This World

This world fascinates me, I am not in the world so I don't know how things are operating. Based on all indications of stats, this world is the most passive so far. I'm kind of curious if either tribe can explain what is going on. I look at the conquests and it's almost all barb captures http://www.tw2-tools.com/en5/conquests/ Looking at the tribal stats it has some of the worse stats of all worlds. The #1 player has an embarassing obp/pt ratio and nearly a 11k point ppv. If someone could give me the low down on this world I am quite interested
 
As I see it:

1. Two sides - neither interested in merging just to get a technical win.
2. The leading tribe highly defensive, number's focussed and with between 25% to 50% of accounts inactive or being co-op'd.
3. The second tribe more offensive but only a handful of players able/willing to do so. Also suffering inactive accounts.
4. Front lines mostly stacked with defence from the back lines.
5. Leading tribe trying to get to the 70% village count, hence the barb nobling.
6. Too many inactives on both sides.
7. Indecisive quitters (disappear for weeks then return).
8. Several 'personal' naps in place.
9. Game is too slow to make nobles/troops to make any real inroads into active players for either side.

This is what triggered my post in the main forum about the late game pace. Most of these problems could be solved by speeding up the late game considerably in all areas: troop production, coins, travel speed, barbarianisation rate, resetting of co-ops.


Its that slow the mods have even stopped updating the leaderboard.
 
Thanks, yea i saw your post on the pace of game, a lot of those things could help prevent this situation. its crazy though if all the people keep logging in that currently are this world could last a long time
 
This isnt TW, 5 worlds have already ended with most ending in under a year as you would know being the winner of the shortest run world
Not sure if you're being serious but the win conditions are completely different but in reality it's a remake of TW. Thanks for your smart-ass response though, keep trying.
 
I'm not sure why you responded in the first place as you had nothing to add. i'm well aware this the successor to tribal wars, but by using facts, which i know you're not a fan of, there has not been any worlds that have lasted years as most worlds finish in 1-1.5 years
 
I'm not sure why you responded in the first place as you had nothing to add. i'm well aware this the successor to tribal wars, but by using facts, which i know you're not a fan of, there has not been any worlds that have lasted years as most worlds finish in 1-1.5 years
As you're known not to read posts, the winning conditions have made it so worlds are won much earlier compared to TW1.

Back on topic; this should change once they FINALLY (who knows when..) release the "full" game and start releasing 2x, 3x, 5x etc worlds along with Fortresses. But I only see Fortresses as prolonging the game though.
 
Do you enjoy contradicting yourself? yes win co ditions are set so worlds end early which is why bringing up TW. I've never seen someone that enjoys getting destroyed in arguments/debates like you do
 
Do you enjoy contradicting yourself? yes win co ditions are set so worlds end early which is why bringing up TW. I've never seen someone that enjoys getting destroyed in arguments/debates like you do
Huh? It was simply in reply to your comment of "this world could last a long time". Which really, isn't anything to be surprised about when it comes to Tribal Wars. You're the one creating a needless argument simply for the sake of arguing.
Now run off little boy.
 
As far as I can see not a single player has won a world. They have all been triggered by merges. Quite what satisfaction anyone gets from 'winning' this way is beyond me.

I don't think we'll ever see a proper end game nor any speed up worlds. Quite simply the micro transaction model is only making money for the game in the first 3 months of a world. After that the model becomes a) unnecessary and b) too expensive for any player.

Thats why this artificial win condition was implemented, just to provide an easy way of shutting down dead (money wise) worlds.
 
Huh? It was simply in reply to your comment of "this world could last a long time". Which really, isn't anything to be surprised about when it comes to Tribal Wars. You're the one creating a needless argument simply for the sake of arguing.
Now run off little boy.
This isnt the original tw, i dont know why you cant comprehend this part. Bringing up the original has no purpose to this discussion, you're not aidzregenslayer secretly in disguise are you? your arguments suffer from the same lack of complete pair of chromosomes as his does
 
This isnt the original tw, i dont know why you cant comprehend this part. Bringing up the original has no purpose to this discussion, you're not aidzregenslayer secretly in disguise are you? your arguments suffer from the same lack of complete pair of chromosomes as his does
This was made as a REMAKE of TW. It's obviously being changed with new features and suggestions by the players but you can find MANY THINGS exactly the same on TW as you would TW2. Slowly it's being moulded into a new game.
Seriously you're as dense as a brick wall. Now seriously, scuttle off boy. Go find someone else to argue with like seems to be the norm with you.

Gotta love those ad hominems that make up the basis of most of your arguments.
 
Jesus guys clearly you are both right. TW2 is different but shares many ideas with TW1. So what.

Now instead of arguing why don't you actually discuss the real issues with the game.
 
This was made as a REMAKE of TW. It's obviously being changed with new features and suggestions by the players but you can find MANY THINGS exactly the same on TW as you would TW2. Slowly it's being moulded into a new game.
Seriously you're as dense as a brick wall. Now seriously, scuttle off boy. Go find someone else to argue with like seems to be the norm with you.

Gotta love those ad hominems that make up the basis of most of your arguments.
Congrats on your investigative work of deciphering that TW2 is the successor of TW, without your infinite knowledge we would be lost without you. You brought up TW for absolutely no reason, when I tried to find information about the current status of the world. Please enlighten me of which ad hominems I committed, because stating facts aren't one

Jesus guys clearly you are both right. TW2 is different but shares many ideas with TW1. So what.

