Passed On: 26 points restart

[DeletedUser]

If you manage to restart your neighbour
you get a new lucrative farm.
Or a well-formed city later on.
But what...
if his old village shrinks to 26 points? :icon_razz:
[SPOIL]

The villagers packed all the movable equipment on their horses and covered wagons
leaving nothing but burned land and memories behind.
Don't look back, the farmer said. Never look back..[/SPOIL]

 

[DeletedUser]

but then your one-village noble targets will always do that right before they are nobled :S

 

[DeletedUser]

yes, if he's online and wants to continue playing^^

it would make the startup much more safe
and more interesting later on.

 

[DeletedUser]

Are you suggesting a situation where if a player restarts, their old village reduces to a 26 point barbarian village?

 

[DeletedUser]

Are you suggesting a situation where if a player restarts, their old village reduces to a 26 point barbarian village?

exactly^^

 

[DeletedUser]

That would be horribly abused. Consider an early game situation in which a player has out-fought a rival, and has sent the final noble needed to take his high-point village. At the last second, when he can't do anything else, the beaten player restarts, leaving the winning player to take his now useless 26 point village. How would you suggest avoiding this sort of exploit?

 

[DeletedUser]

That would be horribly abused. Consider an early game situation in which a player has out-fought a rival, and has sent the final noble needed to take his high-point village. At the last second, when he can't do anything else, the beaten player restarts, leaving the winning player to take his now useless 26 point village. How would you suggest avoiding this sort of exploit?

easy - make it so it takes 24-48 hours to restart during which you can't access the account, give the nobles time to land, kind of like deleting an account

 

[DeletedUser]

sometimes it may take longer than 48 hours to noble someone. this is a rubbish suggestion

 

[DeletedUser]

If you're nobling more than 48 hours out during startup, whoever told you to play tw made a rubbish suggestion...

 

[DeletedUser]

That would be horribly abused. Consider an early game situation in which a player has out-fought a rival, and has sent the final noble needed to take his high-point village. At the last second, when he can't do anything else, the beaten player restarts, leaving the winning player to take his now useless 26 point village. How would you suggest avoiding this sort of exploit?

..and from loosers side its a revenge (heidy)

The winner simply has to wait until the looser has nobled a 2nd village.
Restart is only possible with 1 villa

 

[DeletedUser]

If you're nobling more than 48 hours out during startup, whoever told you to play tw made a rubbish suggestion...

i never said anything about start up. some people have one village nearer the endgame.

 

[DeletedUser]

..and from loosers side its a revenge (heidy)

The winner simply has to wait until the looser has nobled a 2nd village.
Restart is only possible with 1 villa

That's going to slow down the initial phase horribly, not to mention the fact that in order to get two villages, you have to noble someone else, and someone has to noble someone else first... it would result in yet another increase in barb nobling as people wouldn't want to risk not getting a built up village, which would just kill wars and PvP fighting even more.

 

[DeletedUser]

bad idea - most of the negative points were already mentioned and there are still more ...

 

[marcus the mad]

Instead of making it 'unable to acces for 24 hours or so', just make it 'unable to restart when loyalty is below 100' or 'nobles inbound'

 

[DeletedUser]

Instead of making it 'unable to acces for 24 hours or so', just make it 'unable to restart when loyalty is below 100' or 'nobles inbound'

Yeah that was what i was thinking. But some people would tease you and just drop a noble now and than so you can't restart but you still built your village further. I don't like the idea.

 

[DeletedUser]

But if you cant restart and your loyalty is 100, you will know automatically you have nobles inbound...

terrible idea. Thats all I have to say

Keep trying though

 

[DeletedUser]

I personally think when a player deletes, or restarts, his villages should slowly degrade to the barbarian max on that world. If Barbs grow to 1000 points, then abandoned villages, after a week of being abandoned would degrade to 1000 points eventually at the same rate it takes to build the villages up, just in reverse.

This would encourage players to noble other players larger villages, instead of the barbarians, and if a player went barb, they'd still have an opportunity to eat the ones they wanted in and around their clusters before they shrunk back down.

Not quite the idea the OP had, but something that I think would be more palatable.

 

[DeletedUser]

Certainly a gradual loss would be a lot better than an instant. It would avoid the exploit of restarting to take vengeance.

 

[marcus the mad]

I personally think when a player deletes, or restarts, his villages should slowly degrade to the barbarian max on that world. If Barbs grow to 1000 points, then abandoned villages, after a week of being abandoned would degrade to 1000 points eventually at the same rate it takes to build the villages up, just in reverse.

This would encourage players to noble other players larger villages, instead of the barbarians, and if a player went barb, they'd still have an opportunity to eat the ones they wanted in and around their clusters before they shrunk back down.

Not quite the idea the OP had, but something that I think would be more palatable.

Taking earlier issues into account (I think too much inside the box), this would indeed be a better option.

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't like this idea, many reasons have been given above.

When I noble a village, I want to get that village. Not some cut-down version of it.