes and just share forums. We'd be overrun with hundreds and hundreds of single player tribes.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'd also like to suggest package decay - 5% weekly or such - to stop people stockpiling them for ages. It would encourage the gameplay to move at a decent speed.

Hap: why not finally make family tribes a bannable offense, and have a hard cap on the minimum price to stop people doing that?

 

[DeletedUser]

I'd also like to suggest package decay - 5% weekly or such - to stop people stockpiling them for ages. It would encourage the gameplay to move at a decent speed.

Package decay seems a bit unrealistic. How is it fair to penalise those who can not play for prolonged lengths of time? Also, one of the only reasons active players actually stockpile them is because of noble costs. If noble costs were to be reduced I'd predict a decrease in the amount of players stockpiling packets.

Hap: why not finally make family tribes a bannable offense, and have a hard cap on the minimum price to stop people doing that?

Because if you take away the aspect of families, not only would innogames be turning away A LOT of customers (and therefore money) but it would take away an entire aspect of strategy from TW away. Working as a team is part of the package, sure some like larger teams but its expected and there is no use complaining about them anymore because they're not going anywhere.


EDIT: In your first post you also mention that half price nobles won't effect the rate? Of course it will, half price nobles = 26 packets max being able to store in a village. As a rough estimate an active player over a mill can build 1.5 nobles a day, at half price packets and same speed you can build 3 a day. Your telling me that's not going to speed up the rate of nobling?

 

[DeletedUser]

People don't stockpile them because of costs - they stockpile them because they are too lazy to use them (in my experience). If you've got 10k packets and you are complaining about noble costs...

Losing maybe 1 noble a week at 5mil points isn't a disaster if you couldn't be bothered to use them in the first place. Let me remind you most of us are calling for changes to noble prices because it takes forever to noble someone out - it wouldn't be a problem if we had more players nobling with us, because we are only limited at the moment because nobles are based on the player rather than how many people are using them.

Family tribes - there's a member limit for a reason I would imagine

 

[DeletedUser]

People don't stockpile them because of costs - they stockpile them because they are too lazy to use them (in my experience). If you've got 10k packets and you are complaining about noble costs...

I think you misunderstood. I reffered to active players stockpilling packets. It takes three days to make a train, so some players stockpile as they rebuild, release and noble, and repeat.

Losing maybe 1 noble a week at 5mil points isn't a disaster if you couldn't be bothered to use them in the first place. Let me remind you most of us are calling for changes to noble prices because it takes forever to noble someone out - it wouldn't be a problem if we had more players nobling with us, because we are only limited at the moment because nobles are based on the player rather than how many people are using them.

So say there were four players nobling one player. Your saying that they could noble that player faster with another couple of players producing 1.5 nobles a day, rather than those four having 3 nobles a day? Lets do the math;

6*1.5 = 9 Villages able to be taken a day
4*3 = 12 Villages able to be taken a day

The only way you could say that having more active players nobling would speed up the world compared to halfing noble prices, would be to double the amount of active players. Seeing as no more players are joining, and I'd feel pretty safe saying that we're not quite at less than 50% active players, then there is no way in which your argument can be any cheaper/quicker/more effective than half price noble packets.

Family tribes - there's a member limit for a reason I would imagine

It's also a strategy game for a reason :icon_wink:
Also, the fact that there isn't a rule against it, and never has been on .net (don't know about other TWs), suggests it never will be.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think we should pick up troop speeds to.. But luci I like your second idea

 

[countzepplin]

It was floated around ages ago that if you cap off an enemy, you get a fraction of their stored packets. Anyone know why it was removed? Makes sense to me.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yeah that sounds like a sweet idea, I'd love to do that cuz I have no like packets and am not under attack anyway. Plus I'm activly taking enemys.

 

[DeletedUser]

When TW started, if you took the last village of someone you got their packets. Can't remember why it was taken away.

 

[bpell]

http://forum.tribalwars.net/showthread.php?p=3642591

Option two:
Determine noble prices based on how many players are in your tribe.

Fairly straight forward - the more players there are, the more expensive your nobles are.

I think this would also help combat permasitting and multi-accounting.

If we go this route we'll have 115 Cult tribes with 2 members a piece. Think of all the time you guys will have to spend coming up with new tribe Tags. Yikes.

 

[bpell]

It was floated around ages ago that if you cap off an enemy, you get a fraction of their stored packets. Anyone know why it was removed? Makes sense to me.

That's a decent idea, or rather receiving a static supplement of packets that encourages nobling.

Honestly though, what they've done is the easiest for them and fair across the board which is, (packet cost / 2). The _only_ people who will benefit more initially are people who have packets already saved up. Those packets will then be worth * 2 as oppossed to someone who has 0 packets because they used them all.

That, I can live with though for the future benefit.

 

[darkaniken2]

It was floated around ages ago that if you cap off an enemy, you get a fraction of their stored packets. Anyone know why it was removed? Makes sense to me.

Permasats could then be expoited to a new level. Many permasats that are eventually eaten have sat for a long time and have done little but store packets. And with this implemented, that'd be even more common. So permasats would become package farms for the active players in the tribes.

 

[DeletedUser]

That's a decent idea, or rather receiving a static supplement of packets that encourages nobling.

Honestly though, what they've done is the easiest for them and fair across the board which is, (packet cost / 2). The _only_ people who will benefit more initially are people who have packets already saved up. Those packets will then be worth * 2 as oppossed to someone who has 0 packets because they used them all.

That, I can live with though for the future benefit.

Wrong!

The packet cost is halved, not the noble cost. The amount of stored packets will actually be worth less - so start letting your warehouses overflow now :icon_razz:

 

[countzepplin]

Permasats could then be expoited to a new level. Many permasats that are eventually eaten have sat for a long time and have done little but store packets. And with this implemented, that'd be even more common. So permasats would become package farms for the active players in the tribes.

I doubt they could be used as farms since they wouldn't regenerate the packets taken unless you had prem, and even then they would have to lose villages in order to be farmed in this new way (rather than with LC). This type of farming would only be a problem for young worlds where it is practical to store packets manually...

 

[DeletedUser]

I kind of agree but one of don't, if the account had been sat for a long time and we started to noble it off, we would revieve alot of packets due to the accounts large amount of resources not being used or the sitter being lazy. Again all this in mind, the account should probably have premium.