Discussion of Tribal Domination

Status
Not open for further replies.

GamingFreeeze

Berserker
Also I just want to point that if you have to open a support ticket everytime tribes merge it just bogs down the game and it also created more work for the admins. If we could just get a clear definition, There would be no need for this.
 

Deathcrystal

Guest
Also I just want to point that if you have to open a support ticket everytime tribes merge it just bogs down the game and it also created more work for the admins. If we could just get a clear definition, There would be no need for this.
For the mod's sanity ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 

Alenestra

Spearman
"Early massive merges, merges to avoid fighting, and merges to simply win the world are against the new rule."
I don't mean to be argumentative, but this makes no sense on many levels.
This rule is already growing now from "to simply win the world" to include early merges and other merges.
Basically, NO merges allowed? and all allies must be temporary? Why play at all?

No intrinsic or selfish reasoning on my part. I don't want our enemies not to be able to pull in their allies i.e. Hug with KIS tribes and POI and any other tribe - any more than I want to see the alliances we have to either quit the game or fight each other. People who have dutifully served their tribes and fought alongside others to see which tribe will end up on top for the merging that inevitably happens as tribes lose members, these people deserve to be able to move to sister tribes and not have their whole game wasted.

Please realize this game gets LONG. Diplomacy over tribes and merges and people dropping and decisions to be made about which way to go are a part of the fun and strategy of the game. No one can control others who leave. Anyone who is playing and not including all percentage of villas owned by tribes' known allies is just playing a naive game. I've never seen a merge that was a "surprise."
and there is always that pesky 200 limit that causes it in the first place.........

I just beg the point that this was not thought out completely before implementing and needs to be visited more, please. It is not a "little" end game change. It changes how the whole game is structured, planned, and played.
 

Alenestra

Spearman
excuse the double post, but games of this type will ALWAYS come down to two tribes fighting it out for that percentage. Is everyone else supposed to just quit the game, knowing they can't catch up? How does this help the game? Just sayin....... I beg the attention of gm's on this issue - clarify for us so that we can understand what this means. So many are now discouraged and want just to go ahead and give up. I don't think the intention of the change was to discourage people or hasten their departure.
 

Prince Alucard

Guest
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.
A lot of merges on every world have already taken place, so what about those? This only mentions merges that have not happened yet, it's like letting everyone in the world have the option to make co-op's but suddenly coming up with a rule that states co-op's are not allowed anymore even though the game still allows for the function and then punishing everyone who had co-op's prior to the rule even existing.

I really really hope this rule doesn't actually get enforced on tribes who had a merge before this rule existed because if not, then it's either going to be extremely biased or 4-5 of the current top 5 tribes in us13 are unable to contribute into domination, and this doesn't even take into account the tribes not in the top 5 who have merged at any point.

and merges to simply win the world are against the new rule.
Does anyone ever merge to lose a world?

Early massive merges, merges to avoid fighting,
They key words here are "massive" and "avoid". What constitutes a "massive" merge?
And does anyone every merge to start a fight? and if so how exactly does that work? As an example CRC merged with TLI to start a fight with TIB on us13 does that count towards or against this?

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.
This seems extremely biased to me, simply because of the words "seem okay" and "everyone". Seem okay is obviously subjective, and everyone is also subjective, an example here if there are only really say three tribes left on a world and they are fighting it out, and tribes 1 and 3 merge to win the world yet tribe 2 wants to continue, but now tribe 1 has the majority of players on their side, do they still get to win with a merge regardless of tribe 2's wanting to continue fighting? And if not does this disqualify them and give the win to tribe 2 by default as they are the only tribe that is still qualified to win? What if tribe 2 doesn't want a default win?

What if a tribe doesn't ever merge but they just recruit everyone they see individually and win the world that way since other tribes can't merge with each other because to merge they would be doing it to avoid fighting each other just to fight another tribe, yet individually they lack the coordination to take on this big tribe that recruited everyone they saw on the map. So what happens in this story?

Obviously rules are left up to the Mods for interpretation but this is still too vague of an answer, I think we require an example of some type.
 

kikicaylan

Paladin
As with anything new there will be a lot of questions and concerns and I am sure that Jpex is listening to all of what you are all saying. Everything in this game is trial and error, so we will just have to wait and see how this works out. I think ultimately what is trying to be done is make the game a little more fair for all and not have the same people pulling the same thing on world after world to get the win.
 

CoBr2

Mounted Archer
I'm going to be honest, this is totally ridiculous.

Long term game strategies are often based on allies planning to merge as players drop out. You're throwing out strategies that have been going on for months and months and suddenly making them against the rules.

What's the end result anyway? Make worlds that honestly last too long already last even longer? If people are merging to end a world, that should tell you how boring the world has gotten.

If your players are trying to force the game to end because the end game has gotten too boring, maybe the smart decision is to fix the end game instead of forcing us to play longer and fight against our friends?

And what will you do when we ignore it and merge with our friends? Ban us all even when we're crushing the enemy tribes and give them the win? Sure they'll be proud of that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zeshinosa

Spearman
In terms of this rule it kind of changes a mechanic of the game that can suck as people set out at beginning of a world to play one way and now they are telling people they can't do that no more. So changing a mechanic/rule like this is one weakness in this game I have to say. Another weakness that comes in term of this new rule as well as the "Co-Play Crackdown" is the fact that the rules are posted but not defined or explained enough. More questions are brought up by this than anything, maybe before rules are implemented try and get a little more in depth explanation to accompany. Then obviously people will still ask hey if this happens will it be violating the rule, add those to a FAQ part of the rules.
 

