Tribe Domination

[DeletedUser3693]

To answer a question that was asked about not taking the entire tribe but just some of the tribe, to my understanding if that merge allows you to enter tribal domination you would be disqualified. What the rule is trying to do is prevent world's from being won just by merging, which we all know happens and because it happens the same tribes keep winning. This way tribes have no choice but to fight it out till one tribe rules the world basically.

 

[DeletedUser]

People recuit member to reach 80% village.
That's mean they really don't want to keep play this game anymore.
Don't have endgame yet.
This game take very long time,and time is money.

 

[DeletedUser2847]

Have Innogames considered to do something about why tribes is merging to get to the 80%. I understand that there might be some problems with introducing the endgame. But if there is introduced a tribelimit at 50-80 members the situation will become way more intresting. There will be many more tribes that actually make an influence on the realm and the diplomatic situation will change all the time. Wars will start, wars will end and wars will start again. The ally/nap situation will change dramaticly several times during a realm. tribes cant plan from the beginning of a realm to merge, they can work together but at some point this will change because one tribe is not going to watch the other tribe grow to big. The reason why this merges happends today is often that 2 tribes have worked together a long time and dont want to backstabb eachother. If the number of members in a tribe is 50-80 this will become impossible and the number of tribes that are influencal at the realm will make the playing way more fun a long time.

 

[DeletedUser2742]

Seems to me, that the limit on numbers in tribes would solve the problem the easiest way. Cap them at say 50 members regardless of world development etc, and they will have to fight it out to get to the magical domination trigger

 

[DeletedUser2369]

I agree with @shekel finder, @carrot70, and @Undiegnome about tribe size.
I think that will be the easiest fix for the issue, in the early worlds a high tribe size was OK, though even then the tribes merged to create a 2 horse race. This is tiresome and repetitive, and in the new worlds its even worse. If you capped the tribe size at a much smaller sizeyou would have more tribes, meaning more wars, the diplomacy actually becomes a viable tactic (at the moment its not worth much as there are only a few tribes with the clout to warrant diplomacy, but it they ally/NAP it kills the fighting in the world), and joe blogs on the rim has a chance to win even if he doesnt earn himself an invite to one of the top 3 or 4 tribes.
Also smaller tribes tend to spur the tribes to fight harder in my experience.
In tribal wars 1 there was a tribe limit of 40. Tribes got around this by having academys and family tribes. Maybe innogames took this as the players wanting bigger tribes? Though even there (at least when i played) the family tribes were considered worse than mass-recruiting tribes are here, and even academys, at least in the early stages of a world, were looked down upon.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hi there,
I saw the new rule that was posted about stopping tribes from merging once tribe domination has started in a world.
Basically could you explain, the definition of a merger?
For example, if we take one player from another tribe but leave the rest is that a merger?
If we take 5 , but leave the rest?
Same question if we take 30 but 50 still remain in the old tribe?
Is there a set percentage?

Also, am I right in assuming that so long as 70% isnt reached then any amount of players can change tribe?

Thanks for any clarification,
Bickomad

 

[DeletedUser1323]

At this point, the merging in the attempt to speed up or finish a world by merely obtaining villas during domination by acquiring players through tribes merging is considered disqualification.
As long as all of the tribes participating in a merger do not exceed 70% it is acceptable, unless this becomes a problem and @Coolnite7 has the ability to modify the rule.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok I understand that if it is under 70% then everything is ok.

But, say a tribe is above 70% , could it still invite say 5 members from a 50 member tribe? This might put them over the 80% but it's not what I'd class a 'merger'. Would the rules class it as one?

 

[DeletedUser1845]

As long as all of the tribes participating in a merger do not exceed 70% it is acceptable, unless this becomes a problem and @Coolnite7 has the ability to modify the rule.

am i reading too much into this ?? does this mean if coolnite isn't happy he can modify the rule yet again ! !
if so what is the point of trying to lay down the rules so people can follow them then all of a sudden there changed yet again presumably right at the last minute because another tribe gets the ma ma ..

 

[DeletedUser1323]

am i reading too much into this ?? does this mean if coolnite isn't happy he can modify the rule yet again ! !
if so what is the point of trying to lay down the rules so people can follow them then all of a sudden there changed yet again presumably right at the last minute because another tribe gets the ma ma ..

You probably are reading too much into this. The Community Manager has the ability to alter certain aspects of gameplay that is in their job description.

 

[DeletedUser1104]

You probably are reading too much into this. The Community Manager has the ability to alter certain aspects of gameplay that is in their job description.

No but as has been evidenced by the numerous questions raised, there is some discrepancy as to what a "merge" is... among other issues with this rule. Coolnite has addressed none of them. So yes in a way if coolnite is not happy he can ban people. He has left the rule in a grey area as to what constitutes a merge and thus can ban people according to his own beliefs that he has not explained. Someone will inevitably break the rule...

