What ruined TW?

DeletedUser62294

Guest
1. inviting some Panda to Rabid is being discussed, how you define a merge is a matter of perspective.
2. Rabid and Panda have been allied since infancy, and up to this point have gained nothing from one another other than security. Speaking for Rabid we've taken on everyone in front of us, big and small.
3. I had hoped to force a Panda & X. alliance vs. us in an effort to get that one good war that we all crave, but it wasn't going to happen due to leadership of X. and perhaps Panda (I am unsure of all the details). Neither was I going to cancel the alliance and hit Panda in the back while they were already engaged in a good war, how would that be sporting? We have sought competition every step of the way, and have been disappointed at each turn.
4. Without competition, and waiting out the result of the Panda vs. X. war which could last a month or longer, members of my tribe will drop off one by one out of boredom until when there is a chance for war we are merely a shell of the tribe we were at our pinnacle.

What option do I see? Win the world, and that is to either honor our friendship with Panda and assist them in their war, or offer those of them deserving some leadership an invitation... either way it is as it was at the beginning, when we both were fledgling tribes, not yet top 10 and we formed our friendship.

What I will say is this... Panda fought their wars largely unaided by us, and we fought ours the same way. Each of our tribes built through war. This is a war game, and how being a tribe forged by war, and select recruitment is ruining the game I fail to see.

X. had one chance to win this world, and they were given an opportunity to take it and turned it down, and that forced my hand. As a leader, regardless of how badly I wish for a very competitive war, when there is not one to be had, I choose the welfare of my members, and victory over the higher path. I have seen what will happen, I have led a # of top tribes, tribes so dominant that the only possible way they could lose is inactivity, and that is what happens every single time if you allow it.

Meh actions speak louder than words you "claim" you want a competitive fight but your actions prove that is not the case. Oh well just what TW has come down to shouldn't hold people to a higher standard.
 

Garrock

Guest
Meh actions speak louder than words you "claim" you want a competitive fight but your actions prove that is not the case. Oh well just what TW has come down to shouldn't hold people to a higher standard.

actions? actions throughout the world... we've constantly been attacking, we are one of if not the most stable tribe in the world since very early game, we have very low turnover margin, very little recruitment... There is one scenario that would have given this world at least one good war... given us one good war... and that was a Panda + X. alliance/merge vs. Rabid, and your leadership was too stubborn or obtuse to grasp it. I even explored the possibilities of forcing that alliance, but those efforts fell through as well due to X. stubborn blindness.

Rabid IS the best tribe of this world, has been for a long time, and every tribe that has fallen has failed to respond in a suitable way to survive. I don't know what you expect of us.... our growth has been built upon war conquers, and our stats reflect that. You think we should wait out your war with Panda? Gobble up passive non-aggressive players and just wait? Twiddle our thumbs? Take a vacation and come back in 6 weeks for a war?

So... I've wasted a lot of effort defending myself and our tribe over some very ludicrous and ignorant statements. It's a bit of a pill to swallow.

What has ruined this world? Well in part, people like you... and in another part it's the 40% + conquers against untribed players and barbarians (over 26% being barbs) by your tribe. You want a good war? Since when? You can't barble your way through the world then cry foul when you don't get the only war you ever tried to have. More than 50% of your tribal conquers are barbs + untribed players + internals. Rabid and Panda as well have warred this entire world, whilst you have avoided all serious conflict. This is the problem, and then you come here crying foul. (sigh) why even talk about this, the numbers are there, and I can guarantee while some of your members may not publicly admit it, they know it to be truth.

cheers mate...
 

DeletedUser62294

Guest
Your defense is poor but nice try. Just as much as you don't want all of Panda neither do we. Only a few have proved themselves in a way that we would actually want to take them on. So you yourself stated you are looking to recruit a few of them yet you want us to take in the same players that you would not even want in your tribe? Yet you would want us to ally with players that we now know may not be up to it in a war.........

Again myself a free for all would be the situation I support for this world. Drop all alliances and NAPs and fight everyone and anyone best tribe wins.
 

DeletedUser111495

Guest
Your defense is poor but nice try.

Nothing wrong with garrocks defense, he has stated facts and has actually put something constructive together unlike yourself whos defense is to call other peoples defense bad and not actually input anything of significance. and this is coming from someone who does not like Rabid personally however your arguments as to why TW is dieing is hilarious blaming them because you cant grow accounts successfully.

* awaiting a response from Angels Fury telling me my defense is poor and im a troll.
 

