It would be cool if there was some way to access your old tribes archive if it disbands. Retain the level of access you had in the tribe so you can look over old logs.
as long as it's only due to a disband, since otherwise, it's an Intel security risk, however, it would be great! I've lost so many important training and other posts when either I had to disband my tribe or the tribe I was in disbanded... especially when there's incoming attacks that were posted!
That or implementing an actual "Alliance/NAP Terms" feature. Like a length of time minimum or "No alliances with/No Wars against" or some similar feature.
also, there's more than one type of NAP, and it would be nice if there was a way for members and leaders to tell right away at a glance which type they are.
the 4 most common are as follows:
regular NAP
MUTUAL SUPPORT NAP
MUTUAL ATTACK NAP
MUTUAL SUPPORT AND ATTACK NAP (usually used when trying to work towards ally status)
Permanently having low members limit I.e 20-30
having played during the time in which member limit was commonly between 100-300 members, I don't agree with it being permanent. there's a place in playing that limits of those sizes should return on at least some sort of regular basis (perhaps every year or two? and have those worlds go back to no time limitations for world dominance either). the use of having family tribes really is a throwback to those days...let those who prefer low member limits have their worlds and those who've been forced to use family tribes to high limit worlds...yet without necessarily eliminating family tribes on the low limit worlds.
Some of my biggest complaints about tribes are in the later stages of the game (and sometimes even in the early stages of the game) theres never enough room for players, no matter what you set the tribe member limit to, if your tribe gets good enough, people ALWAYS want to join and sometimes you want to add them but you don't have enough room. So here is my suggestion, make the tribe limit adjustable in game. You seem to have everything geared toward people spending PP so make the tribe limit able to expand by tribes gathering and spending PP.
For example, you start with a set limit say 30 members. You have a tribe bank that members are able to donate PP to. Once you have collected a required amount of PP, the leader can buy 5 more roster spots. Next required amount of PP required for next roster spots is a bit more, etc. You could eventually have this cap out at some higher number, say 3 times the original tribe limit, but this makes people work together to earn spots, gives an option for tribes who want to be small to be small, or tribes who want to be big to get big, but make them pay for it. If a tribe disbands and theres PP in the tribe bank, then it gets divides among tribe members.
For example:
Starting member limit 30
To get to limit 35 tribe must pay 1000 PP
To get to limit 40 tribe must pay 1500 PP
To get to limit 45 tribe must pay 2000 PP
To get to limit 50 tribe must pay 2750 PP
To get to limit 55 tribe must pay 3500 PP
To get to limit 60 tribe must pay 5000 PP
ETC all the way to a max cap of say 90 or 100 etc.
This makes tribes work toward a common goal and makes you money at the same time (Or makes people spend their pp on something else other than resources)
You could also have various settings within the tribe that once you donate PP to the tribe your roster spot is quaranteed for a certain amount of time so that tribes cant take advantage of members by requiring them to donate then kicking them after they do, there could be some sort of guaranteed membership policy based on how much PP you donate that quaranteed membership, this encourages people to donate without fear of getting used. Anyhow, the idea is there, you guys are smart enough to brainstorm other ideas on how to implement it and make it fair to all players.
the pp. bank for the tribe could or should also be accessible for gifting pps to members who cant afford it...for instance, have the first idea be like a savings account and that have a feature like a checking account...
would be nice if we could form armies that we can march around instead of just a set amount of time until it reaches a village, also hidden villages in forests or up on mountains and battles can take place anywhere, can also setup an ambush on your opponent, a smaller army has a greater stealth bonus so they can hit and run and perform guerrilla warfare tactics and soldiers gain experience from victories and can become elite units and you can also use your elites to train greater skilled recruits
we tried the camps feature years ago...it flopped... not totally certain why, by the time i went to a world that had them and was going to try it out myself, they had discontinued it
15 man tribe limit just for one world would be interesting to try and see how it would work out
speed rounds use all different size tribes in the past. from 3 to i think 20
Probably mentioned a thousand times, and I know it won´t be changed.
