DeletedUser2084
Guest
Not mine
-
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!
- Status
DeletedUser1323
Guest
Yes, in fact I have had that happen to me on EN6. I killed one player and to save the entire tribe of 115 all merged to XII. That tribe was a tribal hugs type of tribe, then I whipped them into shape and they became a part of the Legio family. Not all of them made it to the end, but there were many players we picked up when we beat their tribe to a pulp.
DeletedUser2616
Guest
I didn't mean cutting off the head and then taking the rest. I meant to literally conquer all their villages. Recruit nobody and just noble them all... is that merging?
DeletedUser1323
Guest
Nah, seph we got rather loose in the last month of EN9 we just wanted it done.Not mine
DeletedUser1323
Guest
No, that would not be merging, if you did not add them to your tribe and they go tagless. We call that giving them a rimjob.
DeletedUser2847
Guest
I belive you get a problem with playing together with 1000 members in your tribe(its limited to 200) But i will say that there is some differences in merging. Its merging that you can see as tactical and its merging to just win the world. And if you prefer 80-100 members i have 1 question. I might remember this wrong but i looked at stats the other day and i belive there was 183 members in your tribe. Why so many?
DeletedUser2084
Guest
Oh yeah I agree. No one wanted to prolong En9 for another 6 months just to beat WTB's southern core. Don't think WTB were keen either. Was talking about En17 though. Very slow/steady recruitment, no merging and took on two tribes larger than ourselves and won, all with under 80 members.
DeletedUser1323
Guest
Yes, we are over my preferred count, but that is just me. We have been at the 180-200 range since the ADD/SUR merge, we have picked up a random few players here and there but nothing major since the events Seph and others are discussing.
DeletedUser1323
Guest
Seph this is where you and I agree. This is the spirit I think the game was intended to be built on. That is exactly how Legio started. Same with a tribe I played with on EN7 for a short time.
DeletedUser2616
Guest
Well, it's hard to do anything major when you're at the 180+ member point. Unless you make an academy :\
DeletedUser486
Guest
No one calls it that, I think you need to stop using that word.
DeletedUser
Guest
I'm not no one, I'm really famous.
DeletedUser3001
Guest
Personally I wouldnt call it a merger if you stomp a tribe and you recruit a few of their core players since that is selective recruitment. A merger to me is when the majority of a tribe joins another tribe. Like someone stated previously there are tactical mergers, mergers to end a world and then every worlds also has at least one large merger that is disputable.
Tactical merger = A merger that takes place because either the players in their current tribe isnt happy with their tribe, for example an inactive leadership etc, or the two tribes already does everything together like sharing a council/wars. Tends to be a merger between a small and a large tribe.
Mergers to end a world = Two or multiple tribes that are tired of end game who decides to end the world to either start on a new world or quit the game entirely.
Disputable mergers = A merger between two tribes that might of not needed to have happened. For example on EN13 BP - BTH merger or EN14 ASH - TEN etc. Tend to happen in mid-game or early late game between two of the larger tribes. the reason is usually due to suffering of heavy inactivity while fighting one or multiple wars, these mergers always get criticised for better or worse (hence the name).
Sily mergers = One tribe continuously merging with random tribes for no apparent reason
From an outsiders perspective the ADD - SUR merger looked a lot like a merger to end a world, I think the reason why some criticise this world is because it happened far earlier than the norm. Now personally I am not judging since I quit the world before the merger since I became leader on EN13, I dont have all the information and im sure everyone had their reasons for doing it.
With that said you have the chance to prove "the haters" wrong on the battlefield of EN21
Tactical merger = A merger that takes place because either the players in their current tribe isnt happy with their tribe, for example an inactive leadership etc, or the two tribes already does everything together like sharing a council/wars. Tends to be a merger between a small and a large tribe.
Mergers to end a world = Two or multiple tribes that are tired of end game who decides to end the world to either start on a new world or quit the game entirely.
Disputable mergers = A merger between two tribes that might of not needed to have happened. For example on EN13 BP - BTH merger or EN14 ASH - TEN etc. Tend to happen in mid-game or early late game between two of the larger tribes. the reason is usually due to suffering of heavy inactivity while fighting one or multiple wars, these mergers always get criticised for better or worse (hence the name).
Sily mergers = One tribe continuously merging with random tribes for no apparent reason
From an outsiders perspective the ADD - SUR merger looked a lot like a merger to end a world, I think the reason why some criticise this world is because it happened far earlier than the norm. Now personally I am not judging since I quit the world before the merger since I became leader on EN13, I dont have all the information and im sure everyone had their reasons for doing it.
