Top Continent Tribes.

  • Thread starter DeletedUser92094
  • Start date

DeletedUser

Guest
.K54

[fail] previously end. mass recruiting liars
We have no pointless mass recruiting wtf you have 100 members

Serene they look like they could do pretty good

~ss~ Mass recruiters

[nx] Mass recruiters

GH seem ok not bad mass recruiting compared to everyone else in my k.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
.K54

[fail] previously end. mass recruiting liars
We have no pointless mass recruiting wtf you have 100 members
Maybe its because we merged two tribes into one? Plus we now have cut it down to less than 80 members.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Maybe its because we merged two tribes into one? Plus we now have cut it down to less than 80 members.

:icon_surprised: *clap-clap-clap-clap-clap*

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Less than 80 members, OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :icon_rolleyes:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
:icon_surprised: *clap-clap-clap-clap-clap*

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Less than 80 members, OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :icon_rolleyes:
Thank you :)

Right, because having 80 members thanks to a merge is mass recruiting isn't it ^^
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Thank you :)

Right, because having 80 members thanks to a merge is mass recruiting isn't it ^^

Isn't it?
Or is it worse?

TW Urban dictionary:

Mass recruiting: Target- 95-100 members. I can't be bothered to select players or more often I don't know how to select members so recruit by sending invitations all over the place hoping that someone with big points will accept and some of them will stay and some of them will be active. Helps ranking and when it fails we can merge. 100% of cases lead to disaster. A definite sign of not knowing what it takes to get a successful tribe.

Merging: unsuccessful mimicking of actions taken by big RL corporationsfor improved efficiency and greater financial power. It is what tribes do when hit by inactivity, members departing or getting nobled or at this early stage failure to recruit enough members with high points. A measure of desperation but helps getting the tribe look big again. 99.9% of merges end up with bigger problems than they had before. A definite sign of noobness and insecurity.

Familying: the act of dodging the member limit set by admin. Inspired by the Mafia but bearing no relation to them neither in terms of efficiency, organization or ruthlessness. A combination of both the above terms driven by fear, insecurity and extreme noobness. Despite the shear numbers all families are doomed to eventual failure us they succumb to the rule "Quality not Quantity". Sometimes confused with the term 'Tribal Hugging"

Tribal Hugging: the combination of all the above but also including the need for lots of allies and NAPs. Often accompanied by big huge ego cowardice leadeship who are also very mediocre players but like to hide it under some OD (preferably ODA.

Noobs Rule!!!!

Premades: tribes mostly with members who know each other from previous worlds. Mostly but not always doomed to failure due to arrogance, self overestimation and enemy underestimation. The vast majority of those players fail to recognise that their success in other worlds was not due to non-existing skills required to play TW, but down to luck and circumstances.

What was the topic?:)
Oh yes Top K tribes. There you have it
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Premades: tribes mostly with members who know each other from previous worlds. Mostly but not always doomed to failure due to arrogance, self overestimation and enemy underestimation. The vast majority of those players fail to recognise that their success in other worlds was not due to non-existing skills required to play TW, but down to luck and circumstances.

What was the topic?:)
Oh yes Top K tribes. There you have it

I fully agree with the other comments, but this one I take issue with. While clearly most do fail, I think in comparison to other categories of tribes its clearly a smaller percentage of failure. I feel that when people say your statement the imply that on a percentage basis they are categorized with the rest of the tribes. I think that's simply not true.

When premades change names/leadership, I don't consider that failure. When tribes war and lose, I don't consider that a failure based on your criteria. In the quest to the end game, only 1 tribe will remain. So clearly all tribes but one will "fail". Chances by that time is that an original premade is gone. But I'd venture to bet many of the accounts that still exist are from premades. People quit regularly and accounts change hands, since people enjoy different time frames in the game. The tribe will often merge, reform under a different name/leadership, but the accounts will remain. That's natural progression of the game, not failure.