Deathcrystal

Guest
I agree, but let me take a moment to explain what happened....


*looks at us6* the leading tribe on us6 went from 50% to 80 in a single week, instantly winning tribal domination the second they got close

This goes against the spirit of the game completely, we all can agree there.

What say does the CM's have to prevent this? Well they aren't capable of physically changing the game, they cant change tribe limits (face it 200 players is alot for how active a world actually is), fortress is just a dream we waiting on as well, and futhermore we can't make people fight, and a better rule set approved by innogames? HA


What can they do? Policies.

What is great about policies? Nothing they suck.

Problem with clear concise rules? When yall find a loophole.... no matter how stupid and bad it is... we can't do anything.

Problem with vague case by case rules? Ughhh this.

Will see to getting general do and don'ts posted.

*puts on his fussing hat* Heyyyyyy jpex
 

Coolnite7

Paladin
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...

Starting today, there will be a slight change to the rules of Tribe Domination. Tribes who merge to win, will now be disqualified from Tribe Domination. All other functions of Tribe Domination will remain the same.

This rule change was the result of most players wanting a change to the current system.
Hope this answers your question as I have bolded out the answer so there is no confusion.
 

Peter Pan

Axeman
Hope this answers your question as I have bolded out the answer so there is no confusion.
But here is NO explanation of this rule. If 50% of players leave one tribe and move to another - is it Merge or not? Does this rule REALLY mean that rules of strategic game changed in one of most inmportant strategical things? It's a stupid decision. It means to change rules after start of the game. Do NOT apply this rule for EXISTING worlds - it's impossible! One of our tribes was divided intentionally but without rules breaking and now it means what? Our divided tribe with more than 50% of top-10 just will leave the game. Or what? We have to merge moving one player per week?????????
Can you give a detailed explanation?
 

LadyM

Spearman
I totally agree. This rule is really eliminating a strategic part of the game, Diplomacy. When you get that far into endgame only a few of the many that started have stuck it out and are still playing. You have tribes with 4 to 5 actual players covering for 20 or 30 trying to keep their tribe alive. It is ridiculous beyond reasoning, that a rule would be implemented that would not allow those players to 'give it up' and join a more active tribe. Especially when the tribe leadership quits, because they are losing, so they just up and leave, leaving their tribe in chaos.
In real life scenarios, armies have merged to fight a shared enemy, or when their leader has gone down. The same should be held for a 'game'. Also changing the rules after the game is started is not a good thing either, in my humble opinion.
With all the games changes lately, the building queue times and such, and now this. I will no longer be playing the game much longer. It was fun, but not anymore. It is now just too tiresome to try to get anything done.
Changes are not always a 'good thing'. :)
 

Yatogami

Mounted Archer
Right now there is no real in game mechanic that limits what I would consider, and regularly argue, as recruitment abuse.
It detracts from the game.
It detracts from the spirit of the game.

When a merge, or mass recruitment occurs, for no other reason or result than removing all competition from the world, it can ruin the world. Interest drops, players quit. It creates a tough environment for newer players. I have seen an atmosphere of players (including moderators) try to shut out, or detract from. the learning experience that newer players NEED in order to survive and maintain interest and learn vital game skills beyond farming in order to thrive.
When a tribe recruits a large percentage of the active player base for a world, it kills the challenge, it kills the competition, and the longer the effect lasts, the more damage it does.

This is a bold move by the US team, to try to urge more competition, fewer cheap victories and bring back excitement to the game. As a bold move, it will be open to scrutiny, and I agree that there needs to be a clarification, but I have never seen this attempted before, so give it a chance, provide your feedback so that this trial CAN be tested, and evaluated, and maybe proved. Clarification will come as the rule is tested and your feedback rolls in.
 

wrasler05

Guest
If you want that limit the tribe sizes, i mean think about class sizes in schools did you know more about your classmates in classes of 10 or classes of 100.

saying you cant merge to finally end a world to me is dumb and would be admin abuse. as it takes a tactic that you can use to enhance your tribe then at a certain undisclosed point becomes against the rules WITH NO REAL definition of what it is.
i mean if 2 people from 1 tribe joins the winning tribe would that be considered a merger? i mean technically a portion of one tribe is joining the other regardless of size

the rule is dumb and ill conceived and needs to be removed immediately as it does nothing to help the community or help with competitiveness. you want to help the worlds and help bolster competition limit tribe member numbers and create perks for alliances and NAPs as well as Enemy status. also implement a war system that you can win. so if X tribe takes X percentage of Tribe they win the war
 

wrasler05

Guest
You want to prevent merging to win put the Tribe player cap at 100 or better yet 50. then if merges happen it wont matter near as much also will help prevent those massive tribes that outnumber the rest of the server. it will also help with player retention cause hey they will prob talk to each other if the tribe is smaller!
 

CoBr2

Mounted Archer
If two allied tribes planned to merge from the start on W6, than it wasn't "nothing they could do". The other tribes had already lost. Their enemies controlled 80% of the top ten of world

And seriously, if 80% of the villas in a world wanted the world to end, what business do the mods have saying "no, this one Tribe with 4% of villas still wants you guys to fight it out"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Peter Pan

Axeman
We have created alliances with regard to the number of places in the tribe.
We have developed the skills required on the basis of the size of the tribe.
We spent two days ago skill point to increase the size of the tribe for the final tribes merge, but you changed the rules.
Play yourself ........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.