Earthquake world

[DeletedUser1180]

Don't see how this would enhance game-play in any way.

If you can give some reasons as to why this would be a good idea, I'd be surprised

Sceptic as ever.

In your opinion. Only 4 people have posted in this thread, so that is not something that can be stated as fact. I would suspect that a lot of people wouldn't like this suggested setting ingame, because they would lose some things they worked hard for.

I am surprised that within a few hours of posting already several people reacted. That is more activity than I am used on seeing here.

doesn't matter who is going to be for(active or inactive),what is matter is as long as i'm register to this game i should have the same chances as anyone

but in the end it will be about money and i'm sure that the administrators wouldn't be agree with something like this because it will mean less money(i think)

Now the difference in activity and having co-players or not also makes a difference. That is why the tribes are important, playing together can make the difference and give smaller players a role. Also it is more fun than just playing alone.
The larger players may be more vulnerable because they have more grown villages. Could be smaller players will have another important role - like moralebreakers.

Because there is a new luck-factor in it people will be curious and try it. I play in a small country but there the amount of people playing is more than 10 times of the players here. More people trying for a short period can be more profitable than a smaller group for a longer time. Because of RL there are always people that have to quit.

I like where you are coming from with this idea, as it is outside the box, and that is what i like to see.

Thanks InK

Imagine this situation:
You spent several nights farming, to make troops on some village, and then, all your hard work goes down, imagine how this would be a harmful idea..
And this would change a lot the tech's used on the game.
I like the tribal wars the way it is
Of course, some changes on the maps, on the design are only for the improvement of the game, but your idea would be, at least, polemic.

There are already several variations on the very first TW settings. Packages became coins. Introduction of paladin, churches, bonusvillages, archers.... Levels in smithy or not, limited group of population to be supported by the farm. Barbarian villages and how large they can grow, noble distance allowed, quicker grow of loyalty. Use of scripts or not allowed at all. Maximum size of tribe, only support players in your tribe. And not the least: how fast building and recruiting is on a world. As you can see there are a lot of settings that can be varied already.

If you know you are going to loose villages every month if you have 10 villages or more, you have to come up with a different strategy.
And as a small player you might be lucky: only loosing the small villages. Just like nobling: you can have a village using just 3 nobles - I had that on one world 5 times within just 3 months! - or what happens more often, you get unlucky and need 5 nobles.
If the luck factor is bigger the smaller players can have new chanches. And it wont be only the techically very good players, using the best scripts and tricks dominating the worlds.

It may be quite a challenge for Innogames to find the best settings for such a world.

 

[DeletedUser]

There are already several variations on the very first TW settings. Packages became coins. Introduction of paladin, churches, bonusvillages, archers.... Levels in smithy or not, limited group of population to be supported by the farm. Barbarian villages and how large they can grow, noble distance allowed, quicker grow of loyalty. Use of scripts or not allowed at all. Maximum size of tribe, only support players in your tribe. And not the least: how fast building and recruiting is on a world. As you can see there are a lot of settings that can be varied already.

If you know you are going to loose villages every month if you have 10 villages or more, you have to come up with a different strategy.
And as a small player you might be lucky: only loosing the small villages. Just like nobling: you can have a village using just 3 nobles - I had that on one world 5 times within just 3 months! - or what happens more often, you get unlucky and need 5 nobles.
If the luck factor is bigger the smaller players can have new chanches. And it wont be only the techically very good players, using the best scripts and tricks dominating the worlds.

It may be quite a challenge for Innogames to find the best settings for such a world.

Yes, but this changes you said can be controlled by using the strategy, example 4 noble sometimes don't noble a village because of your bad luck on the points of loyalty taken, then you can send 5 noble you certainly will noble the village, this one you suggested is purely luck, you can't avoid and you can't react, you only have to accept.
Sorry, but i don't think this is a good idea.

 

[DeletedUser]

When I saw the thread title, I thought by earthquake you meant just stuff get demolished- a villages lose some buildings' levels, lost points, etc... but randomly, and maybe a % of a player's villages... so smaller players and bigger players are affected proportionally...

 

[DeletedUser]

Because there is a new luck-factor in it people will be curious and try it.

This is a strategy game. It sounds to me like you want there to be even less strategy involved, and more pot luck. Why don't you just go use scratch-cards or play bingo? Those are luck involved - they'd be more to your taste.

 

[DeletedUser]

Why don't you leave the thread which is talking about new ideas and brainstorming and go play chess. Lots of strategy there-that would be more to your taste.

 

[DeletedUser]

Why don't you leave the thread which is talking about new ideas and brainstorming and go play chess. Lots of strategy there-that would be more to your taste.

I'm commenting on what this game is about. This is a strategy game. Not a luck game. This suggestion seems more and more aimed at people who want a game based around luck. Strategy means strategy, not luck. As such, my points are completely relevant to this topic.

Just because I am against the suggestion does not mean I shouldn't comment here. That would make any discussion pointlessly 1-sided, if everybody who was against a suggestion aren't allowed to post. Grow up, perhaps?