[/rant]
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I fully agree with the other comments, but this one I take issue with. While clearly most do fail, I think in comparison to other categories of tribes its clearly a smaller percentage of failure. (1) I feel that when people say your statement the imply that on a percentage basis they are categorized with the rest of the tribes. I think that's simply not true.

When premades change names/leadership, I don't consider that failure. (2) When tribes war and lose, I don't consider that a failure based on your criteria. (3 )In the quest to the end game, only 1 tribe will remain. So clearly all tribes but one will "fail". Chances by that time is that an original premade is gone. But I'd venture to bet many of the accounts that still exist are from premades. (4) People quit regularly and accounts change hands, since people enjoy different time frames in the game. The tribe will often merge, reform under a different name/leadership, but the accounts will remain. That's natural progression of the game, not failure.

[/rant]
:) I take it you're in a premade or am I wrong.

1. in comparison with other tribes there is a very very very small % success and that's why I said most fail as opposed to all of the other ones

2. I don't either, but when the constitution changes with most of the original 'big heads' gone I do. It's not a pre-made anymore. and by Christmas almost all of the premades here will have disappeared or stopped being premades.
I'm watching INCOMING with interest. i like them.

3. That wasn't my criteria, or did I say so somewhere

4. The accounts maybe the 'big heads i doubt it. Yes many enjoy different frames and many enjoy the clash of Egos within premades, but Egos never enjoy failure to brag. and yes for them it is the natural progression at that point. Time to brag somewhere else.:icon_wink:
If you don't like failures called failures it's fine by me I'll still call them that though
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Isn't it?
Or is it worse?

TW Urban dictionary:

Merging: unsuccessful mimicking of actions taken by big RL corporationsfor improved efficiency and greater financial power. It is what tribes do when hit by inactivity, members departing or getting nobled or at this early stage failure to recruit enough members with high points. A measure of desperation but helps getting the tribe look big again. 99.9% of merges end up with bigger problems than they had before. A definite sign of noobness and insecurity.

If there are two tribes, both working well and are allies, what is to stop them becoming one tribe, you take the best players and pull them together, you only have members in your tribe which you know to be active, and have good troop counts. How in any way could that be worse than mass recruiting? In fact how is it bad at all?

Say out of the top 20 players, half of them were split evenly into two tribes - lets call them (A) and (B) - they were split so as the ranked 1 in the world was in tribe (A), number two was in tribe (B), and so on. Are you saying that if instead of having two tribes relatively even, you take the best 5 players from each tribe and you put them into tribe (C). What tribe would be the best out of the three?

This still applies to average sized tribes, taking the best players from both to create a greater tribe is a good thing to do, and highly active players are less likely to go inactive. I think you are just a try hard, who thinks he knows all there is to know about the game.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Most premades tend to fail cause they are usually filled with terrible players who think their awesome.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
:) I take it you're in a premade or am I wrong.

1. in comparison with other tribes there is a very very very small % success and that's why I said most fail as opposed to all of the other ones

2. I don't either, but when the constitution changes with most of the original 'big heads' gone I do. It's not a pre-made anymore. and by Christmas almost all of the premades here will have disappeared or stopped being premades.
I'm watching INCOMING with interest. i like them.

3. That wasn't my criteria, or did I say so somewhere

4. The accounts maybe the 'big heads i doubt it. Yes many enjoy different frames and many enjoy the clash of Egos within premades, but Egos never enjoy failure to brag. and yes for them it is the natural progression at that point. Time to brag somewhere else.:icon_wink:
If you don't like failures called failures it's fine by me I'll still call them that though

Yes, I'm in Abort!


1 +2. I'm also in a premade in w50 that is still around (change in name/leadership). Most of the original core accounts are still around, and some accts have switched hands. The only other major tribe in the world is also a premade. I'm basing my judgement on my limited experience. At the beginning of the world, our premade took out 4 premades. That doesn't mean they were failures, we were just better (maybe people won't see eye to eye on that one). We took in their best players and moved on. I guess I just don't see accts changing hands as no longer being a premade, but I can understand your view point. Recruitment isn't failure as well (just a side note).

