San Servando Tribal Merge(not wars)

[DeletedUser3390]

You keep blaming the fortress but that wouldn't change anything with three amount of kingdoms there are a small tribe could never beat a tribe that is 5x their size (assuming both sides are near equal in power/activity)
It would probably only make defeat quicker as a tribe wouldn't need to conquer more villages to reach the 80% but instead just dominate with the 70% they have with also would make the game more interesting and less people would quit for the final 10%(lost of tribes get huge in actives as far as I have seen for the final push to the 80% mark which slows it down)
So in my opinion having an endgame with fortresses can only accelerate the biggest winner to win quicker

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.

If I read correctly shekel says no things about you guys backstabbing he is stating the fact that saying merging is okay because there is no fortress endgame is a weak argument and as I explained above I agree that this is a weak argument(though I understand there are multiple reasons to merge at this stage of the game but when you do so remember you took the easy way out instead of fighting for ages)

 

[DeletedUser430]

Hi guys, 1st I'll like to say that the world will not go on forever. I understand that the endgame is flawed at it's current state however every week this is something that we bring up to the developers (in hopes that it's corrected). As I have read how confused many are over the rule I'm open for suggestions to how we can improve the current state to where it's fair for all? Maybe we can all settle on something and move on from the merge rule? I'm open for suggestions.

 

[DeletedUser4012]

You keep blaming the fortress but that wouldn't change anything with three amount of kingdoms there are a small tribe could never beat a tribe that is 5x their size (assuming both sides are near equal in power/activity)
It would probably only make defeat quicker as a tribe wouldn't need to conquer more villages to reach the 80% but instead just dominate with the 70% they have with also would make the game more interesting and less people would quit for the final 10%(lost of tribes get huge in actives as far as I have seen for the final push to the 80% mark which slows it down)
So in my opinion having an endgame with fortresses can only accelerate the biggest winner to win quicker


If I read correctly shekel says no things about you guys backstabbing he is stating the fact that saying merging is okay because there is no fortress endgame is a weak argument and as I explained above I agree that this is a weak argument(though I understand there are multiple reasons to merge at this stage of the game but when you do so remember you took the easy way out instead of fighting for ages)

Absolutely, I believe the lack of end game is the reason our worlds are ending in such a disappointing way. You may be correct, the fortress may not change all outcomes, but it would allow for more possibilities. It would be hard to explain without delving into how the system would work.

Easy example: Say, there were 13 kingdoms to claim on a given map. The large tribe has 7, and the other 6 are owned by 6 tribes. If those 6 tribes could put 6 of the large tribe's kingdoms in contention by each invading a province, effectively cutting the large tribes victory point generation to the 1 fortress. All of a sudden everyone is even generating the same amount of points despite tribe size.

I am not saying merging is okay because of no fortress. I am against merging, but the end game is boring, and we are losing players. If my members think it would be more fun to help their friends win and be part of it, who am I to say no? I enjoy the game and wish to keep our team together, hopefully to find that magic number of members who stay active, so we can go for wins without any merge nonsense. But that also means finding the right people. Which is difficult. If any of you are interested in playing on a new world in a tribe that doesn't merge, we should talk.

I am completely aware it is the easy way to win.

Hi guys, 1st I'll like to say that the world will not go on forever. I understand that the endgame is flawed at it's current state however every week this is something that we bring up to the developers (in hopes that it's corrected). As I have read how confused many are over the rule I'm open for suggestions to how we can improve the current state to where it's fair for all? Maybe we can all settle on something and move on from the merge rule? I'm open for suggestions.

Heya Coolnite! I know the devs are doing what they can to give us a real end game. I imagine there are a lot of questions that need answering before that could be implemented, and I dont think our temp end game is an easy rule fix we can just apply. We don't need a fortress to move to a control point victory condition. The kingdoms are in the map. All we would have to do is acknowledge ownership and award points. Obviously, there is lots of numbers to crunch, but it would be something that moved us closer to the original fortress end game.

 

[DeletedUser1594]

Absolutely, I believe the lack of end game is the reason our worlds are ending in such a disappointing way. You may be correct, the fortress may not change all outcomes, but it would allow for more possibilities. It would be hard to explain without delving into how the system would work.

Easy example: Say, there were 13 kingdoms to claim on a given map. The large tribe has 7, and the other 6 are owned by 6 tribes. If those 6 tribes could put 6 of the large tribe's kingdoms in contention by each invading a province, effectively cutting the large tribes victory point generation to the 1 fortress. All of a sudden everyone is even generating the same amount of points despite tribe size.

I am not saying merging is okay because of no fortress. I am against merging, but the end game is boring, and we are losing players. If my members think it would be more fun to help their friends win and be part of it, who am I to say no? I enjoy the game and wish to keep our team together, hopefully to find that magic number of members who stay active, so we can go for wins without any merge nonsense. But that also means finding the right people. Which is difficult. If any of you are interested in playing on a new world in a tribe that doesn't merge, we should talk.

