Victory conditions

DeletedUser

Guest
Ah yea i started a bit in that one it wasn't that good a tribe i landed in lol Plus I was busy with school so wasn't able to keep up.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Free-eek landed in my tribe, and a week later his village was grey. That was about as long as most experienced players stayed.

I guess it was good in one aspect, in letting less experienced players have the chance to step up and take the top spots and fight against each other and hone their own skills.

But now we have drifted off topic :icon_redface:

I think this world should simply go to the point where one tribe is so dominant that all the other tribes combined couldn't beat it. I don't think you can set a concrete number for it though.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Free-eek landed in my tribe, and a week later his village was grey. That was about as long as most experienced players stayed.

I guess it was good in one aspect, in letting less experienced players have the chance to step up and take the top spots and fight against each other and hone their own skills.

But now we have drifted off topic :icon_redface:

I think this world should simply go to the point where one tribe is so dominant that all the other tribes combined couldn't beat it. I don't think you can set a concrete number for it though.

ya but it should be up to that tribe as a whole to decide when they are done. Like a unanimous vote, if they want the world to end before the mods say it is to be closed.
 

gn0me

Guest
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.

omg is there nothing Ad Inf won't get the blame for?

For starters you are crediting Ad Inf for something that has not yet happened (there have been no clear cases of a victor of this world yet, and we are only just starting to see something of an endgame forming)

And can everyone on these forums stop linking Jimmy to Ad Inf?! Its bugging me! He was kicked very shortly after appearing on these forums and making enemies of the whole world, and I would have appreciated it if he had had the decency to leave the tribe BEFORE doing that.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Thankyou Gn0me

I soo am sick of being placed under the stereotype of 'another Ad Inf noob'.

Jimmy gave of a bad impression,but that doesn't mean we are all ignorant,nubs!:icon_evil:

Please give us some credit,we haven't been swept aside like everyone said we would,we've stood our ground,and still are.

please give us some respect.I don't particularly like BANG!?'s big talk,but we treat them with respect,well I do.
 

MichielK

Guest
omg is there nothing Ad Inf won't get the blame for?

Precious little :lol:

Keep in mind though that the "Ad Inf type" reference that is made here was due to an Ad Inf member announcing publicly that he would simply restart and restart until we all got bored and left. Nobody thinks the whole tribe is like that, or even that one player would be like that...it's just a reference to a type of annoyance, which is why it's placed in quotes.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
omg is there nothing Ad Inf won't get the blame for?

For starters you are crediting Ad Inf for something that has not yet happened (there have been no clear cases of a victor of this world yet, and we are only just starting to see something of an endgame forming)

And can everyone on these forums stop linking Jimmy to Ad Inf?! Its bugging me! He was kicked very shortly after appearing on these forums and making enemies of the whole world, and I would have appreciated it if he had had the decency to leave the tribe BEFORE doing that.
Jimmy keeps getting linked to Ad Inf because he keeps arguing for your side. If you want people to stop linking him to your tribe, then get him to stop posting. Good luck though.
 

MichielK

Guest
Savik made this post in another thread:

The W18 example brings back an issue that I was considering in the "Victory Conditions" thread. To what extent should a family of tribes be considered a single tribe? Obviously the scenario outlined by MK suggests that if we were to consider the APOC family as a single tribe, the world would be properly saturated. However, the qualitative discussion of picking off weaker elements of one's own family is one with which I personally agree.

In order to keep this on topic, to what extent should family tribes be considered a single entity as opposed to multiple individual entities for the purpose of measuring concentration of power? And as a tie in to the Victory Conditions thread, to what extent should a family of tribes be considered as a single tribe for declaring victory?

What do you think?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I really don't know how to respond to that. Obviously most of us really wouldn't like it if the world was ended simply because a family controlled the world. Then it would simply be who can hug the most people rather than who can beat the most people. It would defeat the purpose of the game.

Thankfully, we shouldn't have to deal with this as there are only two real families left, both in wars that they are losing.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I personally think that from a hypothetical standpoint, family tribes should be allowed to win a world. However, the requirements for a family tribe would have to be incrementally larger/higher/stricter than for a single tribe based on the number of constituent tribes within the family.

In some limited consideration of this matter, I think it would be best to have a set of requirements for either points or villages controlled by a single tribe and a set of requirements that would represent some absolute maximum requirement. Then the requirement for a given family tribe would be somewhere in between these two sets, likely approaching logarithmically to the asymptote that would be created by the absolute maximum.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I agree with you there Savik, that it should be a possibility. I'm just saying that it wouldn't be a very popular one.

And darn you for using big words! I was hoping I had left logarithms behind for a couple of years now that I was out of algebra, and now you bring them back up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MichielK

Guest
I personally think that from a hypothetical standpoint, family tribes should be allowed to win a world. However, the requirements for a family tribe would have to be incrementally larger/higher/stricter than for a single tribe based on the number of constituent tribes within the family.

