KOTF or is it Ad Inf?

[DeletedUser]

Yes hello world 16 it's me again,I saw not much was going on in here so I made this post.!:icon_cool: I hope I'm Not turning into the new Hillberries!:icon_surprised:

so from the bad reputation of Hillberries to the bad reputation of the North eastern family tribe:Ad Infinitum
I have generally just been snooping around old posts (yes that's how sad I am! ),and I have noticed allot of negative comments being fire at the Ad Inf tribes for my short and unsuccessful run in world 16 I spent a small amount of my time in What was KOTF21 ,which I think now is called Ad Inf B?

Anyway, I was wondering why this tribe gets so much bad press. I have been on tw stats however, Stats can’t tell you everything ,allot, but not everything.

In my opinion any tribe within the top 20 must have done somthing right...

So whats your opinion?

Cheers,

Mushy

 

[MichielK]

I don't think being a top 20 tribe is an achievement anymore. Here's why:

- There are roughly 66,000 non-barb villages in W16
- Nearly 50% of these are owned by the top 4 tribes
- Nearly 75% are owned by the top 10 tribes

Since top tribes generally have higher points per village than smaller tribes, I'd say that 85-90% of the points in W16 are currently owned by just 10 tribes. Given those numbers, the only requirement of a top 20 tribe is that they stay out of major trouble and pick up some scraps here and there. Hardly an impressive achievement.

Besides, there are top 20 tribes with less points than Axl. While I think we all agree that Axl is on a very impressive run, it's a lot less impressive to have that same total spread among 40 members.

 

[DeletedUser]

A fair point,I had nt thought of that.:icon_wink:

But why are they hated so much?

 

[DeletedUser]

They're a family tribe...

 

[DeletedUser]

Well i think that some top 20 tribes are good. But some arent. If you have 2 family tribes in the top 20 then you can say youre good. If you have 1 tribe in the top 20 and your OD(A) is the same or above your rank your also a good tribe. But every big tribe has their inactives. Take =HRV= for example. When i last looked they had over 10 inactives!

Also, family tribes arent liked much. Im not sure why though...

 

[DeletedUser]

They're a family tribe...

Plus 1

 

[jakeeboy]

They nobled me out for no particular reason. Killed nearly 1 million troops anyway.
Ahhh good times

 

[MichielK]

Well i think that some top 20 tribes are good. But some arent.

True. My point was merely that being in the top 20 no longer automatically qualifies a tribe as "good".

If you have 2 family tribes in the top 20 then you can say youre good.

You can, but that wouldn't make it true :lol:

Imagine this scenario: C² lets their top 20 players leave, and those form into 5 tribes of 4 players each. All six tribes (5 small ones + what's left of the original) would be top 20 tribes, so by your standards they'd be great...despite the fact that it probably severely weakened the tribe.

Also, family tribes arent liked much. Im not sure why though...

Instead of one big tribe with 80 good or promising players, these tribes choose to keep dozens of mediocre and bad players under their protection while denying their best players the expansion room they deserve. Give your best players the chance to eat up the mediocre ones, and you'd have the same amount of villages but with many more in the hands of people who can effectively use them. Any family that claims they have more than 80 truly good players are either lying or need to raise their standards.

That's why family tribes are inefficient. Now, why are they not liked? Because we tell them this and they refuse to discuss why they think their way is better. It's sheer arrogance and stupidity on the part of the family tribes, and that doesn't make you a lot of friends.

 

[DeletedUser]

True. My point was merely that being in the top 20 no longer automatically qualifies a tribe as "good".



You can, but that wouldn't make it true :lol:

Imagine this scenario: C² lets their top 20 players leave, and those form into 5 tribes of 4 players each. All six tribes (5 small ones + what's left of the original) would be top 20 tribes, so by your standards they'd be great...despite the fact that it probably severely weakened the tribe.



Instead of one big tribe with 80 good or promising players, these tribes choose to keep dozens of mediocre and bad players under their protection while denying their best players the expansion room they deserve. Give your best players the chance to eat up the mediocre ones, and you'd have the same amount of villages but with many more in the hands of people who can effectively use them. Any family that claims they have more than 80 truly good players are either lying or need to raise their standards.

That's why family tribes are inefficient. Now, why are they not liked? Because we tell them this and they refuse to discuss why they think their way is better. It's sheer arrogance and stupidity on the part of the family tribes, and that doesn't make you a lot of friends.

Yeah I think top twenty doesn't mean all that much on this world. It raises the morale of a fairly new tribe, but doesn't mean they are great. Top 10 I think at least have promise, but top 5 are all really strong tribes on this world. As said, some are good, some aren't.

Back to the main point about them being a family tribe. Family tribes simply aren't liked by most people for the exact reasons that Michiel has just posted and maybe a few other reasons as well, but not all family tribes are poor, just the majority.
I do see an argument for using family tribes though, but only if the leader has plenty of experience and actually knows exactly how to run them. Most family tribe leaders don't know what they are doing though. They may be able to run a single tribe, but a lot can't handle a family tribe.

As for the Ad Inf family, I don't hate them...I don't know them though. I see them on the map, but that's about it. They've got a fair amount of points on this world, but simply haven't proved themselves yet. Until they prove themselves, most people will probably dislike them.

 

[pwnage334]

Instead of one big tribe with 80 good or promising players, these tribes choose to keep dozens of mediocre and bad players under their protection while denying their best players the expansion room they deserve. Give your best players the chance to eat up the mediocre ones, and you'd have the same amount of villages but with many more in the hands of people who can effectively use them. Any family that claims they have more than 80 truly good players are either lying or need to raise their standards.

