Optimum number of members

[balubhai]

Ok guys , as always i am here with a topic which is basically with the purpose of discussion rather than flamming .

What do u think is the optimum no. of members to have in a world with 50 member limit ? By optimum no. i mean the right no. of members to have in a tribe so that supporting and coordination will work fine in this slow settings. I know many of u guys will say that nos. dont matter , even small numbered tribes will do well , i accept that. However looking into the slow settings and troop speed , i think that having an average no. of members will prove good in coordinated efforts.

We all consider having 60-70 members as good in a world with 100 member limit. We dont consider those tribes as mass recruiters and always thinks they are active bunch of guys as their member count is average. However at this different scenario of 50 member limit , having more than 48 members , , is being classified as mass recruiting and having less than 35 members seems to be not sufficient in my view of point if we are aiming for a continent expansion. So what about 40-45 members with space for 5 more guys to keep in rolling if needed ????

Come on guys looking forward to your views

 

[Suck my kiss]

During start up I think having at max 20 members to one K which even then is a bit much when it gets to the initial nobling for a good fast paced group of players. This will later bring you down to about 10 members as others leave for other worlds, and in the later stages you end up with about 5 "key" players per k with other players with only a handful of villages there.




You can see this right now with EGO!!! as a perfect example. There main k is K45 with only 16 members but they will grow fast and devour the K and begin fighting over noble targets. There second K which is an Ideal number is k54 with 10 and a few in sorrounding k's.



But to answer your question of how many members is Ideal, it depends on the skill level of the members of the tribe. If your working with all new players having a large number isnt the worst of ideas. Given the fact that 85% of the members will not have large enough troop counts but are always willing to support eachother with what they have they can do alot of damamge with those numbers. If your working with a skilled group in one K then as I mentioned above having to many members will only cramp there growth, which again is why EGO!!! went in multiple directions and had others start later then some.

 

[balubhai]

I understand what you are saying and it would work well in normal worlds with good troop speed. However think about coordinated attacks , defense which will take ages to reach as the players are pretty far from each other. I have nothing against EGO!!! guys but still think about what happens if some tribes decides to target individual players of them,. They will have to rely on individual skills rather than tribal team effort , which itself puts a question mark about the need of a tribe

Just my thoughts , no offense intended

 

[jakeeboy]

During start up I think having at max 20 members to one K which even then is a bit much when it gets to the initial nobling for a good fast paced group of players. This will later bring you down to about 10 members as others leave for other worlds, and in the later stages you end up with about 5 "key" players per k with other players with only a handful of villages there.




You can see this right now with EGO!!! as a perfect example. There main k is K45 with only 16 members but they will grow fast and devour the K and begin fighting over noble targets. There second K which is an Ideal number is k54 with 10 and a few in sorrounding k's.



But to answer your question of how many members is Ideal, it depends on the skill level of the members of the tribe. If your working with all new players having a large number isnt the worst of ideas. Given the fact that 85% of the members will not have large enough troop counts but are always willing to support eachother with what they have they can do alot of damamge with those numbers. If your working with a skilled group in one K then as I mentioned above having to many members will only cramp there growth, which again is why EGO!!! went in multiple directions and had others start later then some.

The main thing would be that. People leave for other worlds before nobling becomes a problem. Because it takes so long to get to that stage.

 

[DeletedUser]

About the numbers thing, numbers can have a big difference in a war.


Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large numbers.

 

[DeletedUser]

I understand what you are saying and it would work well in normal worlds with good troop speed. However think about coordinated attacks , defense which will take ages to reach as the players are pretty far from each other. I have nothing against EGO!!! guys but still think about what happens if some tribes decides to target individual players of them,. They will have to rely on individual skills rather than tribal team effort , which itself puts a question mark about the need of a tribe

Just my thoughts , no offense intended

Many people seem to not understand that because the world speed is slower it, it actualy gives you more time to see attacks, giving people more time to plan, giving people more time to provide support. Troop speed in this world is faster than build speed correct? Therefor farming becomes more important. If you have 20 players in each K spread out equally they will have 500 fields in which to farm each, or a little over everything in their 22x22.

I assume most top players would be farming more than that as the world progresses through to their second village so any more is a bit of overkill for skilled members. As has been stated by SMK, less skilled players will generally be farming less and therefor be able to fit more players into each K. It all depends on the skill of the tribe.

 

[balubhai]

less skilled players will generally be farming less

Sorry bro , i kinda disagree with that. According to me farming depends on activeness rather than skills. The skill is in how he spends those farmed extra resources

 

[balubhai]

About the numbers thing, numbers can have a big difference in a war.


Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large numbers.

