Tribe Member limit

What is your ideal Tribe Limit?


  • Total voters
    79
  • Poll closed .

Salvador Dali

Well-Known Member
One of the most fun aspects of the game is diplomacy. With tribes being able to recruit many players is it maybe an option to have a 15 player member limit for tribes? It would allow for more complex diplomacy and would do something against family tribes.
 

Salvador Dali

Well-Known Member
Its different each world?

And reducing member limit would also most likely not do anything about family tribes? Instead of 2 tribes of 40 it could mean 5+ tribes of 15 :D
Technically family tribes could still exist but with only 15 players getting the win you can't have 5 tribes with 15 people. 60 people will not get the win and realise it is better to make their own.

Means less carrying of dead weight and more interesting diplomacy.
 

JawJaw

Administrator
Tribal Wars Team
Community Management
Personally, I am very much in favor of low tribe limits, which is also why you have seen them decrease of the last year to an average of 30. I would like to lower this even more, towards 20-25, but I have noticed not everyone in the community shares this opinion, which is why I have kept them around the 30-35 (exception to that being HP).

In my opinion, a lower tribe limit will add an extra challenge to the game; Players are often complaining that the sizes of the worlds have decreased, which is true, but the tribes have not shrunk with them.
It has become too "boring" on a world where 8-12 "real" tribes dominate the entire world. Where is the challenge? Wouldn't it be more fun if there would be more tribes posing an actual threat? Bring up your best diplomacy games to keep a balance in the game. Fight each other with quality instead of quantity. Be picky when it comes to recruitment, and do not just recruit someone "because I still have a spot".

I really believe there's so much more fun to be had in Tribal Wars if people wouldn't be sticking together as much :)

I would be more than happy to hear your opinion on this! Please let me know what are the advantages / disadvantages, open a discussion about it and then we can maybe change a few things!
 

grave maker

Non-stop Poster
Personally, I am very much in favor of low tribe limits, which is also why you have seen them decrease of the last year to an average of 30. I would like to lower this even more, towards 20-25, but I have noticed not everyone in the community shares this opinion, which is why I have kept them around the 30-35 (exception to that being HP).

In my opinion, a lower tribe limit will add an extra challenge to the game; Players are often complaining that the sizes of the worlds have decreased, which is true, but the tribes have not shrunk with them.
It has become too "boring" on a world where 8-12 "real" tribes dominate the entire world. Where is the challenge? Wouldn't it be more fun if there would be more tribes posing an actual threat? Bring up your best diplomacy games to keep a balance in the game. Fight each other with quality instead of quantity. Be picky when it comes to recruitment, and do not just recruit someone "because I still have a spot".

I really believe there's so much more fun to be had in Tribal Wars if people wouldn't be sticking together as much :)

I would be more than happy to hear your opinion on this! Please let me know what are the advantages / disadvantages, open a discussion about it and then we can maybe change a few things!
I think it's reasonable to reduce the tribe size as the worlds have shrunk. We are usually left in a situation where very soon into the world there is a tribe dominating each core K with maybe 1 or two tribes sandwiched between them in the middle with a few rim tribes. This usually becomes which tribe can recruit the best players first from the sandwiched/lesser tribes because there isn't a whole lot of competition (which I think is what you are saying too).

I think it would be great to see the outcome of a small tribe world. Each K would have so many additional tribes in it, it could add extra avenues for people to move down. We might just see tribes open acad/sister tribes to deal with the limit, but it is impossible to say without it actually being done in practice.

People love their small, close-knit tribes, and it might be less pressure for people to feel as if they need to recruit loads of people to be a competitive tribe. The community is getting small, so many players will often just gravitate towards other strong/familiar players, who will often be all under one roof. A world with smaller tribes might force this to have 2 or 3 roofs rather than 1, so people don't feel forced to 'get into this tribe or be screwed' type of thing.

I think we saw a decent example of this in W100, which had a limit of 25. There were front-runners in the world, sure, but each K had a few competitive tribes in it, and the front-runners didn't get an automatic path to victory. W100 was a bit of an anomaly in terms of the competitiveness, but I think it's a good lesson to learn from. I would go as far to say as normal worlds should go lower than 25 to maybe see similar tribal competitiveness.
 
Last edited:

Weird Flex But Ok

Still Going Strong
Please up the tribe limit number to 100 for now on so I can mass recruit and hug the world. Also if you could raise the tribe limit level to like 200 on 109 that'd be awesome so everyone that I made promises to get invited to Toxic can get invited that'd be amazing thanks.
 

JawJaw

Administrator
Tribal Wars Team
Community Management
Can you please be constructive and tell me why? :)

I need actual reasons for it to be considered, not just "I want" :D
 

Dr. McNasty

Active Member
lets have a world where the limit is 5. the main issue will be people merging to win in the end with their buddies and push accounts as always. Maybe have a win condition that the first tribe to a billion ODA wins the world instead of points. However, boosting could occur, but that occurs anyway, right?