 

[DeletedUser]

You said it was a bad idea. I'm defending my side. How about instead of arguing with everyone you agree sometimes. If you don't want to play this world you won't have to. This world would have strategy. Before the deadline people would use their nobles so they will not die in the earthquake. Also, it would make players have to spread out their nobles to different villas to increase chances of keeping them making it harder for noble trains. With the faster speed world villas would already being growing fast and you would still be able to rebuild those lost villas. The only problem I see is would this world be a last man standing world and during these earthquakes would the villa disappear? If that happened it would make the game more fun once the world closed and the players had to attack each other because barbs and new players would stop coming. This would make tribes split and the wars more intense. It is just an all around good idea. Besides, if you don't like a worlds settings don't play on it.

 

[DeletedUser]

You said it was a bad idea. I'm defending my side. How about instead of arguing with everyone you agree sometimes.
Why on earth would I agree to an idea that I clearly think is an awful idea?


This world would have strategy. Before the deadline people would use their nobles so they will not die in the earthquake.
It would be more luck than strategy. One village may hold vital importance to your survival, and if you are unlucky enough to lose that one, then you will end up being taken out through no fault of your own - purely for being unlucky. You can't expect everybody who plays a world to understand this sort of setting, given that a huge proportion of ingame players don't understand most settings properly already.


Also, it would make players have to spread out their nobles to different villas to increase chances of keeping them making it harder for noble trains.
You just said that players would use up all of their nobles to avoid losing any. As such, that completely contradicts this point, so it is clear you aren't thinking through this argument of yours.


With the faster speed world villas would already being growing fast and you would still be able to rebuild those lost villas.
If you lose a village, you can't build it up as you no longer control it. If you meant you'd be able to cap lost villages back fast, you are basically saying you'd rather players war barbs than other players.


It is just an all around good idea.
No, it really isn't. Half of your argument for why it is a good idea is in direct contradiction or showing no understanding of the game.

If you don't want to play this world you won't have to....
Besides, if you don't like a worlds settings don't play on it.

There is no point in saying this - you say it so many times and yet each time it has no relevance to a discussion thread on whether or nor an idea would be good, and if so how practical it is. The whole point about new settings is that they'd be wanted by enough people for them to play the new type of world. If people don't like the setting, of course they won't play on it. And so, it wouldn't be worth Innogames' investment in to this idea, if this were to be the case with a lot of people.

It's a pointless comment to make as the whole point of this sort of thread is to get people's opinions on a suggestion and to highlight the pro's and con's. So I'll ask you to stop telling me that instead of commenting on why it isn't a good idea, I should just not play this world should this setting be made. Because my opinion is as equally valid as anybody else's opinion.

 

[Dase]

1 out of 10 can mean 100 at 1000 villages.The world would slow down.I wouldn't play on such a world.

 

[DeletedUser]

You are so annoying. Half that wasn't right. I really don't feel like typing all abot was wrong with your statement so I will list a few.

1. You said I contradicted myself by saying spreading them out and using them quickly. They are not contradictory be aide depending on whether or not you know when the earthquake will hit you do one of those two options.

2. You don't know if a lot of people will disagree with it and your opinion is that it won't. My opinion is that it will so just like you said i have as much of a right to comment on this as you.

3. People won't like re using settings over and over. Who knows maybe there will be earthquake worlds sort of like speed rounds except earthquake worlds are longer. With the increased risk it would be fun.

4. Even if you don't like the settings you don't have to keep saying why you don't like it. Every time you post it Is about how innocents won't make money or how it won't appeal to people. Once you start actually getting proof that most people won't then start posting.

5. Although few people have posted on this thread the majority said it would be interesting. If it keeps going like this then most people will enjoy these worlds.

6. Everyone likes change from normal worlds every so often. No point in dismissing the idea without trying it out.

7. A lot of players want a faster game speed on this server. With an earthquake world it would almost force them to make it faster because of the need to noble and get new villas.

8. How would this make you barb noble?

 

[DeletedUser]

Spoiler

1. You said I contradicted myself by saying spreading them out and using them quickly. They are not contradictory be aide depending on whether or not you know when the earthquake will hit you do one of those two options.
You said "also", meaning people would do both. Which isn't possible. You can't use up all your nobles AND spread them around. Therefore, contradiction.

2. You don't know if a lot of people will disagree with it and your opinion is that it won't. My opinion is that it will so just like you said i have as much of a right to comment on this as you.
I never told you not to comment? You told me not to. So really, you are backing up my own point.

3. People won't like re using settings over and over. Who knows maybe there will be earthquake worlds sort of like speed rounds except earthquake worlds are longer. With the increased risk it would be fun.
People on older forums ask more for old worlds to have the exact same settings repeated than they ask for new settings to be used. So actually, people do like re-using settings over and over. Not to mention, there are millions of different combinations of settings already that can be used.

4. Even if you don't like the settings you don't have to keep saying why you don't like it. Every time you post it Is about how innocents won't make money or how it won't appeal to people. Once you start actually getting proof that most people won't then start posting.
I post logical comments. I could equally say that "once you start actually getting proof that most people will", but I don't, because that makes discussion pointless, and you'd likely invent a Mr. Jack and a Miss. Liz to back up your point, when they haven't commented for themselves.

