Tribe Player Limit/allied fourms

[DeletedUser]

In light of the recent and incredibly ill designed rule about tribe mergers, instead of making it you can't merge to end a world why not lower the tribe player limit by say 100 people so 100 people max tribe limit.

this would make the worlds a bit more interesting, as diplomacy would become a bigger thing AND the whole MRT thing would become a bit less of an issue, people might become more involved. Oh and this would make it less likly for a tribe merger to happen to end a world.

oh yeah and i think tribal shared fourms would be a really good idea as well as they would allow for greater comms between tribes

 

[DeletedUser825]

I am with this guy. Those both seem like good ideas.... Also I just want to mainly see the shared forum come back...... I have been mad because I cannot relay info to an ally in an efficient matter.

 

[DeletedUser]

In light of the recent and incredibly ill designed rule about tribe mergers, instead of making it you can't merge to end a world why not lower the tribe player limit by say 100 people so 100 people max tribe limit.

this would make the worlds a bit more interesting, as diplomacy would become a bigger thing AND the whole MRT thing would become a bit less of an issue, people might become more involved. Oh and this would make it less likly for a tribe merger to happen to end a world.

oh yeah and i think tribal shared fourms would be a really good idea as well as they would allow for greater comms between tribes

Why not make it even more fun and make it 50, also I understand the Allie forums being a good idea but the two combined would kinda cancel the effectiveness of smaller tribes out

 

[DeletedUser1537]

In light of the recent and incredibly ill designed rule about tribe mergers, instead of making it you can't merge to end a world why not lower the tribe player limit by say 100 people so 100 people max tribe limit.

this would make the worlds a bit more interesting, as diplomacy would become a bigger thing AND the whole MRT thing would become a bit less of an issue, people might become more involved. Oh and this would make it less likly for a tribe merger to happen to end a world.

oh yeah and i think tribal shared fourms would be a really good idea as well as they would allow for greater comms between tribes

Oh the good ol' days of TW1

 

[DeletedUser]

Why not make it even more fun and make it 50, also I understand the Allie forums being a good idea but the two combined would kinda cancel the effectiveness of smaller tribes out

nah because alliances can still fall apart plus at the end they will still have to fight one another
just cause they talk doesn't mean somebody still cant beat each other up
and i would LOVE to see 20-50 tribe limit, i think that would be hella fun.

 

[DeletedUser]

Any updates on this? I'm curious on why this wasn't forwarded to the developers.
MRT's have ruined almost every world on this game. There should be a 50-75 Tribe limit on players. Shared forums with allies would be great.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree this should be implemented

 

[DeletedUser1760]

The problem with limiting tribe size comes down to one thing....buying crowns. As this is a business that wants to make money, obviously they need this, but if you restrict tribes and mergers and the amounts of members, all you have done is given the world to those who have the most crowns to spend while alienating the free or smaller crown players. Many internet games went greedy and they are no longer played....because why play if you know the coiners will not outplay you, but out spend you to win.
There needs to be a balance.......because once you change it to a coiner game, and this fact hits blogs and other chat rooms...the game will ultimately die. We do not want this to happen. So, with this in mind, try and keep a level head on any change.

P.S. Think history....we would ALL be speaking German if not for the "tribes" uniting against the Fascists. Alliances, membership growth limited by skill points, and mergers are all part of real life war. This IS Tribal War 2 after all, right?
The barbarians put their differences aside and united against the Roman Empire. So Moderators....tying the hands of players will ultimately back fire. Approach the problem from a different direction, be IMPARTIAL ( most important ), and think from the perspective of the player....and not as a moderator. I am here because the previous games I played and spent modest money on went coiner....so I and millions like me left. Keep 'er clean Moderators and keep 'er fair....and our grand children will be playing TW15....
Thank for a great game INNO!!!

 

[DeletedUser]

P.S. Think history....we would ALL be speaking German if not for the "tribes" uniting against the Fascists. Alliances, membership growth limited by skill points, and mergers are all part of real life war. This IS Tribal War 2 after all, right?

