Discussion of Tribal Domination

[Management]

I think everyone can agree that merging to avoid fighting is lame. But this new rule is not a "minor" change, and as written it is simply too vague. Much of this frustration in the community could be alleviated with some basic guidelines to follow as to what is acceptable in a merge, and what is not.
For example:
- A tribe may not merge more than X amount of times in X amount of days.
- Any merge that increases a tribes village % by X amount is Prohibited.
- X amount of players switching to a tribe in X amount of days will be considered a merge.
- Mergers of more than two tribes at once is prohibited.
Those are just some off the top of my head.. but you get the idea. We are just looking for some clarification here. Asking us to check with the mods each time we want to think about merging is just silly.

 

[DeletedUser]

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 caring who you are you are food to them.

 

[DeletedUser734]

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

You've got some nerve to post anything about shame after world 8

 

[DeletedUser702]

Leader of WAT on W8 here...

Chiming in late, my wife had a baby this week, so I've been a little distracted from, you know, 4 hours of building troops everyday, when I should be focusing on taking vills and strategy.

So - you want to make people not merge tribes to ensure victory.

I think the biggest issue here is that you need to cap the number of coops someone can manage (or let someone that hasn't logged in but is under coop barb out.)

I've seen this strategy in all worlds I've played. Big tribes who grab noobs don't help or train them, let them grab barbs, build a little, go inactive and then be internaled. THIS WAS ALSO A STRATEGY IN TW1.

Now, you have a ton of villages that are being internaled, and no fighting happening at all... no matter what the tribe size is.

So, more barbs taken = more vills needed to achieve victory.

Trigger a size (IN VILLAGES, not points) limit where you're no longer allowed to take multiple barbs in your provs in a row.

Managing a HUGE number of vills is this game is a royal pain in the ass.

To win, you need to

1) Have 400 - 600 vills that were originally mostly barbed out that you ate due to someone else's inactivity because if you didn't someone else would. Or, (if you're annoying) you ate because you like eating easy vills. NOTICE: THIS ISN'T FIGHTING. THIS IS JUST EATING DEAD PLAYERS.
2) Have a HUGE amount of spare time, since once you get to that level even if you're really fast it takes 3-4 hours/day just to build troops, never mind fight, strategize, or do anything diplomatically. Tools (YOU KNOW, LIKE THE ONES IN TW1???) should be available to allow this.
3) Coop around 10 other people that have left the game because they didn't have 2+ hours it takes to build, never mind fight. Due to Morale, your coops need to vary in size, since the other side will peck at you with people that have 20 vills and have been around since day one and never gotten any bigger but are completely immune to attacks from you. (see first underlined sentence)
4) Just sit it out until the other side dies of boredom, because being attacked is fun, but mindlessly taking over dead vills (and managing said takeovers) sucks.
5) Fight to the end... Sure... People that are still fighting deadlock on their borders. Everything else (see 3+4) just gets runover and whoever eats the inactive surrounds first has an advantage.

After a while, this becomes cumbersome, and the whole world says "this is dumb" MERGES and it's over.

 

[DeletedUser1329]

First of all, telling us that merging to win is against will be for disqualification and then later saying that we can message support to see if its allowed makes me believe there will be a whole lot of biased. So if you have to have this stupid rule it has to be clear cut. Your mods play and your mods have friends. I don't care what saint they might be, no one is truely free of bias.

I rediscovered tribal wars in the fall, and had played back during TW1. I was happy to find that things hadn't changed too much, minus some tweaking and some added features. One of my favorite things about this game is the human portion of it. This is the same portion that those in charge of this game seem to want to crush. In essence, you're doing away with alliances all together and forcing them to fall apart quicker. And changing this into a who can bash the other player more. It would be like playing prisoner's dilemma and taking away one of the choices. It wouldn't make for much of a game then.