3. The criteria I mention was based on your description of how they fail. I'm sure your opinion doesn't only adhere to those comments, but its what I had to work with.

4. Again, I think it's just an opinion on the definition of failure.


EDIT: "I guess I just don't see accts changing hands as no longer being a premade" - After reading this statement back to myself, I do actually agree with you that its no longer a premade, but I wouldn't classify it in the category of "Failure". I guess I just see more options than just success and failure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Yes, I'm in Abort!


1 +2. I'm also in a premade in w50 that is still around (change in name/leadership). Most of the original core accounts are still around, and some accts have switched hands. The only other major tribe in the world is also a premade. I'm basing my judgement on my limited experience. At the beginning of the world, our premade took out 4 premades. That doesn't mean they were failures, we were just better (maybe people won't see eye to eye on that one). We took in their best players and moved on. I guess I just don't see accts changing hands as no longer being a premade, but I can understand your view point. Recruitment isn't failure as well (just a side note).

3. The criteria I mention was based on your description of how they fail. I'm sure your opinion doesn't only adhere to those comments, but its what I had to work with.

4. Again, I think it's just an opinion on the definition of failure.


EDIT: "I guess I just don't see accts changing hands as no longer being a premade" - After reading this statement back to myself, I do actually agree with you that its no longer a premade, but I wouldn't classify it in the category of "Failure". I guess I just see more options than just success and failure.

lol good guess then

Your 50 one must be one of those few that keep going then and I wish you good luck. The fact that you took out 4 premades just enforces my point, to me being taken out is a failure sorry we all fail every now and then just an opinion as you said :). As for the other premade you mention I doubt that you know what happened to their accounts. How old is W50?

lol I said mass recruitment is a failure not recruitment you keep putting words in my mouth

Again I didn't mention any failure criteria at all and I don't care to.

All I did is stated some of the reasons for tribes being top at their K and hope someone may enjoy the read.
Would you like to tell us what failure is since you seem a bit touchy about it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
would you like to tell us what failure is since you seem a bit touchy about it?

*raises hand*
I know this one!!

it's when lloyd is rank 2 and is the second to noble a village, but sets the wrong sitter, who gets him cleared. :icon_razz:

/me won't name the guilty party.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
If there are two tribes, both working well and are allies, what is to stop them becoming one tribe, you take the best players and pull them together, you only have members in your tribe which you know to be active, and have good troop counts. How in any way could that be worse than mass recruiting? In fact how is it bad at all?

Say out of the top 20 players, half of them were split evenly into two tribes - lets call them (A) and (B) - they were split so as the ranked 1 in the world was in tribe (A), number two was in tribe (B), and so on. Are you saying that if instead of having two tribes relatively even, you take the best 5 players from each tribe and you put them into tribe (C). What tribe would be the best out of the three?

This still applies to average sized tribes, taking the best players from both to create a greater tribe is a good thing to do, and highly active players are less likely to go inactive. I think you are just a try hard, who thinks he knows all there is to know about the game.

It's definitely not gonna be me stopping them merging. I'm all for freedom.

Your A,B,C example this is a ranking question. Which is addressed on the 1st definition.
What do I think about ranking?

Ranking whether it is point , tribe or OD....an obsession that at least 9 out of 10 TW players develop. It bears very little relation to player quality, good character etc etc. Clueless recruiters use as the only means of recruiting. Countles tribal & World forum topics are dedicated to it. Without ranking tables TW would not exist. The countless top ranking players of this world will go down a lot easier that they got there as it's been the case with all previous worlds.
I wish them all happy ranking whoring:)

I don't think I know everything, but I do have an opinion about anything...something you find hard to accept and as such making an aggressive personal judgment on the basis that you disagree, implies .....a conversational cripple? (please don't tell me this is a personal insult Darky:icon_sad:)

Just Look at how well Mr Lloyd-Christmas argues his points and hi accepts that he's making judgments on limited experience!!!. How experienced are you my Lord?

