Discussion of Tribal Domination

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alenestra

Spearman
1. Alliances between tribes as part of the game.
2. There is a maximum of only 200 members per tribe.

As the game ages, and people leave and there is room, it is common for tribes to merge. Of course, this is for strength to combine forces to win the game in tribal domination.
I feel there needs to be some clarification of the new rule, as I, for one, am confused. At what point in the above process will people be leery of losing a spot in the tribe and being disqualified simply because they did what the game encourages them to do, form alliances and work together, merging forces when there is room toward end game?
Please be more specific in the new rule. It is way too vague to be able to operate within effectively.
To avoid tribes moving together strictly at the very end to end the world, I get, but tribes that form alliances to win the game together, and work together throughout the game, eventually merging, as people drop, to me, is perfectly normal and a part of the game design.
My question is - where is the cutoff where joining together is disqualifying? Can gm's please clarify more specifically so we will know what to do in our games. If not, you are keeping fewer people from winning, not allowing more the opportunity imho.
 

GamingFreeeze

Berserker
I would like some clarification as well. At what point do you consider a tribe disqualified from winning a world due to merging? Is it between friends or is it when enemies merge into your tribe that you get disqualified?
 

Prince Alucard

Guest
I believe it's more along the lines of when they merge, not who you merge with.
Basically if you wait till two or three of the top 5 tribes own around 80% of the villages combined and then they decide to merge to win the world, they would be disqualified from winning.
However if merging at anytime before that disqualifies a tribe than a lot of tribes on a lot of worlds who haven't even gotten close to end game are disqualified already.

Now my question is what happens to the tribes disqualified? do their villages no longer count towards the total 80%? and if not, what happens if they just get mad and noble everyone and nobody but them is left standing? would they be banned for not being in the "spirit" of things?
Are the tribes that are disqualified ended? meaning Mods step in and disband those tribes?
 

wesmay4367

Spearman
i agree with prince alucard.....there needs to be a clear set of rules because as he stated, if i was in a top tribe and got disqualified you better believe i would be mad and noble everybody in sight........this could turn very ugly and probably will.....thanks for making a fun game a little less fun guys. just let the game play out on the battlefield and keep out of it
 

Countjimula

Spearman
Yes

I think the rule is poor though, I propose that they give a bonus to the tribe leaders, and a bonus to players based on how long they stay in the tribe. This will do two things.


Make it harder for tribes with many powerful players to stay together, as powerful tribe members will be far more tempted to make their own tribe, or become the leader of an existing tribe (especially if the leaders in the dominating tribe become unfair and corrupt) due to the incentives that can be increased, or decreased, to make the right balance for players to leave and start their own tribe VS stay and support the one they are in.


A bonus for how long you stay in a tribe, to encourage tribe loyalty, again the amount can be adjusted to find the right balance.


I think this will prevent possible issues (I have seen these issues in other games, if they think this is bad they have no idea, but I do not see this here and now)

Edit: I also propose that the reward for winning the world should also be at least partly based on how long they have been in the tribe, with players that join the winning tribe right before they win getting no reward.
 

Deathcrystal

Guest
It is meant to prevent tribes from merging to auto winning tribal domination
 

mtuck017

Swordsman
So in essence, if you merge simply in order to get to the 80% your are in violation however, if you merge earlier in the world it is just an everyday merge, yes?
 

Prince Alucard

Guest
So in essence, if you merge simply in order to get to the 80% your are in violation however, if you merge earlier in the world it is just an everyday merge, yes?
That's how it's implied and how me and DC appear to be taking it, but it's vagueness is what has everyone so worried. As a lot of tribe in a lot of worlds have had a merge or two (in some cases more) at one point or another.
 

Deathcrystal

Guest
That's how it's implied and how me and DC appear to be taking it, but it's vagueness is what has everyone so worried. As a lot of tribe in a lot of worlds have had a merge or two (in some cases more) at one point or another.
As it is jpex rule I cannot say for sure, however yes that's how I understand it. After endgame is declared mergers should no longer take place, however I feel this should be a case by case, as when us2 reached endgame, we did have a little war before merging but due to activity it was really one sided and so my tribe, being the lowers of sa I d war, merged into our more active allies who we won the world with.
 