That's why family tribes are inefficient. Now, why are they not liked? Because we tell them this and they refuse to discuss why they think their way is better. It's sheer arrogance and stupidity on the part of the family tribes, and that doesn't make you a lot of friends.

well there is an advantage in family tribes let me say that im in AD A
in times of war a players will become inactive and be nobled out(even the strong ones)i think everyone agrees with that
well when this happens the tribes will shrink and eventually go to 1 tribe no more family

also in Ad Inf they are growing we have a large number of rimmed players that have 10000 piont villages

 

[DeletedUser]

well there is an advantage in family tribes let me say that im in AD A
in times of war a players will become inactive and be nobled out(even the strong ones)i think everyone agrees with that
well when this happens the tribes will shrink and eventually go to 1 tribe no more family

also in Ad Inf they are growing we have a large number of rimmed players that have 10000 piont villages

Ok so where's the advantage in that post of yours? You just pointed out the prolem that everyone has during times of war, both single and family tribes.

And the KOTF/Ad Inf got a lot of bad press when there was like 15 tribes in their family in the northwest. Plus they really were mass-recruiting tribes, accepting IQ into one of their tribes and making him a leader just so he could destroy the tribe.

 

[DeletedUser]

The advantages of family tribes primary deal with speed and expansion.

Family tribes often gain larger amounts of territory quicker then 1 tribe. Mainly do to mass recruiting of players, but thats not the point. This in turn gives them more to work with, and more avenues of idealism's to undertake.

An example of this would be;
Tribe A has 20 mil and is in k5 / k15
Tribe B Has 45 mil and is in k7 / k17 /k8
Tribe C has 10 mil and is in k6
Tribe D has 10 mil and is in k16

If tribe C / D merged and then started a family with tribe A the total of their size would be 40mil. Giving them significantly better standing "size wise" against tribe B. Though, unfortunately, I cannot represent the skill of all the tribes involved. This is merely to shown mass territorial gain.

However, most family tribes are stupid. And mass recruit everyone in site, especially unnattended academies/smaller "sister tribes". Driving the overall skill level down, and denying the better players desperatly needed expansion room. Hence, they become uber noob, and no one likes noobs...

 

[DeletedUser]

so It all comes donw to family.

Instead of one big tribe with 80 good or promising players, these tribes choose to keep dozens of mediocre and bad players under their protection while denying their best players the expansion room they deserve. Give your best players the chance to eat up the mediocre ones, and you'd have the same amount of villages but with many more in the hands of people who can effectively use them. Any family that claims they have more than 80 truly good players are either lying or need to raise their standards.

Another very good point

 

[MichielK]

Back to the main point about them being a family tribe. Family tribes simply aren't liked by most people for the exact reasons that Michiel has just posted and maybe a few other reasons as well, but not all family tribes are poor, just the majority.

I don't like family tribes, but even I won't claim that they're all poor by definition. I am however pretty confident in my view that any family tribe, good or bad, could be better if they stopped being a family.

I do see an argument for using family tribes though, but only if the leader has plenty of experience and actually knows exactly how to run them. Most family tribe leaders don't know what they are doing though. They may be able to run a single tribe, but a lot can't handle a family tribe.

If the leader has plenty of experience, he knows that the key to success is not the total amount of villages in the tribe but the amount of villages in the hands of those who will use them most effectively. He also knows how to determine who the players are that are most skilled. The best course of action then is to cut the chaff, and use them to give your best players expansion possibilities, a chance to gain more experience, and have fun with all the new targets :icon_wink:

Protecting a bunch of mediocre players at the expense of the expansion possibilities of your best players is simply a sign of bad leadership.

 

[MichielK]

The advantages of family tribes primary deal with speed and expansion.

Family tribes often gain larger amounts of territory quicker then 1 tribe. Mainly do to mass recruiting of players, but thats not the point. This in turn gives them more to work with, and more avenues of idealism's to undertake.

I like this post, though I think the advantage in rapid expansion is temporary. As soon as the region occupied by the family calms down and is firmly under control, what you have left is a bunch of players with little to no expansion possibilities. This will lead to a big tribe filled with bored players with little to no war experience.

What's the alternative? Proper recruitment policies. Invite only players with true potential, and aggressively cut the players that become inactive or don't show growth/improvement. You won't win any congeniality prizes for it, but your best players will have more targets, gain more experience and (assuming you made the right choices) your single tribe will only be slightly smaller but much more effective.

 

[DeletedUser]

So now Ad Inf has compressed all their members into two tribes does anyones opinion change?

 

[MichielK]

So now Ad Inf has compressed all their members into two tribes does anyones opinion change?

I thought there were three left, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, I still see plenty of inactives and casual players in Ad Inf, which doesn't lead me to believe they're down to a couple of tribes because they smartened up...rather, they're down to 2 or 3 tribes because everyone else quit on them. That's not an achievement.

Even if they do prune their numbers all the way down to one tribe, we're talking about a group of large players with a lot of territory who lack the necessary wartime experience. I still say they're in trouble if anyone seriously moves on them.

 

[DeletedUser]

AdInf ain't the only top 10 tribe that didn't proof themselves in war now are they?

 

[DeletedUser]

No, but they are the only one that has a huge family. Hence less respect for the reasons aforementioned.

 

[DeletedUser]

No, but they are the only one that has a huge family. Hence less respect for the reasons aforementioned.

ha!look before you leap fool!They only have two tribes in their family now,just like =HRV=,so do you have less respect for them?:icon_eek: