• 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.

DeletedUser1182

Guest
How do you coplay someone in a different tribe than you?
You don't unless they willingly give you their login password. My boyfriend is the one who got me into this game. So I have his login information, which gave me access to his co-ops as well. Everyone was made aware that I had access to his co-ops, and I got thier permission if they wanted me to do things for them. Co-play is also another very beneficial thing in this game.
 

DeletedUser685

Guest
What I have taken from 11 pages of reading is
1. Diplomacy is now discouraged and even somewhat disparaged as a viable part of gameplay.
2. Having an ally and/or NAP is basically useless, as the new rule ensures one side or the other will have to break the alliance and turn on the other tribe eventually.
3. The actual winning of the world will now boil down to patience. Since many tribes are left with only a handful of active people after a year or so (inactivity is a plague, for myriad reasons, not just "noobies get the sadz and leave" )..those different handfuls of people will get to play the "guess who is active and hope they are closer than 2 weeks noble time away in hopes that I gain one village" game for months on end or the "who can eat the most inactives fastest" game to win.

With merges being discouraged and the new rules being vague at best, what I think we will actually see happening is a core of experienced players moving together from one world to the next, jumping on every player as soon as protection is lifted, giving new players no chance to learn or even survive long enough to meet someone who can teach them. One tribe will dominate from the very beginning and they will win by eating inactives to reach that magical 80%.

Oh yay. How fun.>.<

I'll try O world when it opens, but if my predictions come true and it looks like it will become months on end of eating inactives, it will be the last world I play.
 

DeletedUser1484

Guest
Merging 6 tribes into your 140 member tribe seems a bit of a mockery too, tbh
May you explain this?
We warned few months ago that 6 tribes are just 6 subdivisions of one tribe. It was LEGAL. You may check this forum and I already quoted and gave a link in this topic.
It was our strategy: one "main" tribe with provocative name and 5 small tribes to be invisible.
And if you will check we became the first tribe just few monts ago. We were the 2+4 tribes (or 2+5...)
Before we bacame the first one we won 6 biggest tribes.
Check our players stats. We fight a lot. We have farmers as all tribes have but otherwise we have much more bashpoints in comparision with most other tribes.
So... Why this is mockery? I don't understand. It's just a good and LEGAL strategy.
 

DeletedUser1484

Guest
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?
As I said before - yes. We came here to win. (by the way are we the ONLY tribe without tribe-forum? It was deleted by moderators.)
But!
We came not at the moment. A half or us came not from the begining. We informed players in Russian worlds for few months. So we did not come as expeirenced tribe. Most of us played in DIFFERENT russian worlds. About 20% of us had no big expeirence b4 they came here.
Let's say just about 20-30 players have an expeirence more than in 1 world.
And! We named RUSSIA. From the begining. So we made a sign to others - Unite!
And we were the minor tribe if you calculate our players. Just check the topic about 5 biggest tribes with maps. It's so easy to check.
And in the middle when other tribes decided to fight with us or against us we found an ally and decided to close this world together. And it was also legal and it was when we had LESS than 50% for all these 7 tribes.
So?
 

DeletedUser685

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?

And this can and is accomplished without any merging. So, how exactly does preventing merges help this?
If that is truly the reason for this new, vague rule, it seems that a lower tribe capacity would remedy the problem much more effectively.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
So... Why this is mockery? I don't understand. It's just a good and LEGAL strategy.
It is NO LONGER a legal legal strategy, you must find another way to win, a hopefully more engaging and worthwhile way.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
And this can and is accomplished without any merging. So, how exactly does preventing merges help this?
If that is truly the reason for this new, vague rule, it seems that a lower tribe capacity would remedy the problem much more effectively.
It can be but after early game, it will be diffcult for the top tribes to find enough free players to keep doing it, usually they keep it going through mergers with smaller tribes
 

DeletedUser1484

Guest
It is NO LONGER a legal legal strategy, you must find another way to win, a hopefully more engaging and worthwhile way.
And what will happen tomorrow?
Tribes with R in their names can't win?

You CAN NOT change the MAIN rules for existing worlds.

So as we published our LEGAL plans few months ago the ONLY way to win is to IGNORE THIS STUPID DECISION
And we WILL do it.

