8.8 Changelog Discussion

[DeletedUser329]

Please discuss 8.8 Changelog here.

 

[DeletedUser]

Casual worlds sound interesting, but even with attack restrictions they may be taken advantage of by pretty good players that just are not the best. We'll see. Newspaper welcome screen should be good if it gets kept updated.

 

[DeletedUser]

will the settings of casual worlds be shown when given option to join them.
im guessing by casual there will be night settings, high moral, slow troop movements, and alot of barbs(tw made and also people who join then disappear due to lack of action)

what if the original world closes dose the mirror world close also. can it end...

also i have ipod app on my ipad (there is no ipad app) i only use it cause it notifys when incomings and mails. i find the app is odd that you have to scroll left to right...

 

[DeletedUser]

Casual worlds sound good.

 

[DeletedUser]

Lol, so TribalHugs has finally come to life!

Seriously though, in the interests of truly levelling the playing field, I suggest you restrict remove those factors which have made this casual world necessary in the first place. Co-playing, scripts and - dare I say it? - premium points.

 

[DeletedUser]

These discussions have been had before. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to stop coplaying. I'd say impossible, to be honest. It would not only be hard to measure consistently, what happens when you log in from a phone and home? Different IPs would be blocked (blocking you from using both), and as a result a person couldn't play from both, severely restricting their time available and making the game even harder. Some rely on phones, even playing at work (naughty people!) to get by, and the different IPs would look like coplaying, and would therefore discriminate against people. And that's just one of many downsides I could go into.

Scripts removed? In what way would this benefit the game? I would think it would get quite a lot more players to quit because many previously easy tasks take hours to do, such as resource-balancing a large account that would've taken 15 minutes but would (without scripts) take hours. The game would become immeasurably more time consuming, causing more to need coplayers (which, as I said, is almost impossible if not impossible to stop), and those who can't or won't get coplayers would quit.

Removing premium points would do the same, plus removing a revenue stream that helps Innogames fund the game. True, it makes money on advertisements, but premium still nets money needed to keep servers running and paid staff/developers working.

Casual worlds need none of the above, and provide for a learning environment with...casual...settings, for those who prefer the game that way.

 

[DeletedUser]

Let us begin this discussion with an assumption:
Inno has created this "casual" world in order to retain players who have been rimmed in the "major league" and would otherwise stop playing the game altogether. Inno is hoping that those players will find, in this casual world, an environment where it is easier to survive against the monolithic strength of the "elite" players and tribes, yet where playing conditions are similar to the TW game we all love.

Let's make an observation:
There are 300 names currently in the ranking list. Using my own area as a sample, I would estimate that only 30% of those names are active. That means 70% of the players have walked in, had a look, turned around and walked out again. So obviously something is not working.

Why?

It's dificult to define just what a "casual" player is. It's easier to define what a "casual" player is not.
If you log into the game when you have a spare 30 minutes on the bus to work or school, you're not casual. If you log into the game while at work or school, you're not casual. In other words, if you need to log in from more than a single IP, you're not casual.
If you farm 50-100 times more resources per day than the average player, you're not casual. If you attack 100 times more villages per day than the average player, you're not casual. In other words, if you need to use scripts, you're not casual.
More contentiously perhaps, if you pay to play with an advantage over the average player, you're not casual.
The casual player - the player for whom Inno has presumably created this world - has been forced out of the "major league" by just that type of player mentioned above - the "elite" co-playing, script-clicking, premium-paying monolith who can only be resisted by a similar player. Why would they even want to play in the casual world?? Don't let them!

 

[DeletedUser]

Let us begin this discussion with an assumption:
Inno has created this "casual" world in order to retain players who have been rimmed in the "major league" and would otherwise stop playing the game altogether. Inno is hoping that those players will find, in this casual world, an environment where it is easier to survive against the monolithic strength of the "elite" players and tribes, yet where playing conditions are similar to the TW game we all love.

Let's make an observation:
There are 300 names currently in the ranking list. Using my own area as a sample, I would estimate that only 30% of those names are active. That means 70% of the players have walked in, had a look, turned around and walked out again. So obviously something is not working.

Well, to use your area as an assumption would be logically flawed, but this is besides the point. What you consider activity and what should be considered activity may be entirely different. Furthermore, do not forget it is a casual world. What you consider inactive may be activity on a casual world. Fortunately, twstats for the .us server provides us with a graph that details this information here. Most players on the casual world appear to be active, in reality.

Why?

It's dificult to define just what a "casual" player is. It's easier to define what a "casual" player is not.
If you log into the game when you have a spare 30 minutes on the bus to work or school, you're not casual. If you log into the game while at work or school, you're not casual. In other words, if you need to log in from more than a single IP, you're not casual.
If you farm 50-100 times more resources per day than the average player, you're not casual. If you attack 100 times more villages per day than the average player, you're not casual. In other words, if you need to use scripts, you're not casual.
More contentiously perhaps, if you pay to play with an advantage over the average player, you're not casual.