5. Although few people have posted on this thread the majority said it would be interesting. If it keeps going like this then most people will enjoy these worlds.
The majority haven't said it would be interesting at all. Dase, Rama, pinsdorf and myself are all against the idea. That's 4. 9 people posted, and of the remaining 5, 1 didn't suggest his opinion of it. Stop making up facts.


6. Everyone likes change from normal worlds every so often. No point in dismissing the idea without trying it out.
I could say that they should make a world with airoplanes as a new unit. That wouldn't be worth trying out - it would be instantly dismissed. Bad ideas can be dismissed without needing to try them out. So yes, plenty of point in dismissing ideas without trying them out.

7. A lot of players want a faster game speed on this server. With an earthquake world it would almost force them to make it faster because of the need to noble and get new villas.
A lot of players who posted. There are lots who don't post who dislike fast words - so that doesn't mean much.

8. How would this make you barb noble?
Players lose a village in this "earthquake", they focus more on getting it back than going for enemy player villages. This happens on most worlds - I've seen people on worlds at all levels (early, mid, late) telling tribemates to leave the barbs for them to take back after losing them in bans. Thus, barb nobling. That wouldn't be likely to change here.

I don't see how I'm being annoying. I'm giving reasonably logical responses to you, and you whine because of it. Everything I said was right so far as I know - you didn't point out a single "incorrect" part with all your nonsense. Perhaps re-read what I said?

Also, another logical thought for you. When are earthquakes ever planned in advance? Surely this sort of setting shouldn't be "monthly" if it were to happen, but irregular and unpredictable. This is after all a medieval game, and they didn't have Seismographs back then.

 

[DeletedUser]

I just wanted to try out a new world. You don't really have to always be so negative.

 

[DeletedUser]

I just wanted to try out a new world. You don't really have to always be so negative.

As I said before. Why would I give a positive response about something that I think is a bad idea?

 

[DeletedUser]

You don't have to keep going on about how it's a bad idea. We are trying to discuss new ways to attract people.

 

[DeletedUser]

You don't have to keep going on about how it's a bad idea. We are trying to discuss new ways to attract people.

Wait a minute. So in a debate, if someone is spouting nonsense, you would ignore it? If you don't want me to post on the thread, simply stop making me need to correct your comments in response to mine.

 

[DeletedUser1180]

When I saw the thread title, I thought by earthquake you meant just stuff get demolished- a villages lose some buildings' levels, lost points, etc... but randomly, and maybe a % of a player's villages... so smaller players and bigger players are affected proportionally...

Thats another possibility. But that would be more random. All your villages would be affected somehow and you would not be able to develop a strategy to work around it. The luck factor would become bigger in this game. Also setting this up would be more work. But perhaps for the smaller players, instead of loosing villages over a longer period this could be a possibility.

I don't see how I'm being annoying. I'm giving reasonably logical responses to you, and you whine because of it. Everything I said was right so far as I know - you didn't point out a single "incorrect" part with all your nonsense. Perhaps re-read what I said?

Also, another logical thought for you. When are earthquakes ever planned in advance? Surely this sort of setting shouldn't be "monthly" if it were to happen, but irregular and unpredictable. This is after all a medieval game, and they didn't have Seismographs back then.

In your point of view you are always right.
In RL earthquakes are not to be predicted, although in certain parts of our real world you know quakes will happen every few years. In TW we can make them predictable. Because of that predictable part people can work out strategies. If you want to make it more unpredictable you can tell the quakes will happen within a certain period of one or more days. For a first quakeworld it could be kept simple.

There is no point in saying this - you say it so many times and yet each time it has no relevance to a discussion thread on whether or nor an idea would be good, and if so how practical it is. The whole point about new settings is that they'd be wanted by enough people for them to play the new type of world. If people don't like the setting, of course they won't play on it. And so, it wouldn't be worth Innogames' investment in to this idea, if this were to be the case with a lot of people.

It's a pointless comment to make as the whole point of this sort of thread is to get people's opinions on a suggestion and to highlight the pro's and con's. So I'll ask you to stop telling me that instead of commenting on why it isn't a good idea, I should just not play this world should this setting be made. Because my opinion is as equally valid as anybody else's opinion.

If you don't try new ideas you get stuck in the old ones. If innogames does not develop further other new games from the competition will get peoples attention and less people will play TW. If set up right a lot will try out this world.
Because of the monthly events the buildingspeed needs to be much higher.
What needs to be looked at is what happens with the destroyed villages: are they left as small barbarian villages or disappear completely - changing the map every month. The first option will create a world that will go on longer, in the second players will have to attack each other sooner to keep growing.

1 out of 10 can mean 100 at 1000 villages.The world would slow down.I wouldn't play on such a world.

No it does not have to be slowing down, because everyone is affected. It is something to use in your strategy. Perhaps having lots of small villages before the quake event will pay off. And if you want to rule the world attacking active players still will be important. Building your villages to the max may be a stupid thing to do, so the rule 'points don't fight, troops do' will get a new meaning.

 

[DeletedUser]

This would also help balance out the rim and the core.