Thank for a great game INNO!!!

Inno is a german company FYI.... Just thought I share the irony in here...


I agree with the last though, in this day and age of Strategy games, money has become the way to win, but i disagree with crowns being the reason to not change tribe sizes. The members of troops on early worlds became the leaders of tribes later, picking up new noobs on the way, this game is not won by a group of elites who understand it, it is won by those who will stay and fight in it, noob or not, I care more for desire to play, than ability to spend some money.

 

[DeletedUser1760]

That's why I said Fascists, not all Germans were Fascist, and my Grandmother fled Germany, as I am 1/4 German. I did know INNO is German, hence the reference to something close to home for effect.
As a "noob" to this game...if one understands war games, it is just a matter of reading the WIKI, learning the math of attacking, and they are all very similar. I found it easy to pick the game up. I also had some great "coaches" who answered the noob questions for me. I believe that merging allows smaller alliances of good players the chance to win, instead of being consumed by larger coiner tribes. While there needs to be a limiting mechanism in place, banning mergers is the wrong, knee jerk reaction that was implemented in the middle of play. Bad form. It would have been more prudent to make this a new rule on the next world, so EVERYONE starting knew this was in place, because now, selection of tribe mates will fall to those you know and ostracizing new players....if you have only so much room, why take on a noob? So, the player gets eaten, and finds another more fair game to play. There are always 2 sides to every coin Deathcrystal......so make sure to look at both sides first.
Yeah, I like winning on my smarts, not my wallet.
Former 18Alpha. Hooah!

 

[DeletedUser1661]

I think I read somewhere about an idea of a 40 player tribe limit, no barb world. It was probably from a chat in game with someone but either way. I wonder if it is possible to get specialized worlds here and there? One world here and there that is different isn't necessarily a bad thing. The idea is that a small tribe limit and no barbs mean that in order to grow, you have to kill other players. Essentially it would be a very bloody world because it would be close quarters, no farms besides making other players into some and to expand, you have to noble players you kill. It eliminates certain aspects but it could be marketed as a "special" warfare server. It would attract extreme amounts of fighting and drama

 

[DeletedUser]

I think I read somewhere about an idea of a 40 player tribe limit, no barb world. It was probably from a chat in game with someone but either way. I wonder if it is possible to get specialized worlds here and there? One world here and there that is different isn't necessarily a bad thing. The idea is that a small tribe limit and no barbs mean that in order to grow, you have to kill other players. Essentially it would be a very bloody world because it would be close quarters, no farms besides making other players into some and to expand, you have to noble players you kill. It eliminates certain aspects but it could be marketed as a "special" warfare server. It would attract extreme amounts of fighting and drama

i think i mentioned it somewhere on W14 or W15 fourms personally i would love it. and do think that would make for a very exciting and blood filled world

 

[DeletedUser1487]

Any updates on this? I'm curious on why this wasn't forwarded to the developers.
MRT's have ruined almost every world on this game. There should be a 50-75 Tribe limit on players. Shared forums with allies would be great.

It wasn't forwarded because they already know how the rest of the game players would feel towards this. This system works fine still. So leave it at that. No reason to change it when the worlds have been changed so much recently due to new rule changes.

 

[DeletedUser]

It wasn't forwarded because they already know how the rest of the game players would feel towards this. This system works fine still. So leave it at that. No reason to change it when the worlds have been changed so much recently due to new rule changes.

Since.... the new no merger rules screamed... mrt for game mrt for game.....and weren't an attempt to stop the massive alliances choking worlds or whatnot >.>

 

[DeletedUser]

you mean the one that prevents merges?

Since.... the new no merger rules screamed... mrt for game mrt for game.....and weren't an attempt to stop the massive alliances choking worlds or whatnot >.>

big reason to make the tribes smaller, that way at the end they have to fight