• Hello, Guest!
    Are you passionate about Tribal Wars 2 and like to help your fellow players?
    We currently have open positions for Forum Moderators!

    >> Join the Tribal Wars 2 Team now! <<
    We would love to hear from you!

Discussion of Tribal Domination

  • Thread starter DeletedUser1383
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser1500

Guest
This made me laugh. So basically rather than fight you would enjoy winning a world by better diplomacy and recruiting the better players (perfect example of what hugging is).
I'm against hugging, but hugging is clearly a style of play. Are you publicly saying huggers have no place in the game? The should find a different game to play with a different company?
I know your not saying that. Your saying you dislike it. But your dislikes cant produce rules that influence the community, because your dislikes are not everyone else's dislikes.

Tribe leveling is a tool with different skills to highlight the tribe's play style. Diplomacy is a tool to encourage different approaches to play. A rule was literally created to handicap the core functionality of the game. If the rule is important, then there would obviously be a patch planned from development to modify these features. Correct?
 

DeletedUser61

Guest
I'm against hugging, but hugging is clearly a style of play. Are you publicly saying huggers have no place in the game? The should find a different game to play with a different company?
I know your not saying that. Your saying you dislike it. But your dislikes cant produce rules that influence the community, because your dislikes are not everyone else's dislikes.

Tribe leveling is a tool with different skills to highlight the tribe's play style. Diplomacy is a tool to encourage different approaches to play. A rule was literally created to handicap the core functionality of the game. If the rule is important, then there would obviously be a patch planned from development to modify these features. Correct?

9. Miscellaneous

The rules can be modified or changed at any time.

This is per the game rules explained within "game rules" that each player agrees upon signing up for TW2. Keep the questions coming :)

Also since I didn't answer your other question. We are not saying we are against hugging at all. Players expressed their concern regarding tribes using this "strategy" :D key word "players" and then we took action to make it fair for all tribes and player(s).
 

DeletedUser1500

Guest
I get the catch all rule, but this is in fact a hidden abuse of that rule. AND if it is not, then is there plans to modify the game features to suite this modified style of play?
If not, do you plan to create some different categories of servers for the different sub-groups of players? Clearly, this rule is an opinion one sub-group effecting many. What about the other groups of players? If this group can have a rule to suit their style of play, can the others have a rule to suit theirs? Just in fairness.
or is simpler than that? You play the style the US mods prefer, or don't play at all?

I think that is 5 questions blended together; all leading to the other.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
This made me laugh. So basically rather than fight you would enjoy winning a world by better diplomacy and recruiting the better players (perfect example of what hugging is).

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.

So with these two, why is the tribe limit set at 200? its ok to individually recruit each member but not ok to recruit a tribe?

and why is it against the rules to find ALTERNATE methods to win a world as opposed to straight up hammer smashing somebodies face?

and if you must know i much perfer tribes of less than 40, but i still stand firmly against this rule because god damnit this is AMERICA! LAND OF THE FREE! so we should have the freedom to win how we want to win. if those other people want to complain about 200 people controlling 80% of the world maybe they should have fought harder! or you know there's always the new world the next month

This is per the game rules explained within "game rules" that each player agrees upon signing up for TW2. Keep the questions coming :)

Also since I didn't answer your other question. We are not saying we are against hugging at all. Players expressed their concern regarding tribes using this "strategy" :D key word "players" and then we took action to make it fair for all tribes and player(s).
So where are these players that expressed it and why are they not defending it? ive seen 1 member support it. and i have seen many more who said they were against it. oh yeah and they didn't even give any kind of argument to support it

My biggest concern for this is instead of actually improving the game play, say limiting tribe numbers, giving incentives for fighting it out, and winning wars. you are alienating those who have been fighting for months from actually getting something out of the worlds they have spent so much time in.
 

DeletedUser255

Guest
I get the catch all rule, but this is in fact a hidden abuse of that rule. AND if it is not, then is there plans to modify the game features to suite this modified style of play?
If not, do you plan to create some different categories of servers for the different sub-groups of players? Clearly, this rule is an opinion one sub-group effecting many. What about the other groups of players? If this group can have a rule to suit their style of play, can the others have a rule to suit theirs? Just in fairness.
or is simpler than that? You play the style the US mods prefer, or don't play at all?

I think that is 5 questions blended together; all leading to the other.
You don't need a game world for your style of play though, we could win your worlds all on the forum. We just make tribes, and have players put in their vote for which tribe they think they should win the world.
simples2(1)(1).jpg
 

DeletedUser734

Guest
Better diplomacy gets you the better players on your side when you didn't bring them over from the previous world.

You guys are creating a world where pre-mades will win every single world.
 

