Victory conditions

[MichielK]

As you know, TW is in essence an open-ended game. While there are a lot of intermediate goals (build a village, noble a neighbour, win a war), there is no real final goal except conquering every village in the world.

In theory, this could make the game endless. Even if one tribe owns every village in the world, the last player who got nobled could restart over and over simply to drag things on.

I know this doesn't seem like such an issue for W16 since there are 15 older worlds on .net alone, but W16 has a lot of strength concentrated in a few tribes. Here are some numbers:

Villages owned by top 4 tribes: 54%
Villages owned by top 10 tribes: 77%
Villages owned by top 20 tribes: 90%

I want to use this thread to start a discussion on what it would take for W16 to end in a "win" for one side. At what point has it been enough and is it clear that TW should close the world and declare a winner?

Here are some examples:

- One tribe owns X% of the player-owned villages (how much?)
- The number 1 tribe is X times bigger than the number 2 tribe (how much?)
- X tribes declare that they are allies who will not fight eachother, and would like to share the victory. They hold Y% of the player-owned villages (how many villages, and how many tribes?)

What do you think?

 

[DeletedUser22370]

I used to read w1 quite a bit, so I know about the inactive and lack of normal world business that they have to play with, but lets just have a look at the three different options and assess them.

1. If a tribe control X% of owned villages. I actually think that everyone on the world will have quit by then, no joking. This world is so slow that nobody is going to noble small barbs, but on the other hand, there are various pacts between the top 4 tribes that prevent them from attacking each other, and even if these were broken, I think it is unlikely that these tribes would war each other consider experience of past top tribe wars (BANG?!/ORC, C2/CND) these were both stalemates and ended in a merge.

If they did war, it would be a gruelling war and unless there was some serious activity from one side (and lack of on the other side) I don't think it would end in any way other than a merge. Once you know that, it takes the fun away from the world. You can't hold a conventional war, most players are inactive, and there is no competition anymore. A war will not end in victory, which almost defeats the purpose of warring.

I think that considering C2 own only approximately 19% of all villages already, if the bar for ending this world was 60%, I would certainly hope to have quit by then, because the other top 3 tribes own approx 35% together, so to reach 60% they would actually have to war one of the other three, which really makes you think about how much power the top 4 actually have. Did you know that the tribes ranked 9-20 added together still don't have as many total point as C2? That includes Ad Inf.

The same principal applies to number 2: The number 1 tribe is X times bigger than the number 2 tribe. That could never possibly happen. That would involve huge activity from the number 1 tribe. Currently C2 is 120m, and =HRV= is 90m, so they are nowhere near 2x bigger, even if that was to be the said amount. Again, I would hope to have quit and joined a new, active world before this happens.

3. X tribes declare that they are allies who will not fight eachother, and would like to share the victory. They hold Y% of the player-owned villages

This seems for more likely, though the top 4 tribes are not actually allied, so the world will drone on until there is a major war, and then the warring tribes will merge, and the world will drone on.

I really hate to be a pessimist, though if you think of the world like this it sounds extremely dull :icon_confused: Just my 2 cents.

 

[DeletedUser54400]

80-20 rule is a good starting point for this i guess, which 20 should have what 80 remains the questions ofcourse.

edit:

in regards to legendry's post , the first two scenarios are down to the slow world speed imho ( and the package system compated to gold coins ). Scenario 3 basicly fits the real life accepted 80-20 rule in general

 

[DeletedUser]

Nice thread.

I have to agree with legendry. Would it be possible if we could have the tribe limits lowerred so there is more tribes which would hopefully inturn force more wars?

 

[DeletedUser]

Nice thread.

I have to agree with legendry. Would it be possible if we could have the tribe limits lowerred so there is more tribes which would hopefully inturn force more wars?

That may be appealing to you and your tribe, where you are already down to 52 members. And when you count in for inactives, you are probably down around 40 (I'm just guessing based on what seems average for most other tribes). So I doubt you'd mind if the tribe sizes got cut in half as you really wouldn't lose anyone.

But for bigger tribes, mainly the top three (C2, Bang!?, =HRV=) they all worked hard to have a member list stocked full of active members. In C2 for example, just to keep the number of active members up, we merged with CND, recruited rim players showing promise over time, and had BFL as a sort of academy tribe. Bang!? and =HRV= have similar histories to get their member lists.

So, no offense, but you just suggested that the past year and a half of planning be thrown out the window to try to even out tribes that worked hard to get where they were.

Also, a second, shorter point, I doubt it would force wars. If tribe limits were cut down, those people who came from the same tribe would stick together.