In some limited consideration of this matter, I think it would be best to have a set of requirements for either points or villages controlled by a single tribe and a set of requirements that would represent some absolute maximum requirement. Then the requirement for a given family tribe would be somewhere in between these two sets, likely approaching logarithmically to the asymptote that would be created by the absolute maximum.

I imagine your solution is pretty easy to manipulate though. You'd run into situations where the family is taking on the last few tribes, and can actually make them a "get rimmed or automatically win this world" offer...hardly recommendable.

A different solution would be to impose not a higher limit on villages/points, but a time limit. Once the family hits level X, they need to keep it for a certain period of time. This period goes up as the family has more branches (forcing them to knock branches off out of sheer boredom :icon_twisted:).

Again, that can be manipulated though. Everyone with premium can just stop logging in and "pay their way" to victory, while the ones without premium could just log in once a week and survive the waiting that way.

Frankly, I'm not too convinced that families should be allowed to win worlds. One of the settings TW has is a member limit for tribes...why commend people for circumventing that?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I imagine your solution is pretty easy to manipulate though. You'd run into situations where the family is taking on the last few tribes, and can actually make them a "get rimmed or automatically win this world" offer...hardly recommendable.

A different solution would be to impose not a higher limit on villages/points, but a time limit. Once the family hits level X, they need to keep it for a certain period of time. This period goes up as the family has more branches (forcing them to knock branches off out of sheer boredom :icon_twisted:).

Again, that can be manipulated though. Everyone with premium can just stop logging in and "pay their way" to victory, while the ones without premium could just log in once a week and survive the waiting that way.

Frankly, I'm not too convinced that families should be allowed to win worlds. One of the settings TW has is a member limit for tribes...why commend people for circumventing that?

You bring up good points. I do think that the tribal limit of 80 might be a bit restrictive regarding single tribe victories. I will counter that for a world where multi-tribe victory is not permitted, the tribal limit should be at least 100. I personally think that breaking into the top 100 is an accomplishment and that the #100 player should not be doomed to inevitable destruction simply for the sake of someone wanting to win the world.

In the event of a single-tribe victory, I can foresee two possibilities:
a) The top tribe is filled with active players who are reasonably spread out so that each player can focus on consuming a portion of the world quickly after the primary resistance is broken. This leads to a very quick end of the world due to the swiftness of ennoblement combined with the people quitting the world en masse due to the apparent impossibility of victory or even survival.
b) The top tribe has many active players who may not be reasonably spread out. The tribe focuses on wiping out a section of the world and converting it to your side after the primary resistance is broken. However, due to the sheer scale of TW, many players in the top tribe begin to quit due to the tedious monotony of ennobling smallish players who offer no real challenge. The tribe then has to recruit targets from the food pool to replace these loses.

In either case, the world ends not with a bang but with a whimper. I think that is rather anticlimactic and that is why I feel the possibility for an allied victory should exist. If for no reason other than to allow multiple tribes to work together until the end when they must splinter and feast on each other.
 

MichielK

Guest
You bring up good points. I do think that the tribal limit of 80 might be a bit restrictive regarding single tribe victories. I will counter that for a world where multi-tribe victory is not permitted, the tribal limit should be at least 100. I personally think that breaking into the top 100 is an accomplishment and that the #100 player should not be doomed to inevitable destruction simply for the sake of someone wanting to win the world.

In the event of a single-tribe victory, I can foresee two possibilities:
a) The top tribe is filled with active players who are reasonably spread out so that each player can focus on consuming a portion of the world quickly after the primary resistance is broken. This leads to a very quick end of the world due to the swiftness of ennoblement combined with the people quitting the world en masse due to the apparent impossibility of victory or even survival.
b) The top tribe has many active players who may not be reasonably spread out. The tribe focuses on wiping out a section of the world and converting it to your side after the primary resistance is broken. However, due to the sheer scale of TW, many players in the top tribe begin to quit due to the tedious monotony of ennobling smallish players who offer no real challenge. The tribe then has to recruit targets from the food pool to replace these loses.

In either case, the world ends not with a bang but with a whimper. I think that is rather anticlimactic and that is why I feel the possibility for an allied victory should exist. If for no reason other than to allow multiple tribes to work together until the end when they must splinter and feast on each other.

I see no problem with an allied victory. After all, if a tribe has one and possibly two allies for a very long time, there's no sense in breaking that alliance up for the sake of breaking it up.

I do think an allied victory should be limited to two or three tribes. The sheer ridiculousness of what's happening in worlds like W18 (10+ branches dominating the world) defeats the purpose. I also think there should be some kind of evidence that the tribes have been working together for a long time, and are not simply the two remaining powerhouses who don't feel like going through a war since it would take long.
 
Top