Quantity or Quality?

Discussion in 'World 54' started by Bloodhood, Feb 2, 2011.

Share This Page

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bloodhood

    Bloodhood Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    6,852
    Likes Received:
    1
    At first this thread title may be misleading. Since my actual discussion topic is not about pure numbers against good quality players (that one's been done more times than I'd like to remember) but rather, when determining what is a "mass-recruiting tribe", how do you define such a concept? What matters more when describing this tribe; the quantity in which they recruit, or the quality? Is it about how you recruit, or how much?

    So I bring a hypothetical example to the table.

    Here we have tribes, A and B.

    Tribe A has just merged with another tribe of equal size, in an adjacent continent. Their numbers now total 60.

    Tribe B has never merged, but also have 60 members.

    Tribe B has asked questions of and account sat every single player recruited. They also have a conversation with one of the two dukes, both of huge experience, to assess the attitude of the player. They have recruited through a combination of those asking to join and targetted recruitment. Both, receive the same treatment.

    Half of tribe A has been recruited through a merge. They are let in purely due to their status in their old tribe. There is no gradual build up of members, but a big increase of unchecked members.

    Now if I was to ask who is the mass-recruitment tribe who would you say? The answer is obvious.

    However, lets make things more complicated, since there is no comparison here between the quantity and quality of recruiting. Just between the quality, leaving no trade off. So let's now mix things up a bit. Tribe B now has 100 members.

    Warning bells now go off in the eyes of many. 100 members? Must be mass recruiters. But what if they have a continent density of lower than 66% compared with tribe A? Tribe A has 30 members each on two adjacent continents. Tribe B, however, aims for a member cap on 20 members per continent, have less diplomacy than Tribe A and actually has an average of much lower than 20 per continent. Lower density, a better recruiting style and a far more considered approach. Whether they can dominate so many continents or not is a completely different discussion.

    Clearly, this is no simple topic. But we must now get more complicated, since tribe A, bolstered by their high rank due to being further in the core than tribe B, then goes onto the forum to call tribe B a "noob mass-recruitment tribe". Tribe B laughs at the insult and makes this thread in response. I have not directly identified the tribes, because it is less about them, more about the concept behind their shared interaction. You burst no bubble by shouting out identity.

    So.... who is right tribe A or tribe B?

    It is not difficult finding tribes in the past not following the elitist methodology who have done very well. On the contrary, many of the advocates such as ender_wiggin, vpar2 and even myself advocated such "elite" tribes not because they were better, but because they allowed for a more enjoyable game rather than the typical let's recruit the top 20 on the continent scenario. In my own view, neither are mass-recruitment tribes. What matters more in recruitment is how, not how much. It is the quality, not quantity of recruitment that matters. Merges can and have worked many times in the past. But best not then have the arrogance to call others mass-recruiters, or noobs for that matter.

    Signing off :icon_wink:
    Bloodhood
     
  2. EdwardT19

    EdwardT19 Guest

    B- No matter what happens, Tribe B wil have a less likely chance of spies etc and more players will feel wanted in a tribe thus boosting activity. :icon_wink:

    But 100 members is still too many to watch over and manage 8/10 times
     
  3. @the-king@

    @the-king@ Active Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will there's alot of other things that must be known to determine who's mass recruiting.

    i've some questions to ask:
    1) did tribe A sat the players who merged to them?
    2) where's the position of each tribe?
    3) what's there recruitment requirements?
    4) you said that tribe B have less than 20 members in each k, how many k's they exist in?
     
  4. winz15

    winz15 Guest

    Actually, yes tribe A did sit every member. Bloodhood is "hypothetically" making a situation about the rank 4 tribe in the world. He is actually in tribe B and does not know exactly what tribe A has done. How can he know that tribe A has not sat anyone?
    Also, we didn't go onto the forums to call you guys noobs. We went to declare war on a completely different tribe, then your leader started saying how nooby it was to send demoralizing mails to the enemy.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 2, 2011
  5. Bloodhood

    Bloodhood Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    6,852
    Likes Received:
    1
    Tribalwars history would indicate that is not necessarily so. Whilst spies are very ineffective against well organised and managed tribes.

    In the event of a large scale merge, it is unlikely. They may have done so, just as I have done for my members, but the principle is the same; since social and political pressure will most likely mean that normally rejected members are more likely to get in due to connections.

    1) Not sure, but look to the quote above.
    2) Tribe B is more on the rim, allowing them to perhaps succeed with a lower member count per continent.
    3) They have none, circumstantial basis.
    4) A lot, though 4-5 they have a very good presence, whilst number count varies.
     
  6. winz15

    winz15 Guest

    I coplay one of the recruiters, no one gets in without an account sitting. Please don't say things like how people will get in because of connections. That is more likely to happen in a tribe with more members (which is what tribe B has).
     
  7. Amane.

    Amane. Guest

    I didn't even bother reading this hypothetical what is most likely tosh. Bloodhound, you have a Issue with Punch. Okay, we understand, we respect and we acknowledge that. You leave the leadership of Punch to there leaders and council. We have never sought after finding flaws in Zombies recruitment strategy, of which I could pick holes at, but, I do not. I respect every tribe, even REL, for the way they're lead. If you have a problem, take it in-game. Mail me, or V. I am quite frankly sick of it, to be honest. Pardon my rudeness, but, get over it. Punch has done jack all to yourself or Zombie.

    We merged, it was a tactically sound move for Punch, if not myself nor our council and the whole of punch, would not have agreed with it. We gained rank 2, now rank 3, I think, we don't care, we honestly couldn't give two monkeys about it, as long as we're winning our wars and dominating our K's we'll stay happy. Which we're. Now get of our backs, honestly, it is passed boring now.