All of this is highly relative. I've seen players with over 2 million points and no premium account, who ranked in the top 20 of worlds. On this server alone, I coplayed a player on World 1 who was 800,000 points, rank 3, and we didn't have premium. On the other hand, I've seen players who are rank 200 who have premium. Paying does not constitute casual behavior; it merely indicates that a player wishes to take advantage of the shortcuts premium provides. That does not mean the player is more or less active, or requires more or less time online, or is more or less skilled at all. And you keep saying that you are referring to the "average player". What is the average player? The average skilled player? The average new player? How do you determine how many more villages per day you are attacking than the average player?

It seems very vague and relative, in the sense of your arguments. The same applies for all else.

The casual player - the player for whom Inno has presumably created this world - has been forced out of the "major league" by just that type of player mentioned above - the "elite" co-playing, script-clicking, premium-paying monolith who can only be resisted by a similar player. Why would they even want to play in the casual world?? Don't let them!

Yes, they have lost in a different world. Hence they join the casual world, one more suited to their time-restraints in which they can learn to use scripts, and strategy, and so on. Why would they not want to play? They are still competing, they are merely doing so in an environment in which they can both learn to compete better and in which they are protected until such time as they can compete on a higher scale. Is this a bad thing? I think not. I think, though, that making all worlds like casual worlds or removing what makes players good will make those who have the time to invest, or the skill, discouraged. It would be like removing protein shakes from shelves because some people look better physically than others, and those others can't pick up females so to speak. There is no reason for that; instead, you get the chance to work out and get to that physical level at your own relaxed pace.

Casual worlds provide that. I see no reason to make all worlds that much less competitive by removing that which provides competition. Instead of trying to lower everyone to the level of players who cannot compete as well, why not accommodate everyone while attempting to give them the chance to learn, and raise themselves to the level of those competing well already?

 

[DeletedUser]

The forum topic in which I posted asked for feedback. I provided my opinion. Natuarally, I expect posts of differing opinion, but not from a moderator.

Any expectation that the players' views will be considered has been completely nullified by you. A moderator leaves their personal opinions at the door when accepting the job. Can we therefore assume that what you stated is the official company stance?

I won't trouble you further.

 

[DeletedUser]

I am attempting to productively discuss ideas as to what could or could not improve the Tribalwars game. It would be highly irregular for us not to productively discuss, me as a volunteer for the company (of which I am not a paid employee) and you as a customer (possibly a paying one) ideas which you put forward. I am debating purely the ideas; I am very glad that they are being brought forward and enjoy the discussion. However, ideas that are not examined or discussed as to their benefits and costs (as we have done) are ideas that remain undeveloped.

I seek only to help you develop ideas or present any flaws I may find, just as you may find flaws in my ideas. However, believe me when I say that if you cannot discuss these ideas and cover up any holes or flaws that I find, then it is not likely to be taken seriously by a Tribalwars developer team that is far more critical than I (as their jobs rely on meaningful, helpful updates and improvements).

I apologize if you feel offended and do not think that your opinion is valued. It is valued and I mean no offense. I am looking only to discuss with you whether or not the ideas you presented are warranted in benefits to the game.

Happy holidays.

 

[Nauzhror]

A moderator leaves their personal opinions at the door when accepting the job.

We are still players. We have still have opinions. Expecting otherwise is illogical.

We don't lose the privilege to have an opinion when becoming staff.

u6's argument is flawed though.

Fortunately, twstats for the .us server provides us with a graph that details this information here. Most players on the casual world appear to be active, in reality.

Those graphs determine "activity" in a very unrealistic manner. It appears to be any growth in the past week or so - which is certainly not active. Someone playing 3-4 days a week instead of 24/7 is one thing, someone who last logged in 6 days ago has almost certainly quit but simply not went barb yet.


However, I strongly disagree with your idea of what is and isn't casual.

I would not consider a teenager who checks their account from their phone while on the bus to school to be inherently non-casual, nor would I consider a person who checks their account on their lunch break to be non-casual. There's a huge difference from checking your account a few times throughout the day from various IP's and having 4 people on your account that each cover a 6 hour block and have 100% of the accounts troops busy 100% of the time.

There are thousands of people that play from school or work who I can grow 10x faster than. I am certainly not a casual player, they however in my eyes absolutely are.

As for your initial arguments:

Attempts to restrict co-playing or script-usage would only benefit people who co-play and/or use scripts.

Why? Simple.

Currently everyone has access to scripts and co-playing. If we attempted to ban them there would be people that co-played and got away with it unnoticed, there would also be people that used scripts and got by unnoticed. These people would have a much larger advantage when they were the only people using these advantages than they do currently.

As for premium, that's simply not an option. TribalWars is a product, requesting premium be removed is akin to walking into WalMart and requesting prices be removed from everything and that all their merchandise be made free. Innogames is a company. As a company its goal is to turn a profit. Indeed, as a company it needs to turn a profit to remain in existence.

 

[DeletedUser]

Just pointing out that even if that were true (I'm too lazy to check, but let's assume I was wrong), the argument rested on far more than that point alone, and is therefore still relevant.