Love all the achivements, flags, quests etc. Its OK to be able to pay for a 20% increase in production and things like that...BUT the possibility of directly buying rescources is ruining the game (at least for me). When you start right beside a PP-w..e and he has 5 villages before you even have built the academy, its ridicilous. And yes i am online (alot!) and I farm (alot!), but its useless. Yes you might make money on it, but in the long run you won´t get a very large influx of new players. And as time goes by more and more people will just get theire PPs from the market exchange, not from paying.
Take away the possibility of buying rescources, it will dramaticly increase the chances, at least for me, for me to continue to play the game.
if you removed the possibility of buying resources through the px, you would then lose the ability to buy pps through the px too...
Know there will be many who oppose the following suggestion citing "lack of time, if implemented, etc...but, perhaps innogames should look more closely at "co-play" which currently, they don't encourage but don't discourage, either! Its no coincidence that world's are quickly dominated by tribes made up of accounts with up to SIX people per account! You ban those who try to gain an advantage by breaking the rules and having two ACCOUNTS on ONE world...but, turn a "blind eye" to ONE account having up to SIX people running it 24/7.
We ALL know that there are those who WILL "exploit" any kind of advantage, hence why rules include punishment for multiple accounts on one world, "push accounts" and even hacking...as all HAVE been used, in the past. So WHY is NUMBERS on an account, co-playing NOT regulated?
And yes, the above DOES relate to how tribes could be improved, as if co-play was restricted, we might have a more "level" playing field, and those who DON'T co-play or belong to "premades" such as those who are NEW to the game, might have time to "gel" BEFORE the above has gained such a HUGE advantage, that many will see it "pointless" trying to compete any more and either leave to try a "new" world, or just quit the game altogether. As what is the point of all the new features innogames are trying to bring in to make the game more interesting, when issues regarding Co-play, where the top tribes can have up to six people co-playing EACH account.. remains.
Take for example the new "Watchtower" feature..how many players/tribes will have the opportunity to get to the point where they are ABLE to utilise it, BEFORE those who quickly dominate the game and rankings through co-played accounts overwhelm them with sheer brute force, and bring the world to an early (and unsatisfactory) end?!
multiple cos make it so people can play this game and still have a real life! i was around when coplayers got to go from the occasional account to being the regular account. imho, and I'm one of those who used to bitch about it, and had a and still have a difficult time finding and keeping good cos, to stop bitching about it and get your own set of cos! your family will love you for it!
and coplaying IS regulated, ask anyone who either has a co or co team or is or has been a coplayer!!! especially when there's separate accounts on mutual worlds!!! we use support more than single players (at least i do anyway) to make sure the rules are followed!
I would suggest implementing a tribe offense defense coordinator status in a tribe with that account having (if granted by the member just like the command sharing feature) an overview of member accounts troopcounts and compositions. Like the troopcounter script but including all members troops.
It may be the duke account but doesn`t necesserily have to be but could as be an appointed account with player(s) who have the duty of cordination incase the duke account isn`t handling that particular duty.
This would make OPs planning and defending much easier and save a lot of time.
however, it takes away personal responsibility from your members... that's always been a method of finding out not only troop counts, but members activity level and team playing j/s
Id love to see the tribe size be increased or just do another classic world. I miss the old days of having 500 people in the tribe and not being able to know all of them. haha
me too...and the team playing was much better back then...
This would be great, although unrelated to tribes.
Another idea that I have is to do with in tribe communication. The introduction of the tribal group chat has been, well yeah. It's a group chat for your entire tribe, just like the forums but it can't be muted. However, the idea of group chats could make small local OPs easier.