An alliance, is something that you hope to have until the end of the game. A few players have to oversee hundreds of players to even make them work. I assure you, that is no small task. Merging has a lot involved in it to make it work. I've seen mergers fall through because of petty disagreements. Leadership has to agree who is getting merged into who. Then they have to decide who remains in their council. This is a choice of strategy which requires a lot of planning and isn't just as simple as a few clicks to move over to another tribe on a whim. Usually, these talks start with leadership before the general bulk of the tribe finds out. So there is the element that you do not want your enemy to find out and potentially do something to ruin the be angry for that.. Now you have new enemies. Or both tribes only have so much room--so someone might get left behind and And there is a worry that your two enemies might be working together, so you better sort this merge out before your enemy has twice as many active players. This is the biggest human element of the game. It can make or break you. Heck, you can pick the wrong tribe to merge into and if your players don't mesh you get people defecting. At that point, your entire tribe can fall apart.




Building off the guy above, you took your market to mobile--which means a larger amount of people and a larger amount of inactives. So when your only enemy starts to visibly go inactive, it would be dumb if you're stuck grinding away to just take over villages. If your game could prevent massive amounts of inactivity, then maybe end game merging wouldn't be such a huge issue.

To sum that up, your new rule is foolish.

 

[DeletedUser1264]

I among many others disagree with this rule. for one it is far to unclear and vague. if the mods haven't any idea how to explain the rule then how do you think the community would react? i'm sure clearing my Cache won't give me a direct explanation on this "game change"
Don't you think the mods and those above should sit down and go through the basics of this rule before announcing it? and how about not changing rules of a world that's already started? maybe make it a "New World" rule?

its also really strange how i read this forum and then re read it again today and a lot of posts have been deleted. if you can't handle what other people have to say about your decision then make sure you have good explanation and a legit reason for everything before throwing it on us. we as the community who play this game would like our opinions heard and not rejected with a snobby attitude.

my point stands with many i have read above, this change is very injudicious and silly.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes actually. Name one tribe that has won a US world without a merge?

ETC on alnwick in about 6 weeks. We didnt merge we left a tribe and started a new one. We recruited a few opponents, but only like 10 maybe if that.

They dont want a pack of simmers winning by all joining the same tribe. Makes sense to me.

Merge with them the fun way, rim them all.

 

[DeletedUser734]

ETC on alnwick in about 6 weeks. We didnt merge we left a tribe and started a new one. We recruited a few opponents, but only like 10 maybe if that.

They dont want a pack of simmers winning by all joining the same tribe. Makes sense to me.

Merge with them the fun way, rim them all.

Wait, so as long as we're making a new tribe that we all join that's allowed? It's not a merge if we all leave our two tribes and make a new one?

 

[DeletedUser1484]

Ok. The main question is - why you're changing rules for existing worlds.
It was not a kind of bug, as with empty villas names or so... I may understand such changes. But when you ask hundreeds of ppl to break all their diplomacy and their work made for months.

 

[DeletedUser734]

Ok. The main question is - why you're changing rules for existing worlds.
It was not a kind of bug, as with empty villas names or so... I may understand such changes. But when you ask hundreeds of ppl to break all their diplomacy and their work made for months.

I'm with peter on this one. Our enemies have already completed their merges, why is it fair that suddenly we can't merge, but their merges are retroactively fine because we're winning now. I'd be fine with a new world being established that said "no merging in diplomacy" from the start, but this just isn't fair.

 

[DeletedUser1182]

Then why was our tribe contacted with a warning saying we were in violation of this new rule? Our world only just recently started. (Neuschwanstein) We have/had an overflow tribe or a sister tribe. I created a support ticket to gain further clarification because the rule posted in the forums is so incredibly vague and doesn't explain anything. But the message I received was very vague as well. I was told that this rule was to allow new players and new tribes the chance to win. However, as I attempted to explain, when a tribe comes to a new world from a previous world, not all the tribe members come over. There are plenty of new faces. I also am confused if this rule does not allow academy tribes, as I think academy tribes are beneficial, especially to new players who are still trying to learn and absorb all there is to know in this game.

