Changes to The Tribe system, your opinions wanted.

[dabookman]

As you know we here in TW Towers are always looking to see what improvements can be made to the game.

We would value your feedback on the games Tribe system, What if any changes would you like to see?

For example, The Leadership structure? would you like to see a different system? If so, What?

Feel free to suggest anything you think would improve the whole tribal experience.

 

[Marcus the Mad]

Perhaps something to make alliances a visible part of the game would be interesting.

Tribes join an alliance and the leaders (barons/baronettes and dukes/duchesses) elect a king/queen of the alliance and can select a number of princes/princesses or lords/ladies (just see however far you want to go about that) who'll take similar duties on hand as regular tribe matters. Could also make it oligarchic and set up a council who vote for every thing, but that seems a bit too unwieldy.

The official leaders (king/queen and prince/princess) can set a flag, write some policy etc. Only king can promote others to "royalty" of the alliance or disband. All royalty can declare war on another alliance (or a single tribe) or allow/deny tribes to join the alliance (as well as remove them from the alliance). Unlike barons, princes etc can remove a king from power trough a vote (with a time limitation in how long the voting can last and how much time minimum between a vote to remove from power. During a vote, the king can not demote the princes, or if it's to be truly democratic, every member of the alliance could vote), this to prevent a player who went inactive or just fell from grace to remain in a spot where he/she is not wanted anymore by the populace.

Would be neat to have a ranking on the alliances as well so there is some sort of a visual idea to strength of alliances etc.
Mind you that just as the enemy marking on the map, the ally marking on the map should still act independently and alliances like this should not be compulsory.

It'd implement another layer of "tribe" basically wherein the individual tribes are members. Some other pro's of this could be the distinct splitting of numerous shared forums with a bunch of tribes into one separate forum entity "Alliance forum" accessible from an "Alliance" tab on the header menu.

Not sure how this would work with end-game scenario's, but frankly, a lot of newer worlds tend to end in a big hug so alliance win would pretty much be the same idea.

Personally I would not limit the number of tribes able to join an alliance as that isn't the case right now anyway and people usually just don't get along well enough to form world encompassing alliances (except in special cases).

 

[DeletedUser10619]

Not so much a tribe structure point but something for the growth of the tribe, would be a tribe pot of coins.

We are always telling members that villages, troops etc effectively are part of the tribe, rather than just belonging to the player. As players grow at different rates, it can often be frustrating to the larger players (particularly in mid to end game) where the larger players are nobling so fast that they run out of nobles, whilst the smaller players can often be sitting on enough coins for dozens of nobles...so i would suggest some sort of tribe pot, where every coin minted goes into this communal pot and any player can then use these coins to produce a noble, at the relevant cost of the player concerned. This way every player is then contributing to the growth of the tribe.

 

[Great Grobbly]

Possibly and Tribal church system, this would help support clustering on the frontlines and battles instead of wasting 7500 farm space to cover the 3 barbs you took just to cluster your frontline.

To Elaborate on this you could change it so it isn't actually churchs, you have Tribal Beacons which consumes a village and maybe on 20 beacons per tribe and it increase troops offence and defence by 30%, you can demlish and move like churchs, this will help frontline battles,

Or tribal churchs under the similar concept

 

[DeletedUser14293]

If the game is to change positively then the biggest thing would be the removal of co play. This would level the playing field for a whole lot of players. Again and again the same accounts are sitting top of piles, because they are a conglomerate of guys working it constantly. Even dedicated individuals can not compete. An added side benefit to this rule change could be an increased number of competing players to play the worlds.

 

[DeletedUser14202]

sb007ck I really like your suggestion.

A tribe being able to send or share a pot of coins between themselves.

Would be great if support can be moved ON instead of returning and being sent out again, mirror real battles, no army would march home before heading to new destination.

 

[DeletedUser13389]

I dont agree with the tribe pot, dont think it is a great idea. You earn your own coins playing your game. The pp system though benefits players with money not the skill to make the game thoroughly enjoyable.
World sizes are an issue, introducing new worlds as often as possible is making some of the worlds really small and boring. Some great worlds have been original 1 and 21 where the worlds were larger and great fun.
The tribal system could also be improved, if you join a tribe then you should have to stay in it till the bitter end. This would make it more exciting as players would have to choose who to be with and develop the tribal members and work as tribe members rather than as a bunch of individuals. Also avoiding the constant tribe changing.
And make the events rarer not every week or so. It is much more fun and evens out the playing field for the players and would make the worlds more exciting.
Finally stop being sneaky in making changes to the game, and when you do make an error dont treat experienced or amateur players like idiots and dont take there money that is used to save themselves due to said error.

 

[DeletedUser14334]

I have always thought more work could be done to the position of the diplomat. If a system was introduced when conducting a negotiating where the negotiations are conducted on a official platform entered into by registered tribe members, when terms are agreed all participating members sign off on it and the diplomats are given a statistic to the effect of 'a successful negotiation' so that that player will now have a reference of ability in that position, like a CV of sorts. This makes being a diplomat more fun and enables leaders to be better informed when choosing positions for its members. Variants of this idea could be repurposed for other positions also, e.g. Def/off coordinators and so on troops lost/killed.