I am completely aware it is the easy way to win.

Here's the problem though, and perhaps this doesn't pertain to you, I have no way of knowing, but forming alliances 3 days into the world especially when it's top 3 tribes is stupid. I can speak from experience as playing 22, we started out among the top and we had the tribe that was ranked 1 asking if we wanted an alliance. I'm not sure how people find it fun if you set yourself up for victory 2 days in. The problem is what I said before you have people that actually brag about winning worlds and when you look at their stats they are the equivalent to a reserve player(pick your favorite sport).

 

[DeletedUser1594]

Hi guys, 1st I'll like to say that the world will not go on forever. I understand that the endgame is flawed at it's current state however every week this is something that we bring up to the developers (in hopes that it's corrected). As I have read how confused many are over the rule I'm open for suggestions to how we can improve the current state to where it's fair for all? Maybe we can all settle on something and move on from the merge rule? I'm open for suggestions.

I think there can be a reasonable discussion involving this. The question becomes are you look for suggestions to take to the developers so they hard-code it or something that the moderator team would be in charge of looking after. I think it's pretty fair to say that most of us have little faith in the developers doing something positive, but if that is the route you are going. Tribe size should be reduced, ideally it should be proportioned to world size. Obviously the fortress endgame would be something(lol). As far as it being something that is going to be monitored by the mods, there would need to be a rule where you can't add players after a certain percentage(like 50%). This would cause the leading tribe to now have to earn that last 30%, problem is that requires a mod to monitor percentages and player movement on a regular basis.

 

[DeletedUser4012]

Here's the problem though, and perhaps this doesn't pertain to you, I have no way of knowing, but forming alliances 3 days into the world especially when it's top 3 tribes is stupid. I can speak from experience as playing 22, we started out among the top and we had the tribe that was ranked 1 asking if we wanted an alliance. I'm not sure how people find it fun if you set yourself up for victory 2 days in. The problem is what I said before you have people that actually brag about winning worlds and when you look at their stats they are the equivalent to a reserve player(pick your favorite sport).

I agree, I personally always wait to form alliances, simply because you need time to get to know other leaders. Just because everyone is high rank a few days in doesn't mean they will make the best allies or even be around a few months later. What you say doesn't pertain to us as MRK and ORG became allies a few months in, after lots of communication and working in smaller ops together to see how well we could work together. At that time ORG was not ranked 1 and MRK may have even been below 10, I forget was a long time ago. But I support everything you say.

I think there can be a reasonable discussion involving this. The question becomes are you look for suggestions to take to the developers so they hard-code it or something that the moderator team would be in charge of looking after. I think it's pretty fair to say that most of us have little faith in the developers doing something positive, but if that is the route you are going. Tribe size should be reduced, ideally it should be proportioned to world size. Obviously the fortress endgame would be something(lol). As far as it being something that is going to be monitored by the mods, there would need to be a rule where you can't add players after a certain percentage(like 50%). This would cause the leading tribe to now have to earn that last 30%, problem is that requires a mod to monitor percentages and player movement on a regular basis.

I think you are right on with the dev vs mods question. I would hate to see more restriction on merging and tribe limit with the same victory conditions. It would only make it harder on the players by expecting them to manage more villages. 200 member tribes already struggle to close out worlds as the inactives pile up. To think 100 member tribe could manage all the villages better I think would make burn out come faster. However, I think some sort of restriction could work with a new kingdom control point victory condition.

 

[DeletedUser430]

I think there can be a reasonable discussion involving this. The question becomes are you look for suggestions to take to the developers so they hard-code it or something that the moderator team would be in charge of looking after. I think it's pretty fair to say that most of us have little faith in the developers doing something positive, but if that is the route you are going. Tribe size should be reduced, ideally it should be proportioned to world size. Obviously the fortress endgame would be something(lol). As far as it being something that is going to be monitored by the mods, there would need to be a rule where you can't add players after a certain percentage(like 50%). This would cause the leading tribe to now have to earn that last 30%, problem is that requires a mod to monitor percentages and player movement on a regular basis.

Tribe size is something I am pushing on .en server. Limit the amount of tribe members would be a big se in the right direction.

 

[DeletedUser4287]

Tribe size is something I am pushing on .en server. Limit the amount of tribe members would be a big se in the right direction.

I hope you succeed because what is killing the activity is the lack of opponents and tribes to fight.

