Discussion of Tribal Domination

Status
Not open for further replies.

KristaOMG

Spearman
Here we have people that admit to having more then one account.....Coiner's and somehow manage to pull resource's and unit's out of thin air........Now a new vague rule........
 

Prince Alucard

Guest
Here we have people that admit to having more then one account
Who admitted to multi accounts?

Coiner's and somehow manage to pull resource's and unit's out of thin air
Coiners are important to the game as they fund everyone who doesn't coin allowing everyone else to play for free. That's easy if you coin, you send resources to the village ahead of time from your other villages and then you simply coin the troops to being fully completed shortly after they die. It's even easier if you know for sure that your nuke is on a suicide run to begin with.
 

TerribleGranny

Spearman
Someone with two villages who states that they have multiple accounts and this is why they can lose 40K in defense and have it back up to 10K an hour later.. A ticket is being sent to support.

Coiners are important but people who run cheat ware or arrange multiple accounts have no business being in the game.
 

m4cguyv3rusmc

Berserker
Off topic, but if you even look like your breaking a rule around here...these mods are gonna get you. So in my opinion, if someone is cheating they will get caught. If you see them still playing, probably not cheating.
Not saying people don't cheat though...as we see it at every level of eSports and every single game ever played.
...back to the topic of the ludacris rule though....
 

alixa

Spearman
It's been what? Almost 2 weeks since this rule was publicized? And yet there is still no clear definition of this rule. It shouldn't be that flipping hard to define the rule. Simply put, all tribe merges are against the rules? But originally, it was tribes who merged to win were against the rule. SO what is IT?! I was told by JPEX that any tribal merges were against the rule. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE RULE STATES. This rule needed clear definition and it needed it before it was ever publicized PERIOD. What is the point of being a game moderator if you can't do your job and MODERATE? Get it done already. The length of time that this has taken is unprofessional. Rule changes should be created and defined in a clear and professional manner. And it simply is not that case with this new rule. The vagueness of this rule and it's publication in the forums is amateur at best, and it is still not being taken care of. It's almost comical how this is being handled.
 

Prince Alucard

Guest
I'll play devils advocate and say that they (the Mods) MIGHT be working on a clear definition right now, that may be why we haven't seen much mention of it for a while from them, other then the joking in the forum about it of course.
However I do have to agree that I prefer clear rules, easier to know when someone is cheating and easier to avoid cheating.
 

TerribleGranny

Spearman
I'll play devils advocate and say that they (the Mods) MIGHT be working on a clear definition right now, that may be why we haven't seen much mention of it for a while from them, other then the joking in the forum about it of course.
However I do have to agree that I prefer clear rules, easier to know when someone is cheating and easier to avoid cheating.

I hope you are correct because the mods will have no credibility in the community until a clear definition of their new rule is properly posted and they apply the same standards to all tribes on all worlds.
 

alixa

Spearman
I'm sure they probably are trying to make a clear definition of this new rule...but to reiterate, that should have already been done.
I also just found out this rule is being beta-tested to see if it will become permanent. That information should also have been publicized. Otherwise my assumption is that it was meant to be a permanent rule until everyone and their mother started complaining about it.
 

Prince Alucard

Guest
Well this is not a finished game, so there will always be new things coming out that have the chance of dramatically changing the aspects of the game, and even some that change it near its core.
But this is something we sign up for by joining a game that's not complete.
I believe the Mods are sincere, and are trying to do what they can to help out the game and its players with what tools they have to work with.
Now could this have been handled better? Most certainly.
Are they getting paid? No.
Are they players on the game who still actively play? Yes, When they don't get accused of cheating and are forced to use accounts with other names, then it's more obvious.
So I do believe it's being worked on, but I also believe it's important for players of the game to express their concerns as well, just with a civil attitude if we expect other people to come back to us with a civil attitude. It's not always what we say but how we say it that gets different results.
 

Outta

Spearman
So with these two, why is the tribe limit set at 200? its ok to individually recruit each member but not ok to recruit a tribe?

and why is it against the rules to find ALTERNATE methods to win a world as opposed to straight up hammer smashing somebodies face?

and if you must know i much perfer tribes of less than 40, but i still stand firmly against this rule because god damnit this is AMERICA! LAND OF THE FREE! so we should have the freedom to win how we want to win. if those other people want to complain about 200 people controlling 80% of the world maybe they should have fought harder! or you know there's always the new world the next month


So where are these players that expressed it and why are they not defending it? ive seen 1 member support it. and i have seen many more who said they were against it. oh yeah and they didn't even give any kind of argument to support it

My biggest concern for this is instead of actually improving the game play, say limiting tribe numbers, giving incentives for fighting it out, and winning wars. you are alienating those who have been fighting for months from actually getting something out of the worlds they have spent so much time in.
Time and MONEY.
When a company takes money from a customer, Said company has a responsibility to provide to the customer that which was paid for. Now that support is pushing this rule that has no exact structure, they have given them the power to take out whoever they want for whatever reason they want.
As for me - I will not buy 1 crown until this is resolved. As soon as I can not keep up for lack of coins, I will find another game to play. This is getting just too messed up.
 

