Tribe Domination

[DeletedUser1104]

"Starting today, there will be a slight change to the rules of Tribe Domination. Tribes who merge during Tribe Domination, will now be disqualified from Tribe Domination. All other functions of Tribe Domination will remain the same." From this announcement- https://en.forum.tribalwars2.com/index.php?threads/tribe-domination.4319/

I feel like this was a really rash decision and also rather unclear. Clearly it was done in reaction to w18 merging but its so vague and doesnt take into consideration what it could do to a world. Tribe domination from my understanding starts when a tribe controls 70% of the villages.

So what if 2 tribes merge when they both have 40% of the villages... Does that mean under this rule it is ok since they started the merge before tribe domination? Or do they have to stop merging after they hit 70%? Or do they have to stop merging after a mod gets a chance to post tribe domination has occurred (by then a tribe could already be 75% or 80%).
What if 2 tribes merge and everyone knows they are about to do so... once they reach 70% someone reports them to the mods and says hey they reached tribe domination and are merging. There has been discussion of tactical reporting.. would this fall under that scenario? Do you then ban the person who reported it? He knew it was going to occur.

Furthermore, what happens once you "disqualify" the tribes? Can those members just make a new tribe called "OWN v2.0" and now recruit 80% to win? It is now a new tribe who are simply recruiting, not merging. Or are the members of these tribes also disqualified from winning? Because then you have 70-80% of the world not able to win.... so how does the world actually end? Or are you hoping that the tribe not apart of the merger can now recruit all the members from the merging tribes to win... Because then arent they in essence also merging to win? Thus defeating the whole purpose of the rule and also benefiting likely the tribe that reported the merger? I highly doubt the mods actively are checking % of tribe domination unless someone asks them to do so.

Last scenario... what happens if you disqualify the tribes and they decide if they cant win, no one will... they do own 70% of the world... so likely they can just kill the rest of the world... so now you have the disqualified tribes and no one else... how does the world end? Do they just remake a new tribe and all their sins are resolved? The rule doesnt say.

I do agree something has to change, but i dont think this is it..

 

[DeletedUser430]

This rule change was the result of most players wanting a change to the current system.

What you failed to mention is the above reason

Furthermore, what happens once you "disqualify" the tribes? Can those members just make a new tribe called "OWN v2.0" and now recruit 80% to win? It is now a new tribe who are simply recruiting, not merging. Or are the members of these tribes also disqualified from winning? Because then you have 70-80% of the world not able to win.... so how does the world actually end? Or are you hoping that the tribe not apart of the merger can now recruit all the members from the merging tribes to win... Because then arent they in essence also merging to win? Thus defeating the whole purpose of the rule and also benefiting likely the tribe that reported the merger? I highly doubt the mods actively are checking % of tribe domination unless someone asks them to do so.

Tribes who merge during Tribe Domination, will now be disqualified from Tribe Domination. All other functions of Tribe Domination will remain the same. You will be surprised how actively we check tribe domination also it's not very hard to see who has joined a tribe

 

[DeletedUser1104]

did you talk to other players? because if so that was rather quick. people wanted change, including me... but i didnt see anyone suggest this one.

Also you didnt address any of the concerns I had. Nor did you clarify the rule.

 

[DeletedUser2847]

Problem with this change is that its the easiest change to avoid ever. Its just to merge before 70%

 

[DeletedUser1845]

clear as mud again , can we please have clarification on the above questions raised at least . There will definitely be more questions following on from your announcement so will ask them later .

 

[DeletedUser1104]

ya like heres another one... what about partial mergers... for example one tribe takes the top 10 of another tribe and leaves basically small and inactive players in the other tribe... is it ok as long as they other tribe still technically exists?

 

[DeletedUser3833]

this rule is complete nonsense -.- nobody knows what exactly is forbidden, when does recruiting become merging? 90% of tribe size? 50%? 10%? and in which time frame? might as well recruit 10players a week or something...+ all the stuff mentioned in the opening post.

much easier way to do this is to limit tribe size to something that is reasonable with current player numbers..on a world with a few hundred actives a tribe with current max is just silly business

obv we will still need something like a real endgame to get even close to fixing the underlaying issue..

 

[DeletedUser1201]

Thank you mate. I am glad that you guys are starting to crack down on this. On .us server they also have the same rule and it worked out great.

@Coolnite7 was the CM for the US servers before moving over here to EN, so we may see similar items coming about.

clear as mud again , can we please have clarification on the above questions raised at least . There will definitely be more questions following on from your announcement so will ask them later .

What further information would you like clarified? Please let me know and I will do my best to provide it for you.

ya like heres another one... what about partial mergers... for example one tribe takes the top 10 of another tribe and leaves basically small and inactive players in the other tribe... is it ok as long as they other tribe still technically exists?

I will have to let @Coolnite7 express further on this, but it is my understanding that once Tribe Domination has begun, any sort of merging will count as disqualification. Though, I could be wrong in this matter.. please do not quite me until we have official information.

 

[DeletedUser2847]

Start at the top of this thread and just roll down and you find plenty of questions not answered. its actually not so many players that have a clue about how this is going to be implemented.

 

[DeletedUser1594]

@Coolnite7
What further information would you like clarified? Please let me know and I will do my best to provide it for you.

I will have to let @Coolnite7 express further on this, but it is my understanding that once Tribe Domination has begun, any sort of merging will count as disqualification. Though, I could be wrong in this matter.. please do not quite me until we have official information.

I think you are asking what info you want clarified, then in the second part of the quote you are guessing/assuming what is meant and then acknowledge that you might not be sure. I would say that this would be a good indication that the whole thing is a bit unclear. I'm all for changing the system, but I think the announcement definitely came out a bit rushed without no real clarity.