TW1 there is super tribes aswell that just stream roll but they are limited to 40-80 and they often have many pre mades to fight. While in this game there seem to have 1-4 strong tribes fighting it out at mid game then win the realm.
If each tribe would be limited to 40 players you would have more competition and more tribes.
and this sick MERGE as i have seen happen will stop.
It's a disgrace in the name of Tribal wars

 

[DeletedUser430]

If you guys post in the Suggestion and Idea forum I'll continue to update the developers every week needed. Your voices will be heard one way or another

 

[DeletedUser1594]

I think you are right on with the dev vs mods question. I would hate to see more restriction on merging and tribe limit with the same victory conditions. It would only make it harder on the players by expecting them to manage more villages. 200 member tribes already struggle to close out worlds as the inactives pile up. To think 100 member tribe could manage all the villages better I think would make burn out come faster. However, I think some sort of restriction could work with a new kingdom control point victory condition.

If you think it's bad now, you should have played on the early worlds when they had 50k players sign up and ~90k total villages. Worlds are closing where players don't reach 400 villages and in this current world, there isn't a 300 village player

 

[dagda mor]

Really like the dialogue here on tribe size. Also like the idea of tribe size should be based on the size of the world. One thing that can be done is if a player does not personally login using there login name and personal password after 30 days, then they are automatically kicked from a tribe. The will become tribeless. No more coops managing 9 accounts that are no longer playing.

 

[DeletedUser2979]

I would just like to see the mods say what does or does not have to be done to close out this world...how does it move forward?

If you think it's bad now, you should have played on the early worlds when they had 50k players sign up and ~90k total villages. Worlds are closing where players don't reach 400 villages and in this current world, there isn't a 300 village player

Can you let me know how often and based on what stats your spread sheet is updated - it is interesting, but seems to be out of date

Tribe size is something I am pushing on .en server. Limit the amount of tribe members would be a big se in the right direction.

I think multiple accounts should also be looked into - some players run 2 or more accounts to avoid size penalty with different email addresses and the mods rely on people to report them - while I appreciate that different people may log in from the same computer, something should be done.

I think the other thing that could help, potentially, is using something other than just the number of villages to win - rankings (tribe and individual) could be calculated using points, number of villages and bashpoints with a coefficient for each one. As it stands the tribe and/ or player who nobles the most barbs could win the server if they are in the right fairly safe position and who have made good alliances. The game is tribal WARS, not tribal hugs or tribal barb nobling (although some barb nobling to get into position or lock down a province is probably to be expected). This would encourage everyone to get involved and attack and/or defend. The rankings would change to show those who invest in the game and their tribe and not just those who build big 11K ex-barb villages.

I know from talking to players I know and respect that many of them keep an eye on their rankings, but most of them compare and look at others bp and they respect the other players with a decent bp more than the number of villages they have.

 

[DeletedUser3372]

After reading all posts, still confused. CoolNite7 stated that this World "...it will remain open till new worlds open." Have 2 questions:
1. I would like a simple "Yes or No" to - Will there be a winner declared on this World?
2. Is ORG disqualified?

Grey Beard

 

[DeletedUser2979]

I would just like to see the mods say what does or does not have to be done to close out this world...how does it move forward?

After reading all posts, still confused. CoolNite7 stated that this World "...it will remain open till new worlds open." Have 2 questions:
1. I would like a simple "Yes or No" to - Will there be a winner declared on this World?
2. Is ORG disqualified?

Grey Beard

Can we have a clear answer please - I even opened a support ticket but have had no answer other than "we'll let you know"

 

[DeletedUser430]

Can we have a clear answer please - I even opened a support ticket but have had no answer other than "we'll let you know"

You understand when you make such claims I do look into them right? Lies!

 

[DeletedUser4287]

You understand when you make such claims I do look into them right? Lies!

can you please tell us how this world can end? Can the top 1 tribe win or will the world keep going until they are beaten and another tribe has taken over the top 1 spot and reached the neccessary %?

please stop dodge the question and give a clear answer.

 

[DeletedUser2979]

You understand when you make such claims I do look into them right? Lies!

I am not in the habit of lying...how do i forward you the ticket?

 

[DeletedUser2979]

I have found the ticket, here is the screen print - I chose the realm when putting creating the ticket - you can see the ticket number in the URL - as you can see it was posted in early December.
https://postimg.org/image/3jrt33mf5/

You understand when you make such claims I do look into them right? Lies!

I would appreciate if the next time, instead of calling me a liar you simply say that you cannot find the ticket and ask me to provide information.

As you can see Ghost Girl replied that I would receive further information and then the ticket was closed.

 

[DeletedUser2578]

I have found the ticket, here is the screen print - I chose the realm when putting creating the ticket - you can see the ticket number in the URL - as you can see it was posted in early December.
https://postimg.org/image/3jrt33mf5/


I would appreciate if the next time, instead of calling me a liar you simply say that you cannot find the ticket and ask me to provide information.

As you can see Ghost Girl replied that I would receive further information and then the ticket was closed.

Rate our helpfulness! 5/5

 

[DeletedUser3505]

whoops