 

[DeletedUser]

Why don't they just let us build a missile silo in the forests south of the timber camp.

Personally I'd like to see the world close when it is beyond doubt that one tribe has conquered and is now unbeatable. The most obvious place to put this threshold is when one tribe owns half of the villages/points in the world although with the hundreds of other factors you'd have to consider the point at which one tribe is unbeatable could be placed almost anywhere.

 

[DeletedUser]

DNY hasn't won W12 yet, but they had passed the half mark.

I believe it's an 80% thing. Close when the tribe in the lead has 80% of all of the villages that belong to players.

 

[DeletedUser59210]

I think that after a tribe has reached a substantial dominance (even owning 50% of the land is a huge deal), there should be a poll sent out to all players to vote on whether the game has reached a point of conclusion. On the conclusion of a world, the tribelist of the winning tribe as well as the top 20 in all scores (ODA, ODD, OD, total villages etc) should be recorded for future bragging rights and the like.

I think it's stupid that a world is allowed to carry on long after one tribe has clearly won - the fact that "Ad Inf" type players sit there and say "we haven't lost yet" and drag the game out and drive players who should have been declared the victors into boredom and retirement.

 

[DeletedUser]

Unfortunately even with a poll like that, we would still have a bunch of Ad Inf types that refuse to say they lost and would vote to keep the world open out of spite.

 

[AxlTheCat]

How about we just have the top players mud wrestle for the win. Dibs on fighting Seagryfn.

 

[DeletedUser]

Stubborn players that don't want to admit defeat would also effect the poll results, but hopefully not enough to decide the closure of a world.

Yes, a list of top 20 tribes and players of closed worlds would be nice - a great reference for those dedicated few who remained until the world ended. But what would happen to the better players who decided to quit the world halfway through? Should there be an 'Honorable mention' list? I don't mean some of the best players who just started the world then quit, but rather the ones who stuck it out for a while. Maybe the ones who got to one million points. If a great player quit a month before the world closes, they wouldn't be on the top 20 list. So should they be mentioned?



One a different note, what makes war fun? It seems like long, drawn out wars aren't exciting, but neither are wars where the enemy can't play well, and it's completely one-sided. Has there ever been a fun war?

How about we just have the top players mud wrestle for the win. Dibs on fighting Seagryfn.

Can I sell tickets?

 

[DeletedUser]

I think that after a tribe has reached a substantial dominance (even owning 50% of the land is a huge deal), there should be a poll sent out to all players to vote on whether the game has reached a point of conclusion. On the conclusion of a world, the tribelist of the winning tribe as well as the top 20 in all scores (ODA, ODD, OD, total villages etc) should be recorded for future bragging rights and the like.

I think it's stupid that a world is allowed to carry on long after one tribe has clearly won - the fact that "Ad Inf" type players sit there and say "we haven't lost yet" and drag the game out and drive players who should have been declared the victors into boredom and retirement.

:axemen::axemen::axemen:

I'm bored so I throw axes at your statement!
:icon_evil:
Seriously tho': Are you saying that players who are not in the top tribes are dragging this world down? If so, I disagree. We have seen many players survive through wars and even get recruited eventually due to respect earned throughout the wars. Even though our tribe is going to dominate the smaller tribes in the areas that we are in, doesnt mean that there will not be some who survive and get recruited. Once the *Dust* settles and the *Coal* is all burnt, these tribes will most likely realize the futility of their schemes to bring down =HRV= and disband or fall apart. This may leave room for active players out on the farthest reaches of the rim to join a respectable tribe.
:icon_rolleyes:
Basically, I do not think that numbers alone stand the test of winning or losing in this world. There are other factors involved such as activity, build types, diplomacy, experience, timing and just plain luck. For instance, how do you account for tribes who seem to thrive under the worst of circumstances if numbers alone determine win/lose? I would not even try to speak on their behalf but, it appears that these tribes have won the respect of the bigger tribes and dominate in what could have been hostile territory.
:icon_sad:
It seems to me that we all come with our own set of expectations to the game and if/when these are not being met we may or may not leave. Of course there are other reasons but, I think that this is one for the level of inactivity in this world right now. Perhaps there was an expectation of win/lose scenario which we are not seeing yet and people are disappointed.
:icon_idea:
I also wonder if a goal/goals to determine a winner/loser would ever be considered in TW. I played another game where a group of tribes needed to pool their resources to build a world wonder or some such thing to be declared winner. Otherwise, it was a similiar game to TW. Perhaps TW could be more like a risk game with sectors and bonuses for domination. Although these are built in they seem to be short-lived due to limits on production. If there were bonuses, wouldn't there be more war/fighting over these? This would lead to an eventual winner rather than a stalemate of sorts because whoever controlled the most bonuses would continue to advance as long as they stayed active.