 

[DeletedUser2742]

Genuine question from one who started following the forum quite late.

I have seen much discussion around the lack of a "genuine" endgame and the "missing" Fortress feature. I can't, however, find where it's been explained why this has not been implemented.
Can someone please enlighten me as to why? Seems to cause a great level of angst

 

[DeletedUser1594]

Genuine question from one who started following the forum quite late.

I have seen much discussion around the lack of a "genuine" endgame and the "missing" Fortress feature. I can't, however, find where it's been explained why this has not been implemented.
Can someone please enlighten me as to why? Seems to cause a great level of angst

I have been playing since en3, october 2014, and since then we have been told it's being worked on. That is about the extent of an update we have received. I'm guessing the feature would have been pretty intricate, and for whatever reason it has, at best, been pushed to the end of the line of things to get done. I have feel that the idea has essentially been scraped and they haven't come up with a viable ending.

 

[DeletedUser2742]

Thanks mate, there's soooo many threads here, and trawling through em was making my eyes cross and my tiny little brain packed it's bags and moved out some time ago

 

[DeletedUser2369]

First off, I would like to say i like the change, Im not sure it goes far enough, but its a step in the right direction.

That being said, as others have been saying the rule change is unclear in the extreme. Its telling us the broadstrokes, like telling players "those with bad communication will be punished", without saying "bad communication is insulting the player, but critisizing the gameplay is OK" or "the punishment is usually a warning, followed by banning for all servers for repeated offenses"

What further information would you like clarified? Please let me know and I will do my best to provide it for you.

I will attempt to summarise all the questions here, along with my own.
1. What is the legal defination of "merging", the definition as we all use it is fairly loose, some may consider taking the good players of a defeated enemy a merge, others might not. It is a definate grey area.
2. When a tribe is "disqualified" from domination what exactly does this entail?

2a/ Are a disqualified tribes villages removed from the equation as if they were barbs, allowing a tribe with 80% of the remaining villages to win automatically?
2b. When a disqualified tribe disbands, are their players/villages un-disqualified from domination?
2c. when the disqualified tribe disbands, what are the members allowed to do without being disqualified once more?
​

The first question amounts to "please specify the exact parameters we need to work within", I expect that with this rule change the developers/whoever made the change assume that it will not be broken, but for that to happen we need to know where the line is.
The second question amounts to "what exactly happens when the rule is broken, and what can the rulebreakers do to rectify the situation and continue playing and fighting", its all well and good to hope a rule is not broken, but this is the internet, online gamers will always break rules and hope to get away with it. When they get caught out doing this, the long-term punishment is unclear. are they still able to win somehow? or must they jump through certain hoops to be back in the running

 

[DeletedUser3727]

I don't get this rule to be honest. If this is a reaction to EN18 this would have done absolutely nothing. OWN and Yakuza merged at 40% as stated by Barren and that triggered Tribe Domination. The rule states "during", not that tribes that merge prior to this are excluded. So in what scenario and which world has this actually happened? Or this just a kneejerk reaction without any empirical evidence that it'd do anything?
Tribes who merge during Tribe Domination, will now be disqualified from Tribe Domination
How about changing the rules / game play in a more sensible way. Make it impossible to noble barbs when the world hit 70% f.ex.
On EN18 the world was prolonged due to the nonsense of the all out barb nobling from FoD, that's the worst way to end a world, artificially keeping numbers up.

 

[DeletedUser2048]

i like that no barb-nobling idea

 

[DeletedUser2048]

Although sometimes nobling a barb can be very strategic - I can see that would get frustrating in the end

 

[DeletedUser2369]

I don't get this rule to be honest. If this is a reaction to EN18 this would have done absolutely nothing. OWN and Yakuza merged at 40% as stated by Barren and that triggered Tribe Domination. The rule states "during", not that tribes that merge prior to this are excluded. So in what scenario and which world has this actually happened?

Im not certain untill they clarify, but it sounds like once the 70% is reached the merge has to stop, so while OWN and Yakuza merged at 40% each, they could not fully merge in order to win, they could merge untill one tribe is at 70%, then conquer to get that last 10%.
If they merged from 40% to 80% then they merged through domination and therefore would be disqualified. I know tribe domination isnt actually running untill a mod starts it, but i suspect that for the purposes of this rule domination technically starts at the 70% rather than when the mods notice the 70% is reached - at least thats what Id do if i were the mods.
Again we cant be sure about that untill the rule is clarified, but if that is the case the two tribes would likely have merged earlier to get the whole two tribes together, while there were still the 30% to slow them down. I doubt it would do much other than delay the inevitable, but at least it would be a more satisfying end than a merge from 40% to 80%. As I said earlier i dont think it goes far enough, but its a step in the right direction

Or this just a kneejerk reaction without any empirical evidence that it'd do anything?

Sounds like they had the idea a long time ago, and tested it on the us server before bringing it out here. That implies it was not kneejerk, and also according to TheDevilsCut it worked great, providing some emperical evidence, and im sure they had more than one persons opinion, along with actually watching how the tribes worked within the rule.

Thank you mate. I am glad that you guys are starting to crack down on this. On .us server they also have the same rule and it worked out great.

 

[DeletedUser1594]

limit tribe sizes based on size of world, once a tribe has over 50% since they now are the majority, they can not recruit as long as they are above 50

solves merging and unbalanced gameplay in newer worlds

 

[DeletedUser1201]

Okay guys, I am going to come straight out and tell you that I am simply providing my interruption of what I've read from the announcement. As I stated, I may be wrong in my own thoughts.. and I have no issue stating that. I will see if I can not dig up further information on this for all of you, or at least get @Coolnite7 to provide further information.