Merge Rule

Should we keep the no merging rule?

  • yes

    Votes: 21 91.3%
  • no

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • undecided

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .

kikicaylan

Paladin
As the new community manager, my team and myself have discussed many things that we can do to make the U.S. Server better, one of the things we have discussed has been the Merge Rule. We decided that in order to make the best choice for what best suits the community we would create a poll in which everyone could vote and say whether they think the rule should stay or not. Now please keep in mind, this is not a debate, we would just like to see how many of you think that yes the rule is a good thing and should stay and how many feel that no the rule should not. We would like to keep this as positive as possible so please no negative comments.

For those of you not familiar with the rule, here is the link to where you can find it on the forum.

https://us.forum.tribalwars2.com/index.php?threads/tribal-domination-equals-70.1659/#post-19445

The poll will be open for 3 days so we encourage you to tell your tribemates as well.​
 

coldog22

Guest
Merging to win a world is a pathetic way to win IMO. I fully support keeping the rule.
 

jim bob

Spearman
If I vote no am I voting for dropping the rule completely or modifying it? If modifying it, what would it be modified to?
 

kikicaylan

Paladin
Don't forget to tell your tribemates to vote as well! We want to hear everyone's voice on this! An in-game message has been created but letting your tribe members know is also just as good :)
 

jim bob

Spearman
I don't think you can just drop it completely. If a #1 tribe starts to get tired, which they will after months of grinding, they'll take the easy way out in order to move on. This protects the little tribes that are forcing the big guys to win it with work and not just because they have a bunch of people.

I don't have any suggestions on how to change it as it seems to be effective in what it is doing. Reason I asked about possibly changing it is because the link provided on the rule has some gray areas. What exactly is a merge? If tribe A brings in only 49% of tribe B is that a merge? If they only bring in 4 or 5 guys that are big point guys is that a merge? What if Tribe A is completely dominating the world and merges after 70% disqualifying themselves from winning an effectively making it so no one can win the world? I don' t know that any of these situations has or ever will come up, just some thoughts I had.
 

cokky

Berserker
My vote went to being consistent. This is the rule we are working under currently. We the players will adapt to the what ever the environment is that we are playing in like my dad told me humans will adapt to any situation that arises even a man who is hung by the neck will jerk for a while but eventually he gets used to it and all is calm....
 

fiend1

Swordsman
i didnt like it when they first started it. it was kind of a personal thing when jpex got it started(pretty sure it was hm). & him n altheras were going at it night n day. but it was vague & one mod would say you merge your out....even at the start of the game & the other mods just werent sure wth was going on with it other than to say you couldnt merge. & i get that altheras worked out some crazy insane way to get 200 people day 1, with an overflow tribe, which called for immediate action. but the way it's defined now is perfect, once you get to 70% of the villages that last 10% shouldnt be too hard without merging

Keep it, if anyone feels they have to merge to win they'll just need to do it before they hit 70%
i think this sums it up perfectly
 

Jarl Redhair

Spearman
Drop merge's all together or limit tribes to 100 members. But, alas neither is going to happen because BIGMONEY is at play. Pity, this game use to be fun.
 

coldog22

Guest
Drop merge's all together or limit tribes to 100 members. But, alas neither is going to happen because BIGMONEY is at play. Pity, this game use to be fun.
Agreed on the 100. This game will never be as fun as TW1, simply due to the tribe size. These worlds are normally decided within the first 2-3 months, compared to Tw1's 2-3 years. If they drop the tribe size down to 60-80, It would cause for a longer server, increasing their overall players. It would also call for more competition as you would have a hell of a lot more tribes.
Though you can't "drop mergers." Early merging is what makes this current game possible. Lots of players go inactive due to boredom, work, or just getting smashed.
As I stated above, Late game merging is horrid. A tribe should not be able to out take multiple other tribes in the position to win a world by merging.
 

Jarl Redhair

Spearman
Issue with inactive's: Limit a coop to 30 days. After 30 days main player must sigh in and assign a new coop. Once a player goes RED then they are automatically kick from tribe by the mods. This will negate the players getting bored and one player having 9 coops. Luck of the draw if you recruit a player that goes inactive. Tough Luck. Don't have enough players, disband tribe and join another. Simple, but alas BIGMONEY talks, so we as players have to walk the walk to their talk.
 

UselessOkra

Spearman
There's a lot here that seem to favor a smaller tribe size, and with the smaller player base, I think I'd have to agree.
It's a little off topic for this post however.. Kiki, is there any chance we could get a poll for a smaller tribe limit?
 

coldog22

Guest
Now that the vote has ended, I would really like to see a poll on decreased tribe sizes.