Discussion of Tribal Domination

Status
Not open for further replies.

craftscrazy

Archer
If the active rate is that bad and no more fighting is to be had, they can make thier case to jpex and he may allow them to merge, however they cannot merge to deny the right to fight the world to other players
As I've said elsewhere, if you have to ask permission from a mod whether you can do something or not, there is always the possibility that the mod is going to be influenced by his/her relationships with players in the tribes that will be affected by the decision. It is impossible for a human being to be 100% impartial and unbiased. Biases creep in without us even noticing. Making us ask on a case by case basis pretty much guarantees that the rule will be unfairly applied and used to help the tribe or tribes that the mods most want to see win.
 

Peach

Spearman
1) See by putting a number on that, people can purposely move under just under that number.
2) Your villages will no longer count in top 10 calculations.
3) I am confused you weren't in the same tribe already, the only reason not to be is to run... multiple tribes...
But by not giving concrete guidelines, no one will have any idea if it is ok for 3 people to move over from one tribe to another or if it is ok for two tiny tribes to join forces against a big one fighting them both or any other way that tribes change.

And by telling us to ask support EVERY SINGLE TIME does two things......
1. It bogs down the support system, both for players and the support team
2. It leaves support open to accusations of inconsistency with the rules and even leaves you open to accusations of favoritism and cheating the rules for friends/favorite tribes

I just don't understand why clearly written rules are so hard to receive. That had been the biggest issue I have seen so far....not that the rule has been put into place, but that no one understands the parameters of legal/illegal.

If the purpose is to prevent a massive merge that ends the world, it seems to me that it would have been much simpler to just limit tribe size, so that even merges would not allow one tribe to gain domination. A vague rule about merging is only going to leave you with angry/confused/frustrated players - and those players won't stay and play. That defeats your purpose.
 

Management

Berserker

That moment when a community manager knows this rule is so unpopular that he tries to use it to make another community manager lose...
How can you say this rule is unpopular?? The whole community loves it! Just ask Coolnite...
Don't worry my friend... I support my cobr2 ;)
 

m4cguyv3rusmc

Berserker
Aside from what we see as an overwhelming amount of players against the rule, it appears that the phase of acceptance is being delayed due to the lack of information or facts.

1. If all of these players wanted this rule so bad, where are they? Why are they only using the support system so that no one else can validate their position?
2. There has to be a set of clear guidance and parameters that players can understand, and can accept that they are not being treated unfairly behind the scenes.

Again, not beating the dead horse here. I think the convo is going nowhere, lets just clean up the details of the rule so we can move on.
 

Citizenkane

Spearman
I am usually not one to write in forums but will this time around...
First I am all for this rule, there have been way to many worlds on the US server won by "Diplomacy". I have also played the EN server and the idea of competition is much stronger over on that server with better full range game strategies. Unfortunately the time differences make it extremely challenging for north and south american players, IMO.
The "Strategy" of allying the top 2 or 3 top tribes then beating down all the noobs, finally merging then patting yourself on the back for a well earned victory is a complete joke. If you have an alliance with the top 2 tribe with a "Plan" to merge later you are a hugger, Dont give me I have bash points. I have been in mega tribes and Know all the BS bash points people pick up.
So let's face it fellow americans we want the EZ, fast and lazy way to win then think we are some great person for doing so even in an online game.
They took away the EZ so you want real completion start attacking the their top players and don't give me they are friends, if so go play farmville and have all the buddies you can handle.
Finally in regards to "J" world, peter pan claim is delusional if you read the forum from this world he claims early on that the Russian alliance are the underdogs. Also it just wasn't Russian tribes TTK wasn't for one I know I left because of all the hugging going on over their. Also not only did you align with 7 of the top 10 tribe, such underdogs, then instead of refusing enemy refugees and killing off the biggest enemy players, you invite them to join your tribe, thats a win? that a hard fought victory? I think Not!

Let the hating begin...
C.K.
 

Management

Berserker
I am usually not one to write in forums but will this time around...
First I am all for this rule, there have been way to many worlds on the US server won by "Diplomacy". I have also played the EN server and the idea of competition is much stronger over on that server with better full range game strategies. Unfortunately the time differences make it extremely challenging for north and south american players, IMO.
The "Strategy" of allying the top 2 or 3 top tribes then beating down all the noobs, finally merging then patting yourself on the back for a well earned victory is a complete joke. If you have an alliance with the top 2 tribe with a "Plan" to merge later you are a hugger, Dont give me I have bash points. I have been in mega tribes and Know all the BS bash points people pick up.
So let's face it fellow americans we want the EZ, fast and lazy way to win then think we are some great person for doing so even in an online game.
They took away the EZ so you want real completion start attacking the their top players and don't give me they are friends, if so go play farmville and have all the buddies you can handle.
Finally in regards to "J" world, peter pan claim is delusional if you read the forum from this world he claims early on that the Russian alliance are the underdogs. Also it just wasn't Russian tribes TTK wasn't for one I know I left because of all the hugging going on over their. Also not only did you align with 7 of the top 10 tribe, such underdogs, then instead of refusing enemy refugees and killing off the biggest enemy players, you invite them to join your tribe, thats a win? that a hard fought victory? I think Not!

