• 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.

DeletedUser

Guest
Are you refering to my questions as ways to prevent merging or are you referring to the rule that is entirely based on the Moderators concept of merges and the state of affairs of whatever is happening at that time.
Don't Believe me look at the rules and tell me where the concrete numbers are at, then who decides who gets nullified banned whatever happens to them.

Also with your post isnt the main reason for this rule for what happened on W9?(not entirely sure actully) where the top 2 tribes just merged into one another to call it a win and end the world. (i would callt hat late game not early game)



also these quotes were for you moderators to ask yourselves and one another as possibly ways to enhance the game and not detract from it. i do realize i forgot to put question marks in place which i have put in within the parenthesis to make it more clear
This rule is coming from a history of various worlds dropping ACTIVE wars and just merging to end the world.

Did, on us9, the rank 1 and 2 tribes have activity rates low enough that wars would have been dragged out inactive feasts or did they just happen to be right under 200 members and said peace out?
 

DeletedUser1179

Guest
1. You are not the TW community, you manage it, no one else says that. There's a difference despite what you seem to think.
2. There's been at least 10 people complaining about this rule in this thread alone. Would you like me to send out a tribewide asking more people to come on the forum and express their opinions? There are like 20 people that come on these forums with any regularity. If we consider them a representative sample, then the community overwhelming majority dislikes this rule, but hey, if numbers are what it will take to convince you this rule is stupid, I'm happy to tell people to come on and share their opinion.

I have to say that I disagree with your first statement. We aren't just the people that manage TW, we are just as much a part of the community as you are, as almost all of us play the game as well. So there is no difference there. As far as your second comment, everyone is more than welcome to share their opinion, as that is what the forum is designed for.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
This rule is coming from a history of various worlds dropping ACTIVE wars and just merging to end the world.

Did, on us9, the rank 1 and 2 tribes have activity rates low enough that wars would have been dragged out inactive feasts or did they just happen to be right under 200 members and said peace out?

so with this post i reestablish my question

I have a question how does alienating those that do merge to win, help the game?
thats at least 200 players you would be disregarding by making this rule. But Lets try this instead look at ways to prevent it from becoming a viable option.
My favorite option would be to limit tribe sizes in game. so a 40-100 people cap cant merge to many people in to that one
a 2nd alternate route award prizes to number 2 and number 3 tribes
a 3rd way would be like CoBr2 was saying make a different ending. where you need 80% of providence control (over 50% of the villas held in each providence)
4th way make it by Kingdom control, and make the kingdoms much more defined. so controlling those rims would still be a viable option but means tribes would have to yet again fight for control.

if you combine all 4 of them im willing to bet the game itself would become much more fun and interesting also Merges in this term would become less numerous and with more meaning. as a group of 40 players seems easier to take on then a group of 200
 

DeletedUser734

Guest
I have to say that I disagree with your first statement. We aren't just the people that manage TW, we are just as much a part of the community as you are, as almost all of us play the game as well. So there is no difference there. As far as your second comment, everyone is more than welcome to share their opinion, as that is what the forum is designed for.

He said the community was referring to this as hugs. He is the only player who I've seen refer to it as such. I was not saying he's not part of the community, but I AM saying that he doesn't speak for it.
 

DeletedUser1211

Guest
Tribe A recruits 200 players, 400 starting villages in a tight area, as is natural with MRTs players quit and the persistent noble their villages (often gifted) and the tribe recruits their capacity again. Such is the cycle of recruiting players to passively win their villages as they quit.
So now tribe has majority of top players who, through their hard work, have nobled mostly their own tribe to get to where they are.
Is this the good enough bunch of players you are suggesting has fairly won a world?

On every world, there is going to be a group of players who are aggressive and want to fight. They will steamroll this tribe you just described because they do not know how to fight. It doesn't matter how many villages they have; if they suck, they will not survive in the end against players who actually know how to play.

This is a strategy game. No one strategy is any more or less valid than another. Some like to noble barbs; some want to keep them all for farming. Some try to create massive tribes and alliances; others are more elite. Everything we do in the game is done with one goal in mind: to win the game. The mods should not be able to arbitrarily limit our strategic options for the game.

Here are some of the problems I have with this rule:

* It is being implemented mid-world. Tribes set their strategies early on, and implementing this rule change on an in-progress world messes up plans that have been months in the making. It also gives an unfair advantage to tribes that have already merged while disadvantaging those who have had plans of merging but haven't done it yet.

* It is completely arbitrary. There are no definitions are set guidelines. When we ask for clarification, we are told that we have to ask a mod before merging to be sure that we aren't breaking the rule. Any time a human being has discretion to judge a situation, there is ALWAYS the potential for bias. Even when we try to be fair and impartial, we all have biases that we don't even realize. Even if they think they are not doing it, mods will be influenced by their personal relationships with the players in the merging tribes and those in the tribes they are fighting.

