Best / worst tribes

DeletedUser4697

Guest
Hi all,

I think the title says it all.. ^^ But still: name the best and/or worst tribe on this world! Ofcourse also with a little explanation why you think so ;)

ps. just naming your own tribe as the best one.. that's not OK :p

I'll start:

Best: ForGiveNess of Frankenstein.
Just because MamaLoca is in here and I love her ;)

Worst: ForGiveNess of Frankenstein.
100 members, why?! :p
 

DeletedUser4696

Guest
Hope this one is found more appropriate by our esteemed mod:

2ec07fe019f03521d1c1f6900a3eba30f0eaa3e93d6fd21c4d8e1ceddda8ea72.jpg


OT:
Best: Northmen and Undertakers, both keep it slim and have a nice growth with high ppp ratio.
Worst: Forgiveness and Elite, mass tribes, bah, especially since one of them made the international challenge and pledged to not go above 60 members (which in itself is still pretty high), but is almost at double that, 3 days in.
 

DeletedUser4490

Guest
Its a little early for this but Elite, Frankenstein, Flying Dutch, Anarchy, Care Bears all have potential. The rest all suck.
 

DeletedUser4722

Guest
Its a little early for this but Elite, Frankenstein, Flying Dutch, Anarchy, Care Bears all have potential. The rest all suck.

Very curious to know how you see potential in mass tribes.
 

DeletedUser4490

Guest
Frankenstein have just won 28 and Elite are the us premade of world winners. They have potential because they have good members, its not like both tribes randomly recruited 100 players each.
 

DeletedUser4709

Guest
Best: The White Company, looks promising with high PPP
Worst: The 2 commonly-known mass tribes. I dont think that needs an explenation.
 

DeletedUser4686

Guest
Frankenstein have just won 28 and Elite are the us premade of world winners. They have potential because they have good members, its not like both tribes randomly recruited 100 players each.

yes they have potential.. the question is. do they have the same officers and leaders as last world??? ive seen so many tribes break apart from fighting and such because there is no leadership holding it together. long time ago in en5 a former moderator said 2/3 of all good tribes die by infighting.
 

DeletedUser4722

Guest
Frankenstein have won world 28 with how many players? Probably more than 100. You call that good members? It's a nice achievement when you win a world with a maximum of 50 players, if you can achieve that, you're a good player/tribe. Having 100+ players means you use the advantage of having more people, not the advantage of your own skill.

So no, they don't have any ''potential''. They are just mass tribes who can't do it with 40-50 members and if they can they would have proven it by now.
 

DeletedUser4490

Guest
Frankenstein have won world 28 with how many players? Probably more than 100. You call that good members? It's a nice achievement when you win a world with a maximum of 50 players, if you can achieve that, you're a good player/tribe. Having 100+ players means you use the advantage of having more people, not the advantage of your own skill.

So no, they don't have any ''potential''. They are just mass tribes who can't do it with 40-50 members and if they can they would have proven it by now.

You're clueless.
 

DeletedUser4696

Guest
Arguing on the internet gets you nowhere and i don' care enough to explain the flaws in his logic.
Just not good enough. Especially since you pose as someone with an opinion based on logic. I am genuinely interested in your vast insight concerning the topic of mass tribe efficiency. Please carry on.

Besides, you were contradicting yourself here.. "arguing on the internet gets you nowhere", right after "you're clueless".
 
Top