Losing Noble Coins

[DeletedUser1260]

Ok the coin system is in place for the beginning of the game to be a more level playing field. If you don't have the coins you can just make nobles once you have an academy.

This way a noble has a cost to it more then just the rez.

 

[DeletedUser]

Common sense.
I bought something with money (a noble with crowns), that thing died (lost village to another player), Oh! look! my money is back like it never happened and I can buy another village with zero effort!
Where on earth is that true?
Other than in a game where the company wants players to continue at all costs so they keep paying into the game.

 

[DeletedUser]

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?
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.

If it takes me 1 nuke to take out a village, and 14 days to build that nuke, but 1 hour of farming and 3 hours for a noble to build, then a player who has a village taken over can take over a new village and fully repopulate it in the time it takes for me to recover from taking his village.

I think the point being made here Jaded is you are not catering to the "winners" in the game, you are catering to the losers by granting them disproportionate benefits when losing a village vs the person who is technically "winning" by taking over a competing players village. I agree with Turt, if the devs are against the true penalty of a lost village being a lost noble as well, use of that coin for a new noble should have a proportionate cooldown period, i.e 7 - 14 days.

Ok the coin system is in place for the beginning of the game to be a more level playing field. If you don't have the coins you can just make nobles once you have an academy.

I don't think the point is to not have the coin system, but the coin system should be a one use system. You need 20 coins for a noble, well then once that noble is used to take a village the related 20 coins are gone, or again if the devs are against that, then those 20 coins are frozen for X days.

As for your big argument that this is about strategy, in no scenario should a player who is strategically superior, as evidenced quite clearly by them attacking and winning against another player, be penalized as is happening now by allowing the strategically inferior player to rebuild his losses in 1/28th the time it takes the strategically superior player to recover from his victory... There is no strategy in barb munching, except for mass village gain with little skill. So if this is a strategy war game, maybe you should make the strategy "Hey sometimes you lose, suck it up and rebuild like you did from the start", instead of making this a non-strategic game where "Everyone is a winner"! I don't think anyone here joined this game to have their ego's and feeling protected, I think they joined to go to war with other players, something the current noble system doesn't account for, as in war sometimes you lose completely, but not in TW2!

I mean with the current system even the threat of being "rimmed" has little weight behind it! Oh no, you sent me to the rim with 1,300 coins! What shall I ever do! You know what I will do, I will rebuild in an area where no one has a second village, and then bash the heck out of these new players because I can, and then take them all over...Even on the rim your saving the coin theory plays out poorly...

 

[DeletedUser1260]

We are evening the playing field for all Nexus. Just because a village is lost, we should penalize the player that lost it.


How is that fair? The investment falls to the player attacking the village at this point. Smaller players should not be penalized because the bigger player chose to take out his village and lost all of his troops because he didn't use the advantage of a using a smaller member in their tribe to clear them?

 

[DeletedUser]

We are evening the playing field for all Nexus. Just because a village is lost, we should penalize the player that lost it.

Yes, absolutely! If a player has nothing to lose by losing a village where is their motivation to get better at the game... Seriously what is this a participation game, or a war game? I can go play Sims on my laptop if I want to arbitrarily build cities....

And what about in a scenario where I as a smaller player takes out a bigger player? Size has nothing to do with it Jaded. It has to do with the fact that this is a strategic war game, without winner and losers, you just have an unending cycle of pointlessness...

But hey if InnoGames is only concerned about making people feel good so they buy more crowns, then the "strategy" and reasoning you propose makes perfect sense...

 

[DeletedUser]

Main post updated. Let me know if I missed anything.

 

[DeletedUser1260]

And you think Nexus that being a bully and taking nothing but smaller players out of the game makes the bigger player look good?

 

[DeletedUser]

And you think Nexus that being a bully and taking nothing but smaller players out of the game makes the bigger player look good?

Please feel free to read my post again where I state that the inequality of the current system affects both small players and big players alike, irrelevant of who is attacking whom.

