Tribal Member Limit?

[DeletedUser]

My thread so either quit posting or get reported for not answering the question properly ie. spamming my thread.


I have already gave a rebuttal to your guys posts yet you haven't made a good argument back besides saying "we already answered yada yada yada" When in reality all you have done is tried to answer a question and failed.

Go ahead, report me. What I've said is anything but spam, and I believe it is answering your question perfectly. You just don't think that we should prove you an idiot.

 

[DeletedUser]

They have answered you a gazillion times, go ahead and report them for that.

Personally I think it'd be a massive failure if we had no tribe member limits, it'd just ruin the fun. And I think the reason why Innogames have those limits is to increase the amount of tribes, excitement, politics, tactics and aggression.

 

[DeletedUser]

Go ahead, report me. What I've said is anything but spam, and I believe it is answering your question perfectly. You just don't think that we should prove you an idiot.

You didn't give a good reason. All you did was say lots of noobs join one tribe all elite join another.


Yet it didn't happen so your points were invalid. RoBAC and TW both elite tribes didnt merge they had a major war. Then it was basically TW vs everyone. So your points are invalid aka spam.

They have answered you a gazillion times, go ahead and report them for that.

Personally I think it'd be a massive failure if we had no tribe member limits, it'd just ruin the fun. And I think the reason why Innogames have those limits is to increase the amount of tribes, excitement, politics, tactics and aggression.

Then why have they implemented features that help family tribes? Doesn't add up. If they are going to implement features to help family tribes then why is there a limit.





The game still gets ruined by family tribes. Which is basically the same thing as a Mass recruit tribe.

 

[DeletedUser]

There was a recent world on .net with a tribe member of 500, i think it was 37.
As a player of a tribe of 60 spread over two ks i found it impossible to farm. Everyone joins up ending up in there being 350 players in same tribe in same K, this meant that there was some co-ordination and i found my farms constantly stacked, and it was no fun.

by having no tribe limit this would occur, and ruins a world.


Family tribes always have a head of family tribe, this means dukes of the lower family tribes start to get annoyed at the big cheese of the family and try to create a coup, leading to the family being destroyed, in big tribes this does not happen much.


If we have a 500 tribe member limit then it is possible you could get premades with really good line ups comming in with 100 members, which would instantly kill a world.


Now relentessking, i ask you: why shouldn't we have tribe member limits?

 

[DeletedUser]

RK I see where you are coming from, but even with no tribe limit you will always get people who make family tribes just to be able to quickly spread over the continents. W1.net, majority of the people were getting used to the concept of the game, and would have thought of making family tribes. But as the game progressed, people started developing ideas on making the tribes larger, and thought that points > troops and tried to intimidate everyone.

That idea weakened really quickly, as soon as a tribe picked out members and the mass recruit family tribes started to fall apart. Then, there are more people who thought numbers > unity and co-ordination. It cannot be stopped no matter what the settings are.

-The Mask.

 

[DeletedUser]

There was a recent world on .net with a tribe member of 500, i think it was 37.
As a player of a tribe of 60 spread over two ks i found it impossible to farm. Everyone joins up ending up in there being 350 players in same tribe in same K, this meant that there was some co-ordination and i found my farms constantly stacked, and it was no fun.

by having no tribe limit this would occur, and ruins a world.


Family tribes always have a head of family tribe, this means dukes of the lower family tribes start to get annoyed at the big cheese of the family and try to create a coup, leading to the family being destroyed, in big tribes this does not happen much.


If we have a 500 tribe member limit then it is possible you could get premades with really good line ups comming in with 100 members, which would instantly kill a world.


Now relentessking, i ask you: why shouldn't we have tribe member limits?

Even with family tribes this would occur. Players let this happen. Settings don't make the world be anything PLAYERS let this happen, like W2 .net Is the worse family world ever think each of them had like 8-9 branches? Seriously there is no reason to have a member limit if TW is going to allow family tribes to exist and what is worse is TW has now implemented features for family tribes to work better. So if TW really cared for it's players it would do everything possible to make family tribes gone but instead they help them out.

There is no point to a tribal member limit if tribes are going to use families to evade the rule.

