PDA

View Full Version : A Controversial Idea that I don't Expect to Happen.



Yeltz Inc.
02-18-2014, 01:39 PM
(I have no intentions of this idea actually passing, but simply using it as a flashlight.)

I -an active troll wars player for the past 42 days- dream to one day be a top player, but this is impossible now thanks to new systems that have been created. All the games top players earned several relics from donations, but I will not be able to this. Just as any other players with under 2,000 relics will be unable to progress with the game in its current state. THE major problem of course being lack of competition for 2k+ relic players.

I see two vibrant solutions. One would be hated, and the other I am unsure as to how the community would react.

The first of which -the more harsh but easier of the two- being a planned relic reset. No need to elaborate. All the consequences for this are evident.

The second of the two, is changing the overall way in which a battle is found from relics to stars. I've seen this idea posted before and I more than agree. Or perhaps it could fallback on people within 3 stars of you after it's unable to find in range players relic-wise. Again, you guys know the positives and negatives to doing this. (Issac Yeltz)

mss73
02-18-2014, 02:28 PM
Mixed idea: relic reset, and after that:

http://forum.hugogames.com/showthread.php?423

Yeltz Inc.
02-18-2014, 02:34 PM
I wouldn't oppose.

johnballans@yahoo.co.uk
02-18-2014, 09:16 PM
My troll player Barnsley Tykes is ranked number 5 in the world @ 3,200 relics. A lot of this gained through donating to the old cooperative scoring system as you rightly say. I personally have written to the game admin and designers in both the public area of the forum and the VIP area as I am a game .moderator. I have suggested that we reset the benchmark on relics. For example 1500 for all the top players. The better players committed to the game would soon be on top but not out of reach like some medieval warlords as we currently are. Imagine the competition. All I want is a competitive and meaningful leaderboard and therefore a better game. I want guys like you Yeltz to challenge me I am bored. However the admin replied to one of the other moderators with similar ideas that such realignment of the game was not in there plans. To me personally I have yet to receive a reply. To quote from mss73 I remain an optimistic sceptic on this issue.

John (Barnsley Tykes)

Neznam
02-18-2014, 09:22 PM
To be honest a relic reset I wouldn't affect me. I have very few relics. Now If I had a lot of them a reset would be out of the question so it would only fuel the anger of other players rather than fix the issue so I don't see this happening at all nor would I want it to happen.

Now I still oppose changing from amount of relics to stars to determine who will be your opponent. Reason being is the star number is not accurate. Some people who have a higher star count have bases that look like a level 15 base and not the level 27 that is displayed. Doing this might fix the issue for a group of players but what you must realize that the overall has to be fixed. Something has to be figured out to benefit most of the players not just a portion.

Perhaps a mix of the two. It's just not as simple as it sounds guys. Doing this could completely throw everything out of whack.

I still don't see a problem with using only relics to find opponents. I've played similar style games and they all use this system and it works. Perhaps there are some tweaks that need to be worked out but this might not be one of them.

Yeltz Inc.
02-18-2014, 10:55 PM
That's unfortunate. A major inclusion of that kind is necessary to Troll Wars' survival John.

Neznam
02-18-2014, 11:14 PM
That's unfortunate. A major inclusion of that kind is necessary to Troll Wars' survival John.

A major of some kind is needed I wouldn't argue about that but I have my doubts about this one. Maybe I am wrong and this is exactly what's needed but something has to be done because if it's too late I fear that the players will leave and not come back. A few of my friends have already parted ways with the game and switched over to similar style ones. I still believe that it can be saved. Don't let me down.

mss73
02-19-2014, 01:18 AM
I continue to insist on a mixed system that takes into account and relics, and the stars. Why rush to extremes?

I do not know what you've said about the compliance of the number of stars and the appearance of the base. That I meet quite adequate.

But in fact the star do not include upgrades troops. Not at all.

If I do not develop a base and focus, for example by 20 stars. And I will only fight and upgrade troops.
The result? If I will give the opponent by number of stars, then I will crush them all to pieces! ALL. No matter what I will beat 1-2 times a day and put shields. I will be a leader in the relics!

Another point that those who Donate only builders (constructors?), eventually forces are less developed than the base. Compared with a player who did not pay, with the same number of stars.
Many believe that only pay builders it is quite logical, and many are doing so.

Star itself is not an indicator of the total force of Player!

Suppose develop the mine to the maximum, the town hall, and everything that is connected with the creation of troops.
A general protection zero leave. How many stars will turn out? :)
While the maximum army maximum force

___

When mixed system, over time the situation stabilized.