And Jaded, your two previous posts are contradictory. You are saying its not fair that big players bash on smaller players, yet that is why their is a morale system, to prevent that, and on its own the morale system works great! But then you say that it's the bigger players fault for not utilizing a smaller tribe member to circumvent the morale system... I understand your position that you like munching barbs, but isn't this a suggestion thread, not a vehemently defend a losing position thread?

There was a reason in TW1 that the noble system and bashing systems worked, and it was because there was a winner and a loser, but with the current coin system there are no winners and there are no losers, there are just people who keep growing no matter how "thoroughly" they get annihilated. And granted I understand that this isn't TW1, but is this a money grab or is it a game trying to actually be successful. I mean if you aren't going to have winners and losers in TW2, why even have an endgame, or a reset of the world. Why not let the world expand as needed and continue allowing players to just munch up more and more villages until everyone has 1000 villages? This is starting to sound more dreary than Minecraft...

 

[DeletedUser]

And you think Nexus that being a bully and taking nothing but smaller players out of the game makes the bigger player look good?

You have to take out the smaller players to get anywhere. If you leave them alone they tend to eat barbs. I'd rather lose 6 nukes taking out 2 villages then having to use all my nukes taking out a "Small" players now 10 barb villages that they so innocently recruited D in.

I don;t care what I look like taking out a small player. This is a WAR GAME. How does a large country look like when it takes out a small country? They look like WINNERS!

 

[DeletedUser]

And you think Nexus that being a bully and taking nothing but smaller players out of the game makes the bigger player look good?

There is only 1 player on the server, not in my tribe, who is more than half my size... is it really my fault that I'm just that damn good??

 

[DeletedUser]

There is only 1 player on the server, not in my tribe, who is more than half my size... is it really my fault that I'm just that damn good??

Of course it's your fault Turt. TW2 Isn't about being the biggest, it's about being friendly to your neighbors!

 

[DeletedUser]

And you think Nexus that being a bully and taking nothing but smaller players out of the game makes the bigger player look good?

I thought this was a tribal game? Doesn't it look very good when a tribe of 79 "bullies" a tribe of 198??

 

[DeletedUser1260]

Hey all, Thought I'd give it another try at implementing a well needed future.

Issue 1
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.

Suggestions For Issue 1
A. 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 automatically get it from losing their city). Seems simple enough, and will at least slow down all the crap MRT's in this game.

Answer: Some tribes see more numbers as an answer to get in as many members as they can, so as members lose interest in the game or are found unworthy they keep the active members and hold onto the villages and member of inactives to keep their rank. Co-play has not helped this issue. - The MRT strategy. The new skill system was to help combat some of this. As for barb eating you want to take away the coins and the nobles of the person after you take over their village. Ok, so the system changes, how does this effect people that don't eat barbs and take on players?

B. Place nobles in the hospital or on Ice for 7-14 days. It allows the player to still have said nobles, but stops them from capturing a barbarian village right away. - Turtlopis

Answer: Ok so we put in a cooling off period for those that lose a village and again how does this effect the people that are not barb munchers and are only attacking players?



Problems With Solutions For These Issues
A. What about Morale/Faith issues due to players losing their cities? -Jaded One
1. The game has Morale for a reason. I'm sure most of the players on TW2 will take the morale issues (As most already are) over having to farm their lives off to get more nobles to constantly eat more cities from barb eaters.
2. Faith has nothing to do with this argument. If you don't lose a village, you wont have a noble sitting on "Ice." It will still allow you to take more villages.

Answer:
1. Morale is not to safeguard barb eaters but to safeguard smaller players. Barb eaters are growin themselves into attack penalties faster then they can put troops into them.
2. Faith does have to do with this arguement because it works hand in hand with morale to help smaller players from being over run and by taking away their nobles and coins you are putting them into a position to fail in the game.
Issue 2
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.

Answer: I see this as a morale/ faith issue, because if you attack a player that is even size as you the 3 nobles work, but if you take on a smaller player with a chapel/ church in a province the defense of that village works in their favor and the bigger player will lose.



