• Hello, Guest!
    Are you passionate about Tribal Wars 2 and like to help your fellow players?
    We currently have open positions for Forum Moderators!

    >> Join the Tribal Wars 2 Team now! <<
    We would love to hear from you!

top 40

DeletedUser238

Guest
can the tribal ranking system be determined by the top 40 in said tribe?

lets say tribe A has 200 members. their overall is 8m with these 200 members and with their top 40 they have a total of 4m

and tribe B has 40 members and has 7m. their top 40 is obviously 7m since they only have 40. pound for pound they are the best but they aren't given rank 1 due to the sheer numbers of the other tribe because they rather recruit then gain power through skill and devotion.

ranking tribes based upon their top 40 gives tribes an incentive to actually recruit worth while player then to just recruit every player under the sun. it also gives a better representation of which tribe is actually the best.

EDIT: and it still measures mass recruiting tribes a chance to be number 1 but it evens out the playing field for the smaller higher skill based tribes that are actually number 1
 

DeletedUser238

Guest
Not even. In tw1 the top tribes were sorted by top 40. I'd like to see that implemented. the system in place encourages mass recruiting tribes and the nubs who flock to them to join. they see the quantity over the quality. this way it'll be an even representation of the world across the board.

it'll also encourage people to keep to the skill based quality tribes rather then tribe hopping to every tribe under the sun that'll accept anyone and everyone.
 

DeletedUser255

Guest
That would certainly work to balance how the larger tribes are viewed in terms of strength, makes sense Smurks. I wonder if it will be taken on by the devs.
 

DeletedUser897

Guest
It was like this in tw1 and I have always wondered why it hasn't been like this in tw2.
 

DeletedUser1260

Guest
Honestly, I don't think it should be by points at all, but by Bash. It will show activity of troops rather than building and farming. Showing the true strength of a tribe, not its recruiting mass members to jump to the lead or even PPM as a goal post. We all know that troops are more important than the buildings anyway.
 

DeletedUser534

Guest
Yeah, but bash is permanent where points are not. A tribe with a ton of bash because they were killed would be number one when all there members are 0 pointers.

Also, a smaller tribe that is far more skilled can become rank 1 even if they don't have the members. Personally I don't think it should go off the top 40 as some tribes may have the greater players, but other tribes have more balanced players. I do agree though there should be a filter option.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
If you are going to alter the rankings then I think it should be a combination of total villages and offensive bash. To me that gives the most accurate representation of player strength.
 

DeletedUser238

Guest
xilver said:
If you are going to alter the rankings then I think it should be a combination of total villages and offensive bash. To me that gives the most accurate representation of player strength.
Click to expand...


once again its been said before, and i'll repeat it. Bash points of any kind don't tell you rankings. you could have the highest bash in the world and have no villages. if you have a high enough O bash and your tribe loses all of its villages it could still be mislead representation of the rankings. please read the full thread before posting.
 

DeletedUser238

Guest
Iangame4 said:
Yeah, but bash is permanent where points are not. A tribe with a ton of bash because they were killed would be number one when all there members are 0 pointers.

Also, a smaller tribe that is far more skilled can become rank 1 even if they don't have the members. Personally I don't think it should go off the top 40 as some tribes may have the greater players, but other tribes have more balanced players. I do agree though there should be a filter option.
Click to expand...

top 40 of the said tribe. it only goes off teh combination of points from the top 40 people in said tribe. So with that being said im going to ask you to further elaborate what you're talking about because I'm not following. Its a fair comparison across the board.

its like this, i'll give you an example. Tribe A has 200 players. the total amount of points between all 200 players is 8m. Tribe B has 40 players. the combined total of these 40 players is 6m.

Tribe A's top 40 combined points is 3m. Tribe B's top 40 combined points is 6m.

it doesn't matter how you cut it, both of these tribes has a fair chance at being rank 1. some goes for every other tribe. the ranking system should go by the top players instead of by every piece of fodder that walks into the tribe. It actually gives people an incentive to be in their tribes top 40. it makes them feel like they're actually contributing to the tribe.
 

