-
Hello, Guest!
Are you passionate about Tribal Wars 2 and like to help your fellow players?
We currently have open positions for Forum Moderators!
>> Join the Tribal Wars 2 Team now! <<
We would love to hear from you!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
DeletedUser1260
Guest
The problem that I see is that the system is against you so change it.
1. Barb eaters will only stop eating barbs if we can't take them at all.
2. Use the penalty to your advantage in attacking and defending.
3. It is not about bashing you, but after hearing how great TW1 has everything set up 500 times a day and knowing that I love that this game is different. You kind of just want to say go back to TW1. (honest)
4. We look at all suggestions, but what you suggest in this thread is changing a system at the heart of the game. It is done this way to think strategy over getting so big that you end up in this situation that the game goes against you.
5. Faith and morale work hand in hand if you use it to your advantage instead of fighting the system.
1. Barb eaters will only stop eating barbs if we can't take them at all.
2. Use the penalty to your advantage in attacking and defending.
3. It is not about bashing you, but after hearing how great TW1 has everything set up 500 times a day and knowing that I love that this game is different. You kind of just want to say go back to TW1. (honest)
4. We look at all suggestions, but what you suggest in this thread is changing a system at the heart of the game. It is done this way to think strategy over getting so big that you end up in this situation that the game goes against you.
5. Faith and morale work hand in hand if you use it to your advantage instead of fighting the system.
DeletedUser
Guest
You're the one who brought up morale and faith, not us. Keep it on topic for god sake. We are not changing the "heart of the game," we want a simple problem FIXED. we have offered many different options, yet you seem to bash them all. I say you can stick to your barb muncher ways, but if we ever see you on one of our worlds know this, you won't survive.
DeletedUser1260
Guest
But coldogg you are trying to keep systems separate and they are all inter woven, Changing one changes another.
Ok we now only need nobles to take a village and don't need coins to get that noble.
Means more nobles in play faster. Correct?
But we still need to have a church or chapel in another province in order for our attacks to be effective?
Plus we have to factor the size of the player we are attacking?
How does this slow down barb eating?
Ok we now only need nobles to take a village and don't need coins to get that noble.
Means more nobles in play faster. Correct?
But we still need to have a church or chapel in another province in order for our attacks to be effective?
Plus we have to factor the size of the player we are attacking?
How does this slow down barb eating?
DeletedUser
Guest
Denying a player a noble after they lose a village lowers their morale and possably faith. It's the way the game was designed. Instead players are taking massive advantage of the game and munching on a barb further out than their enemy. we are not changing the game as much as the recent updates have... we're asking for a simple fix to a massive problem
DeletedUser1260
Guest
And what would that do for the many players that use the system to success.
How would that change barb eating?
How would that change barb eating?
DeletedUser
Guest
Barb eating is only okay for that reason. take a barb, pop a church, then nuke em to hell. It doesnt affect those who DID NOT LOSE A VILLAGE, for god sake, stop bringing up useless information. Go re-read my post and STICK TO THE SUBJECT.
DeletedUser
Guest
Who is using it for success?And what would that do for the many players that use the system to success.
How would that change barb eating?
DeletedUser1260
Guest
I have and my tribe has in the passed.
I still do not see how if a tribe's strategy is to eat barbs, this will stop it.
I still do not see how if a tribe's strategy is to eat barbs, this will stop it.
DeletedUser
Guest
Coldog, cool it... this is the same reason you aren't a leader in TFR yet. Slow your roll, move off Transmit for a while and listen.Barb eating is only okay for that reason. take a barb, pop a church, then nuke em to hell. It doesnt affect those who DID NOT LOSE A VILLAGE, for god sake, stop bringing up useless information. Go re-read my post and STICK TO THE SUBJECT.
DeletedUser
Guest
Which world was this? What was the final outcome? Was this early, mid, or late game?I have and my tribe has in the passed.
DeletedUser
Guest
Btw, many of my proposals do nothing to stop barb Nobling and don't even change the strategy... all they do is build in a small penalty when you lose a village. It makes it a little easier to stop over expansion (growing more than you can effectively defend).
DeletedUser
Guest
Listen to what? Her bring up useless information we keep proving to be inaccurate and out right wrong?Coldog, cool it... this is the same reason you aren't a leader in TFR yet. Slow your roll, move off Transmit for a while and listen.
DeletedUser1260
Guest
coldogg the thing is you see a small part and I am trying to see the big picture. You change the system we have to noble and you change a big part of the game. Why should I lose a noble when I lose a village, when I worked hard to get the coins for that noble?