Thanks for your time,
The Ruthless coldog22

 

[DeletedUser]

Answer: I see this as a morale/ faith issue, because if you attack a player that is even size as you the 3 nobles work, but if you take on a smaller player with a chapel/ church in a province the defense of that village works in their favor and the bigger player will lose.

Yeah I don't think it actually works like that. Pretty sure its a random number between the available range, depending on weapon use of course, irrespective of the opponent's size. And if this is not the case then TW2 has been lying to us lol. But hey maybe that is another answer to bashing, (Off-topic) reduce the effective range of nobles based on the morale of the attack, so 10 - 15 when attacking player X below you, and so forth...

That being said, there is a difference between bullying and playing the game. If I start attacking a player who has the same points as me, and slowly but surely start overtaking him, at no point does that become bullying, it is the point of the game. But to try and protect said player from the natural course of the game with the current coin system just makes it seem like the devs consider any attack is bullying...

 

[DeletedUser1260]

No smaller tribe members can combat all this stuff you guys keep talking about. If they can only handle a small amount of village, take them with you. They clear and kick village to the bigger player. Keeping only 5 villages. As they move forward, they kick their villages behind them for the monster to control and take.

 

[DeletedUser]

No smaller tribe members can combat all this stuff you guys keep talking about. If they can only handle a small amount of village, take them with you. They clear and kick village to the bigger player. Keeping only 5 villages. As they move forward, they kick their villages behind them for the monster to control and take.

If that is the official stance of IG, you might as well change the name of the game to "Stalemate", because that's all the current system is creating.

And honestly, that isn't teamwork Jaded, that's abuse of the system, or "Pushing" as the rules would call it. Using a smaller player to push resources, in this case the resource is a village, to a larger player is explicitly against the rules, so I am not sure why that would be your suggestion...

 

[DeletedUser]

No smaller tribe members can combat all this stuff you guys keep talking about. If they can only handle a small amount of village, take them with you. They clear and kick village to the bigger player. Keeping only 5 villages. As they move forward, they kick their villages behind them for the monster to control and take.

*bangs head on desk* No.

The problem is this, how do I "rim" a barb nobler with 30 villages? How do I eat all 30 of their villages before they replace the 30 with new barbs? It becomes a never ending loop that I lose because of the rising cost of Nobles for me and the complete lack of cost for them. Really need to stay on point here.

 

[DeletedUser1260]

Yeah I don't think it actually works like that. Pretty sure its a random number between the available range, depending on weapon use of course, irrespective of the opponent's size. And if this is not the case then TW2 has been lying to us lol. But hey maybe that is another answer to bashing, (Off-topic) reduce the effective range of nobles based on the morale of the attack, so 10 - 15 when attacking player X below you, and so forth...

That being said, there is a difference between bullying and playing the game. If I start attacking a player who has the same points as me, and slowly but surely start overtaking him, at no point does that become bullying, it is the point of the game. But to try and protect said player from the natural course of the game with the current coin system just makes it seem like the devs consider any attack is bullying...

So now you have the player that had 23 villages down to 5 villages and you have all the villages you took from them. Yes morale does work like that, we want people to continue to fight and play the game, not move to the next world because they are losing so bad. Alnwick is dead, between MRTS and monsters the game play has grown stale. People eating barbs just to fill out their percentages. I really think instead of changing all this you guys should wait to see what a real endgame looks like before we change the way to get and keep nobles.

 

[DeletedUser1260]

It is not pushing if it is 2 players the problem with that comes in when people abuse the co-op player.

It is using strategy to combat the morale issue. Some people can't handle 100 villages and quit when they get forced to play that way. If a member of your squad wants to play but keep a handful of villages. That is the way they want to play.

 

[DeletedUser]

As for the cool down, it affects players taking player villages the same way... but they tend to lose less villages as they grow at a more controlled rate (they require troops to clear and grow which means they have to stay more in control which in turn keeps things easier to defend).

Players that attack other players tend to have troops to defend and don't lose villages at nearly the same clip as barb taking players. Shouldn't that show up on the leaderboard instead of simply allowing the barb noblers to take a new barb and retain their ranking even though they are losing villages each day?