 

[DeletedUser]

@Macon - While a good idea, there are a few things wrong with it.

1. There are more than just a few great. Ask any player still around and they could give a long list of them. That honorable mention list would start to look like a list of people who were on the world.

2. There were greats taken out in a war. Should they deserve an honorable mention too?

3. How do you define a "great player?" With only a very few exceptions, most people nominated as greats would have people disagreeing with them.

*Also, suggesting that anyone who got 1m points would make a long list. There are currently 198 players with at least one million points in this would. Add all the people who quit, and you would add at least a hundred more.

@crueltee: That is not at all what we are saying. The players in question are players like those in Ad Inf who seem to think they are winning the war (and whoever heard of the winning side giving up?) or players that just constantly restart whenever nobled. There's no way to actually force a player to quit, and if they are that stubborn as to keep restarting, why would they want the world to close?

 

[DeletedUser]

I know my idea has problems, but most ideas do. To many people disagree about to many things. It would be impossible to get an idea that everyone agreed on.
One idea for the 'Honorable Mention' would be to include only the players that made a top 20 list towards the end of the game. Lots of problems with this too, I know, but it's just an idea.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think that if we are ever in a situation where a tribe or strong alliance totally dominates the world, it will be pretty obvious to the players of the world.

@Jurasu: I wouldn't count Plight out quite yet, they still have access to a lot of rim and the potential recruits that come with it. Also, lets not forget Ni!

 

[DeletedUser]

I think that if we are ever in a situation where a tribe or strong alliance totally dominates the world, it will be pretty obvious to the players of the world.

@Jurasu: I wouldn't count Plight out quite yet, they still have access to a lot of rim and the potential recruits that come with it. Also, lets not forget Ni!

I didn't forget either of those tribes, or others with promise like TKR or ~LS~. I'm sorry if anyone felt like I was leaving them out.

The point I was trying to make about Truscott's idea was that some tribes had worked hard to keep their member count as high as possible. Looks at the rankings, C2, =HRV=, and Bang!? were the only non-family tribes with 70+ members, and thus would've been most affected by a split. So I was just looking at member numbers.

And I'm not counting any of the top tribes out just yet. I think any tribe above rank 13, barring Ad Inf and PnX unless they really turn it around, could have a major impact on how the world turns out.

 

[DeletedUser]

One a different note, what makes war fun? It seems like long, drawn out wars aren't exciting, but neither are wars where the enemy can't play well, and it's completely one-sided. Has there ever been a fun war?

i'm frankly aghast, war is glorious fun! I always enjoy war.

Peace is boring, and only bearable if you have plently of barbarians and inactives to noble

 

[DeletedUser]

I didn't forget either of those tribes, or others with promise like TKR or ~LS~. I'm sorry if anyone felt like I was leaving them out.

The point I was trying to make about Truscott's idea was that some tribes had worked hard to keep their member count as high as possible. Looks at the rankings, C2, =HRV=, and Bang!? were the only non-family tribes with 70+ members, and thus would've been most affected by a split. So I was just looking at member numbers.

And I'm not counting any of the top tribes out just yet. I think any tribe above rank 13, barring Ad Inf and PnX unless they really turn it around, could have a major impact on how the world turns out.

I disagree, even Ad Inf and PNX will still have a terribly important impact - even though its only as FOOD for us, its still important as its a growth opportunity for BANG and TKR and others.

But i split hairs!

I do however agree with the general principle that smaller tribes yet have the opportunity for mergers, recruitment and generally shake things up a bit.

I thing it will just be a generally obvious concencus for everyone when this world is won.

 

[MichielK]

Wow, that's a lot more response than I expected!

I used to read w1 quite a bit, so I know about the inactive and lack of normal world business that they have to play with, but lets just have a look at the three different options and assess them.

1. If a tribe control X% of owned villages. I actually think that everyone on the world will have quit by then, no joking. This world is so slow that nobody is going to noble small barbs, but on the other hand, there are various pacts between the top 4 tribes that prevent them from attacking each other, and even if these were broken, I think it is unlikely that these tribes would war each other consider experience of past top tribe wars (BANG?!/ORC, C2/CND) these were both stalemates and ended in a merge.

