Bloodhood
Part of the Furniture
- Reaction score
- 182
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
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