Very true bro. They may be noobs , however if they are ready to follow the orders given to them like sending supports or nukes , then it makes a hell lot of difference

 

[DeletedUser]

Sorry bro , i kinda disagree with that. According to me farming depends on activeness rather than skills. The skill is in how he spends those farmed extra resources

Generally, less skilled players are on-line less. Its a generalization. There will always be some outliers.

 

[DeletedUser77458]

Either

anything between 15-35 members

Or

just one player...soloing against the world

 

[Suck my kiss]

Very true bro. They may be noobs , however if they are ready to follow the orders given to them like sending supports or nukes , then it makes a hell lot of difference

About the numbers thing, numbers can have a big difference in a war.


Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large numbers.

I mentioned this in my above post, saying those who are not that skilled are better in large numbers due to support reasons

Sorry bro , i kinda disagree with that. According to me farming depends on activeness rather than skills. The skill is in how he spends those farmed extra resources

Well your thinking wrong. Farming is a skill, and one that seperates great, good, and poor players. I will admit im not the most active of players but I farm more effieciently then anyone around me and can guarentee I will have the highest troop count and best built village when I get to nobling withing anyone 12-15 hours away(yes including Late distraction of Ego!! who is 12 hours from me by noble.). The problem with noob farming is that they generally snd everything they have in one farming run and then send to another. there not maximizing there troops farming potential which isnt hard to do but isnt done by a very large portion of the players.

I understand what you are saying and it would work well in normal worlds with good troop speed. However think about coordinated attacks , defense which will take ages to reach as the players are pretty far from each other. I have nothing against EGO!!! guys but still think about what happens if some tribes decides to target individual players of them. They will have to rely on individual skills rather than tribal team effort , which itself puts a question mark about the need of a tribe

Just my thoughts , no offense intended

The troops speed in this world is no problem, moving across an entire K is easily managed. And players that are farther away from there tribe need to realize that and build accordingly. Making a few friends with local players is always an option. An knowing who you should/shouldnt attack. If your miles away from your tribe its foolish to attack a tribe that has 10 plus members in your surrounding area.

 

[DeletedUser]

Members dont count when you have me in thier tribe, i change all of that xD

Cass <3

 

[DeletedUser]

Members dont count when you have me in thier tribe, i change all of that xD

Cass <3

Wowzers... You're more up your own butt than me :icon_surprised:

On topic, the number of members sorta depends on the leader, but I don't think a tribe over (in any world) should go over around 40-60 members (maybe some exceptions). Too many people leads to too much work and a stressful game which is supposed to be FUN. That includes dirty family tribes.

 

[DeletedUser20542]

maybe this has been done and i just didn't notice but i would actually like to see a world with no tribes. everyone is solo. sure you can make friends and use skype or whatever to pull some people together to make unoffcial tribes. but i think it would be fun for once. the noobs wouldn't have a sweet clue what's going on and quickly be turned into farms or nobled and then your left with good players trying to take over the world. puts ALOT more emphasis on individual skills

 

[DeletedUser]

I've wanted to make a tribe with some old members but most are either already quitting TW or haven't played for a year. I willing to make a tribe full of experionced members only. No mass recruitment:icon_rolleyes:. I hate mass recruitment.

 

[DeletedUser]

maybe this has been done and i just didn't notice but i would actually like to see a world with no tribes. everyone is solo. sure you can make friends and use skype or whatever to pull some people together to make unoffcial tribes. but i think it would be fun for once. the noobs wouldn't have a sweet clue what's going on and quickly be turned into farms or nobled and then your left with good players trying to take over the world. puts ALOT more emphasis on individual skills

It hasnt been done :icon_wink:

 

[DeletedUser]

In my tribe we voted on not having more than 20 players and currently we have 19 so its all good.

 

[DeletedUser]

Wowzers... You're more up your own butt than me :icon_surprised:

On topic, the number of members sorta depends on the leader, but I don't think a tribe over (in any world) should go over around 40-60 members (maybe some exceptions). Too many people leads to too much work and a stressful game which is supposed to be FUN. That includes dirty family tribes.

agree with you here for the most part crud. In general 40-60 is the ideal member count however i believe there are some situations late game such as wars on all fronts where 70-80 members out of 100 may be needed or at least ease the process a bit

 

[balubhai]

Mates that is in a 100 member limit world , we should be discussing about this world

 

[spleen mage]

Optimum number of members? If you're going for the most powerful tribe, then that would be 50. No doubt about it. As long as you're smart enough to not cluster them too tightly.

50 good members > 30 good members. I don't see any maths that would prove this wrong. It also means inactives are dealt with more easily, you have a bigger rate of expansion, and more nobles as a tribe, more sitters, more troops etc. Number of members doesn't actually denote skill level, contrary to popular belief. The reason tribes generally go with less, is to make it more of a challenge + their achievements seem better, not because you hold an advantage from less members.