DeletedUser62294

Guest
I do find it "hilarious" (your own words) whenever someone isn't part of the troll battalion that they are "crying". Not very "constructive" of you but it does seem that a lot of you have drunk the kool aid and have to defend each others actions. The difference is how we wish to play the game for me the ends do not justify the means. If Garrock (who I actually do have respect for and have followed on other worlds) wants to invite panda and certain players in Y want to gift villages so be it. Congrats you won a world through diplomacy. Just as they want their last world to be a fun world of fighting so did I but there are odds that are worse than Katniss Everdeen in the Hunger games.
 

DeletedUser111495

Guest
Ive already stated I have no connections/love with the other posters so my opinion is neutral, if anything the so called trolls as you call them I would be against them however on this occasion I find you to be in the wrong, its a recurring theme with you as most worlds you come to the forums moaning when you eventually lose...

Also Diplomacy is a huge part of most words, its probably your constant moaning and lack of success of growing accounts thats stops people wanting to be affiliated with you.
 

DeletedUser62294

Guest
You speak as if you know what worlds and accounts I've played which is somewhat amusing. I can't speak for others that I have played with but most have no problems with being "affiliated" with me. I play the game with a very honest outlook does it cause me to lose on some worlds yes but so be it. Most of my crew I used to play with quit long ago.

Good luck to Rabid we will see how this world goes. (and how many pandas may get recruited)
 

DeletedUser55551

Guest
I've played since W1, I'm sure maybe a few who read this have as well. This game is not the same as it used to be, whether or not you think its for the better it has changed. In my opinion, the game peaked around World 20ish and from there has been getting less and less entertaining (I'm still here though and that's because I have a itching to win a world and quit this game forever lol.) Premium features killed this game, I understand inno has to make money, but really 20% res boosts, instant builds, tagging features, command & village notes sharing, and automatic noble train nonsense (I know its not just a premium feature but still shouldn't exist) is too much. All of this takes away from the actual skill, if you can call anything online a skill, of the game. 20% res boost replaces some amount of farming or increases resources pulled in while instant building gives old players who use premium a huge advantage. No wonder no one new wants to play, because they can't get past the same 2000 players that play on every world and grow villages 5x faster than anyone else. Don't even get me started on tagging, and the automatic noble trains (or whatever its called)? Let's just make it impossible for new players to snipe anything coming at them. command and village notes sharing takes away from coordination as well, why do we need forums anymore? Premades also suck, but only the same 100 people who win those consistently enjoy those. World ending scenarios suck as well, World 1 went on forever (I didn't stay until the end.) Everyone assumed that it would go on until the last player standing, which made everyone hungry to fight, tribes disbanded on a whim, and you actually had to be sure you trusted your personal allies, it wasn't an achievement to reach 100, because all you wanted were 5-10 that you knew had your back. Worthless events that handed out free boosts didn't exist either, so it wasn't corny. Farm assistant is another thing, sure it saves time. But it speeds up growth, saving 3 hours to farm is 3 hours to comb through villages and build them. And with account manager all you have to get online and do is attack and defend. THAT is why this game is ruined, because it doesn't take any amount of "skill." All it takes is who buys premium first. To end this, I made it to 13 million points on World 1 with no premium. It was fun because I didnt have the ability comb through 400 villages in 10 minutes. I had to go through each one and build its buildings and build its troops manually. This game died when 2 things happened, premium features became outrageous, and the end game scenario was introduced.
 

Michael Corleone.

Guest
I think things like farm assistant and account manager should've been implemented years before they were. A lot of people quit this game due to how time consuming it was, and both of those features save lots of time. Same with the in game tagger. I did not enjoy having to sit for a few hours a day cycling thru villages to build them up and build up armies. That isn't skill and that isn't fun.

And worlds getting end game scenarios were helpful. Worlds going on for 6+ years? No thanks. Besides, people can PP whore all they want to rank 1, but they still need to know how to attack and defend to survive. :)

Also, yawn @ Angels Fury. Your shtick of being a crying sore loser is so old already. The last sentence in your most recent post has been the most sensible thing you've said yet in this thread.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'm not going to get into a discussion on 'what ruined TW', but just a quick thought re: Garrock's points about X.

actions? actions throughout the world... we've constantly been attacking, we are one of if not the most stable tribe in the world since very early game, we have very low turnover margin, very little recruitment...

So do X?

Rabid.png


X.png


There is one scenario that would have given this world at least one good war... given us one good war... and that was a Panda + X. alliance/merge vs. Rabid, and your leadership was too stubborn or obtuse to grasp it. I even explored the possibilities of forcing that alliance, but those efforts fell through as well due to X. stubborn blindness.

There are other scenarios, you just didn't want to wait for them. Which is fine - I perfectly understand that. However, just because you are unwilling to wait for something to happen doesn't mean that it would never have happened.

