San Servando Tribal Merge(not wars)

[DeletedUser4241]

I for one am very disappointed this has happened again. People get tired of a world and ' just to close it' merge. Several players on Munk and now SS here were quoted as saying that. It leaves those who have fought the hard fight and played well with a 'nothing' win. Not a true victory. What makes it worse is when Allies backstab their allies in doing so.
BOO mergers.

Perhaps end half merges should force a loss of tribe skills ? In order to take in any number of players you have to re-create your tribe... maybe that could be implemented all the way.

 

[DeletedUser3505]

So what's even going on here?

 

[DeletedUser4012]

I for one am very disappointed this has happened again. People get tired of a world and ' just to close it' merge. Several players on Munk and now SS here were quoted as saying that. It leaves those who have fought the hard fight and played well with a 'nothing' win. Not a true victory. What makes it worse is when Allies backstab their allies in doing so.
BOO mergers.

Perhaps end half merges should force a loss of tribe skills ? In order to take in any number of players you have to re-create your tribe... maybe that could be implemented all the way.

I agree merging to close is silly, but what if you are allied with the tribe from several months back before they were #1? To not merge would be the betrayal.

Unfortunately, people go inactive. In order for tribes to stay competitive, merges with allies is common to replenish the ranks. I can't speak for all tribes, but in MRK's case here, we chose to merge with our long time ally. To stay independent would actually have hindered ORG's progress of winning, based on the current end game victory conditions in place, so we chose to try and win together (before 70% ).

Believe me I would have preferred a route to victory with my 20 tribe members, but that would require everyone to each manage at least 500+ villages, as well as breaking a long standing friendship. Perhaps if we could have built a fortress and started generating victory points things would have played out differently.

 

[DeletedUser4012]

Still waiting on clarification for our server wide issue. TW2 is actively supported. Link

 

[DeletedUser3591]

So what's even going on here?

ORG had an agreement in place to bring their allies in before the end, to give them a share in the victory. Minor tribes, so nothing balance of power altering (the world has effectively been won since ROK surrendered saying they were unable to beat us some months back). Barely a few %.

As usual in these situations, the allied tribes preferred to remain as they were before joining up just before the world was closed. They were told they'd need to have joined up before we hit 70% due to the new rules, but chose to leave it until last thing.

Once we hit 70% on TW stats we closed recruitment and rejected all outstanding applications (there were 5, did this myself). Our allies weren't happy, so we contacted support to ask for clarification about the rules and see if there was anything that could be done on their behalf, and found out the world was going to be closed when the next one opens.

At no point have we actually got an explanation, or got answers to our questions, only told that the mod's interpretation of the rules is final (though interpreting rules banning merges AFTER 70% as actually banning merges TO REACH 70% stretches the world interpretation just a little....)

 

[DeletedUser4012]

World will be continued as many player have contacted support in-regards to it staying opened.

Thanks to all those that have voiced their concerns.

Hmm, closing the world is a lot different than it staying open. Hey cool we got snowflakes on the website!

 

[DeletedUser2323]

We are below the 70% for us to add players. I do not understand what the Overlord's problem with us adding to the tribe before we get to 70%. Seems to me that the Overlord is backing a fellow mod (devil1991), and not really looking into the problems (devil1991) is causing. I have been in multiple worlds, and the way it look this is will be my last.

 

[DeletedUser4012]

I would hope that is not true, but it does make sense given the info we have. Do not quit the game, remember this is still in development. We are here to try and make it better for everyone. TW2 needs you!

 

[DeletedUser430]

As I have already mentioned by other players on this world, it will remain open till new worlds open. As of now we cannot provide you with a close date.

 

[DeletedUser4012]

Seriously? That is all we get? What about the 70%, the merge rule, and clarification on winning?

 

[DeletedUser4012]

As far as I can tell the rule was no merges after 70% during Tribe Domination. All merges took place before the 70%. I would think @Coolnite7 would understand it best since he announced it here.

Please explain to us what is going on. Talk to us mate.

At no point have we actually got an explanation, or got answers to our questions, only told that the mod's interpretation of the rules is final (though interpreting rules banning merges AFTER 70% as actually banning merges TO REACH 70% stretches the world interpretation just a little....)

 

[DeletedUser3505]

Hehe, this is a parody.
As I thought, the rules are being left completely ambiguous and no explanations given so they can be enforced any way they see fit.
It's a joke really.
"Mods interpretation is final..." Well, explain your interpretation. Are each mod free to enforce their personal interpretation? How much does subjective factors like not liking someone's face or being sh*tfaced drunk affect the interpretations?

Edit: And now its not staying open anymore after all? The guy who was so happy about keeping it open earlier in the thread must be devastated

 

[DeletedUser4241]

I agree merging to close is silly, but what if you are allied with the tribe from several months back before they were #1? To not merge would be the betrayal.

Unfortunately, people go inactive. In order for tribes to stay competitive, merges with allies is common to replenish the ranks. I can't speak for all tribes, but in MRK's case here, we chose to merge with our long time ally. To stay independent would actually have hindered ORG's progress of winning, based on the current end game victory conditions in place, so we chose to try and win together (before 70% ).