I have seen no support for this rule in every post I have read so far. There are only complaints, concerns, and confusion.
This rule is non-specific. It was alleged that this rule applies to tribes who merge to get the 80% and win through tribal domination. HOWEVER, that cannot be the case, why would my tribe have been contacted and told we were in violation of this rule when we are playing on Neuschwanstein and it only just recently opened? We had a sister tribe with a different name and we were basically told we needed to disband the sister tribe.
THIS is a perfect example of how UNCLEAR and UNSPECIFIC this rule is. I asked if academy tribes were also against the rule, but did not receive a clear answer. I believe that academy tribes are very beneficial, especially when they are made up of new players who are learning the ropes, this allows them to gain knowledge and when they prove themselves, and show they know what they are doing, they can go on and join the main tribe. If tribe merges are not allowed, then what is the point of allowing players to create tribes? Why not lose half of the people who play this game. If tribes cannot merge or expand, what's the point? Might as well just get rid of having allies all together. Everyone for themselves. That's not a war game at all. War involves allies working together to get rid of a common enemy. And like someone said earlier, this game takes a long time and lots of effort from start to finish, large tribes almost always lose a 1/3 of their members to inactivity, why then, would it not be allowed to have trusted allies merge into the tribe when inactives are kicked?

 

[DeletedUser]

I also am confused if this rule does not allow academy tribes, as I think academy tribes are beneficial, especially to new players who are still trying to learn and absorb all there is to know in this game.

I personally hate the idea of "Academy" tribes, and have never seen one that worked in any game. They have always been used as "meatshields" for the main tribe, also barely taught anything about the game and often sent on suicide missions just to slowly weaken an enemy who the main tribe doesn't want to deal with yet.

 

[DeletedUser1484]

Ok. Here is our tribe's decision.

We'll ignore this rule just because we have no explanations of how it works. Tons of questions and zero answers. I spent few days here and have no more time to wait for answers. It seems like a kind of mockery. Sincerelly yours...
We merge our 7 tribes as we published few months ago.

 

[DeletedUser255]

Ok. Here is our tribe's decision.

We'll ignore this rule just because we have no explanations of how it works. Tons of questions and zero answers. I spent few days here and have no more time to wait for answers. It seems like a kind of mockery. Sincerelly yours...
We merge our 7 tribes as we published few months ago.

Merging 6 tribes into your 140 member tribe seems a bit of a mockery too, tbh

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok. Here is our tribe's decision.

We'll ignore this rule just because we have no explanations of how it works. Tons of questions and zero answers. I spent few days here and have no more time to wait for answers. It seems like a kind of mockery. Sincerelly yours...
We merge our 7 tribes as we published few months ago.

Us10 is the bare minimum this rule should prevent, a massive alliance formed before the world ever started (plz don't act like it wasn't), a group of tribes that turned the whole server into a big 1 alliance vs Everyone else war, and than you want to win by merging 7 tribes together?

 

[DeletedUser]

Us9

US10 DC

 

[DeletedUser734]

I personally hate the idea of "Academy" tribes, and have never seen one that worked in any game. They have always been used as "meatshields" for the main tribe, also barely taught anything about the game and often sent on suicide missions just to slowly weaken an enemy who the main tribe doesn't want to deal with yet.

That sounds like a tribe people shouldn't be in... I've always taught people in academy tribes. Both with large forum guides and co-play when they need to learn to read attacks

 

[DeletedUser255]

How do you coplay someone in a different tribe than you?

 

[DeletedUser1182]

That sounds like a tribe people shouldn't be in... I've always taught people in academy tribes. Both with large forum guides and co-play when they need to learn to read attacks

As have I. Academy tribes are beneficial when you're trying to help, it also builds confidence for new and small players.

 

[DeletedUser]

How do you coplay someone in a different tribe than you?

He is the one they send over to train the noobs.