Management

Berserker
It's been what? Almost 2 weeks since this rule was publicized? And yet there is still no clear definition of this rule. It shouldn't be that flipping hard to define the rule. Simply put, all tribe merges are against the rules? But originally, it was tribes who merged to win were against the rule. SO what is IT?! I was told by JPEX that any tribal merges were against the rule. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE RULE STATES. This rule needed clear definition and it needed it before it was ever publicized PERIOD. What is the point of being a game moderator if you can't do your job and MODERATE? Get it done already. The length of time that this has taken is unprofessional. Rule changes should be created and defined in a clear and professional manner. And it simply is not that case with this new rule. The vagueness of this rule and it's publication in the forums is amateur at best, and it is still not being taken care of. It's almost comical how this is being handled.
Well said my friend. Well said.
 

KristaOMG

Spearman
Time and MONEY.
When a company takes money from a customer, Said company has a responsibility to provide to the customer that which was paid for. Now that support is pushing this rule that has no exact structure, they have given them the power to take out whoever they want for whatever reason they want.
As for me - I will not buy 1 crown until this is resolved. As soon as I can not keep up for lack of coins, I will find another game to play. This is getting just too messed up.
I agree with Outta 100 %
Most of us play for fun but when you have a hand full changing everything that most of us are used to because they don't like it, It is wrong.......
I too will not pay for anything until this is resolved.
 

Countjimula

Spearman
A little analogy:

A game similar to soccer is created (in a world where there is no soccer). It is the same a soccer, but there is, in addition to the normal goal posts, a big hoop over the goal to also score points. Soon the teams realize that the hoop is so big they can just bounce the ball up and kick it trying to get it into the very large hoop to score points. Many players do not like this game style, and decide that they will instead just try to get past the goalie and score points using the soccer goals on the ground that we know. The problem is that not playing the same way puts the team that does not use the hoop at a great disadvantage.

The governing body for the sport has a meeting to address the issue. They could reduce the size of the hoop to the point that it is the size of the ball and make any attempt to score that way a wasted shot or eliminate it entirely. They decide that instead they would decide what goals count, based on the amount of passing the players showed in the attempt to score during the play. Instead of getting the passing game that we have in soccer, as desired, there is a lot of passing to show that they are passing enough for the score to count. A large portion of each team's budget is spent to win and dine the referees. The winners always have a feeling in the back of their minds that they did not win so much as game the system, and the losers feel they had been treated unfairly by the referees.

How many sports can you name, with the possible exception of the golf handicap system, that works in such an arbitrary way? I think there is a reason for it!

As players we are the main content in a game like this, it is not our job to play in a way to make the game fun, we should play to win, given the tools and limitations given to us by the game, and like or dislike the game based on that system. I feel it is the goal of any game like this to make us (as players trying to win) provide the best game content possible for both the players playing with them, and the ones playing against them, within the game mechanics.

There are many ways to shape the way the majority of the players (just trying to win) play, that is, and seems more fair. No mods constantly investigating the politics of tribes to try to determine what violates the rules, just the game mechanics creating an invisible had that guides the players to play in a way that benefits everyone.

Some ideas:

A loyally bonus or penalty (to reduce power creep). This can affect the individual player, the tribe, or both. This penalty, or bonus, could be in any form. For example each tribe can get a slight production bonus, or penalty, based on a number calculating the over all tribe loyalty. An individual player could also get a bonus based on how long they are in the tribe. This bonus can be done many ways, maximizing out over time, growing less over time, or whatever is felt best.

Incentives for players to start a new tribe, with a bonus for tribe leaders.

The end of world reward partly based on loyalty (where if you join the winning tribe to late you get no or a little reward)


Once a system for incentives and penalties is in place the particulars can be adjusted ( I do not think many players would even object too much to them being adjusted reasonably in ongoing worlds)

I would not touch a game with a rule like the new one implemented here with a ten foot pole, and my current world will be the last world I play in this game with this new rule. If I wanted to play slots I would play slots, without it taking hours of time, and optionally spending money, over the period of a year.

I have really lost faith in this game's developers that do not seem to see anything past stage one.
 

craftscrazy

Archer
Well this is not a finished game, so there will always be new things coming out that have the chance of dramatically changing the aspects of the game, and even some that change it near its core.
That's funny. The ads for the game and the sign-up page make no mention of it not being a finished game. And, considering that there is a BETA server, and that is not the server we are all playing on, I kind of thought that it actually was a finished game. Especially since they are selling crowns and making money from it.
 

TerribleGranny

Spearman
From a legal point of view, a merger is a legal consolidation of two entities into one entity

Therefore to be termed a merger, one of the entities must cease to exist. Players who want to move to a new tribe cannot be considered to have "merged"
 

Peter Pan

Axeman
Question 10: what is meant by "during Tribe Domination"?
Answer: When the 1st ranked Tribe hits an ownership of 70% of the villages, we will start the Tribe Domination phase for this realm. During this time (Tribe Domination) any merges will not be accepted for ANY tribe.
70% OF ALL VILLAGES???
:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.