Let the hating begin...
C.K.
Says the guy who's tribe is currently merging in all the active players from POI and D-W in a last ditch effort to stay relevant. *Spoiler Alert* It won't work ;)
 

CoBr2

Mounted Archer
I am usually not one to write in forums but will this time around...
First I am all for this rule, there have been way to many worlds on the US server won by "Diplomacy". I have also played the EN server and the idea of competition is much stronger over on that server with better full range game strategies. Unfortunately the time differences make it extremely challenging for north and south american players, IMO.
The "Strategy" of allying the top 2 or 3 top tribes then beating down all the noobs, finally merging then patting yourself on the back for a well earned victory is a complete joke. If you have an alliance with the top 2 tribe with a "Plan" to merge later you are a hugger, Dont give me I have bash points. I have been in mega tribes and Know all the BS bash points people pick up.
So let's face it fellow americans we want the EZ, fast and lazy way to win then think we are some great person for doing so even in an online game.
They took away the EZ so you want real completion start attacking the their top players and don't give me they are friends, if so go play farmville and have all the buddies you can handle.
Finally in regards to "J" world, peter pan claim is delusional if you read the forum from this world he claims early on that the Russian alliance are the underdogs. Also it just wasn't Russian tribes TTK wasn't for one I know I left because of all the hugging going on over their. Also not only did you align with 7 of the top 10 tribe, such underdogs, then instead of refusing enemy refugees and killing off the biggest enemy players, you invite them to join your tribe, thats a win? that a hard fought victory? I think Not!

Let the hating begin...
C.K.
Let's just point out that your tribe on W12 exists due to a merge early game between 2 of the top tribes and that it also JUST had D-W merge into it 3 days ago... Along with POI that's been merging in over the course of the last week or so. I'm a fan of openly stating people's biases, and you're on the opposite side of the war where I'm part of the top two tribes that have been planning on a merge since the start.

And what about two tribes that WEREN'T 1-2 when they made the plans to merge, they planned to merge when one was rank 2 and one was rank 17? It's never this black and white as two tribes are 1 and 2, never had any experience with each other, and just decide to merge to make a super tribe.

I'm going to be honest, I don't like the Russia thing going on in J world... but it was allowed when they joined the world, and it should be allowed until the end of the world. It's a world lasting strategy and they made the best one... I don't like it anymore than you guys do, but it should be allowed on that world.
 

Outta

Spearman
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.
Is there a set of exact rules available, or is this just something the Mods can rule on however they feel?
 

fiend1

Swordsman
can we get a poll set up, doesn't need to actually effect anything, but a poll for us to see what the actual vote count is on this new rule?
i for one, think this is stupid, you trying something new in the middle of multiple games, that as stated before this will cost innogames alot of money for the people who leave, i also noticed ALOT of deleted posts.....wth? are there some people you just cant defend this rule against so you try to delete posts without anyone noticing?
 

alixa

Spearman
Another thing, you had moderators who needed clarification. Why didn't they know about it? Why is a game-wide rule created, and not even all of the moderators are clear on it's rules. That's absolutely ridiculous.
 

Outta

Spearman
I have received a warning for merely having an overflow tribe on a brand new world. The overflow tribe is temporary to simply see who actually will stay and become serious about playing on this world.

It seems that even the earliest possible merges are now against the rules. o_o

I'm not sure tribe domination as an endgame will work if all merges are basically against the rules now.

I really hope that the new endgame gets finished and added to the game soon, or this game as a concept is over.
Most experienced leaders know that the best test of players for staying power is to let them work out their areas, rather than to align everyone, so many so, that you require a second tribe to hold them all.
Perhaps going back to the original plan of kingdoms, and holding provinces.
Instead of lashing out on the players that have learned to play the game as it is written, maybe innogames could get back to the plan and have their programmers fix the original end game.
 

giantsfrey

Guest
If you have to ask if your tribe is a mass-merging hug-fest tribe... you already know the answer ;)
i'm in favor of a strict application of this rule, to promote the spirit of the game. but also, so as not to make victory take an excessive amount of time when enemies have largely quit: let's speed up the deletion/barb rate of dead accounts.
 

Management

Berserker
If you have to ask if your tribe is a mass-merging hug-fest tribe... you already know the answer ;)
i'm in favor of a strict application of this rule, to promote the spirit of the game. but also, so as not to make victory take an excessive amount of time when enemies have largely quit: let's speed up the deletion/barb rate of dead accounts.
But if players cannot join a tribe because of this rule, they will most likely just quit the game.. which then creates more dead accounts and makes the game even more boring than it already is.
 

TerribleGranny

Spearman
A RULE by definition has clear guidelines. In a new world I am being told that because I am in an overflow tribe, I cannot merge into the main tribe. You say you will not put set parameters to the new rule because someone will find a way around it.

Reality Check!!! A rule/law/judgement needs to be clearly defined. I can just see a judge in court saying that although the law was not clearly defined, you broke it and are going to jail for 10 years.

I have enjoyed playing this game and have spent a few coins to help me through rough patches but wars are a game of strategy.. Take away strategy and diplomacy and you are no longer playing a war game.. You are Attila the hun conquering as many countries as you can and then being beaten back into submission..

This is a game where we come to play and fight to be the best.
 

KristaOMG

Spearman
I can tell you right now if this rule stands it will be my last time on any Innogame. We have already had people walk away because of it.
 

TerribleGranny

Spearman
Nothing wrong with rules that are clearly defined and fairly enforced. The mods and managers have not defined the no merge rule. I have read back through the posts, seen the original rule posting and you will not make anyone happy, for or against the rule, until there are definitive guidelines.

My recommendation would be to put it to a fair vote of all players once you finish writing the rule and have defined clearly what constitutes a breach. If people leave over this, do you think they will continue playing Inno Games or will they find a game company that operates professionally and fairly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.