DeletedUser534

Guest
duhjaded said:
Honestly think lowering the amount of Players in a tribe would solve all of it at once.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but not to the TW1's limit. I'd say 120 would be a pretty decent number in my book.

smurks said:
top 40 of the said tribe. it only goes off teh combination of points from the top 40 people in said tribe. So with that being said im going to ask you to further elaborate what you're talking about because I'm not following. Its a fair comparison across the board.

its like this, i'll give you an example. Tribe A has 200 players. the total amount of points between all 200 players is 8m. Tribe B has 40 players. the combined total of these 40 players is 6m.

Tribe A's top 40 combined points is 3m. Tribe B's top 40 combined points is 6m.

it doesn't matter how you cut it, both of these tribes has a fair chance at being rank 1. some goes for every other tribe. the ranking system should go by the top players instead of by every piece of fodder that walks into the tribe. It actually gives people an incentive to be in their tribes top 40. it makes them feel like they're actually contributing to the tribe.
Click to expand...

My message was more directed at Jade, but what I was saying was the 40 player point system worked when the limit of members were small. It meant that even though 40 players determined points there was not many players to add to that in the first place, but I do show intrest in the idea.
 

DeletedUser61

Guest
Yesterday I forwarded this the developers to look at this idea.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
smurks said:
once again its been said before, and i'll repeat it. Bash points of any kind don't tell you rankings. you could have the highest bash in the world and have no villages. if you have a high enough O bash and your tribe loses all of its villages it could still be mislead representation of the rankings. please read the full thread before posting.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said to look at O bash and total number of villages. Please read the full post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
smurks said:
once again adding bash would give a skewed ranking system. its been said 3 times now. you lack any competency so get off my thread. if you have an idea go make your own.
Click to expand...

Repeating yourself doesn't add value to the statement or make it true. If you are going to change something I believe you should look at other possible alternatives so that's just too bad if you don't like it on "your" thread so get over yourself. Yes looking at bash by itself could be misleading if they have no villages but if a player has a lot of O bash and is clearly active then that is a much more accurate indicator of top rank than village points.
 

DeletedUser1260

Guest
Guys we all have to right to see the strategy different. We can just dismiss each other or debate the topic with the idea to educate all. Smurks I see your point and it has been forwarded. We do need a better system to set the Ranking of a tribe. Now I get Ian that members never lose bash even when they are rimmed, but Offensive Bash does show activity more so then the points on a village. So maybe that also can be taken into consideration and bash starts over when the member is rimmed. That will be more of an incentive to stay off the rim and not give up the fight because it is too hard. The idea is a better ranking system. It might push tribes to support members better to keep them from losing that BASH.
I am saying this game is still in developement and we shouldn't just shut other players down, because their ideas clash with ours in such a abrupt manner. And all these are my threads. You have the right to start them, but I have the right to govern them.
Thank you.
 

DeletedUser897

Guest
duhjaded said:
Guys we all have to right to see the strategy different. We can just dismiss each other or debate the topic with the idea to educate all. Smurks I see your point and it has been forwarded. We do need a better system to set the Ranking of a tribe. Now I get Ian that members never lose bash even when they are rimmed, but Offensive Bash does show activity more so then the points on a village. So maybe that also can be taken into consideration and bash starts over when the member is rimmed. That will be more of an incentive to stay off the rim and not give up the fight because it is too hard. The idea is a better ranking system. It might push tribes to support members better to keep them from losing that BASH.
I am saying this game is still in developement and we shouldn't just shut other players down, because their ideas clash with ours in such a abrupt manner. And all these are my threads. You have the right to start them, but I have the right to govern them.
Thank you.
Click to expand...
The losing bash when being rimmed is quite a good Idea if I do say so myself.
 

DeletedUser465

Guest
duhjaded said:
Honestly, I don't think it should be by points at all, but by Bash. It will show activity of troops rather than building and farming. Showing the true strength of a tribe, not its recruiting mass members to jump to the lead or even PPM as a goal post. We all know that troops are more important than the buildings anyway.
Click to expand...
AoD could disband right now, and we'd be top tribe for a couple more month. xD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top