DeletedUser
Guest
I feel so bad about moving and I feel bad about not taking vills either, why not put a vote on it? 
Democracy is the way!
Democracy is the way!
DeletedUser910
Guest
No. 80-100 member limit would be fine I think.
DeletedUser
Guest
90-100 does not sound that bad when you say it, but then I looked at how many people were still left on W1 and I realized that 100 people is 1/3'rd of the entire world.
DeletedUser
Guest
Haha, that would only cut down on WLEs and Traps members, kick inactive and go. No, I'd say 20
DeletedUser
Guest
I haven't even touched W1 in a good while, but this setting sounds like pure sex.
If all worlds had a setting where all tribes disband after a certain amount of time, and the member-limit is halved. I don't think I'd ever quit playing
If all worlds had a setting where all tribes disband after a certain amount of time, and the member-limit is halved. I don't think I'd ever quit playing
crimsonking1999
Guest
this seems like a good idea you could also try to get the "only support those in your tribe option" which would hinder families from forming
DeletedUser
Guest
Great idea, didn't think of that.
DeletedUser
Guest
Yes but so far the game has been played in a certain way. Tribes have been built and the war between those tribes is equal. Doing something that will disadvantage one side and advantage the other will make the game more unfair.
Take for example TW in this world. They pretty much invented family tribes. They had about 700 members (mabe more) then they were stopped from being allowed to invite people and a 500 member limit was put in place. At the time they were up in arms. Now you are suggesting to the other way round and they're happy with it. Double standards much?
Take for example TW in this world. They pretty much invented family tribes. They had about 700 members (mabe more) then they were stopped from being allowed to invite people and a 500 member limit was put in place. At the time they were up in arms. Now you are suggesting to the other way round and they're happy with it. Double standards much?
DeletedUser
Guest
Well, the world has changed since TW times. For example, when TW still ruled there were a lot more people playing tribalwars. More people also means more activity. They were against it because that would have made their tribe weaker. At that time there was strength in numbers. Today, the only measure of strength is activity. With large numbers comes a lot of inactivity and the reasonable people of this world like activity.
The fact is that when large tribes hold on to lousy members just to look stronger, it only makes them look weaker.
I mean if some TRaP/HELL/WLE members had the guts to make a tribe of their own, like ToRe did, we'd certainly have more activity.
DeletedUser
Guest
I tried that. I wanted to take the active members of WLE.. the ones that grow and make my own tribe but when I only get backing for say 7 or 8 people it's not really going to work. I suppose I would have done it with about 15 or more people but there weren't that many active players to pick from in the first place and they were too loyal.
If the enemy are inactive you just noble them very easy.
DeletedUser
Guest
I don't see why we shouldn't vote about this, we've been voting for noble prices and fake limit before. If people disagree then we ger a no and topic will be closed.
DeletedUser
Guest
An ingame vote with the people that actually play this world would be better. I don't actually play this world myself so I don't think I'd deserve to vote anymore. But I don't see the harm..
DeletedUser
Guest
Doubt tw would make such a drastic change this late even if 90%+ people wanted it. The 1 package per noble setting would liven up the world though
DeletedUser
Guest
Just like THAT wouldn't be drastic? :ODoubt tw would make such a drastic change this late even if 90%+ people wanted it. The 1 package per noble setting would liven up the world though
DeletedUser
Guest
Well I am a little late to the convo, but let me sum up. You want a settings change because:
1. you are too lazy to move to another area, and
2. too scared to leave your tribe where you are
Makes perfect sense...
The fact is, no matter how big or small your tribe, the frontlines move. So a change would give a flurry of activity for some, then back to sitting on your arse or nobling barbs because you wont move out of "your" area.
1. you are too lazy to move to another area, and
2. too scared to leave your tribe where you are
Makes perfect sense...
The fact is, no matter how big or small your tribe, the frontlines move. So a change would give a flurry of activity for some, then back to sitting on your arse or nobling barbs because you wont move out of "your" area.
