DeletedUser1180
Guest
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.
Thanks InKI like where you are coming from with this idea, as it is outside the box, and that is what i like to see.
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.