Courage - Cowardice and/or Village Levels

DeletedUser

Guest
I've noticed that if a player isn't on a world day one or at least before the first players noble train is sent then the game becomes more a matter of luck than actual strategy due to the fact much larger players hawk over every new players villages and start farming them out of the game the second their beginner protection wears off.

I propose this setting: Courage - Cowardice:

What it ideally should do is reward people for acts of bravery ie. attacking larger players and actually committing to a more strategic approach to playing the game as opposed to the current *sarcasm* 'strategy' of 'me big you small, me attack because it's the easiest way out'.

How it should work:

Courage: - If a player attacks a player larger than himself the attacking player(s) get a participating troop attack boost of 1% for every 1% larger the defending player is to a maximum of 200% boost in this manner.

Cowardice: - Inversely if a player attacks an active player (a player who hasn't gone red in activity) who is 20% or greater difference smaller than the attacking player then the attacking player(s) should lose 1% of their troops attack power for every 1% in size difference beyond the initial 20% until their attack power is down to 20% of their initial strength.

Village levels: Speeds up building and troop construction speed, adds additional resources per hour, and powers up troop attack and defense.

Experience toward levels and level increases can only be gained by attacking player(s) larger than yourself and through self-defense.

Experience and levels are lost when attacking players much 20% or more smaller than oneself.

Village level is reset to 1 when it is conquered.
 

DeletedUser3141

Guest
This seems to be largely the function of morale. Much smaller players are relatively more expensive to attack.

I do think tribes should make some effort to encourage new players and not just feed on them though.
 

DeletedUser707

Guest
So you are saying (in a real life situation) if Georgia (little country in Europe) attacks Russia they should get a bonus for attacking? I know this is not what you are saying but I am trying to put into perspective that what you are saying makes no sense.

That is why Moral is in place to make it more difficult to attack smaller players. If you really want something more then Moral you should join the Casual worlds. You can not attack anyone bigger or smaller then 120% of your size.

~ Honest Abe
 

DeletedUser

Guest
So you are saying (in a real life situation) if Georgia (little country in Europe) attacks Russia they should get a bonus for attacking? I know this is not what you are saying but I am trying to put into perspective that what you are saying makes no sense.

That is why Moral is in place to make it more difficult to attack smaller players. If you really want something more then Moral you should join the Casual worlds. You can not attack anyone bigger or smaller then 120% of your size.

~ Honest Abe


You literally just made no sense.

First of all you can't simply join a casual world.

Secondly; It's not about limiting who you can and can't attack it's about making people have to put more thought and strategy into it than "ooga booga. *beats chest like a gorilla* me big, you small, me attack.".

Aaand:

#1. It's obvious moral is practically useless when a player who has a fully grown 9k point village which can produce 100 troops per hour doesn't even have to give a second thought before harassing a new players 200-1,000 point village who is barely able to produce 7 troops per hour (and keep them in place because everyone with a few more points is attacking him/her just because they can).

#2. Any strategy game worth its salt should have more strategy to it than "I was here first and got lucky enough to grow unimpeded and be in a semi-decent tribe, so I attack you because you small and I can build troops up faster than you so it's easy.".



As for the real life situation:

Comparing this game to real life doesn't make the first bit of sense because:


In a real life situation an army of infantry doesn't roll a dice against another army of infantry to see which one wins.

In a real life situation no leader would sit in their city(s) waiting for an attack that they know is coming; they'd ambush it before it ever arrived.

In a real life situation the village defense would focus on taking out the catapults and rams before they even got close enough to damage the village.

In a real life situation soldiers wouldn't risk their lives just so their leader can get a nerd-hard-on because he can attack a smaller nation for no reason other than he can.

In a real life situation a soldier would likely desert an army that was attacking other nations all willy nilly.

In a real life situation a large nation can't simply attack a much smaller nation for absolutely no reason and expect to just sit back and continue harassing it with no major repercussions (ie. every other nation watching the news and making them obsolete).
 

DeletedUser3141

Guest
I don't think a rl comparison works at all.
BUT remember it's a strategy game. It's also a social game. Yes players will attack smaller players because they need to get most growth at least cost. Some players are more thoughtful than others though.

For the smaller player there ARE ways to be less appealing as a target. Obvious activity levels are part of it. Joining a tribe helps but simple things like talking to other players. Sometimes if approached properly they will lay off, some will still attack but also give useful advice. Some will help a new player find a tribe.

Yes there are players who will enjoy driving players out of the game but there are others who will actively give help and encouragement. It's easy to forget that when you encounter the other type but they are out there.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Calling TW a "strategy" game is laughable to me.
there is no strategy left especially on .US servers.
 

DeletedUser3141

Guest
Why?
There is always strategy of some kind. Maybe it doesn't work how you would like but that's a different thing.
Doesn't always work as I would like as well. Things that I regard as important many don't care about.
 

DeletedUser707

Guest
Sorry about the previous post, was drunk when I wrote that haha.

I do see what you are trying to say and I don't agree with what you are asking for but maybe instead they should update the moral system to make it more effective for players with only one village. Making it so players with only one village can't really be farmed or nobled by players with 10 or more villages without losing a good number of troops. The way it sits right now, with terrible moral you can be a 1.2M player and noble a one village player risking only 1 1/2 nukes when in my opinion it should be far more of a risk if you really want that village.

The moral system should be updated but the system you are asking for I don't think would work out as well as you think it would. I do like the idea overall just needs some tinkering.

~ Jimmy
 

DeletedUser

Guest
There is another fix that would be useful as well. This would fix the issue of players who pride themselves into being able to bully new (or restarted) players into quitting the game. I mean it's one thing to attack someone for resources when there's something to gain (which I still disagree with only as a matter of principle *I won't attack anyone less than half my size, and I only attack players I actually intend to noble*), since that is strategic because it is (unfortunately) profitable. What I'm talking about is players who attack other players simply because they're smaller; I'm pretty sure we all have met the type - Guy/gal who started on day one who was also lucky enough to get good amounts of resources from farming, and sits at his desk with his roommates on 24/7 catting and ramming a brand new player even though they're losing more troops than the farmed resources can cover simply because they can.

Well that was more ranty than I initially intended, but anyways. I think militia/farm levels where militia get stronger every level and gain exp. every time the village is attacked would fix that. (It would make sense in perspective, because it is entirely reasonable to assume an army including everyday villagers who are constantly defending their homeland would know the lay of the land better than an invading force, and also have continually improved defense positions, and laying 'traps'). It would mean that a player would either have to have a strategic reason to attack someone or else the cost to continue will become ridiculous. So it would make people think twice before harassing people for no actual strategic reasons.


I totally get what you're saying Firequeen:

"Joining a tribe helps but simple things like talking to other players. Sometimes if approached properly they will lay off, some will still attack but also give useful advice. Some will help a new player find a tribe."

However it's impossible to know whether or not any particular player will begin attacking you simply because you messaged him/her regardless of the content in the message. Or a tribe may begin attacking you simply because you tried to join them. There unfortunately are too many people like that, which makes it practically impossible to join or form a decent tribe.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
The clue to the answer is in the game name TRIBAL wars.. the small player joins a tribe and gets his tribe to stop the bully

until he is big enough to do some bullying himself :)
 
Top