DeletedUser1500

Guest
You don't need a game world for your style of play though, we could win your worlds all on the forum. We just make tribes, and have players put in their vote for which tribe they think they should win the world.

Then winning a world would not be based on the designed play of the game, but public opinion. Which would technically be still more fair than this rule, as the opinion for the rule is a much smaller group.
 

DeletedUser734

Guest
And those "players" don't seem to be giving you a lot of support in the forums. The only one I've seen in favor is Superman and we aren't going to talk about him
 

DeletedUser61

Guest
I get the catch all rule, but this is in fact a hidden abuse of that rule. AND if it is not, then is there plans to modify the game features to suite this modified style of play?
If not, do you plan to create some different categories of servers for the different sub-groups of players? Clearly, this rule is an opinion one sub-group effecting many. What about the other groups of players? If this group can have a rule to suit their style of play, can the others have a rule to suit theirs? Just in fairness.
Hidden abuse of that rule :D lol?

When you sign up to play TW2 you agree to all rules in fact you must select the little box in order to do so. This is not a hidden rule or being used in abuse. From reading the post I see many players who have responded that is upset (I think about a hand full (5 or so?)) that are actually the ones upset.

Now if you want to know what I think personally sure I'll tell you as I have been apart of the TW1 and TW2 community for many many years and as I have told many TW1 you have players that the community know because they took out players, they actually fought to prove they were the best. Don't get me wrong there is a selected few I have met in-game now that continue to play this way (fighting to the end that is).

Your argument is surround by a world of no wars and where everyone gets along and then joins together to say we are the best? Or is that to blunt? I'm not at all trying to be rude as this is my personal opinion (which you did ask for).

In return to your disapproval of this new rule can I ask you or the selected few that are so against this a question? Wouldn't it be a great feeling to say you actually kicked but in a world by fighting it out and not by default? Last question, are you so against the rule because you do not feel you can now win a world or has winning become to difficult? Think about the answer to that question before you answer it.
 

DeletedUser1500

Guest
I think we are at the point you (community manages/mods) have to admit that you made rule because you prefer that style of play vs the rest of the community. Which I am sure some are for or against.

That leads us to the answer of 1 question:
Does the entire community have to play the way the mods want us to play, or do the players have free choice to play their own styles within the designed parameters of the game?
 

DeletedUser255

Guest
Better diplomacy gets you the better players on your side when you didn't bring them over from the previous world.

You guys are creating a world where pre-mades will win every single world.
The idea is to create a world where massive alliances don't recruit huge areas rather than fight for them, instead merging and hugging for dominance.

Then winning a world would not be based on the designed play of the game, but public opinion. Which would technically be still more fair than this rule, as the opinion for the rule is a much smaller group.
I hear that is basically how US worlds are won.
EN14 is a great example of a fizzle rather than a bang: 3 tribes, from 3 previous worlds, joined EN14, declaring their intent to prove they can win another world. The anticipation was gripping. The forum was alive. Three world winners clashing on a new world? Where's the popcorn!
What happens, they merge, all of the major active competing player base under one flag. Literally a circle of grey seperating the core from the rim as new players join into a still growing world that was already dying. Hug for the win, in a war game, a fizzle. And utterly disappointing to all.

Except you know, the ones proud to stick their name on such a pathetic excuse for a win...
 

DeletedUser61

Guest
I am glad someone finally asked a legit question. "Where are these players that support the new rule". Well the answer to that question is simple. When JPEX20 announced the rule he clearly stated if a player had any question they are free to contact support. Some have emailed via forum and contacted support as per the post :)

The idea is to create a world where massive alliances don't recruit huge areas rather than fight for them, instead merging and hugging for dominance.


I hear that is basically how US worlds are won.
EN14 is a great example of a fizzle rather than a bang: 3 tribes, from 3 previous worlds, joined EN14, declaring their intent to prove they can win another world. The anticipation was gripping. The forum was alive. Three world winners clashing on a new world? Where's the popcorn!
What happens, they merge, all of the major active competing player base under one flag. Literally a circle of grey seperating the core from the rim as new players join into a still growing world that was already dying. Hug for the win, in a war game, a fizzle. And utterly disappointing to all.

Except you know, the ones proud to stick their name on such a pathetic excuse for a win...

Perfect example thank you Yato.
 

DeletedUser255

Guest
I think we are at the point you (community manages/mods) have to admit that you made rule because you prefer that style of play vs the rest of the community. Which I am sure some are for or against.

That leads us to the answer of 1 question:
Does the entire community have to play the way the mods want us to play, or do the players have free choice to play their own styles within the designed parameters of the game?
Lol yes, if you are asking if the moderators love and play this game because they prefer fighting to hugging their victories, then yes. Personally, I have never accepted, or applied, to a rank 1 tribe because I always felt that I never earned it. If I was ever going to be in a rank 1 tribe it was from having joined early on enough that I feel like I participated hard towards the station, and not come in near the end just to seal the win.

