Familys in the top 5?

[DeletedUser]

Monty:

I've trained players before in tribes, and I agree that training newer players is a good thing.

However, just setting them loose as "let's mass half-ass it" isn't the solution.

I agree that you shouldn't half-ass anything, but it is still as bad to put inexperienced players up against an extreme challenge which they will face when they join this game. Maybe I'm wrong, we both have opinions. So, I think it's time to just end this discussion.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree that you shouldn't half-ass anything, but it is still as bad to put inexperienced players up against an extreme challenge which they will face when they join this game. Maybe I'm wrong, we both have opinions. So, I think it's time to just end this discussion.

I agree, new players need better training.

But massive numbers just makes them worse, exacerbates the differences.

Maria:

I've talked to MANY family tribe leaders before, and they admit that they're "one tribe". They admit all the points I'm making. They just argue whether it's good.

So, seriously, you're wrong. It's that simple.

Here, something even your coplayer admits:

Family tribes trade players. Allies do not.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree, new players need better training.

But massive numbers just makes them worse, exacerbates the differences.

Maria:

I've talked to MANY family tribe leaders before, and they admit that they're "one tribe". They admit all the points I'm making. They just argue whether it's good.

So, seriously, you're wrong. It's that simple.

Here, something even your coplayer admits:

Family tribes trade players. Allies do not.

The term familytribe was here before shared forum came, then each of the tribes had normaly theyre own seperate leadership to control things, but the leadership where gathered together on skype about enemies etca. They had theyre own targets as enemies in some cases and some as the same enemies.

Then we have allies, they had also seperate leaderships for each tribe but had a skype covo about who theyre enemies where, with way to go etca too, and they shure also had some enemies that the other one didnt have and had some in common.

Now that shared has comed, ive seen the exact same evolvement happen in both familytribes and among allies: allies with same claimlist and support, familytribes with different claimlist and support and wise versa.

If someone is attacking your ally, then your tribe normaly wouldnt be at the same terms with them as if they didnt, and probubly would support your ally in that war...or maybe not at all. Same goes for a familytribe.

Okey, i see a part of your point, ive been going to deep on the sea at some small points, there is a small, tiny difference. But ill go back with that who was my main point:
Its no difference if your getting gangbanged by a familytibe or a bunch of allied ones, trying to stop familytribes is the same as stopping allies to support each other in every way that is and have the same diplomacy. Aka the only difference that it can be is the leadership (and traiding players), the rest is up to the tribes themselves. Allies can have the exact same goals as each other and support each other fully to the end of the tribes, if you calculated them together in points theyre all the same as a familytribe since they stand together.

In the end, trying to block away familytribes is the same as blocking away any alliance/agreements between tribes in general, since the point is in many ways the same: outnumbering or getting higher in numbers against one enemy than you can accive in one tribe due to the tribelimit.

I dont have anything against alliances, therefore i cant have anything against familytribes. It will turn out like a "only a nub would have alliances" concept if familytribes where denied, a huge of the game is to make agreements with other tribes against others.

Wait....it still means its basicly the same, only that the tribes can have different diplomacy with other tribes and is not ruled by one but two leaderships. Itsa still outnumbering the enemy than standing alone.

In this thing, your wrong in trying to block away familytribes with your "pro" ideas, thats basicly showing that you havnt understod the thing that might be the most important factor in tw: Diplomacy:icon_rolleyes:

 

[DeletedUser]

EverythingsMusic?

What do you want?

@Topic

Family Tribe ( A tribes with one name, one goal, one leadership, one diplomacy, still not content allying everyone in the world ) = Fail

Allies ( A tribe with different name, different goal, different leadership, different diplomacy, less members ) = Good communication and coordination.

 

[DeletedUser]

In the end, trying to block away familytribes is the same as blocking away any alliance/agreements between tribes in general, since the point is in many ways the same: outnumbering or getting higher in numbers against one enemy than you can accive in one tribe due to the tribelimit.

I dont have anything against alliances, therefore i cant have anything against familytribes. It will turn out like a "only a nub would have alliances" concept if familytribes where denied, a huge of the game is to make agreements with other tribes against others.

Wait....it still means its basicly the same, only that the tribes can have different diplomacy with other tribes and is not ruled by one but two leaderships. Itsa still outnumbering the enemy than standing alone.

No. Because with diplomacy, things aren't as stable. Allies can be cross allied. They can have other wars going on. And, simplest, the comparison to make is this: If someone somehow managed to fit 70 players in a tribe in a world with a tribelimit of 40, it'd be cheating. This is exactly the same.

So, yet again, as the developers of the game, who'd know just a bit more about this then you, have agreed, family tribes are cheap, and against the spirit of the game.

 

[DeletedUser]

No. Because with diplomacy, things aren't as stable. Allies can be cross allied. They can have other wars going on. And, simplest, the comparison to make is this: If someone somehow managed to fit 70 players in a tribe in a world with a tribelimit of 40, it'd be cheating. This is exactly the same.

So, yet again, as the developers of the game, who'd know just a bit more about this then you, have agreed, family tribes are cheap, and against the spirit of the game.

Familytribes can ble splitted into two or one part of the family can have good relations with a tribe whilst the other dosnt like the tribe at all. Then one part of the tribe wont take part of the war at all, as one tribe.

