End Game Thoughts

Discussion in 'Neuschwanstein (US14)' started by ron9093, May 10, 2016.

  1. ron9093

    ron9093 Swordsman

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    13
    Instead of fooling around with the qualifications of a tribe required to achieve the requisite 80%, how about just fix the endgame scenario to run as advertised? The Kingdom idea as presented on the Wiki is what drew me to this game as far as staying in it for the long haul. It would add flavor to it that is missing now.

    At some point, everyone will start to eat every village they can, just as with the other servers. The capture-the-flag idea of the Kingdom and Fortress options adds much more to gameplay dynamically.
     
  2. dreginkt

    dreginkt Axeman

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2015
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    40
    It is my suspicion that this world strongly encouraged the creators to make the latest change seeing as 2/3 the players are all allied together. There is not enough conflict.

    But yes, I agree, the original advertised way should have been implemented long ago.

    This change brings so many questions and once again, rules subject to interpretation rather than a definitive way of defining them. Like what if 2 tribes merge at this time in the game which causes the world to end in 3 months, is that disqualifying? Or is it something at the very last week before the world hits 80%? It's really silly, especially since when you get toward the end of a server life the amount of active accounts I bet is less than 5% what began. This will only prolong it.

    And also I feel like I am partially getting shot at here by the creators because I engineered the wins for both US5 and US7 which did involve some assimilation toward the end of the wars on both worlds.
     
  3. B.O.Y.D.

    B.O.Y.D. Spearman

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    I totally agree with the above comments bring on the fortresses it would add a whole new stratagem to the game and its what brought me into the game in the first place
     
  4. ron9093

    ron9093 Swordsman

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    13
    I would like to see more of a player-push for this feature to be implemented and a LOT more motiviation/initiative on Inno's behalf to do what they advertised. At least take down the endgame Wiki if you have no intentions of correcting the product. Bait & Hook much?
     
  5. Ez Kallion

    Ez Kallion Axeman

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2014
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    9
    I feel this would definitely help keep activity up later in the world and would add a lot more fun to this game. Right now most worlds end with mergers and that's not a fun way to win a world. Please induce the advertised end game inno, you've had long enough.
     
  6. kikicaylan

    kikicaylan Paladin

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2015
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    293
    I agree that it would be great if the Fortress became available. I don't think anyone can actually predict what will occur on a world. I would have to say that World 7 became a complicated world for many and ended due to many people just up and leaving, switching tribes, and all the other fun stuff that came along with that world. No one could have predicted that it was going to end the way it did. I wasn't on any other world before that so I can't say much about other worlds, I do however think that due to the way worlds are ending having the actual end game that was designed for the game is important. This way tribes have to fight it out.
     
  7. tfoxworthy

    tfoxworthy The Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,010
    Likes Received:
    125
    Just look at w1, its still going on, and from the knowledge I know/heard, the #1 tribe is only growing through conquest, which is the perfect example of these new rules, but is also the perfect example of the fact that....its still w1, should have ended long ago. Stalemates, boredom, quitting cause its not worth the wait, all happened at some time. I wonder how many people there are still active compared to when they were at a stalemate.
     
  8. ron9093

    ron9093 Swordsman

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    13
    I remember back on 7 finding the perfect spot for the fortress...all happy with myself for locating the prime location within the 10x10 provincial kingdom. Then I noticed a few things like the provincial boundaries were a bit off - I easily had the majority of villages in a border province on the correct side of the kingdom's bordering river, but the rankings proved otherwise. Then, on a hunch I checked the kingdom ranking to my south only to find that the bulk of my villages were there in the report (still physically in the actual geographic kingdom to the north.)
    Support gave me some cryptic answer as to why that was and that it was being "worked" on. *okay*
    Nearly a year later and nothing. Seriously?
     
  9. dreginkt

    dreginkt Axeman

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2015
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    40
    If US7 were predictable in your eyes then it would not have ended the way it ended. There were several very large events that began taking place in the beginning of December that made the outcome quite obvious. The fate of the server was sealed in early January when TWD entered the war and proved that despite their size they were immediately marginalized.