 

[DeletedUser14333]

Maybe a tribe ranking/points system. Leadership can award players with points etc and when they reach a certain amount of points they go up in rank in the tribe, the amount and names of the rank are down to each tribe. Then the leadership can pick any member to become part of the tribe council if they wish, a maximum of say 10 players can be in each rank group at a time. You could possibly have each rank like a league, after say each week or month whoever is at the top of the league moves to the next league and whoever is at the bottom goes down to the next. The winner of each group at the end of the week/month will get rewarded with an inventory item at random or gets a go of say a wheel spin to decide what perk they get

 

[Patris Mortem]

A more personalisable tribe profile, larger CoA's, font colours etc... Just to add a bit of essence.

A global ingame forum for the world...

 

[DeletedUser13858]

It seems like there are still alot of new players trying Tribal Wars but quitting fairly quickly and alot of villages become inactive and going barb before they have noble capability. Perhaps more quest incentives to speed up the process or have a faster world speed (x2 speed minimum for every world?). Giving more quest troops like 100 free spears and 100 free swords on completion of the quests that currently give 10 free spears/swords would really help every player get alot closer to having a good size village and not being farmed after playing just a few days.

I played before the Quest system was introduced and I think the Quest system could also be adapted to give more benefits within a tribe, maybe giving a daily resource bonus for viewing the forums or allowing the Duke could see who has viewed the forums.

I like the idea of transparency in being able to see every tribes' diplomatic relationships with each other, knowing if you declare on a tribe that you will also be facing its ally.

Maybe the ability for Duke/Barons to see how many troops tribe members have kind of in the same way a Mentor can see an Apprentice's troops and village build. This would benefit the tribal strategy and make Ops easier to arrange. This could be optional for each player in the same way that its optional for Command Sharing.

 

[DeletedUser11544]

I don't quite see how TW has any bearing or could have in the future of tribal leadership. Doesn't each tribe have its own way of setting up leadership and what you call said leadership or am i reading this wrong!!

 

[Drift Banksy]

A global ingame forum for the world...

I like this idea.

Plus, the tribe group chat (no offence) sucks. I like the idea but the way it is implemented is not perfect, which makes skype better.
If you could have a group chats, which you make, ingame (but not the pop up kind) This would be good for councils and players making ops or defending in only a certain area, so you only want the 5 players around you talking for example.

On the Tribe forums, would be good if you can see on a post who has read it (maybe only the person who posted can see who has read), this would be good for leaders seeing who is active on the forums, also to seek out spies, see who's ignoring support request, ect.

 

[DeletedUser14335]

How about Flags which can effect the whole tribe? Gained for certain achievements as the current flags but only the council can decide when to implement their use.

Could give certain tribes a certain philosophy - i.e. offensive tribes or expansive tribes (reduced building costs or speeds)...

Could maybe work out some kind of experience system where troops which survive battles become more experienced and more effective in future battles...

What about mercenary troops - If you're under attack and have few troops, you could "hire" troops for either resources or coins. Maybe also do the same to boost an attack...

 

[DeletedUser13323]

I say keep it simple, maybe Alliances can support each other. Bring back a defence troop pot, for Tribes and alliances, also maybe a Res pot, both for tribes and alliances to be administered by the hierarchy made up from two members of each tribal council.

 

[DeletedUser14337]

It would be interesting to try one new world with the settings to noble only players. No barbarians nobling.

 

[Oscar the Boxer]

Think your focusing on something that doesn't really need changing, pp is killing the game. PP you earn on a world shouldn't be transferable to another world. All the people selling resource for pp to use on different worlds has negative effect on a world. You can play around with tribe system, quests or the mini games but it won't improve while resource is sold for pp to be used on a different world. There is no level playing field any more.

The last mini game, collect gems, was pathetic. TW is hardly the future of browser/app gaming. It was good but its just a cash cow for inno now.

 

[Drift Banksy]

On that note, people who actually dont spend money, are at such a disadvantage is unbelievable. You can farm all you want and still be so far behind.
But i do realise that cannot be changed, as you's need to make money somehow and with a smaller user base now, you will take whatever you can...

 

[DeletedUser14293]

pp works fine i feel, and is available to all with no fuss or dramas, only time and effort is necessary to farm for it whichever way you do, buying/selling. To compete at the top end foresight and preparation for a chosen upcoming world would be my route, not cash.

Co-play creates almost unplayable accounts. Represses the number of accounts in a world. Creates the possibility of losing your account. Greatly reduces an accounts risk factor. Allows players to act deplorably and blame 'the rogue co-player'!

Perhaps it would be an idea to create a world where the accounts can not be co-played. Surely this would lead to a more competitive world as individuals are more susceptible than groups.

 

[Drift Banksy]

Dont like the no co play idea. If i'm not going to be on for a 12hr period lets say. What can i do against a train, if they send when i'm not on?
I understand your idea, but i dont think people will want that.