Most of my friends from TW1 have already quit TW2 because they felt this way, joined, saw the prevailing "strategy" and went back to where the wars are fought.
 

DeletedUser1500

Guest
Your argument is surround by a world of no wars and where everyone gets along and then joins together to say we are the best? Or is that to blunt? I'm not at all trying to be rude as this is my personal opinion (which you did ask for).

In return to your disapproval of this new rule can I ask you or the selected few that are so against this a question? Wouldn't it be a great feeling to say you actually kicked but in a world by fighting it out and not by default? Last question, are you so against the rule because you do not feel you can now win a world or has winning become to difficult? Think about the answer to that question before you answer it.

Not much thought needed here.
#1 That's not my style of play, but I do feel alienating one style based on opinion leads to a systematic breakdown. Hence why I took the stance of freedom.
#2 To answer both questions: I'm personally fighting and winning. So I feel great! AND the point I made earlier is that no matter merge or not, the winning tribe still has to fight to win. It is impossible to hug your way to 80%. Which is why I assumed 80% was the magic number to win.

So really the only question that needs answered now is:
Does the entire community have to play the way the mods want us to play, or do the players have free choice to play their own styles within the designed parameters of the game?
 

DeletedUser1500

Guest

Then I accept it and keep moving. I just don't agree with that type of leadership.

Most of my friends from TW1 have already quit TW2 because they felt this way, joined, saw the prevailing "strategy" and went back to where the wars are fought.

I have to argue that wars are fought on TW2 as well. BUT if don't like the game, then why be a moderator for it?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
So with these two, why is the tribe limit set at 200? its ok to individually recruit each member but not ok to recruit a tribe?.
Im still waiting on the answer for this question

I would also like to hear the argument for supporting this rule other than everybody is huggin to hard to win.

Also i would like to point out yet again this rule is dumb, BECAUSE it doesn't help anything just hinders, ive stated before and will state again. find a different solution this one is very bad. i mean its like using wooden oars to send spaceships to space.

I agree there is a Merging problem but this is NOT the Answer and if this is the best you guys can come up with, go back to the drawing board and think harder, what would help prevent you from merging other than threat of being not counted towards the win and no longer mattering on the world?
 

DeletedUser734

Guest
Hidden abuse of that rule :D lol?

When you sign up to play TW2 you agree to all rules in fact you must select the little box in order to do so. This is not a hidden rule or being used in abuse. From reading the post I see many players who have responded that is upset (I think about a hand full (5 or so?)) that are actually the ones upset.

Now if you want to know what I think personally sure I'll tell you as I have been apart of the TW1 and TW2 community for many many years and as I have told many TW1 you have players that the community know because they took out players, they actually fought to prove they were the best. Don't get me wrong there is a selected few I have met in-game now that continue to play this way (fighting to the end that is).

Your argument is surround by a world of no wars and where everyone gets along and then joins together to say we are the best? Or is that to blunt? I'm not at all trying to be rude as this is my personal opinion (which you did ask for).

In return to your disapproval of this new rule can I ask you or the selected few that are so against this a question? Wouldn't it be a great feeling to say you actually kicked but in a world by fighting it out and not by default? Last question, are you so against the rule because you do not feel you can now win a world or has winning become to difficult? Think about the answer to that question before you answer it.

You act like most merges are to prevent fighting which is bogus. On W12 we've formed two sides in a fight that was even. Our side agreed from the start to merge at the end of the war to end it. Now we're winning, but at the start of the world we were outnumbered by the premades that came over from other worlds. Without our alliance we wouldnt have stood a chance. Also, I love how you act like this didn't happen in TW1. I played TW1 too, plenty of merges happened very frequently and giant family tribes won plenty of worlds.

I will say though that without merges I don't expect to win this world. Not because I'm not good enough at fighting, I'm yet to find the player that will beat me in a 1v1 fight, but I have no intention of sitting there end game and eating 3k inactive villas to end the world. Nor do I intend to fight and rim friends I've made over the course of the world.
 

DeletedUser1500

Guest
Oh fun! I asked this question:
Does the entire community have to play the way the mods want us to play, or do the players have free choice to play their own styles within the designed parameters of the game?
Your response:

So based on my history of gameplay. I do prefer wars, which include recruitments??? I think that's apples and oranges, but still fruit. However, my comment to that style of leadership referred to the dictator approach. By that I mean that the entire community has to adapt to your preference of play, or not play at all.

...and I assumed your friends shared similar opinions of the game. I stand corrected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top