When all at zero relics, then each will be available to players, say +3 / -3 levels.

But one who attains relics fall into the corridor, which is slightly higher, and situation by itself stabilizes
for example he could attack -2 / +4 stars with zero relics
even more relics -1 / +5
approximate figures here

But! A player will never be able to get someone who is much weaker than him. Maintaining dependence on relics.

johnballans@yahoo.co.uk
02-19-2014, 10:46 AM
Neznam in my alliance one of our top players 27 stars currently 183 relics. Which of them stats do you honestly think reflects his ability in the game. I pass no judgement on players dropping relics it is currently a fact of the game. I struggle to understand the defence of the relics ranking system though. Yes there are some anomalies with the star system. These though are rarer. Some are due to glitches some are just this wonderful game. The relic scoring system however is massively abused. In my alliance I would say at least 85% of active players regularly drop relics. Why? To get more battles and resources. When I go into battle with my witch side only 21 stars do you think I look at an opponents relics? Of course not. If a player has 23-24 stars there if no point in attacking as they will annihilate me. They will have similar relics to me though and that's how they were selected. This is not simply a system that does not work efficiently but one that is not fit for purpose. I am glad that we are having this debate as it needs to be had. We all are passionate players of the game. Just a point to ponder on. Deliberately dropping relics is that not using an exploit in the game? What makes such an exploit different from the one currently widely in use that is resulting in lots of players getting banned? I admit I don't know this exploits details otherwise I would be banned lol. Not judgement just a thought. Keep enjoying the game all

John

Neznam
02-19-2014, 07:09 PM
I stand by what I've said. Similar style games use the same system and they are very successful. I don't believe dropping relics so that you can fight weaker players is exploiting the game. Why? Well what is the main way one is able to get money in the game? Through fighting others. You can't get the millions, that is required to upgrade buildings not to mention those expensive walls, through your mines only.

If you only fought players that were about the same level as you then getting money would be extremely hard and people already complain enough that it's hard even with the current system.

I agree about debating this so that we can come to the best conclusion in the end. I still believe it would be a mistake to change it to using stars instead of relics. It would mean a weak player can be ranked high if he was the strongest of the weak players. Sort of doesn't make sense.

Now what if there was a way we could encourage people to stop dropping in relics. How? Use a system of ranking by the amount of relics you have. The higher rank in relics the better bonus money and wax you get for defeating a player. For example at 0-50 relics for a win you get a bonus of 2000 gold and wax. At 50-100 relics bonus would be say 3000. Etc can go to as high as for example at 1000 relics you would get a bonus of 50000 wax and gold. Or maybe 100000. That way people don't need to drop in relics because they would be getting bonus gold and wax. It's sort of a similar system another game has but it doesn't have to be exactly like this. Perhaps another way o encourage people not to drop in relics.

mss73
02-20-2014, 12:30 AM
If the strong do not give a strong save resources, then imagine what a weak, which is constantly being robbed by strong!

Still, something must be done with the resources of the missions ...

Neznam
02-20-2014, 01:07 AM
It's not constant. That's why shields have been implemented. When your base is destroyed you get a shield that protects you for some time. And let's face it, if you are a low level then you don't need to save up millions in which case the most you get robbed off of is somewhere in the thousands or tens of thousands. It's no big deal. It's a part of the game. If you play longer and are able to reach that higher level you will be able to protect your savings more.

When I was in the lower levels I've always spent my money on upgrades and rarely lost much. I don't see it being a big deal. Everyone goes through it.

If it's a problem then bring back campaign money like it used to be.

mark
03-02-2014, 01:47 PM
I was very disappointed in the way the leaderboard was handled and how long it took to resolve.

As another moderator I had also asked for everyone above 1300 points to be reset to 1300 and that the leaders would sort themselves out very quickly.

Unfortunately as it stands the game has no competitive nature or incentives to play competively, I really hope this is rectified soon.

johnballans@yahoo.co.uk
03-02-2014, 04:20 PM
I agree with you entirely Mark. And as one of the player as to be most affected I feel I am in a position to comment on this. I have written on this subject at length and I received comments that could be viewed as derisively or accusing. Yes there would be a bit of chaos at first and bullying by stronger players. However the result would be a meaningful competative leaderboard. This however looks unlikely to happen.

John

Neznam
03-02-2014, 07:20 PM
I had no idea so many were considering this. Perhaps if enough people voice that they really want this to happen then maybe it just might. You never know, I mean people did complain that the army developing was slow and expensive and we've seen improvements there.