* It limits our strategic options for no good reason. In the end, a tribe can only have a certain number of members. Why should it matter how they got them?

* It makes diplomacy a joke. What's the point of fighting side by side with another tribe for the whole game if you're not allowed to merge once enough members have gone inactive in both tribes?

Disclosure: In an effort to be transparent about my own biases, here is a rundown of how this rule will affect the tribes I am currently in:
* Juval: Both sides have planned on merging from the beginning, so I think this will affect both equally. However, unless something big happens, I think it's pretty obvious which side is going to win this world, whether it ends up being just the main tribe or a merge between that tribe and its allies.
* Kronborg: While some smaller tribes may be intending to merge into one of the big three, I doubt that any of the top three tribes wants to merge into any of the others. We just all want to win.
* Leeds Castle: At the start of the world, there was a mass-recruiting tribe, KIS, with three or four sister tribes: KSE and BSA are the two I remember. I think they have all merged into KIS already, so the rule doesn't affect them but it does affect my tribe, OTA, who planned to merge with W/R from the beginning but decided to hold off until later in the game. How is it fair that the tribe that merged early in the game is eligible to win but the other side is not allowed to merge just because they waited?
* Neuschwanstein: There is a big tribe with 200 members that has at least four allied tribes that will probably all want to merge together in the end. I am in a tribe that is enemies with this group, yet I still feel that they should be able to play the way they want to play, be allied with whoever they want to ally with, and merge with whoever they want to merge with. It's not like we need to have more members than them to beat them. ;)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
so with this post i reestablish my question

thats at least 200 players you would be disregarding by making this rule. But Lets try this instead look at ways to prevent it from becoming a viable option.
My favorite option would be to limit tribe sizes in game. so a 40-100 people cap cant merge to many people in to that one
a 2nd alternate route award prizes to number 2 and number 3 tribes
a 3rd way would be like CoBr2 was saying make a different ending. where you need 80% of providence control (over 50% of the villas held in each providence)
4th way make it by Kingdom control, and make the kingdoms much more defined. so controlling those rims would still be a viable option but means tribes would have to yet again fight for control.

if you combine all 4 of them im willing to bet the game itself would become much more fun and interesting also Merges in this term would become less numerous and with more meaning. as a group of 40 players seems easier to take on then a group of 200
All great ideas that we have heard been thrown around this last week ALOT.

But at this time they are NOT viable to be added to TW2.

So at this point and time, we are looking into other options, this is it.

In regards to mention of diplomacy, it was never a desired result that alliances as such be long term, lasting the whole world. Sure, you make alliances to fight your enemy and their friends, but at this point, everyone has believe it in-excusable able to look to blues as new enemies after the reds are dead.
 

DeletedUser734

Guest
All great ideas that we have heard been thrown around this last week ALOT.

But at this time they are NOT viable to be added to TW2.

So at this point and time, we are looking into other options, this is it.

In regards to mention of diplomacy, it was never a desired result that alliances as such be long term, lasting the whole world. Sure, you make alliances to fight your enemy and their friends, but at this point, everyone has believe it in-excusable able to look to blues as new enemies after the reds are dead.

Because alliances don't work if you can't be friends with your allies and no one wants to kill their friends. That makes a game NOT fun.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
On every world, there is going to be a group of players who are aggressive and want to fight. They will steamroll this tribe you just described because they do not know how to fight. It doesn't matter how many villages they have; if they suck, they will not survive in the end against players who actually know how to play.

This is a strategy game. No one strategy is any more or less valid than another. Some like to noble barbs; some want to keep them all for farming. Some try to create massive tribes and alliances; others are more elite. Everything we do in the game is done with one goal in mind: to win the game. The mods should not be able to arbitrarily limit our strategic options for the game.

Here are some of the problems I have with this rule:

* It is being implemented mid-world. Tribes set their strategies early on, and implementing this rule change on an in-progress world messes up plans that have been months in the making. It also gives an unfair advantage to tribes that have already merged while disadvantaging those who have had plans of merging but haven't done it yet.

* It is completely arbitrary. There are no definitions are set guidelines. When we ask for clarification, we are told that we have to ask a mod before merging to be sure that we aren't breaking the rule. Any time a human being has discretion to judge a situation, there is ALWAYS the potential for bias. Even when we try to be fair and impartial, we all have biases that we don't even realize. Even if they think they are not doing it, mods will be influenced by their personal relationships with the players in the merging tribes and those in the tribes they are fighting.

* It limits our strategic options for no good reason. In the end, a tribe can only have a certain number of members. Why should it matter how they got them?