A bit of a weird one to call X leadership obtuse because it didn't do what you wanted. X leadership decided to stick by the tribal principles and decided, after discussion with the members, that it'd rather lose playing the way the tribe likes to play, than win playing the way you would like the tribe to play. I suppose you could call that stubborn, although I wouldn't take it as a bad thing as you have implied. It's certainly better than just doing whatever you would want them to do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser55551

Guest
I think things like farm assistant and account manager should've been implemented years before they were. A lot of people quit this game due to how time consuming it was, and both of those features save lots of time. Same with the in game tagger. I did not enjoy having to sit for a few hours a day cycling thru villages to build them up and build up armies. That isn't skill and that isn't fun.

And worlds getting end game scenarios were helpful. Worlds going on for 6+ years? No thanks. Besides, people can PP whore all they want to rank 1, but they still need to know how to attack and defend to survive. :)


Sure it makes it faster, sure it makes it easier, but when this stuff was introduced the game began losing active players. They took the count off the front of the page but last time I saw it, it was down around 50k? At its hieght it was around 250k, right? Considering what it was and what it is, It seemes to me more people thought it was "funner" back then

Longer worlds were more interesting. Really, 81 is already closed how is that "fun?" There is no long term strategy, no time to invest into a world. All the stuff meant to make this game easier, dumbed it down to a point where you only have to attack and noble. This is the type of stuff they should've put on TW.
 

Garrock

Guest
I'm not going to get into a discussion on 'what ruined TW', but just a quick thought re: Garrock's points about X.



So do X?

Rabid.png


X.png




There are other scenarios, you just didn't want to wait for them. Which is fine - I perfectly understand that. However, just because you are unwilling to wait for something to happen doesn't mean that it would never have happened.

A bit of a weird one to call X leadership obtuse because it didn't do what you wanted. X leadership decided to stick by the tribal principles and decided, after discussion with the members, that it'd rather lose playing the way the tribe likes to play, than win playing the way you would like the tribe to play. I suppose you could call that stubborn, although I wouldn't take it as a bad thing as you have implied. It's certainly better than just doing whatever you would want them to do.

bromance... tribe changes is merely 1 part of the equation that displays stable, and I did say "one of, if not the most". Had you read my post you would have also seen that I mentioned waiting as a scenario, and also addressed the problems with that for our tribe.

As pointed out by angel, there are only 3 competitive tribes remaining, this is end game, as sad as that may be, and your tribe had one option to ensure you had a fighting chance and you turned it down. This is the "obtuse" I was speaking of, the failure to recognize what stage this world is at, and what measures need to be taken to have a chance at winning, and the failure to put yourselves in our shoes. We can't wait for you to defeat Panda, if in fact you can... there is nothing to do while waiting... people will become bored, some will begin other worlds, w85 will take a back seat to some, and our tribe will wither away due to boredom.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
bromance... tribe changes is merely 1 part of the equation that displays stable, and I did say "one of, if not the most". Had you read my post you would have also seen that I mentioned waiting as a scenario, and also addressed the problems with that for our tribe.

I agree. I didn't say your post was incorrect. I just said that X is similarly stable, having similarly low turnover and similarly low recruitment. 'Had you read my post' you would have known that.

Apologies for taking "the only scenario" as you said, to mean one. But since you yourself agree that there were other scenarios, you just being unwilling to wait for them (which, as I said, is understandable), I guess we can leave that point as it is and just both accept that your way with words was misleading, at best.

As pointed out by angel, there are only 3 competitive tribes remaining, this is end game, as sad as that may be, and your tribe had one option to ensure you had a fighting chance and you turned it down. This is the "obtuse" I was speaking of, the failure to recognize what stage this world is at, and what measures need to be taken to have a chance at winning, and the failure to put yourselves in our shoes. We can't wait for you to defeat Panda, if in fact you can... there is nothing to do while waiting... people will become bored, some will begin other worlds, w85 will take a back seat to some, and our tribe will wither away due to boredom.

Again, I don't see it as obtuse. It wasn't a failure to realise what stage the world is at. It was a decision to stick by the tribe principles, accepting that that may mean the tribe loses. It's deciding that having fun playing the way we want to play is more important than winning by playing a way we don't like and don't enjoy.

I suppose it comes down to a key difference between the two leaderships in a point you made earlier:

I choose [...] victory over the higher path


That's fine if you do. We don't.
 

Garrock

Guest
I agree. I didn't say your post was incorrect. I just said that X is similarly stable, having similarly low turnover and similarly low recruitment. 'Had you read my post' you would have known that.