@sanchez Not sure I quite get what happened but I've made 100's of silly failing mistakes in TW, you just have to see the funny side.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
It's definitely not gonna be me stopping them merging. I'm all for freedom.

Your A,B,C example this is a ranking question. Which is addressed on the 1st definition.
What do I think about ranking?

Ranking whether it is point , tribe or OD....an obsession that at least 9 out of 10 TW players develop. It bears very little relation to player quality, good character etc etc. Clueless recruiters use as the only means of recruiting. Countles tribal & World forum topics are dedicated to it. Without ranking tables TW would not exist. The countless top ranking players of this world will go down a lot easier that they got there as it's been the case with all previous worlds.
I wish them all happy ranking whoring:)

I don't think I know everything, but I do have an opinion about anything...something you find hard to accept and as such making an aggressive personal judgment on the basis that you disagree, implies .....a conversational cripple? (please don't tell me this is a personal insult Darky:icon_sad:)

Just Look at how well Mr Lloyd-Christmas argues his points and hi accepts that he's making judgments on limited experience!!!. How experienced are you my Lord?

@sanchez Not sure I quite get what happened but I've made 100's of silly failing mistakes in TW, you just have to see the funny side.
You see, you are limiting it again. The (A), (B) and (C) rating is not just showing troop counts and ratings, say if you actually took the top 20 players (as in the people that were actually best at playing the game) and used it instead, it still comes to the same conclusion. Merging together is good, you haven't yet said one bad thing about two active, high ranking (it shows their village is developed) and high troop count tribes merging into one far greater tribe.

Having opinion on everything, which sometimes you should keep to yourself. If you cant back something up with a valid argument, with logic that holds together then even if I disagree, I will respect your view. You do not, so how can I respect it?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
lol good guess then

Your 50 one must be one of those few that keep going then and I wish you good luck. The fact that you took out 4 premades just enforces my point, to me being taken out is a failure sorry we all fail every now and then just an opinion as you said :). As for the other premade you mention I doubt that you know what happened to their accounts. How old is W50?

lol I said mass recruitment is a failure not recruitment you keep putting words in my mouth

Again I didn't mention any failure criteria at all and I don't care to.

All I did is stated some of the reasons for tribes being top at their K and hope someone may enjoy the read.
Would you like to tell us what failure is since you seem a bit touchy about it?

Not touchy at all, just having a discussion.

My assumptions of your criteria were based on this statement by you:

"Mostly but not always doomed to failure due to arrogance, self overestimation and enemy underestimation. The vast majority of those players fail to recognise that their success in other worlds was not due to non-existing skills required to play TW, but down to luck and circumstances."

The failure that I believe most people speak about is the ego aspect. I think it's an utter failure when all the big heads can't get along, and the in-fighting kills a tribe. That speaks much more about the individual players personalities, which is what I consider "FAIL!" as described in my second paragraph. Your second two points I also see as failure. More specifically, the people that shit talk on the forums and then get owned in game. That's the perfect definition of failure to me.

However, not all losses can be categorized by overestimation/underestimation. Legitimate war in which they put up a good fight and lose is simply a loss, not a failure. Yes, they failed to win but they aren't "failures" in what I believe to be the current usage of the term. (For all you idiots that are going to give me a definition from dictionary.com, please stop. I know the definition, thanks) On the forums, you see the fail whale thrown around, and every dumb picture with "FAIL!" on it, which is now used as derogatory term. I just see a separation nowadays due the use of the terminology. But maybe thats just me nit-picking.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Premades: tribes mostly with members who know each other from previous worlds. Mostly but not always doomed to failure due to arrogance, self overestimation and enemy underestimation. The vast majority of those players fail to recognise that their success in other worlds was not due to non-existing skills required to play TW, but down to luck and circumstances.
Wrong.

A premade is just the intent to make a tribe on a world. So if you were thinking of joining a world with some of your friends and make a tribe and somewhat worked out the details amongst each other (who will be duke etc.), you have yourself a premade.
 
Top