If they did war, it would be a gruelling war and unless there was some serious activity from one side (and lack of on the other side) I don't think it would end in any way other than a merge. Once you know that, it takes the fun away from the world. You can't hold a conventional war, most players are inactive, and there is no competition anymore. A war will not end in victory, which almost defeats the purpose of warring.

I think that considering C2 own only approximately 19% of all villages already, if the bar for ending this world was 60%, I would certainly hope to have quit by then, because the other top 3 tribes own approx 35% together, so to reach 60% they would actually have to war one of the other three, which really makes you think about how much power the top 4 actually have. Did you know that the tribes ranked 9-20 added together still don't have as many total point as C2? That includes Ad Inf.

The same principal applies to number 2: The number 1 tribe is X times bigger than the number 2 tribe. That could never possibly happen. That would involve huge activity from the number 1 tribe. Currently C2 is 120m, and =HRV= is 90m, so they are nowhere near 2x bigger, even if that was to be the said amount. Again, I would hope to have quit and joined a new, active world before this happens.

3. X tribes declare that they are allies who will not fight eachother, and would like to share the victory. They hold Y% of the player-owned villages

This seems for more likely, though the top 4 tribes are not actually allied, so the world will drone on until there is a major war, and then the warring tribes will merge, and the world will drone on.

I really hate to be a pessimist, though if you think of the world like this it sounds extremely dull Just my 2 cents.

Great post, and nice new avatar!

I don't fully agree with your pessimism though. Yes, the last two major wars ended in the same way, but many others didn't. Even now, there are many conflicts/wars going on that do not look like they'll end in a stalemate and a merge. Besides, I strongly disagree with the premise that those last two wars were dull for the people involved in them. They may not have been as fluent as wars in the earlier stages of the world, but they provided plenty entertainment to those involved.

Stubborn players that don't want to admit defeat would also effect the poll results, but hopefully not enough to decide the closure of a world.

Make it one vote per village owned. It may not be perfectly democratic, but it's the fairest way to hold this vote: shouldn't players who invested a lot of time (and money through premium, in most cases) get at least that in return?

Yes, a list of top 20 tribes and players of closed worlds would be nice - a great reference for those dedicated few who remained until the world ended. But what would happen to the better players who decided to quit the world halfway through? Should there be an 'Honorable mention' list? I don't mean some of the best players who just started the world then quit, but rather the ones who stuck it out for a while. Maybe the ones who got to one million points. If a great player quit a month before the world closes, they wouldn't be on the top 20 list. So should they be mentioned?

Interesting question. I say no, and here's why: the purpose of such a final list would be to recognise those players that had not just the skill but the tenacity and dedication to see W16 through to the end.

If we want to honor the players who have had a huge impact on W16 but may not be around for the full lifetime of it, we can do that right here in the forums. I've seen several forums for other worlds have a "Hall of Fame" type thread to do exactly that. Heck, we do it regularly in threads like the one Sai started recently.

Seriously tho': Are you saying that players who are not in the top tribes are dragging this world down? If so, I disagree. We have seen many players survive through wars and even get recruited eventually due to respect earned throughout the wars. Even though our tribe is going to dominate the smaller tribes in the areas that we are in, doesnt mean that there will not be some who survive and get recruited. Once the *Dust* settles and the *Coal* is all burnt, these tribes will most likely realize the futility of their schemes to bring down =HRV= and disband or fall apart. This may leave room for active players out on the farthest reaches of the rim to join a respectable tribe.

I can't speak for what Croot means, but I made a similar statement in my initial post so I'll speak for what I meant

I don't think players who are not in the top tribes are dragging the world down. Ad Inf has every right to play W16 and try to achieve their own goals, as does Coal, as does Dust, as do the other 200 tribes that are not at the top of the rankings.

What I was personally referring to was a statement made in another thread by an Ad Inf member who commented that even if they rimmed him, he'd just restart and restart with the sole purpose of outlasting better and more succesful players. That is what the discussion in this thread is aimed at for me...how to give the victorious players/tribes of the future a way to achieve a nice honorable end to the game without leaving the top rankings to tribes like S.Tuna (look them up, and check the references made to them in the Countdown thread...they'll outlast all of us unless the world somehow ends in the future).

 

[DeletedUser]

While maybe something to think about, there's no way this world will be closed anytime soon...W1 has been around since 2006 and is still alive, albeit barely. :icon_wink:

To be frank, while Inno is still making money from a world (money from ads+premium - server and maintenance costs), the world will more than likely stay open. The only world where there have ever really been 'victory conditions' is the high performance (classic) world, which is restarted a couple times a year usually.