I guess when someone gets banned he can just do what he did when people asked questions... quote his original vague post as his amazing explanation... and provide no further reasoning.

 

[DeletedUser2578]

i can't see in anyway how recruiting one play would be merging as it's not.
Also if top tribe goes below 70% domination does tribe domination still continue?

 

[DeletedUser1201]

But, say a tribe is above 70% , could it still invite say 5 members from a 50 member tribe? This might put them over the 80% but it's not what I'd class a 'merger'. Would the rules class it as one?

I believe that its during the 70% that any sort of merge would in fact violate the domination process. Honestly, I think a better clarification concerning what the Developers feel counts as a merge is needed here. That will help resolve some of the pending questions. Will ask @Coolnite7 to obtain further information and provide it for everyone's knowledge.

i can't see in anyway how recruiting one play would be merging as it's not.
Also if top tribe goes below 70% domination does tribe domination still continue?

Good questions, again.. something that needs better clarification.

 

[DeletedUser430]

For example, if we take one player from another tribe but leave the rest is that a merger?

Lets be 100% honest as this is not what has been happening and one player will not trigger this issue that has been going on.

Same question if we take 30 but 50 still remain in the old tribe? Is there a set percentage?

That's considered a merge correct me if I'm wrong?

Also, am I right in assuming that so long as 70% isnt reached then any amount of players can change tribe?

If you are merging to win a world then this would be against that rule right?

I'm sure there are many questions just as I'm sure there will be tribes that test this. What you guys don't understand is that YOUR fellow tribe members/players wanted this change as they didn't see this as being fair and I agree 100%. It's Tribal Wars. To be honest a better solution as many have asked would be to allow 100% domination.

On another note we are working to also correct this and while I proposed alternative methods I agree with reducing the tribes to 50 members or so. Many of the ideas that have been posted and emailed via forum/support I have shared with the developers and they are at work correcting this

Please remember there this thread is here regarding domination so creating more isn't needed.

 

[DeletedUser3390]

First of all let me say I do like the change except in my opinion it should be specified more.
This because I quote:
"Tribes who merge during Tribe Domination, will now be disqualified from Tribe Domination. All other functions of Tribe Domination will remain the same."
This means all people are stuck in the tribe they are in once 70% is reached by a tribe.
In my opinion this should be changed to only apply to the tribe currently at 70%.
This to keep up the challenge for the remaining 30% to fight back and get back on top.
Because how its currently specified it would disqualify the remaining 30% if they grouped up together to fight the top tribe. Which seems a bit weird to me.

So in my opinion it should be changed to something in the lines of:
"If the top tribe who reached 70% merges during Tribe Domination, they will now be disqualified from Tribe Domination. All other functions of Tribe Domination will remain the same."
This would encourage the remaining 30% of top 10 tribes to work together and put up a last stand.

Original announcement:
https://en.forum.tribalwars2.com/index.php?threads/tribe-domination.4319/

 

[DeletedUser2369]

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

Did i miss anything in this thread that answered these questions? I skimmed through, but all i saw was mods restating the parts that needed clarification without actually clarifying...

 

[DeletedUser3726]

Seems like we're still in the gray about this. I've understand that as long as enough (enough being enough to the judge, no fix %) players from an other tribe are recruited it'll be considered as a merge.
But when it is ok to merge and when it is not ? You're talking about tribe domination triggering at 70%, so until 1 tribe reached that amount it is ok to merge ? And is it ok if 2 tribe merge when they got 30% each for exemple ?

 

[DeletedUser3505]

It's obviously being left very ambiguous so the rule can be changed at a whim depending on the situation (and the mood of the person in charge of making the rules)

 

[DeletedUser430]

It's obviously being left very ambiguous so the rule can be changed at a whim depending on the situation (and the mood of the person in charge of making the rules)

100% incorrect, what you failed to say in this statement is that we did not want to adjust or change the rule however many players have complained on same tribes doing this to win worlds. So after many request we had to adjust (again what players wanted) endgame so that this strategy is not used.

 

[DeletedUser2847]

Nobody is saying anything about this rule. The problem is that we dont Know What support is put into merge into tribedomination. Is recruiting 1 player a violation of this rule or not? Another problem is that we dont Know What is going to happend when some tribes violate this rule. My personal opinion on this rule is that it is silly. If the rules was that we couldnt merge/recruiting after 50-60% it would be Way better. The only reason to merge/recruiting around 70% is the lack of an endgame and that 90% of the players is feeling playing the game this late is like watching paint dry on the wall. The realms are more or less dead at this stage. You have 100-200 members in the leading tribe. This is the most active players at the realm. There is maybe 100-200 active players up against the nr 1 tribe. But this players is just semi activ and their only gameplan is to build def and noble as many barbs as possible to prevent 80%. I have played this endgame at 10-12 realms and its same situation every time. The game is just not intresting at all when a tribe get 60-70%. Do something about endgame and tribesize and this might be different