* It makes diplomacy a joke. What's the point of fighting side by side with another tribe for the whole game if you're not allowed to merge once enough members have gone inactive in both tribes?

Disclosure: In an effort to be transparent about my own biases, here is a rundown of how this rule will affect the tribes I am currently in:
* Juval: Both sides have planned on merging from the beginning, so I think this will affect both equally. However, unless something big happens, I think it's pretty obvious which side is going to win this world, whether it ends up being just the main tribe or a merge between that tribe and its allies.
* Kronborg: While some smaller tribes may be intending to merge into one of the big three, I doubt that any of the top three tribes wants to merge into any of the others. We just all want to win.
* Leeds Castle: At the start of the world, there was a mass-recruiting tribe, KIS, with three or four sister tribes: KSE and BSA are the two I remember. I think they have all merged into KIS already, so the rule doesn't affect them but it does affect my tribe, OTA, who planned to merge with W/R from the beginning but decided to hold off until later in the game. How is it fair that the tribe that merged early in the game is eligible to win but the other side is not allowed to merge just because they waited?
* Neuschwanstein: There is a big tribe with 200 members that has at least four allied tribes that will probably all want to merge together in the end. I am in a tribe that is enemies with this group, yet I still feel that they should be able to play the way they want to play, be allied with whoever they want to ally with, and merge with whoever they want to merge with. It's not like we need to have more members than them to beat them. ;)
Im just quoting this to show my support for this post as well as to hopefully to help drive home these points
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Because alliances don't work if you can't be friends with your allies and no one wants to kill their friends. That makes a game NOT fun.
I disagree, in other RTS's i have had my most enjoyable wars with people who I was arguing about video games in outside chats, my friends are great people to fight.
 

DeletedUser1179

Guest
He said the community was referring to this as hugs. He is the only player who I've seen refer to it as such. I was not saying he's not part of the community, but I AM saying that he doesn't speak for it.
Actually I have heard many players refer to merging as "hugging it out". As far as speaking for the community we all speak for the community because we are all apart of the community.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
All great ideas that we have heard been thrown around this last week ALOT.

But at this time they are NOT viable to be added to TW2.
So how do we make them viable options. and who do we talk to so we can make it happen faster
 

DeletedUser

Guest
On every world, there is going to be a group of players who are aggressive and want to fight. They will steamroll this tribe you just described because they do not know how to fight. It doesn't matter how many villages they have; if they suck, they will not survive in the end against players who actually know how to play.

This is a strategy game. No one strategy is any more or less valid than another. Some like to noble barbs; some want to keep them all for farming. Some try to create massive tribes and alliances; others are more elite. Everything we do in the game is done with one goal in mind: to win the game. The mods should not be able to arbitrarily limit our strategic options for the game.

Here are some of the problems I have with this rule:

* It is being implemented mid-world. Tribes set their strategies early on, and implementing this rule change on an in-progress world messes up plans that have been months in the making. It also gives an unfair advantage to tribes that have already merged while disadvantaging those who have had plans of merging but haven't done it yet.

* It is completely arbitrary. There are no definitions are set guidelines. When we ask for clarification, we are told that we have to ask a mod before merging to be sure that we aren't breaking the rule. Any time a human being has discretion to judge a situation, there is ALWAYS the potential for bias. Even when we try to be fair and impartial, we all have biases that we don't even realize. Even if they think they are not doing it, mods will be influenced by their personal relationships with the players in the merging tribes and those in the tribes they are fighting.

* It limits our strategic options for no good reason. In the end, a tribe can only have a certain number of members. Why should it matter how they got them?

* It makes diplomacy a joke. What's the point of fighting side by side with another tribe for the whole game if you're not allowed to merge once enough members have gone inactive in both tribes?

Disclosure: In an effort to be transparent about my own biases, here is a rundown of how this rule will affect the tribes I am currently in:
* Juval: Both sides have planned on merging from the beginning, so I think this will affect both equally. However, unless something big happens, I think it's pretty obvious which side is going to win this world, whether it ends up being just the main tribe or a merge between that tribe and its allies.
* Kronborg: While some smaller tribes may be intending to merge into one of the big three, I doubt that any of the top three tribes wants to merge into any of the others. We just all want to win.
* Leeds Castle: At the start of the world, there was a mass-recruiting tribe, KIS, with three or four sister tribes: KSE and BSA are the two I remember. I think they have all merged into KIS already, so the rule doesn't affect them but it does affect my tribe, OTA, who planned to merge with W/R from the beginning but decided to hold off until later in the game. How is it fair that the tribe that merged early in the game is eligible to win but the other side is not allowed to merge just because they waited?
* Neuschwanstein: There is a big tribe with 200 members that has at least four allied tribes that will probably all want to merge together in the end. I am in a tribe that is enemies with this group, yet I still feel that they should be able to play the way they want to play, be allied with whoever they want to ally with, and merge with whoever they want to merge with. It's not like we need to have more members than them to beat them. ;)
I'm not going to even lie and say I read all this but pretty much only read the bold part. When you admitted that merges are you guys strategy I just smh in shame. What has TW2 become. TW1 we fought even when all else was against us we fought. To admit and deploy a strategy so blunt but as a planned merge from the start of the world makes me wonder what has become of this new generation of TW players. Five years from now do you really want players to say that craftscrazy guy new how to merge.