With that said you have the chance to prove "the haters" wrong on the battlefield of EN21
DeletedUser2616
Guest
Or prove us right
DeletedUser
Guest
I've got to agree with Bunny here (and not just because he's stolen my Jaffas and won't tell me where they are) a merge is only when both tribes agree to do it and it's the majority of both tribes, otherwise it's spoils of war or the splitting of one or both tribes to form a new one.
Aslo Jehzir if you know so much about how to win a world (without merging) then why don't you fight for that right? It should be fun.
And no sabs rules do work, just ask the guys who were in Legion of Boom (can't remember the world) you would get kicked if you used it.
Aslo Jehzir if you know so much about how to win a world (without merging) then why don't you fight for that right? It should be fun.
And no sabs rules do work, just ask the guys who were in Legion of Boom (can't remember the world) you would get kicked if you used it.
DeletedUser1323
Guest
A cleaner version was called rimshot on EN6 for quite a while then other changed it to rimjob then it dissipated. Just because you did not see it does not mean it did not happen.
DeletedUser1323
Guest
That is the goal. The issue was EN15 for me was simply life got in the way and the major merger happened earlier than normal. If someone stepped up to run SUR when I was arranging the merge then something could have happened differently.
Since no one can tell what the future holds (despite the claims they can) I will not hold myself "to silly rules that are not in the game". If it is not in the code of conduct of the game then it is fair game. Mergers, sabo, are all the features are in the game, why should players tie their hands behind their back just because some do not like certain aspects of the game or think its a deus ex machina move to think outside the box, that is on them.
DeletedUser1323
Guest
Again, each world has its own distinct personality, which is what make the worlds interesting for a time. What haters? I do not see any, I do see a bunch of disgruntled keyboard warriors attempting to rewrite history based on a false narrative, that is what I am here to shed the light on the ones who decry hey do not merge but do it themselves as a farce.Personally I wouldnt call it a merger if you stomp a tribe and you recruit a few of their core players since that is selective recruitment. A merger to me is when the majority of a tribe joins another tribe. Like someone stated previously there are tactical mergers, mergers to end a world and then every worlds also has at least one large merger that is disputable.
Tactical merger = A merger that takes place because either the players in their current tribe isnt happy with their tribe, for example an inactive leadership etc, or the two tribes already does everything together like sharing a council/wars. Tends to be a merger between a small and a large tribe.
Mergers to end a world = Two or multiple tribes that are tired of end game who decides to end the world to either start on a new world or quit the game entirely.
Disputable mergers = A merger between two tribes that might of not needed to have happened. For example on EN13 BP - BTH merger or EN14 ASH - TEN etc. Tend to happen in mid-game or early late game between two of the larger tribes. the reason is usually due to suffering of heavy inactivity while fighting one or multiple wars, these mergers always get criticised for better or worse (hence the name).
Sily mergers = One tribe continuously merging with random tribes for no apparent reason
From an outsiders perspective the ADD - SUR merger looked a lot like a merger to end a world, I think the reason why some criticise this world is because it happened far earlier than the norm. Now personally I am not judging since I quit the world before the merger since I became leader on EN13, I dont have all the information and im sure everyone had their reasons for doing it.
With that said you have the chance to prove "the haters" wrong on the battlefield of EN21
The ADD/SUR merger was actually a tactical allies merge. Merges come in all shapes and sizes. So to try to fit all merges into a canned set of parameters based on your own sensibilities is foolish.
Last edited by a staff member:
DeletedUser2847
Guest
You dont merge and destroy a realm after 6 weeks because of 1 guy having RL issues. there is 1000+ other players getting their game ruined, And after you have done it its just bad excuses about why you did it. Be honest and say that it was to win. We decided to merge at EN 14 Tribe 1+2 But we was honest and told everybody that it was to finish off the world because of a inactivity problem. The other tribes didnt played the game anyway they just turtled around.
This just looks like sombody obsessed about winning and it doesnt matter how it happends
This just looks like sombody obsessed about winning and it doesnt matter how it happends
DeletedUser1323
Guest
At the point it would have still been in doubt, sure it made it a heck of a lot easier, but a lot of other tribes rolled on out because they wanted instant gratification and did not bother to forge a large player base. I agree it sucked, it did take the life out of the world and caused more problems than intended, but to say that it was for an instant win that is based on your own perception.
Every win is earned in time and activity no matter how it is achieved. But to sit there and cry about early ends, then support a tribe founder that dominates a world from the beginning and never be challenged, like what is going on with Seph on EN17, is even less fun.
Each world needs to stand on its own merits and not let the past worlds influence it to the point of "ruining" another one.
- Status