    This will be my only post here. I won't reply to your deconstruction and quotes of my post. I have said my bit.
     
  8. never...

    never... Guest

    @Edward 8/10 times = 4/5 :icon_wink:
    @Blood's post:

    Well evidently you're talking about us in PUNCH! here...

    Firstly I would like to say I didn't like all the PUNCH! vs Zombie arguing in the other thread, I think Zombie has some good members in them (and I think I knew you before I quit, you were friends with the guy I mentored? Steven Travers?). I do apologise for it all, it was unnecessary and neither side did any justice.

    However I would like to clarify the point that PUNCH! didn't just let anyone in. As a baron, of equal status to Amane., I would like to enlighten the fact that we did check every member by account sitting them, checking their building structure, their troop builds, their farming strategies, their activity levels, past experience, plundered amount, robbed amount, future plans as well as mailing them about in-game specifics. We turned down about 95% (you'd have to ask Valth for a figure, he got billions of them) of offers, some who were top K or high pointed members. I personally disagreed with some members joining, but they were either dropped or internal'd.

    Anyway, I don't want any arguing on the matter, it's past, let's move on. If anyone has any problems, just take to the game rather than here on the public forums..

    Edit: @Amane., sorry I haven't been on much, I've been ill. I'll be on starting from tomorrow again.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 2, 2011
  9. @the-king@

    @the-king@ Active Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    From what i've just read in another thread i can see that you have a spy among your tribe



    1) Not sure, but look to the quote above.

    so tribe A have sat the members from the other tribe so the took the best members from the other tribe to form a better tribe so that's not a mass recruitment

    2) Tribe B is more on the rim, allowing them to perhaps succeed with a lower member count per continent.

    I think tribe A should invite her members in the same k so they can support each other and co-ordinate with each other but since they are far they won't be able to participate effectively with each other

    4) A lot, though 4-5 they have a very good presence, whilst number count varies.

    What the hell are they expecting by inviting member in 4 k's? they need to be near each other or atleast in 2 k's but not more!! :S
     
  10. Amane.

    Amane. Guest

    I go against my Saying that I would not reply, to clarify with king. When Sign Merged into punch, Sign sat all player and forwarded all the details to Punch, in which we spent the next 3 days selecting who we wanted, and took into account positioning, so we could hold a link between K24/25 But, we also wanted a southern edge and gained the better players in the southern areas of K24.
     
  11. Chu-baca

    Chu-baca Guest

    I have always liked those smooth tribes with few but skilled members, makes things much easier to run. I personally don't care about the spies, they do no harm and they are fun to cuddle with ;)
     
  12. Bloodhood

    Bloodhood Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    6,852
    Likes Received:
    1
    No I don't, I have an issue with being called a mass-recruiting noob :icon_wink:

    Then say the same to your leadership?

    Well this is rather easy...

    As I said at the bottom of my post, I am not against merges, I am not against your merge. Clearly you misunderstood pretty much everything I said. Perhaps you should read my "tosh" before responding. You give a very poor representation of yourself.

    I must have overseen, witnessed or conducted dozens of merges. To suggest many do not get in due to social or networking influences is equivalent to believing in the ability to create a utopian society. It just doesn't or can't happen. As never admits to in the post after yours.

    Always a possibility, I do not deny there is. As I say, good management is the key.


    A good post. As I say near the bottom of my post, merges can work. Actions after as you suggest certainly point to Punch! being a good tribe. And well done for not shying away for kicking out the crap. But as I say, this post is merely in defence of Zombie, by looking purely from a recruitment point of view.
     
  13. HeftySmurf

    HeftySmurf Contributing Poster

    Joined:
    May 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,538
    Likes Received:
    7
     
  14. I do agree with you on this BH(also, long time no see). What I've always defined as mass recruiting is inviting people without regard for position, skill or without any prior knowledge about this person. It's the same thing you see in so many tribes at the start of every world. When I started W55 for example, I got at least 20 invites to tribes within the first half an hour. That is mass recruiting, because they know absolutely nothing about me. But yeah, the two example tribes you mentioned are not mass recruiting. Having a lot of members doesn't mean you have mass recruited. As long as you carefully consider who and where you invite, the total amount of invites you send out is irrelevant.

    I know you're talking about an example on this world, but I have absolutely know idea about this worlds politics so I guess I'll have to stay out of it.
     
  15. smoov121

    smoov121 Guest

    wow this really wasn't what i thought it was, once again this punch! tribe, who are they? :icon_rolleyes:
     
  16. zachary.2

    zachary.2 Guest

    tribe B (Zombie) has less diplomacy? we've never had any 0.o
    unless are wars count as diplomacy :lol:


    further to the core by 1 k :icon_rolleyes:
    tribe B (Zombie) is mass recruit noobs, idc what you say 97 members is mass recruiting, "we took only 20 on so and so K's"
    well your just bad at mass recruiting then.


    not gonna bother replying to anything else as its bs. now stop talking and bring the :axemen: 's out :icon_wink:
     
  17. never...

    never... Guest

    Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Sang.

    Forget to mention we have no diplomacy, we may get one soon, you never know, but as for now, it's 0.

    Just one thing, you never answered my "question" :icon_wink:
     
  18. devicem

    devicem Guest

    Jesus, will you stop swinging with your swords for a second? There is always a way to discharge anger, ego pump up, and/or bodily fluid accumulation. I mean, by all means, swing with your swords, but do it ingame.

    All this measuring is starting to get boring and pointless.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2011
  19. baddestmfalive

    baddestmfalive Non-stop Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2011
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only mass recruiting Punch! will be doing is when I use the mass recruitment screen to build troops in all the Zombie villages I'm gonna take if you guys stick around long enough to have a real border. :icon_eek:
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2011
  20. Ah, you must be new here.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.