 

[DeletedUser]

Even if there was a rule agianst family tribes, people would have 'close alliances'. I personally like the member limit, the small member limit worlds make things more interesting, I find bigger tribes tend to be less coordinated anyways.

 

[DeletedUser]

No I did not read through the whole thread.

Maybe they could make one world without a tribe limit, like as a test, and we could all watch one large mass-recruiting tribe with 4,000 members?

I wouldn't join that world, just an idea.

 

[DeletedUser]

No I did not read through the whole thread.

Maybe they could make one world without a tribe limit, like as a test, and we could all watch one large mass-recruiting tribe with 4,000 members?

I wouldn't join that world, just an idea.

It wouldn't happen though. Not everyone would join that tribe.

Even if there was a rule agianst family tribes, people would have 'close alliances'. I personally like the member limit, the small member limit worlds make things more interesting, I find bigger tribes tend to be less coordinated anyways.

If they wanted to make things interesting they would make ways to prevent family tribes and not implement features that support them nor would they make settings that help them out as well.

The world is what the members of the world make it. The players of the world make or break the world.

Until families get taken out there is no point in a member limit.

 

[DeletedUser]

Family tribes have pretty much always existed, nothing the tw team can do would stop them.

 

[DeletedUser]

Family tribes have pretty much always existed, nothing the tw team can do would stop them.

No family tribes existed once W1 was forced to become 500 member limit because Hoodoo didn't like TW tribe. Once Hoodoo did that TW made two branches.


So anyways TW can implements way to hurt families but instead they don't they have implemented features that improve family tribes.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think it would eventually end up with 2 big tribes fighting each other, all the new people would just join the tribe winning at that time, unless they fancied a challenge and joined the loosing tribe.

It might be quite interesting

 

[DeletedUser]

If the tw team want to look after the max amount of players then they should support family tribes
one family can have around 500 players, that is about the same as ten average tribes

So basically RK families are where the masses are.

Also without family tribes who would we destroy from the inside?



and shared forums are great, brilliant for spam between like ten tribes


RK, please tell us what not having a tribe limit wd do to destroy family tribes?

 

[DeletedUser]

If the tw team want to look after the max amount of players then they should support family tribes
one family can have around 500 players, that is about the same as ten average tribes

So basically RK families are where the masses are.

Also without family tribes who would we destroy from the inside?



and shared forums are great, brilliant for spam between like ten tribes


RK, please tell us what not having a tribe limit wd do to destroy family tribes?

There wouldn't be family tribes. There would just be one massive tribe of noobs which would be a lot more fun to destroy.


Anyways there is no point in a member limit if TW is going to help family tribes.

 

[DeletedUser]

Wrong
Wrong
Wrong


All of those are wrong. It's been proved that it doesn't happen like that so please come up with a good argument if you can't stop spamming my thread.

Maybe you think we haven't come up with a good argument, but that's our answer so who are you to say we're wrong? We give you an answer, and you moan at us and say it's not valid and will be reported. What's the point of anyone giving their opinion if you'll only spit it out unless they agree with you?

 

[DeletedUser]

wat is the difference between destroying one massive noob tribe to four tribes that are a family?

also how does no member limit automatically mean the end of families?

 

[DeletedUser]

Maybe you think we haven't come up with a good argument, but that's our answer so who are you to say we're wrong? We give you an answer, and you moan at us and say it's not valid and will be reported. What's the point of anyone giving their opinion if you'll only spit it out unless they agree with you?

You didn't give an explanation like I asked for.

So unless you do I will just say wrong instead of explaining whats wrong with it.


Anyways back to my thread no more spamming it.

 

[DeletedUser]

wat is the difference between destroying one massive noob tribe to four tribes that are a family?

also how does no member limit automatically mean the end of families?

plz answer my questions

 

[DeletedUser]

is this guy "all there" or is he a few sandwiches short of a picnic??

 

[DeletedUser]

You didn't give an explanation like I asked for.

So unless you do I will just say wrong instead of explaining whats wrong with it.


Anyways back to my thread no more spamming it.

No offence but I don't see any spam, just posts that you don't agree with. In case you didn't know having a different opinion to you isn't against the rules.