Apologies for taking "the only scenario" as you said, to mean one. But since you yourself agree that there were other scenarios, you just being unwilling to wait for them (which, as I said, is understandable), I guess we can leave that point as it is and just both accept that your way with words was misleading, at best.



Again, I don't see it as obtuse. It wasn't a failure to realise what stage the world is at. It was a decision to stick by the tribe principles, accepting that that may mean the tribe loses. It's deciding that having fun playing the way we want to play is more important than winning by playing a way we don't like and don't enjoy.

I suppose it comes down to a key difference between the two leaderships in a point you made earlier:



That's fine if you do. We don't.

Thank-you for your explanation, perhaps I misunderstood the intent of your post.

victory over the higher path, in my minds eye means waiting and watching my tribe die, not from competition, rather from boredom, hence my choice for victory, and perhaps "higher path" was the wrong terminology, as it would have been a failure in my leadership to allow that to happen, and that most certainly is not a higher path.

Good-luck mate, and I am sorry if people feel that we are not purists, or not playing this game properly etc... point of this game, simplistically anyway, is to build a 1/2 decent team, go to war, and hopefully win the world, and that is what we're trying to do.

/cheers
 

DeletedUser62294

Guest
I think things like farm assistant and account manager should've been implemented years before they were. A lot of people quit this game due to how time consuming it was, and both of those features save lots of time. Same with the in game tagger. I did not enjoy having to sit for a few hours a day cycling thru villages to build them up and build up armies. That isn't skill and that isn't fun.

And worlds getting end game scenarios were helpful. Worlds going on for 6+ years? No thanks. Besides, people can PP whore all they want to rank 1, but they still need to know how to attack and defend to survive. :)

Also, yawn @ Angels Fury. Your shtick of being a crying sore loser is so old already. The last sentence in your most recent post has been the most sensible thing you've said yet in this thread.

Your undying love for me makes the butterflies in my heart all tingly. The thought of an armchair warrior saying I cry for wanting a good fight is just too much for my heart to take. You must be my soulmate for following me around like my own personal puppy.
 

Michael Corleone.

Guest
Sure it makes it faster, sure it makes it easier, but when this stuff was introduced the game began losing active players. They took the count off the front of the page but last time I saw it, it was down around 50k? At its hieght it was around 250k, right? Considering what it was and what it is, It seemes to me more people thought it was "funner" back then

Longer worlds were more interesting. Really, 81 is already closed how is that "fun?" There is no long term strategy, no time to invest into a world. All the stuff meant to make this game easier, dumbed it down to a point where you only have to attack and noble. This is the type of stuff they should've put on TW.
Okay now you're wrong. Tw began losing active players LONG BEFOREHAND account manager, loot assistant, and premium were introduced. Tw was losing players even before 2010ish. W81 didn't have the PP settings you go on about either btw. I think you need to do a lot more research before drawing conclusions because you are off on a lot of things.
 

Garrock

Guest
Okay now you're wrong. Tw began losing active players LONG BEFOREHAND account manager, loot assistant, and premium were introduced. Tw was losing players even before 2010ish. W81 didn't have the PP settings you go on about either btw. I think you need to do a lot more research before drawing conclusions because you are off on a lot of things.

Agreed... as someone who played from w6-w14, then came back at w35, quit again and came back for several worlds in the 40s, then again left before coming back in the 60s, I noticed the population fall off from the 30s to the 40s, but dramatically from the 40s to the 60s. It's especially telling when in the early worlds if you didn't join a world in the first 3 days you were 4 continents from the core 4. Then by the 40s the k10s and k20s were largely gone. By the 60s it was halved, and now we are down to worlds that don't even fill up 8 continents. It's natural, the decline in player base.
 

DeletedUser55551

Guest
Okay now you're wrong. Tw began losing active players LONG BEFOREHAND account manager, loot assistant, and premium were introduced. Tw was losing players even before 2010ish. W81 didn't have the PP settings you go on about either btw. I think you need to do a lot more research before drawing conclusions because you are off on a lot of things.

Nope, during the 30-40's worlds began the introduction of new additions to the game, things different than what drew in the high numbers of players previously. I didn't play W81, did it have account manager? loot assistant? If yes, then it had PP features. Things like that allow players to grow to big too fast. You can't sit here and tell me that they have helped the game at all, because it's clear it hasn't. Numbers are down, and have been for years. The same people who played 4 years ago still play today and no one new is ever going to play as long as the older players have a massive advantage. Also, PP features have been around forever. they began going too far with them mid 30's-40's. You can try and talk yourself into it as much as you want, but excessive premium features do not help this game. The numbers will continue to dwindle as long as they keep P2W
 
Top