DeletedUser
Guest
coldogg the thing is you see a small part and I am trying to see the big picture. You change the system we have to noble and you change a big part of the game. Why should I lose a noble when I lose a village, when I worked hard to get the coins for that noble?
Ummm, because you lost the village? What happened, did the Noble sneak out the back door when the conquering force came in? Same argument, why do you lose the troops that village generated if they didn't get killed. Dang nabbit, I sure as heck worked hard to build those D troops off supporting that other village!
Why does the Noble die when you take the village? I mean, you worked hard to get coins for that Noble!
Heck, why did I lose the village in the first place? I mean come on! Do you realize how many weeks I spent building that thing up!
Why is this game so mean... so hard!!!!!!!
DeletedUser
Guest
coldogg the thing is you see a small part and I am trying to see the big picture. You change the system we have to noble and you change a big part of the game. Why should I lose a noble when I lose a village, when I worked hard to get the coins for that noble?
Effort can't be your argument, you can do better.
Why don't we compromise and put your new found Noble on ice for 7 - 14 days after you lose the village.
DeletedUser1260
Guest
Now let us look at every point you brought up.Hey all, Thought I'd give it another try at implementing a well needed future.
Noble coins, The way they work is fine, to a point. Barb munchers and MRT's are ruining every world I come across. It's especially happening on W9. TFR takes 17 IMP villages in one night, they take 17 barbs the next morning. It gets to be a major waste of a farm and a waste of time trying to build up their crappy cities. TFR is a 80 member max tribe. We're fighting just about the whole server. We seem to be one of the very very few tribes that like to use our offensive troops on other players. All we see is CQD and IMP nobling 50+ barbs a day, we can;t keep up with their barb munching ways.
One way I suggest we combat this issue is by removing the coins it takes to make a noble when they lose a city. As of now, if you lose a city you pop a noble and eat another (Most eat barbs). We can have it set to: IF you lose a city, you lose the coins it takes to make the closest noble. IE. If a player has 30 nobles in waiting, we take away the coins for their 31'st (As they would automaticly get it from losing their city). Seems simple enough, and will atleast slow down all the crap MRT's in this game.
Another problem with nobles are their loyalty hits. I've seen 3 nobles cap a city, but i've also seen hundreds of noble trains with 4 nobles fail. We need to bring back the 25 minimum loyalty hits. We all know that failing to cap a city with 4 nobles means you won;t be getting the city for quite a while. It's a major waste of time.
Thanks for your time,
THe Ruthless coldog22
1. You are compaining about Barb munchers and MRTS ruining every world.
a. Those are strategies deployed by tribes to take the world, how does this change the strategy of tribes?
2. You suggest that when they lose a village that they lose the coins and the noble for that village.
a. How does this combat barb munchers and MRTs?
3. You are complaining about loyalty hits, that you see many nobles not taking a village.
a. Again how does this change that?
And I say by using loyaty and faith to your advantage by using all members in a teamwork scenario you can combat your problem.
The only way to combat Barb munchers is to take the ability away to take them in the first place.
DeletedUser
Guest
I'm going to update the main post. I will add all the current ideas we have to change/nullify this problem, and prove invalid arguments within that main post. It will make it easier all around.
DeletedUser
Guest
I'd like to understand how this proposal fundamentally alters the game.
DeletedUser
Guest
Now let us look at every point you brought up.
1. You are compaining about Barb munchers and MRTS ruining every world.
a. Those are strategies deployed by tribes to take the world, how does this change the strategy of tribes?
MRTs aren't trying to take a world... they are trying to survive as long as they can. Can you name a server where an MRT won? I've played TW1 and TW2 for about 8 years and haven't seen it happen.
2. You suggest that when they lose a village that they lose the coins and the noble for that village.
a. How does this combat barb munchers and MRTs?
MRTs tend to over-expand and take villages they can't protect as there is no significant penalty for doing so... "oh, they took that village, guess I'll take a different one!" By building a penalty into losing a village people will need to be smarter about what they Noble, their ability to defend it, and the village's true value in growing their portfolio.
3. You are complaining about loyalty hits, that you see many nobles not taking a village.
a. Again how does this change that?
I have no clue why he brought this into the argument, completely separate discussion and honestly, he already knows the answer. If he has lame ass Nobles, stop thinking of a Noble "train" as 4 Nobles and instead send 5... have yet to fail to capture a village with 5 Nobles though it's theoretically possible.
Share: