Tribal level game play.

DeletedUser

Guest
Tribes and their problems

So I am not really writing a guide, more a collection of thoughts, very poorly placed together, as I made this topic by mistake and just decided to use the thread, since apparently I can switch the title around of the thread which is cool. So Im gonna discuss this apparently bare with me made this thread by accident and am just deciding to use it.

So there seems to be this total lack of tribal cohesion, and idea that the players should function in entire isolation for each other, in fact at times in opposition to each other. The idea that having personal growth stunted is the worst of possible outcomes.

Within my time in the worlds I have played I have seen some of the better players in the game get into literal fights about villages that two people planned on taking. I have seen fights about having recruits only noble in specific K's forcing members to chose where they noble as to not offend the existing members of a tribe.

Now all these things serve to do a few things. The need for personal growth causes friction, creating a divide between players. I think it stems from this culture that too many people now identify themselves through what their rank is, I too am guilty of this. We place such emphasis on the individual success as a community a great player is a top ranked player, but is that really what constitutes a great player. Is the best fighter in the game working removed, or in limited fashion with his tribe worth a player that is decent and works with and for his tribe. it is almost seen as a flaw in the player themselves if they fail at the initial stages of a game, even when no help is offered as a tribe. Help that would slow down the players offering most likely leads to this, for the first few stages we look inwards trying to optimize everything and well throwing our troops around like this is outside our plan it alters what we have to do it makes for a less effective start than we wanted.

At least in every single tribe I have ever been there is always a drought of players to help with the needs of sitting. There is this need to avoid work load, that sitting is some sort of an extra, a duty which should not be required of members to do. Now I understand this thought, but I only understand it from the other aspect, after having sat so many people for the tribe because no-one else would volunteer, it creates a disjunction, a work load increase on the few that are willing to help others and if everyone was willing to help the burden would never be too great for the workload would be spread between many people.

Perhaps all of this stems from the culture, but I doubt it the majority of players out there seem to be selfish, they play for themselves this was a problem that I have encountered since day one of playing this game. People that look for a tribe in name a mere banner to fly their name under instead of an actual tribe.

And I think this will continue until the leaders step up, until the leaders say, you know what no matter how good it looks to have these players within my tribe having players that will work with me is more important than anything else. The realization that for a real tribe that works together people need to learn to use the dismiss option.

And it may seem as though I have someone in specific in mind, but I don't I write this in general, in fact within my own thoughts in the past there have been a few tribes that I should have been kicked out for for failure to preform as I should have been.

Well thats my thoughts ignore me if you wish
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I find this to be one of the best "guides" I have EVER read.
Everything you say is true. I remember thing sin previous worlds (Uk2/3) where I joined a tribe, became the top player, and was then seen as a god. So everyone listens to me...DON'T!
Play your own way, but help and react in the tribe. I was trying to get a resource trade forum set up in that tribe for over a month, and finally left when one never was. (there were other reasons too)
In UK3, the duke of an allied (shared forum) tribe was seriously out to get his tribe no where. He declared on three allies, he flamed the leaders of all of the tribes in our shared forum, and accused them of being "hoang's minions" (when hoang was still on UK3...) and when I showed that all of his "proof" was crap, he accused me of being sat, and told me I was wrong when I said hoang had never sat me...I am pretty sure hoang never hacked my account, so yeah.
[more to come]
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I agree fully.

Especially with this line


you know what no matter how good it looks to have these players within my tribe having players that will work with me is more important than anything else.

I have only been in one tribe that i can say with absolute certainty played by these guidelines

People checked their egos at the door, and only cared about one thing. Tribal Success. It's what made said tribe, one of the most feared/Hated to ever play the game.

Everyone came in willing to lose 1 village if it meant the tribe gained 2

The formula, is Tribe>Self>Enemies, and when an entire tribe jumps on board and fully commits to that formula, its very much a sight to behold.
and imo, will be a tribe that bests a tribe full of "elites" that play for rank, everytime.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
It seems a majority play for themselves, in a tribe only to be protected and not to play as a tribe. I think there is a lack of actual "team work" based tribes.
 

DeletedUser2765

Guest
[ke]Hmmm, rather then debating points with you mattcurr as I agree with some of them, I will instead offer a different perspective. A perspective I have developed both as a player gunning for nothing but rank 1 and as a leader of tribes.

First, I believe that first 3 weeks (or however long it takes to get to nobles as it varies between each world) are a literal free-for-all.

I do not believe players should send support/resources to tribe mates in need. I personally, as a player and a leader, view the time up to nobles as a testing ground. A time and place to get rid of the weak and inactive. I do believe in strikes against specific targets of tribes (ie: everyone who has cats, catapult every tribe member of tribe xx thats within 5 hours of you). But I don't think troops / resources should be sent to those who are to inactive/unskilled to fend for themselves.

Once nobles come out, my views are drastically different.