Say you are conducting a 3-4 player local OP, you don't want to post all the ramblings in the forums for various reasons so you are left only with single messages. You can send out a circ to all the players invovled but replies are only seen by the sender and recipient. By introducing customizable group chat/mails multiple players could share a mail amongst themselves. This would allow for quick and easy communication; key to all OPs.
the elite tribes many times have local forum rooms for teams... have you tried that yet? this way those tabs/rooms can be muted or just ignored
I know this idea rolls back some "improvements" made to the tribes over the years, but for those who would prefer a non family tribe world, how about an occasional world that does not allow tribes to link forums and claims to make each tribe work more independent of other tribes. Back to the old school where each tribe was independent and you had to dream up some external forum if you really wanted to go that far and share claims with multiple tribes. It puts a strain on multiple tribes working together to dominate a world quickly and would make individual tribes have to work more closely with the members of their tribe.
2nd idea, for tribe leaders to have some sort system to plan coordinated attacks. I typically have to use 2 separate external sites to do any sort of planning. It would be great to have something built in to be able to assign players to villages or players to players, and the ops would automatically add into the noble claim system as well. Then if Im dreaming some monitoring to show if they were successful.
yeah an improvement or a few to the attack planner ig would be nice. I've still not got the hang of it! perhaps it's because i play on phone using the app at times and other times use a gaming browser (Puffin) set to desktop, but even when i tried learning how to use it, it wasn't feasible at all...and speaking of the ig planner, it would be great if it would be able to be set by allies as well as tribe...not all coordinated ops are done by just one tribe.
Since the game is called TRIBAL WARS, and in some worlds there is a lot of hugging and not enough warring, you could implement a system which rewards tribes based on how many wars they have won. This could be in the form of offence/defence/village bonus' for the tribe, or some other form of strong incentive to urge tribes to go to war. Bring back multiple wars with multiple tribes and less hugging.
Saying this, I would like to see the diplomacy updated a lot. Potentially making binding agreements that are implemented into the game. I.E. if you set a NAP with a tribe, from that set date it is impossible to send attacks to their villages...an error message will come up etc.
Also, not sure this would be suited for every world, and may change through settings, but to bring more wars back into the game, there could be a limit to only 1 alliance and 1 NAP at any 1 time...make things a bit more difficult for tribes to hug their way to the top.
regarding setting diplo many of us tend to use the Nap or or enemy settings to see where tribes are in the area, which is very helpful when you dont have premium and therefore unable to use map highlights feature... so, if the above settings suggestion was implemented, there would need to be something to take the place of using the diplo feature for that purpose
I think it is unfair to not let the nonpremium players participate in the Nobles Fair. Many have played Tribal Wars for yrs such as myself. Even though i do not always have money to keep a premium account i have on many occasions bought premium points.
Thanks
BLACKWOLF66
Michael williams
if you can't play that ig game event, then i recommend you put in a support ticket...i don't have premium on any of my worlds and thats 2 accounts, and I've had no problems with that!
my complaint on events is on when you have to redeem stuff rather than getting it right away, because I don't always login quick enough to redeem all the medals or gems or whatever
This doesn't have anything to do with tribes specifically but I always thought you should be able to move noblemen around to different villages kinda like re-stationing your pally in a new village. Its just a hastle when you want to move noblemen around, having to suicide them then re-que them. Just make an option where you can move a nobleman and give like the six hour delay like pallys have, would make it much simpler for re-arranging trains, etc.
The original poster is correct. I believe what he is saying is he would like the ability to aggregate offence troops at village A before launching an attack at village B. The reason for this is one hit of 10k troops is more effective than 5 strikes of 2k troops, it is a way to balance out the advantage of the defence where all defence troops are aggregated but the offence hits individually.
i see what you mean, but you neglect a variable:, your opponent would be able to do the same thing! and with much higher off/def troop counts! az for your argument for that feature, get your skills levels up! if you make it so those 5 2_k deployments hit ms apart, it's just as if it came all at once...and all at once isn't always the best way to go!
relocating nobles has always been possible: send to a barb near
original location as support with an attack hitting ms later...cats are good for that...and re-educating them where you need them
