Speed Server (Page 2 of 7)

i dont really understand what is the discussion here. theres almost no game where small and big players can normally coexist with each other. usually new players start far away from big old players, but it requires high player base too.

when i started on speed server i reseted my account couple of times until i landed in peaceful location with no big players around. right now i have no problems with growing. im still however somewhere in the middle of the map and i dont understand why not on the border.

also for example in travian registration is opened for a limited amount of time and at some point there are no new players. but there game is 'seasonal'.

i dont think that changing alliances will fix the situation here. if players want to have peace treaty with most of the server then you cant really force them against. you cant 'make' them attack. you can only persuade them to do so by giving some profits. and now i wonder - when my village got bigger on stable game became boring because theres not much to do. with 2 attacks i got enough runes for 2-3 weeks. in 1 day i can build max 4 buildings unless im upgrading castle which can take days. i have no need to attack - my storehouses are full of both resources and runes.

maybe similar situation is on speed? maybe players dont want to fight because they dont really need more runes / resources? maybe some ultimate objective should be added, like wonders in travian?

That is not my claim.  My claim is that players who do not feel they can play competitively will quit.  It is implied that with current game mechanics, a small group with most of the power will removed the ability to play competitively from the rest of the players.

Now I never asserted that a change in mechanics would not work.  What I asserted is that it will require development, testing and time while this method requires none of those.

This is true, and I can agree with.  This idea is not intended to be a final solution to the problem, but rather fix that can be applied immediately.  Why wait till a development solution can be programmed, tested, debugged and implemented when changes can be applied now by the players to help resolve the issue.

We have never asked you to create ideas.  We were the ones who suggested numerous ideas to help improve the game for everyone, yet all met with nothing but immediate negativity on your end.

Current Ranking on Speed: #1

Owner of: Property of Tyranicus, Lil' Tyrania, and Baby Villa

creating large player base = attracting new players.
new players are small
big alliances you were talking about consist of big players
your propositions affect large players in order to get more small players

how is it not It is not about small players living with large players?

or by creating large player base you mean giving some competition to large players so they dont stop playing?

well then, maybe we should ask why large players create those large alliances and dont want to make wars even if they want to wage wars

Allow multiple smaller villages to combine troops into one attack vs a larger village and you shift the balance of power. This simple change will let up and coming players that coordinate aggressively into the action immediately, force veterans to stay active and coordinate for survival and will mitigate the frustration of being farmed by larger players and feeling helpless to respond.

Tyranicus, we are looking at an issue of player behavior, not game mechanics.

Again Tyranicus, start a new thread if you want to talk about that.  We can address its shortcomings somewhere else once more.

no, the choice is actually the original poster's

OK, before I go into RANT mode, I'd like to point something out about my earlier post that seems to have been missed.

I don't completely disagree with DoomPope's suggestion that changing player behavior might have an impact on the activity and participation levels on Speed.

What I question is how one expects a set of "house rules" to be followed if there is no enforcement built in to the game mechanics?

SOMEONE is going to "break the rules" either inadvertently or intentionally, or perhaps only just APPEAR to. If they benefit from it, others are likely to consider it, too, when an opportunity arises.

Before Doom starts accusing me of committing the "slippery slope" fallacy, consider this: A certain Moderator has frequently commented in open chat on Speed that the leaders of a certain clan are "liars." Does this indicate a level of trust & respect needed to follow a new set of "house rules?"

RANT

Oh my freaking gawd!

Helli & Whamra did you two actually read the opening post?

In post #38 above Tyranicus quoted from DoomPope's FIRST post, one of the extremely pertinent points raised by "the original poster" in this thread (in the General Chat forum no less -- does that not imply others are invited to chat?) titled "Speed Server," a point a number of people have tried to address in different ways. DoomPope did not invent the various categories of "logical fallacy," so his simply asserting that others' suggestions are logically flawed does not necessarily make them so.

Why don't you just admit you don't want to see debate on this subject, instead of outright squashing ideas you disagree with?

Or does your concept of the original poster "owning" a thread also apply to the rules of logic, too?

/RANT

You are refuting an idea by introducing another, older related idea...  Stating that "I had an idea, but no one listened" is a Red Herring argument.

While it is true that nothing can truly stop people from breaking any sort of rules a distribution of power within the game will certainly help solve the issue of a rogue clan.  Granted it existed with a different set of people but the stable server was posed to become a server with a singular power but there were three fairly equal clans that could provide a system of checks on one another.  Now I know that the speed and stable servers are different, but they are similar, and similar events should be possible on both.  With that said rejecting the idea because it 'may not work' is not really a valid argument against it

The subject was presented in the original post.  Undermining it by stating other ideas that have not been implemented makes it no less valid.  Debates used logical points to disprove the original assertion, not logical fallacies.  There is no need to debate other, related ideas in reference to this one, as that would be logically fallacious. 

I don't think anyone owns rules of logic, or the thread.  People have the right to say what they wish, and they are doing so.  However if someone want to contest the main points validity I also have the right to refute their logic, with rules of logic.

I am not sure why the people on the speed server who troll the forums and other servers feel so offended by this.  You don't need to do it, it is a suggestion to help you resolve an issue you are having.  If you don't want to consider it, don't.

no, what I am saying is that when asked to solve the issue of low activity on speed this is a method to help solve that.   They can continue on their current course which has led them here, or they can choose to change for the better. Not my say what they do. But asking someone to give ideas to solve a problem then attacking them when they do seems a bit off.

I would not say they have the obligation.  Under the game mechanics it is perfectly acceptable to try to kill everyone else... and succeed at it.  Problem with doing so is that it drives down competition to the point where people quit.  This is a perfectly acceptable way to play the game if a group sees fit.  This method however is not very viable as a long term strategy. 

Now I do not play on the server (statistically a lot of people don't play on the server) so if the people want to change to increase a player base I really have no benefit from it.  They have the power to enact change, they have a method.  Question is, do they actually want to use actions to reach the goal, or complacency.