As a leader, I have every player send out 5 spears to every village owned by the tribe (as a trip-wire system) and I also believe in somewhat long range attacks to take out priority targets (ie: a good player sitting in the middle of a cluster of tribe members, have members outside of the cluster fake attack his tribe mates and have the cluster target him/her).

As the world increases, I believe more and more team work is needed in order for the tribe and players that comprise the tribe survive. The first 3 weeks though are always personal growth. There are exceptions to this, but they are few and far between in my personal opinion.[/ke]
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Kriegselend said:
[ke]
First, I believe that first 3 weeks (or however long it takes to get to nobles as it varies between each world) are a literal free-for-all.

I do not believe players should send support/resources to tribe mates in need. I personally, as a player and a leader, view the time up to nobles as a testing ground. A time and place to get rid of the weak and inactive. I do believe in strikes against specific targets of tribes (ie: everyone who has cats, catapult every tribe member of tribe xx thats within 5 hours of you). But I don't think troops / resources should be sent to those who are to inactive/unskilled to fend for themselves.
[/ke]

I know that is my entire point. You summed up my thoughts on what is wrong with players these days quite well.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Hmmmm my thoughts exactly on almost every single tribe i have been in to date, have still only ever been in one tribe that fully accepts that Tribe>Self....too bad there aint more out there :(
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I completely agree that people treat the first 3 weeks as a free for all. As for myself, I usually play solo for the first month or so at least. If everyone in a tribe is going to be playing for themselves then there is no real advantage to joining. I sit, watch, wait and when I see a tribe with potential to be in for the long haul then thats the tribe I join. Especially in the first few weeks tribes are being created and falling apart all over the place anyways. The exception is if you join a premade I suppose.

As for account sitting, I find that really annoying. Somehow I often got accounts dumped on me an hour or two before I go to bed myself which leaves the owner to come back and wonder why everything wasn't done which just creates friction in the tribe. Personally, I don't use sitters often. I know no one wants to take my account and I hate the feeling of being a burden on the tribe. That and I'm not completely obsessed with my rank. I like to do well but finding someone to take my account just to send those two farming runs and que up a timber level (for example) just isn't worth having a tribe member annoyed with you. I'll do it myself when I get up :icon_wink:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I agree with all of what was said in this post.. but, as a leader of a tribe (not talking in this world of course), i admit that is very difficult to put that working.. not because leaders don't give them best, but because is difficult to arrange players with that mind.. i know some tribes, where they work together and put that ideas in the acts, but i'm sure that is 1% of the entire tw.
 

DeletedUser4570

Guest
@ The one

My thoughts :

I think the things you higlight are evident and frustrating in many of the tribes I have been in.
One thing I think you need to consider though is , not everyone has the equal amount of time to be able to be online , and peoples lives dictate how much they can offer.
On the sitting issue I know personally I have been at both ends .. always sitting and never sitting , depending on my personal circumstances at the time.
I think people in general who are constantly taking advantage and are just out for themselves , get me very frustrated but some of them are fun players to play with , but I'd have to say they breed resentment no matter how fun they are and bring the tribe morale down and I personally have lost a lot of desire for this game because of playing with people like that.
I think the tribe like celtic described was successful in bringing people together and having good morale , and people being full aware they were no more important than anyone else , to me thats the key , when no matter who you are , equal is expected of all , bearing in mind peoples personal circumstances .
Personally I play this game for fun , not to be stressed out sitting loads of people a night , but when I did have time I had no problem with doing that ... I think the key is for people to be clear about the intentions of the tribe and the expectations of the player and to enforce this when players are obviously not playing their part.
There are funzies tribes which are for semi active people where expectations aren't too high, then tribes that do have expectations and can be equally as fun as long as you can contribute and then those people who have no intention of contributing to a tribe should all stick in one tribe by themselves.
People just need to be clear and consistant as to what kind of tribe it is. If you are in a tribe you should play your part get to know your tribe mates , take sits, don't think you are too good to dwell amongst everyone else.
If you don't take part in the chat or the forum , or take on any tasks why be in a tribe ?
I think the tribe>self brings good morale ,brings fun , brings success.
Tribes where big names play together for fun can be successful but for me tribe morale isn't as high and eventually people loose the desire to play .
 

DeletedUser117

Guest
There is one thing that I would like to highlight, that is tribal cohesion. I have been in many tribes and honestly the best tribes are the ones that members actually like and respect each other. If the tribal members like each other, then you will find members more willing to send support or accept sittings for other members.

Whilst it is the leaders duty to ensure all members help other each other out, you cannot force members to accept sits, or send defense to other members that they dont like or respect. Sure you can boot them - but it will not solve the underlying reason why tribal members will not help each other. If there is friction caused by inviting people too close to other members or by inviting on points and not on personality - then there will be trouble.