Because I still have NO EXPLANATION of this rule details. Just blah-blah-blah...
I'm sorry I don't want to waste my time anymore.
I asked a lot of questions and got no answers. So ... Good luck
 

DeletedUser1484

Guest
Ppl told us that game admins will find a way to not let us to win. Ok, you may just close Juval. Nobody will play with cheaters
 

DeletedUser685

Guest
It can be but after early game, it will be diffcult for the top tribes to find enough free players to keep doing it, usually they keep it going through mergers with smaller tribes

So, instead of mergers, top tribes will recruit individual players instead. Basically, they will cherry-pick the better players from other tribes to convince to join them and leave the newbies, the simmers and farmers behind to gobble up.
And we all know there will be players who will take them up on the offer.

So, instead of merging, so that newer players can hopefully continue playing and learning, they will be left behind, to likely get rimmed and most likely not return to a new world. The simmers and farmers won't care, if they even notice.

And we will all get the same result as we had before this rule was announced....

*slow clap* ;)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
And I am really sorry. Do you understand what the word "strategy" means?
Something you planned for a LONG-LONG time
Now we have 78% of top-10 and you tell us to change STRATEGY? ROTFL
Do they not teach you to adapt and overcome over there?
 

DeletedUser1484

Guest
12 pages of questions.
0 messages of answers.
In Juval 45+19+11+10... If 45+19 merge you ban us from Tribes domination and we'll have 2 small tribes with let's say 50 and 48% They also can't merge. So they have to fight... These tribes are far-far away from each other. So if our tribe clear one of small tribes the other wins? :)
Or this rule will work... how? When any admin wants to say - you break thius rule - he just says it?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Do you understand what the word "strategy" means?

I do believe you're talking about a "plan" as a "plan" is just deciding to do things in the future, aka merging all of your sister tribes in the future.
Most "strategies" come with back up plans in case the main plan doesn't work, that's why it's called a "strategy" and not a "plan" in any armed conflict you use "strategies" that are built up of a lot of plans that have the same end, usually winning.

So what you're talking about is just a plan, one that has a single goal and only one road to get there with no back up plans involved, just a plan not a strategy.
 

DeletedUser1484

Guest
I do believe you're talking about a "plan" as a "plan" is just deciding to do things in the future, aka merging all of your sister tribes in the future.
Most "strategies" come with back up plans in case the main plan doesn't work, that's why it's called a "strategy" and not a "plan" in any armed conflict you use "strategies" that are built up of a lot of plans that have the same end, usually winning.

So what you're talking about is just a plan, one that has a single goal and only one road to get there with no back up plans involved, just a plan not a strategy.
Still no answers to my questions, sorry.......
But!

What strategy may work if Earth will change it's orbit?
It was not "plan". Ok we may have a discussion about 7-th tribe but six tribes IS ONE TRIBE. In fact.
Ok. We have tribe with TWO players. When they'll accept our invitation - will it be "merge"? Will we break this stupid and strange rule?
http://us.tw2stats.com/world/us10/alliance/12/members
 

DeletedUser1484

Guest
You're trying to change one of BASIC rules. Just try to guess will satellites fly if g meaning will be suddenly changed?
 

DeletedUser1484

Guest
There are no strategies that suggest impossible.
And in real world the thing you are trying to change IS IMPOSSIBLE.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Still no answers to my questions, sorry.......
But!

What strategy may work if Earth will change it's orbit?
It was not "plan". Ok we may have a discussion about 7-th tribe but six tribes IS ONE TRIBE. In fact.
Ok. We have tribe with TWO players. When they'll accept our invitation - will it be "merge"? Will we break this stupid and strange rule?
http://us.tw2stats.com/world/us10/alliance/12/members
We have answered your questions, you don't like the answer.
Why this rule? To try to make world more fun by forcing fighting in tribal WARS 2, which as stupid as it sounds is possibly needed.
Why all worlds? The tribe that can adapt the best is the tribe that deserves the win the most. Adapt and overcome.
What answers to specific cases? Contact support and jpex will get that answer to you.

That comment was silly.

I am confused why you don't understand that THAT IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM THIS RULE IS TRYING TO STOP.
You think it is "strategy" to come into a world with a large number of tribes and take the world by sheer number?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top