    Back to the OP- How do we define a merger and at what point of the game is it no longer allowed?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2016
  10. supericeman

    supericeman Spearman

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    If they want the game to last longer, they could just drop the tribe size. When I played TW1, I thought 50 was to many. I think the perfect tribe limit is 40. I was under the assumption that the tribe size is so large because they want to use the fortress idea.
     
  11. tfoxworthy

    tfoxworthy The Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,010
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ya thats a good point, although I think 100 should be the max, but yes large tribes does make sense for the fortress Idea
     
  12. Deathcrystal

    Deathcrystal Guest

    This is a forum for us14, please stay on topic and do not mention other world's beyond how they can apply to this one.
     
  13. tfoxworthy

    tfoxworthy The Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,010
    Likes Received:
    125
    How is talking about endgame talking about other worlds? Endgame is a general concept of....well the endgame lol. Not sure what you were exactly saying death.:confused:
     
  14. He was likely responding to the posts above talking about us7.
     
  15. tfoxworthy

    tfoxworthy The Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,010
    Likes Received:
    125
    I was wondering about that, but they still connected to the topic.
     
  16. Yatogami

    Yatogami Mounted Archer

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2015
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    52
    Fortress is still in concept, as has been stated by Devs, Kingdoms aren't a completed map feature as a result, so rivers do not work.run as they should.
     
  17. ron9093

    ron9093 Swordsman

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    13
    The below is directly copied from the Wiki. It clearly states it is a current feature. On top of that - it was last revised in January, 2015. So - if it is indeed in concept, it should not be presented in such a manner as to attract people to the idea and then have them wondering months, maybe a year later, why everyone is racing to "80" instead of building a fortress.
    That's the point I am trying to make. Inno has basically described a whole new game compared to what is actually gold and not in beta.
    "King of the continent
    Have you ever dreamed to be a King? This is possible now in Tribal Wars 2! As you may know from reading "The Map" section in this help documentation, the world is divided into several kingdoms.

    At some point in the game, when the world reaches a certain maturity and the combined points of all player villages in a kingdom exceed a certain value, the endgame event will begin in that kingdom. You will be informed 14 days before the actual event starts if you have at least one village in the corresponding kingdom."
     
  18. ron9093

    ron9093 Swordsman

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    13
    What I quoted, for the record, goes on to describe all the nice little bells and whistles (that have not been implemented) that make it sound so inviting...I just opted not to quote the whole page.
     
  19. kikicaylan

    kikicaylan Paladin

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2015
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    293
    Well I am not going to get into it with you about world 7 as it is done and over with, what I can do for you is answer your questions. Definition of a merger: "a combination of two things, especially companies, into one". In this case of course it would be tribes not companies. Answer to your second question is quite simple as well: if you are merging just to win the world then I would say you have reached the point where it is no longer allowed. Hope that answers your question.
     
  20. Altheras

    Altheras Swordsman

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2015
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    30
    With the new strict anti-merging rules, I feel like Tribal Domination on its own as the only way to win a world makes this game bordering on just not viable at all.
    What is the point of having any allies at all now? You are disqualified from winning if you ever merge with your allies, so this means that any alliance now must be formed with the intent of down-the-road backstabbing.
    There is enough mistrust in the game already, and I feel that this new rule is too vague and will likely lead to a lot more worlds that just sit and stagnate.
    It seems the intent now is that once an alliance beats their enemies, they must then turn on each other?

    What if a tribe is down to just a handful of actives and wants to merge into a larger friendly tribe?
    Is that also against the rules now?
    On us9 we had a few tribes that did 'merge' with us, and in this 'merges' we'd gain about 5 or 6 players who actually stayed and stayed active. This was usually due to their leadership having quit the game already. Are even these micro-merges now against the rules?
    This rule is too vague and can easily be used to disqualify tribes on a whim.
    We need a very lengthy and extremely detailed explanation of what is and isn't against this new rule.
    I'm all for sticking to the rules and winning as it is intended, but I can't do that with a rule as vague as this one.
     

Share This Page