In conclusion points and tribal / player rankings are not really why I play this game - its the fun and challenge of playing with friends (both new and old) that keeps me logging on. Whilst seeing my name in the top 100 or whatever is fun to see - the skype convos and tribal forums are what keep me playing and players personality that makes me support and sit them.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
sparks said:
or send defense to other members that they dont like or respect. Sure you can boot them - but it will not solve the underlying reason why tribal members will not help each other. If there is friction caused by inviting people too close to other members or by inviting on points and not on personality - then there will be trouble.

I shall stop here, I would not think twice about kicking a member that was unwilling to support a tribemate, in fact I would most likely personally target and make it my personal vendetta to rim said player. However I make it very clear to people who are in tribes that I run how I run tribes. In a democracy you are very correct, but in the way I run things, and would inform my members of before hand I only like dictatorships. Nimble single purpose serving dictatorships.

If a member disagreed with my inviting of a member I would by all means take it into consideration, whilst I say dictatorship I love opinions and clearly no-one can be ignored as that is a part of tribal unity. However if I found that the decision to invite a player was of a larger benefit to the tribe, I would expect the member to respect the decision and to put it bluntly deal with it.

I suppose this comes from my rood difference in thinking than most, I don't view tribemates as a hindrance. Well at least not as much as most do. I like to go with the flow. That and I have the arrogant opinion that I can stay in the top 5 if I try no matter where I am located.
 

DeletedUser117

Guest
Quite true, I agree that people refusing to support other tribe members should be booted, yet I also believe that members that get on with each other will freely offer their troops for one another and will go further to help each other out. No matter what way you run a tribe, without a fair amount of tribal unity, it will fail from either in-tribe bickering or people not bothering to play anymore.

Invitations of newer members are of course very important, but I believe that it would be up to the leaders (and the surrounding members) to ensure new members feel at home. If there is any clashes of personality within the tribe, it should be stopped at the beginning - not wait until it festers.

Tribal unity is probably the most important thing to protect and nurture, as without it the tribe may fall apart.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I agree fully.

Especially with this line


I have only been in one tribe that i can say with absolute certainty played by these guidelines

People checked their egos at the door, and only cared about one thing. Tribal Success. It's what made said tribe, one of the most feared/Hated to ever play the game.

Everyone came in willing to lose 1 village if it meant the tribe gained 2

The formula, is Tribe>Self>Enemies, and when an entire tribe jumps on board and fully commits to that formula, its very much a sight to behold. and imo, will be a tribe that bests a tribe full of "elites" that play for rank, everytime.

I love tribes that 'commit'.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
This is all pretty obvious stuff to an experienced leader. It is all about getting the right tribal culture, and recruiting for attitude above all else.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
This is all pretty obvious stuff to an experienced leader.

Perhaps, perhaps not often the most obvious answer to success alludes most.

And if you want a non-philosophical answer, I have been in some of the debatable best tribes that have ever existed, been under some of the best leaders there are, fought and defeated some of the best leaders there are as myself a leader, and I can say with most certainty of the countless tribes I have been in I have seen maybe 1 or 2 that fit the bill of what I describe. Moreover it is not about leading but playing:icon_idea:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I shall stop here, I would not think twice about kicking a member that was unwilling to support a tribemate, in fact I would most likely personally target and make it my personal vendetta to rim said player. However I make it very clear to people who are in tribes that I run how I run tribes. In a democracy you are very correct, but in the way I run things, and would inform my members of before hand I only like dictatorships. Nimble single purpose serving dictatorships.

If a member disagreed with my inviting of a member I would by all means take it into consideration, whilst I say dictatorship I love opinions and clearly no-one can be ignored as that is a part of tribal unity. However if I found that the decision to invite a player was of a larger benefit to the tribe, I would expect the member to respect the decision and to put it bluntly deal with it.

I suppose this comes from my rood difference in thinking than most, I don't view tribemates as a hindrance. Well at least not as much as most do. I like to go with the flow. That and I have the arrogant opinion that I can stay in the top 5 if I try no matter where I am located.

Sometimes it is better to hold off support for a small period of time though. I suppose you didnt clarify support as literally sending defence support, but, if a person has a barrage of attackers it would work better to call in a few backtimes before sending in a support, otherwise you are just suiciding troops (something I specialise in :icon_wink:). But yeah, I think you should have mentioned that too matt, that support does not have to be literal support, and can be res, helping clear etc. (maybe you did and by the time I finished reading all replies I forgot)

Anyway, building further on this, I have found that a lot of the time, this is a thing premades are a lot worse at doing than k tribes. I think that a lot of premade leaders leave their members to basically solo the world, as you said, just using the tribe name as a banner. On the other hand, I have found that a lot of k tribes work better in supporting their members, I mean just look at the SG tribe I have been fighting (even though they are noobs and invited me after I nobled 2 of their members), When I started attacking one of their members, I had 8 different members attacking me, and had to clear around 2k sp, 1.5k sw in total.

Anyway, might fix this post up later, just woke up.
 
Top