Diplomacy can be as uch stable as familytribes, that i hopefully dont need to explain o.o

In that way, an alliance cant be over the amount of the tribelimit if the tribes are combined. A familytribe is an alliance, only closer.

The dev's says then that alliances with tribes over the tribal limit shouldnt be alowed that way, and thats wrong. Its still the same as a familytribe becouse it has the same purpose tho, so it cant be that way.

Your saying that alliances shouldnt be alowed, and you have tried to make others doing it so no-one in the top 20 should have an alliance before to so dont deny it.

Dosnt look like you have your own opinion, if you readed a book with many good thoughts like giving to the poor.... but, it claimed that black people where devils in decise (whos basicly totaly lost)(this is an example, Rena tried to tell you thesame thing with demonstraiting nazism, you blocked her becouse your so fast that you never let her finnish anytihing, her words). You in your way of thinking couldnt say anything against that book or you had to agree with everything. Reason is: Becouse they devoluped the whole book, that means that theyre the ones behind it and therefore is right about everything there....

Alliances are just ass much cheating as familytribes...but it looks like you mean that it is cheating to, so have it your way :icon_rolleyes:

Btw: Rena says that you claim me to be totaly lost about this etca and arrogant, happy birthday

 

[DeletedUser]

I say we bring back Free-eekism !!!

 

[DeletedUser]

I feel as though family tribes can be a great learning experience for players, even those who lead them. It may not be the greatest strategically, nor may the guides, and advice that the tribes give them will be the best, but it will be a learning experience for them all. Something that can be taken in and learned from, I have learned very little through victory, but that which I learned in losing could fill a book.

This is mainly directed at ender wing, it is not as simple as the facts number, but the growth as a player, in the understanding of what is at first a very complex game. The excitement of your first noble even if you are one of the last on your K to be getting, joining that huge family tribe, so that you even at a lesser playing ability survive and learn to build on what you know, eventually becoming the players that you see today. I think many of the older players miss this, and many of the newer ones too, if you are a new player willing to learn there is now the information out there to walk into a world without a clue and become a top 50 or even top 20 player. And if you were back all the way in the beginning well competition sucked, I happened to have been introduced in the middle, where there were those out there like thar, and jamm, who had it broken down as much as I do now, but it was not as shared, and true learning to be a top player took place through the trial and error of starting out. Which for me at least also included joining into family tribes for protection, and with each time I did that I gained further insight into what I was doing wrong, and what I was doing correctly.

So I would have to disagree with the abolishing of family tribes.

 

[DeletedUser]

I say we bring back Free-eekism !!!

Free-eeekism!!!

 

[DeletedUser1508]

'Family' tribes aren't always like you say Ender-wiggin... they do have minds of their own. I remember on w24, my tribes academy betrayed us when another outside tribe started attacking us :icon_sad:
Of course, that was before there were shared forums...

Anyway, I think that its not quite fair to be able to make our 'elite' tribes and then flame the less experienced players for getting scared and making families. From our point of view (including myself in the 'elite' here :icon_wink, families suck, and are pathetic. But from their perspective it might not be quite the same... they might only have the options of family or die.

However, of course they still often die :icon_wink:
But, that being said, they do have a slightly better chance when being able to make families. Why should we take that chance away from them? It's not like it effects us much, but if it makes them enjoy the game more at their level, then I think there is nothing wrong with them being allowed.

Just my little spiel on this topic :icon_biggrin:

 

[DeletedUser]

Family Tribe Oh Family Tribe, When Will You Understand?
You are destined to fail, no matter how brilliant you think your plan.

You thought that you were clever, "We'll be safe if we recruit en masse!"
Little did you realize the failure in this, you now have a target on your ass.

Top tribes will be out to get you, for their farms you will recruit
the more poor players you invite, the greater players will start to become more astute.

They will then crush your tribe, you will lose your saving grace
You won't even have forum rep, you'll be nothing but disgrace.

So this ends my story, I hope they took it to heart
For their failure is inevitable, it is best that they restart.

 

[DeletedUser]

Or maybe for a well known tune:

Family and family live together in perfect harmony
"Side by side!" they type on their keyboards, oh lord, why dont we?
We all know that people are the same where ever we go
There is noob and bad in everyone,
We learn to live, we learn to give
ally the other so we can survive together alive.

Family and family live together in perfect harmony
"Side by side!" they type on their keyboards, oh lord, why dont we?

Family, family living in perfect harmony
Family, family, ooh​

 

[DeletedUser2118]

I unfortunately did not read everything not said by ender-wiggin >_>.

I just wanna point out that the argument that family tribes is one of the best chances for a new player is ridiculous. Being in a family tribe automatically increases the chance a better player targets them. Additionally, time and again tribalwars has shown that when someone can hide in a tribe they do. Big tribes get little overall commitment early on. The look of fear really doesn't go anywhere. On the other hand, new players that form extremely clustered small tribes perform swimmingly relative to their skills.

Also forgive ender his extreme loathing for families he's from an earlier time, where family tribes weren't just big, they had player skill as well.


Edit: I say better, but more accurate is aggressive

 

[DeletedUser]

Also forgive ender his extreme loathing for families he's from an earlier time,

aye, well, i have always thought a dinosaur would fit ender's avatar better then the dragon :icon_razz:

/hides

Spoiler: Hideout

I keed, I keed!

You are totally right though lardy, and so is ender though he is the more extremist wing of the argument!