You would have to ban self attack and tribe member attack. Also, you would have to limit the number of attacks sent to the same player/tribe in a given time to reduce boosting
 

EmperorFluff

Non-stop Poster
I would love world with like 8-12 player limit and no leaving tribes also

:p
Can you please be constructive and tell me why? :)

I need actual reasons for it to be considered, not just "I want" :D
sorry bout that. well I believe if would make a more competitive world because the good players would be a lot more spread out. And with Not being able to leave tribes that would take away the horrible problem of spying on other tribes and betraying because if they did that how can if benefit the player that betrayed. Oh yea and in a not able to leave tribe world I believe there should an acceptation of kicking a player thats down to 0 points and recuiting another member thats not in a different tribe already. Hope this is good.

Thanks
EF

lets have a world where the limit is 5. the main issue will be people merging to win in the end with their buddies and push accounts as always. Maybe have a win condition that the first tribe to a billion ODA wins the world instead of points. However, boosting could occur, but that occurs anyway, right?

You would have to ban self attack and tribe member attack. Also, you would have to limit the number of attacks sent to the same player/tribe in a given time to reduce boosting

that's why you'd add a Can't leave tribe rule.
 

Ittre

Active Member
If you like see a world more difficult and more honest, why don't try play like this :

Tribe : 20
Brother tribe, Sister tribe or other Academy : 1 Max.
Ally : 1 Max.
NAP : 1 Max.
At war : No limit.
Maximum player by account : 2.
 

emad1995

New Member
I think the tribe limit should be decreased to 10-15 and have tribe leave limit where a member can't leave for 30 days if he/she does join a tribe with no attacking tribemates and no sending free resources to someone outside tribe
 

nightblade.greyswandir

Contributing Poster
make tribe without limits, but with Moral like setup. if the tribe has more than 20 members morale penalty is 1% per player. Also lowes moral should be 20, the same as with player size.
 

JawJaw

Administrator
Tribal Wars Team
Community Management
I think the tribe limit should be decreased to 10-15 and have tribe leave limit where a member can't leave for 30 days if he/she does join a tribe with no attacking tribemates and no sending free resources to someone outside tribe
And why? Could you say why this would a good thing?
make tribe without limits, but with Moral like setup. if the tribe has more than 20 members morale penalty is 1% per player. Also lowes moral should be 20, the same as with player size.
This sounds like a pretty solid idea. Do you see any disadvantages of this system? What would you do with the current morale system? Would they be active simultaneously? Or would they overrule each other (eg. whichever gives the greatest bonus for the defender applies)?
 

The Player

New Member
I want to suggest the following changes:
1. Setting the tribe member limit to 10 members.
As the worlds are shrinking, the tribe member limit should also be reduced so as to maintain competition in the game. We can't have the old world settings and have a 100 member tribe limit, that would lead a top 2-3 tribe battle and it would also cause boredom as the worlds go on for a year at least and we can expect to see a premade to completely dominate the map. I have played in the TW Masters servers for a while and they used to have the tribe limit set to 10 for almost all the worlds. This is already a tried and tested method for those servers. Their worlds from that time are comparable to our worlds now in terms of size, so we would have a similar situation.​
2. Not allowing the setup of premades to allow new players to get a chance to know the game.
What I mean by this is that players' starting village would be spawned randomly and not together with the premade tribe members or friend/s. There can be a workaround for this, by sending invitations to friends and asking friends to relocate close to your village. In order to counter the first argument, once a player has invited a friend, both players can no longer invite another player to start near their village and only the first player to accept the invitation gets the chance, the rest just start somewhere else. To counter the latter, once a player has relocated next to a friend, no more players can relocate next to any of those two players, similarly the first player who does this is successful and it would require a conformation from you in case your friend wants to relocate near you but you want somebody else to come. In short, there cannot be more than 2 friends close to each other in any case. This would create opportunities for tribes that are localized and have both new and old players, and new players can learn the game from the experienced ones. Or we can go the opposite route and opt for a W27 start, obviously with a lot less than 100 member tribe limit there. :p
3. Discouraging family tribes to make the game more competitive.
As the tribe member would be lowered, it would lead to more family tribes. The support setting can be altered and set to support outside tribe is not possible. This is not a complete solution but it will surely not favor family tribes. Diplomacy would be interesting though.​
 

seroxy5

New Member
I'm new to this server (been playing on swedish server before they merged it into here) so I don't know a lot about past worlds here. On the swedish server however, I continuously saw more or less the same players in the top tribes. Putting some of these players on opposite sides of the war would without a doubt make the world more interesting and potentially open up for another tribe to rise in the background.

I also believe, as grave maker stated, that smaller tribes invite players to interact with each other more and become closer to one another. Having a lower limit makes it harder to just move over to another tribe as they will most likely already be full. This would result in less jumping between tribes and boosting loyalty to the tribe you're in. It could potentially also reduce the foul play that is often used by a lot of tribes, for example when tribe 1 would plant a spy in tribe 2 and reserve a spot for this player in tribe 1 when tribe 2 falls.

I think reducing the amount of players in each tribe will be very good for the game for the reasons I stated above as well as the arguments made by previous authors.