DeletedUser
Guest
So forget current wars and which tribal clothing we all wear and lets us discuss end game on this world. Now the tribal limit is 30, which in my eyes, is about right but even if it were higher we would still see alliances, end game pacts and so forth just as even on worlds with 500 point barbs folks will still noble them.
Now has been talk about why anyone would stick in a tribe allied to a much larger one where was no possibility of that player being on the winning side.
But is being in the winning tribe the be all and end all if you achieve your own personal goals? Should it matter if one tribe won with say a sister tribe of folks left out if they all knew they won it together? Is being in that "winning" tribe be the be all and end all? Would a player that jumped right at the end to "win" be applauded for there gamesmanship or raspberried for their actions?
I have won a world with a tribe which had a tribe win condition in place and even though we had better war stats, ODA you name it we romped it we were still shouted at for not really having "won" that world. I have also been in the winning tribe that had to keep going taking villa after villa even when it was clear that no one else could win (this is why whatever mods do they are always abused poor souls!!)
So should it matter that any tribe on here has multiple alliances in place and agreements to only war as "last tribes standing".
My view is that the tribe that will win will be battle hardened with a "core" of committed players who trust each other. I also think that getting into a major war too early can be fatal.
W72 has a win condition of 60%.
Is the right tactic to make players merge to form huge accounts to get to that 60% or should you go all out to kill every other tribe out there?
Is constant merging going to kill the interest of another world for a lot of the players? With the noble rules as they are, with no cheap rebuild, does this encourage or discourage the multi merging of accounts as the "safe" way to win?
Discuss
Now has been talk about why anyone would stick in a tribe allied to a much larger one where was no possibility of that player being on the winning side.
But is being in the winning tribe the be all and end all if you achieve your own personal goals? Should it matter if one tribe won with say a sister tribe of folks left out if they all knew they won it together? Is being in that "winning" tribe be the be all and end all? Would a player that jumped right at the end to "win" be applauded for there gamesmanship or raspberried for their actions?
I have won a world with a tribe which had a tribe win condition in place and even though we had better war stats, ODA you name it we romped it we were still shouted at for not really having "won" that world. I have also been in the winning tribe that had to keep going taking villa after villa even when it was clear that no one else could win (this is why whatever mods do they are always abused poor souls!!)
So should it matter that any tribe on here has multiple alliances in place and agreements to only war as "last tribes standing".
My view is that the tribe that will win will be battle hardened with a "core" of committed players who trust each other. I also think that getting into a major war too early can be fatal.
W72 has a win condition of 60%.
Is the right tactic to make players merge to form huge accounts to get to that 60% or should you go all out to kill every other tribe out there?
Is constant merging going to kill the interest of another world for a lot of the players? With the noble rules as they are, with no cheap rebuild, does this encourage or discourage the multi merging of accounts as the "safe" way to win?
Discuss