DeletedUser255
Guest
You would be surprised, however steeping your point in sarcasm and vitriol tends to distract from what you are trying to say.
It was late, I'd been drinking, hence 3 posts in a row. But seriously, your tribe has 6 times the villas as the tribe in 2nd. Unless your tribe is completely terrible, you should be steamrolling any opposition that's left. To me, that isn't any fun. When I'm winning my fights just because I can send 3 nukes to every villa the guy owns there's no more challenge anymore. Right now if your tribe said screw it, we're bored and took in the #2 Tribe to end this fight immediately, would that make your tribe worse?You would be surprised, however steeping your point in sarcasm and vitriol tends to distract from what you are trying to say.
Most experienced leaders know that the best test of players for staying power is to let them work out their areas, rather than to align everyone, so many so, that you require a second tribe to hold them all.I have received a warning for merely having an overflow tribe on a brand new world. The overflow tribe is temporary to simply see who actually will stay and become serious about playing on this world.
It seems that even the earliest possible merges are now against the rules. o_o
I'm not sure tribe domination as an endgame will work if all merges are basically against the rules now.
I really hope that the new endgame gets finished and added to the game soon, or this game as a concept is over.
Most experienced leaders know that the best test of players for staying power is to let them work out their areas, rather than to align everyone, so many so, that you require a second tribe to hold them all.
Being disqualified for winning is the same as being banned. People are competitive.No where did it state there would be bans. Your tribes villages would simply be disqualified from Domination. They will not count.
Why in the world would you want the best 200 in a tribe? How is a world fun then? Fun for new players? All US worlds that have been won, is usually the exact same people who constantly win, through having two tribes dominate, then merge. This rule is to prevent that, and have ONE tribe win through FIGHTING.
Most experienced leaders know that the best test of players for staying power is to let them work out their areas, rather than to align everyone, so many so, that you require a second tribe to hold them all.
Your constant justification of aligning all active players because of the expectation that enough will quit that you can merge the survivors into a single tribe is tedious.Most experienced leaders know working out your area has literally nothing to do with staying power. Staying power is at least 50% chance in this game. We've lost people who died IRL, I had one dude break his back, and numerous others have job changes/real life issues that forced them to quit playing. Even if you had a tribe of 200 total TW2 addicts, you'll still lose at least 50 of them by the end of the world.
In certain cases it is,You mean diplomacy is abusing the player base?
You don't NEED to ally every tribe that just happens to have a common enemy with you.Literally, you are talking about diplomacy. How dare we have two tribes work together to fight common enemies. Seriously, whether we merge or not, we'd be allies until our enemies are dead.
I think I'm missing something here. People who enjoy playing together, form tribes. People naturally continue to seek ways of joining up with other people who look at the game the same way, who they've played the game with before, who they have fun with.No where did it state there would be bans. Your tribes villages would simply be disqualified from Domination. They will not count.
Why in the world would you want the best 200 in a tribe? How is a world fun then? Fun for new players? All US worlds that have been won, is usually the exact same people who constantly win, through having two tribes dominate, then merge. This rule is to prevent that, and have ONE tribe win through FIGHTING.
So let me get this straight. Recruiting too many players is abuse and diplomacy is abuse, so really the only way to win is to start off with a tribe of the best players... So the most effective way to win according to these rules would be to start a tribe with 200 good players I know from previous worlds. If I do that there will literally be nothing my opponents can do to stop me since their tribes will have new players and mine won't have as many weak spotsIn certain cases it is,
You don't NEED to ally every tribe that just happens to have a common enemy with you.
If you need another tribe with you to win a world, with a setting that states only one tribe can win a world, then how is that a win?
If you need another tribe because the enemy is doing the same recruitment abuse, then is that not perpetuating the issue that this new rule is being trialed to address?
I liked the merge rule when you first published, but I have to change my stance on it now. Your imposing what you think is fair and fun on everyone else. When they each have their own opinions of fun, and as long as they are not cheating and playing within the defined intent of the game it should be fine.No where did it state there would be bans. Your tribes villages would simply be disqualified from Domination. They will not count.
Why in the world would you want the best 200 in a tribe? How is a world fun then? Fun for new players? All US worlds that have been won, is usually the exact same people who constantly win, through having two tribes dominate, then merge. This rule is to prevent that, and have ONE tribe win through FIGHTING.
I'm not saying that, I am saying that doing it to avoid fighting is abuse.So let me get this straight. Recruiting too many players is abuse and diplomacy is abuse, so really the only way to win is to start off with a tribe of the best players... So the most effective way to win according to these rules would be to start a tribe with 200 good players I know from previous worlds. If I do that there will literally be nothing my opponents can do to stop me since their tribes will have new players and mine won't have as many weak spots
If you reach the end game and there are two tribes standing after all others have fallen and THEN you merge, right at the end. Then it took you TWO tribes to win the world, when it states only one tribe can win. Get it?
Mostly we're going to win through better diplomacy and recruiting the better players. We took chances on guys and some of them have paid off.
Except I'm not aligning all the active players.
I'm aligning a large enough group that you can finish the game with a reasonable tribe instead of finishing the game with 20 players.
Your constant justification of a rule that none of your players want is worse than tedious... It's honestly pretty insulting to the player base.
Come on you and I both know what has been going on. Trying to fight your point with tribe limit being 200 vs a merge will not win this argument.I get that is a loophole, but the tribe limit is 200. The other tribes can also increase membership, and combat it. You cant impose extra rules for your opinions on what is fair and not.
Yes, it would suck if the #1 and #2 tribe merged at the end to carry them over 80%. BUT your saying the other 8 tribes only have 20% of the villages? You wasn't going to win anyways. AND The merge can still only have 200 players max. Which is the limit placed by the game. That's not cheating, that is playing the game.