This whole conversation just reminds me of the Iverson practice video
 

DeletedUser

Guest
He said the community was referring to this as hugs.

I have also seen the term "Hugging" being thrown around, usually in reference to a tribe with lots of allies and NAP's though, not really for Merger tribes or MRT's, though I will say that the usual MRT does have a lot of allies and NAP's so it's easy to confuse MRT's and Tribes that Merge a lot as "hug" tribes as well.
 
Normally I don't get involved in issues on the forum but I personally think this new merging rule is an absolute joke. This is a strategy game that weighs heavy on diplomacy, which like other games I've played involves merging. That is part of the game and again, the same as other games like this I've played over the years. People leaving worlds is all part of games like these with new worlds opening all the time and regardless of what you try, it'll never stop as that's the way it was on other games similar to this I've played. That is just how it is and how people are and you can't stop that. As long as there are new worlds opening constantly, people will continue to jump to new worlds and let other worlds slowly die out.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I have also seen the term "Hugging" being thrown around, usually in reference to a tribe with lots of allies and NAP's though, not really for Merger tribes or MRT's, though I will say that the usual MRT does have a lot of allies and NAP's so it's easy to confuse MRT's and Tribes that Merge a lot as "hug" tribes as well.
Well, I have seen a tribe MRT by merging with literally everyone active outside like the top 6
 

DeletedUser

Guest
All great ideas that we have heard been thrown around this last week ALOT.

But at this time they are NOT viable to be added to TW2.

So at this point and time, we are looking into other options, this is it.

Is it possible to simply add a timer for players switching tribes?
If you leave a tribe you can't join another tribe for a set amount of days.
I don't know I'm a bit sleepy so a little lax on ideas at the moment.

Well, I have seen a tribe MRT by merging with literally everyone active outside like the top 6

Do you mean every tribe outside the top 6? or every player?
If every player then I would just consider them an MRT, if they actively tried to recruit every single player rank 6 and bellow.
If every tribe then yes I would call them a HUG tribe and MRT in one.
But still the best definition I have seen for a HUG tribe is just a tribe that allies/NAP's with every tribe they can. Another version of this is those classic "Coalitions" where like 5+ tribes all NAP or ally each other to fight one or two tribes, but these are discussions for another thread I think.
 

DeletedUser1211

Guest
Five years from now do you really want players to say that craftscrazy guy new how to merge.

Of course not. I would hope that when people see my photo, they wouldn't mistake me for a guy at all. But really? In five years, I hope people have something else to remember me for than that I once wasted months of my life playing Tribal Wars 2.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'm not going to even lie and say I read all this but pretty much only read the bold part.
You are also the only one that ive seen other then mods support this rule, i now see why considering the only part in bold is the world names.
But anyways back on topic. by taking this out you are essentially cutting down the diplomacy options that players have available to them even less, and some people love the diplomacy aspect, thus more pushing of the players by the way side.
personally i would like to see some more diplomacy options open up but i have no idea how. as for those "Elite tribes" have the honey badger diplomacy it seems which is. not giving a shit who you are you are food to them.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
You are also the only one that ive seen other then mods support this rule, i now see why considering the only part in bold is the world names.
But anyways back on topic. by taking this out you are essentially cutting down the diplomacy options that players have available to them even less, and some people love the diplomacy aspect, thus more pushing of the players by the way side.
personally i would like to see some more diplomacy options open up but i have no idea how. as for those "Elite tribes" have the honey badger diplomacy it seems which is. You are food to them.
Maybe the solution is to cut diplomacy options?


The problem is those elite honey badger tribe have a habit of controlling an another tribe with they MRT/HUG with to ensure they don't have to fight too many enemies.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Maybe the solution is to cut diplomacy options?


The problem is those elite honey badger tribe have a habit of controlling an another with they MRT/HUG with to ensure they don't have to fight too many enemies.
You should take a look at WaT on W8 honeybadger tribe definitely did not do such a thing then again also on W3 with TFE and RMT, although W3 didnt work W8 is working
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top