Now instead of arguing why don't you actually discuss the real issues with the game.
Unfortunately seph hijacks the thread because the red river is flowing again, so there is little chance of having an intelligent conversation with her spewing nonsense
 
Congrats on your investigative work of deciphering that TW2 is the successor of TW, without your infinite knowledge we would be lost without you. You brought up TW for absolutely no reason, when I tried to find information about the current status of the world. Please enlighten me of which ad hominems I committed, because stating facts aren't one
I'll let you continue fighting your straw man.


Jesus guys clearly you are both right. TW2 is different but shares many ideas with TW1. So what.
Now instead of arguing why don't you actually discuss the real issues with the game.
Well, it's hard to say this without triggering Shekel again but the end-game is almost exactly the same as TW1 where it's simply (capture all enemy villages) but this time they've "kindly" put a cap on what we needed to achieve before world domination was reached.
With this new proposed end-game of Fortresses, I still don't see it speeding up, rather I see it as further slowing down the pace of the game as people will create almost city like defenses around these fortresses that will become almost impossible to break.

Sure, they can find ways of deleting inactive accounts, "try" fixing co-op and so on, but without changing core game mechanics, the game will still be ever so slow.
 
Not sure its core game mechanics that needs to change really. My issue at the moment is so many inactive villages up for grabs, not enough nobles and travel time a major blocker. On the attacking front same applies, lots of troops available, not enough nobles and travel times prohibitive. This is on a world that is 15 ish months old and I have 650 villages.

So the solution as I see it is fairly simple. As the game progresses the nobles should come easier. The coin formula should not keep pace with village count. Cap the coin requirement off somewhere reasonable (200-300 villages). If I could make 40 nobles a week instead of 10, then the game progresses much faster, we clear the inactives faster, we infiltrate enemy/new territory faster.

There are probably 5,000 inactive villages on EN5, maybe more I don't have the numbers. That will take years to clear at current pace. And that's not even counting for attacking anyone active, which is obviously still desired.
 
I'll let you continue fighting your straw man.
Do you even know what strawmanning is, because what you did was strawmanning, and started with the ad hominem. The post started out asking about this world as it is by all accounts different then the other worlds. dan responded with his reasoning to which i replied that at the current rate this world will last years. you brought up the original tw game which has nothing to do with the argument

Not sure its core game mechanics that needs to change really. My issue at the moment is so many inactive villages up for grabs, not enough nobles and travel time a major blocker. On the attacking front same applies, lots of troops available, not enough nobles and travel times prohibitive. This is on a world that is 15 ish months old and I have 650 villages.

So the solution as I see it is fairly simple. As the game progresses the nobles should come easier. The coin formula should not keep pace with village count. Cap the coin requirement off somewhere reasonable (200-300 villages). If I could make 40 nobles a week instead of 10, then the game progresses much faster, we clear the inactives faster, we infiltrate enemy/new territory faster.

There are probably 5,000 inactive villages on EN5, maybe more I don't have the numbers. That will take years to clear at current pace. And that's not even counting for attacking anyone active, which is obviously still desired.
You are right there is an issue in the long term for this game if tribes don't concede and merge to end, but then again we can just compare it to the original TW game
 
Do you even know what strawmanning is, because what you did was strawmanning, and started with the ad hominem. The post started out asking about this world as it is by all accounts different then the other worlds. dan responded with his reasoning to which i replied that at the current rate this world will last years. you brought up the original tw game which has nothing to do with the argument
I brought up TW because TW worlds lasted years. So it's really nothing different IF THE SAME COMPANY THAT MAKES BOTH GAMES CREATED A NEW GAME THAT ALSO LAST YEARS. THAT'S ALL I MEANT BY MY COMMENT. You then started straw-manning what I said by saying TW2 is ends much earlier blablabla, different game blablabla, but my comment was only directed to the fact this world could last years and if anything, that was kind of Inno's intention until we forced them to implement some sort of end-game condition. That is LITERALLY the definition of what straw-manning is!

You're seriously arguing for the sake of arguing.

Not sure its core game mechanics that needs to change really. My issue at the moment is so many inactive villages up for grabs, not enough nobles and travel time a major blocker. On the attacking front same applies, lots of troops available, not enough nobles and travel times prohibitive. This is on a world that is 15 ish months old and I have 650 villages.

So the solution as I see it is fairly simple. As the game progresses the nobles should come easier. The coin formula should not keep pace with village count. Cap the coin requirement off somewhere reasonable (200-300 villages). If I could make 40 nobles a week instead of 10, then the game progresses much faster, we clear the inactives faster, we infiltrate enemy/new territory faster.

There are probably 5,000 inactive villages on EN5, maybe more I don't have the numbers. That will take years to clear at current pace. And that's not even counting for attacking anyone active, which is obviously still desired.

You start off by say you're not sure if core-game mechanics need to change but then you suggest a core-game mechanic be changed.. lol.

Sure that sounds fine, but that'll require quit a bit of planning from Inno. When do they roughly want worlds to end? What's an average number of villages by end game? WHEN is end game? How will Fort's affect this? So many questions Inno have to answer before they can change a game mechanic like you've just mentioned.
 
You start off by say you're not sure if core-game mechanics need to change but then you suggest a core-game mechanic be changed.. lol.

Sure that sounds fine, but that'll require quit a bit of planning from Inno. When do they roughly want worlds to end? What's an average number of villages by end game? WHEN is end game? How will Fort's affect this? So many questions Inno have to answer before they can change a game mechanic like you've just mentioned.
Ok its semantics. Coin minting speed is not a core game mechanic its a speed related variable. In my opinion.

The other questions you raise are good ones. I just wish innogames would answer these things for us. I have a hypothesis that a world makes next to zero money after 3 months. Ive stated it multiple times on here. Maybe you are right and inno simply don't want the game to be interesting and sped up after a year and half of play because it makes them no money. I'd have more respect for them if they just come out and said that.