Prince Alucard

Guest
After endgame is declared mergers should no longer take place, however I feel this should be a case by case
Well if how we perceive it is how it goes then yes agree with you and as the rules state that Mods are allowed to interpret the rules as they see fit. (paraphrased that a bit) So a case by case is perfectly understandable.
 

PopAChub

Spearman
I like the time-base reward. Use a percentage algorithm for that factors in date joined, and total reward. Perhaps:
Crowns Reward = [Consecutive Days in Tribe/4] + [Months in Tribe x 5] + [Seasons (*3 months) in Tribe x 50] + [Years in Tribe x 150]
Ex. Typical Player Reward [140/4] + [4 x 5] + [1 x 50] [0 x 150] = 105 crowns

Simple stuff. Rewards players who perform from the start in their tribe, while hurting those who swap near the end. The player in my example would be a typical player who changes affiliations early-to-mid game, and hashes out the end of the world.

A player who sticks with a core tribe would work out such as:
Reward = [400/4] + [13 x 5] + [4 x 50] [1 x 150] = 515 crowns

Of course, a hard cap would need to be set in place as to not throw away money on InnoGames part as per the example above. Possibly 250-400 range.
 

jpex20

Berserker
Early massive merges, merges to avoid fighting, and merges to simply win the world are against the new rule. As of right now, the merges that seem okay are ones in late worlds, where inactivity has taken place, and everyone just want to finish the world.
If you have any questions about which merges are okay, and which are not, you can always send a support ticket before planning a merge, and we will gladly point you in the right direction.
 

Houchyman

Spearman
OK, I give up, either I do not know how to search (both Wiki and the forum) or there is no information available so here goes -
How do you do a tribal merge !!!
 

m4cguyv3rusmc

Berserker
Early massive merges, merges to avoid fighting, and merges to simply win the world are against the new rule. As of right now, the merges that seem okay are ones in late worlds, where inactivity has taken place, and everyone just want to finish the world.
If you have any questions about which merges are okay, and which are not, you can always send a support ticket before planning a merge, and we will gladly point you in the right direction.
I don't see how you can fully determine that without imposing bias. I mean we are getting accused of that on US13, but obviously not the case. Of course I don't believe we are at any risk of breaking the rule, and it makes sense. I simply do not see a clear definition to the rule to eliminate personal bias and judgement.
 

Colonel A

Spearman
The new rules for domination state that tribes that merge in order to achieve domination are now going to be disqualified from domination. I believe this is very vague and requires clarification.
At what point in the game is a tribal merger considered a disqualifier for tribal domination? Is it once the dominant tribe achieves a certain percentage? The longer the game goes the more tribes tend to merge as members have gone inactive. As a dominant tribe takes on a larger foe, players may 'jump ship' in order to preserve their holdings and join the dominant tribe. I know that as the dominant tribe runs through larger tribes, some players tend to quit, some tend to join opposing tribes, and others tend to join the dominant tribe. Also, I have a small tribe that is ranked as #7 and I'm hoping that as a dominant tribe emerges that they will incorporate my tribe into their's in order to increase their domination. At what point in the game is this now going to be a disqualifier? The dominant tribe can become dominant in multiple ways, defeating and absorbing the other tribes is the most sensible means of achieving domination. How do these new rules apply?

Thank you.
 

Peter Pan

Axeman
Juval.US
We created 6 tribes when OLD rules were actual. We built our game strategy. We planned to merge these tribes ... so what? You change the rules right during the game?????
Or this is for NEW worlds only? IF we knew about these changes we could create one big tribe at the initial phase of the world and now... What we have to do? May we merge our tribes in one week? It's really bad idea to change Game Rules when it already goes on...
 

Peter Pan

Axeman
And a lot of questions about this rules change.
1. If tribes merge were planned few months ago what we have to do?
2. If our tribes are allies what we have to do? To not merge? etc. My guys asked a lot of questions but first and main -
Are these rules changes made for FUTURE worlds or for EXISTING?
Because it's really bad idea to change rules during the game...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.