Believe me I would have preferred a route to victory with my 20 tribe members, but that would require everyone to each manage at least 500+ villages, as well as breaking a long standing friendship. Perhaps if we could have built a fortress and started generating victory points things would have played out differently.

You could have merged with your other allies too Very disappointed at how this world has played out. Backstab after backstab BOO

It has been backroom bedroom deals all the way. More like poorly written daytime soapy than a war game.

 

[DeletedUser4012]

You could have merged with your other allies too Very disappointed at how this world has played out. Backstab after backstab BOO

It has been backroom bedroom deals all the way. More like poorly written daytime soapy than a war game.

Perhaps, but we would of still been hindering ORG's path to victory. Every village we nobled would have made it harder for ORG since to win involves controlling 80% of the top 10 tribe villages. So at what point do we have to drop our alliance and fight? What incentive is there to fight with a tribe (ORG) who we have worked with for more than half the server? At so close to 70% we are left with little choice without a proper end game. Merges are not the problem. The problem is there is no reason to not merge.

Now, if we could build fortresses like originally planned, a smaller tribe could generate victory pts as long as they could maintain their kingdom, and it would be owned by the tribe. Now, if said tribe wanted to merge, they would then forfeit victory pts, and the new tribe they joined would have to rebuild the fortress under their own banner.

I am sorry you had such bad experiences. I would suggest finding a tribe with proven leadership who understands diplomacy.

 

[DeletedUser1594]

Perhaps, but we would of still been hindering ORG's path to victory. Every village we nobled would have made it harder for ORG since to win involves controlling 80% of the top 10 tribe villages. So at what point do we have to drop our alliance and fight? What incentive is there to fight with a tribe (ORG) who we have worked with for more than half the server? At so close to 70% we are left with little choice without a proper end game. Merges are not the problem. The problem is there is no reason to not merge.

Now, if we could build fortresses like originally planned, a smaller tribe could generate victory pts as long as they could maintain their kingdom, and it would be owned by the tribe. Now, if said tribe wanted to merge, they would then forfeit victory pts, and the new tribe they joined would have to rebuild the fortress under their own banner.

I am sorry you had such bad experiences. I would suggest finding a tribe with proven leadership who understands diplomacy.

Thats about as weak of an answer you could give. How about you fight them because thats the point of the game, stop harping on the fortress end game, its never happening. Instead of everyone trying to collect victories like it matters, how about actually earning one

 

[dagda mor]

Would like to see tribe member limit capped at 100. No more 200 member super tribes. This would limit merges. Also skill pts harder to get which would make it more difficult and take longer to cap the limit.

 

[DeletedUser3505]

Would like to see tribe member limit capped at 100. No more 200 member super tribes. This would limit merges. Also skill pts harder to get which would make it more difficult and take longer to cap the limit.

Agree on first, disagree on second. We only got to level 33 through the entire lifespan of a server.

 

[DeletedUser4012]

Thats about as weak of an answer you could give. How about you fight them because thats the point of the game, stop harping on the fortress end game, its never happening. Instead of everyone trying to collect victories like it matters, how about actually earning one

It is a shame that loyalty means so little to you, and that you would suggest we back stab our ally. It is that way of thinking that has lead to what Chaotikka was talking about. No, we uphold our agreements. For being such a prominent member of the community, I expected a more thought out response.

I think you are wrong about the fortress. I do believe it will happen when the correct pillars are in place to support it.

Nobody here is trying to collect victories, and believe me we know it doesn't matter. Earning one? Well that is relative. Who is to say that our alliance with ORG didn't play a major part in securing ORG's dominance? That our diplomatic moves did not lead to ROK's surrender? There are a lot of ways to influence this game, which is one of the great things about playing TW2.

Would like to see tribe member limit capped at 100. No more 200 member super tribes. This would limit merges. Also skill pts harder to get which would make it more difficult and take longer to cap the limit.

Lowering the tribe limit would help short term. But you will still have inactives that need to be replenished. I imagine we would see more sister tribes etc. Merges would still happen just on a smaller scale. What we need to figure out is how to instill a sense of pride in the territories we own. To empower the smaller tribes and make them want to be on their own, but still have a chance at victory. The fortress can accomplish this because it would mean 20 members could control a kingdom, say a few hundred villages vs over 10k villages with the current victory conditions. The current victory conditions promote large tribes.

 

[DeletedUser2616]

lol, it really is simple. you can fight an ally without backstabbing them Velare.
"hey, let's make this world fun. wanna fight it out as the last 2 tribes"

 

[DeletedUser4012]

Heya guts! Long time no see Exactly it is simple in that regard, but lets look at the road. For the sake of the example lets say the tribe of 20 members does just what you say and battles their top ally of 100+. Even if they were successful, it would require 20 people to manage at least 10k plus villages. A lot of people have trouble with managing 100. It becomes tedious and boring. Yes the mass features have helped, but not everyone has the time available to be that involved.

All I am saying is that if we battled over specific control points (fortress) people would be more willing to do what you say since they already have a stake in victory by the points generated for owning said building.