Tribe Member limit

What is your ideal Tribe Limit?

  • 10-20

  • 20-25

  • 25-30

  • 30-35

  • 35-40

  • 40+


Results are only viewable after voting.

lleixg

Member
Tribe limit 25 players, closing tribes after 1-2 months, choosing location disabled, support outside the tribe disabled. This is the only option to limit family tribes.
 

nightblade.greyswandir

Contributing Poster
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)?
I think your idea of overruling is good, maybe it can be tribe member or not based, so if player is member of tribe then both are active and greatest overrule, but if player is not a member of the tribe the only player vs. player is active (I thin this need some checking in practical situation as players can make one man tribe). I like the current morale system, as it protects new players to some point. For sake of new players I would add even more protection based on the time they spend playing (more they play better moral odds they have compared to bigger players, but it can be very complicated to make it balanced).

I can't think of any disadvantages atm... except that it will be annoying to some players who like huge tribes.
 

Salvador Dali

Well-Known Member
I am happy to see that there is finally some discussion going on about this. On Dutch servers the member limit has dropped already and it is time to have more complex world than the standard 4 tribes which are often dominant in their K very early on.

I suggest trying this out slowly, not going to radical.

Member limit: anywhere between 10-25
Churches: on

I think churches would also make this more interesting as spreading out will be much harder. This will mean territory will actually have to be fought over.

Maybe make a poll about this to see if people are in favor? Put all the pros and cons together and have a vote.
 
Last edited:

grave maker

Non-stop Poster
I like the tribe morale idea but I think it could be too easily abused. You would probably have tribes breaking down into two or three smaller tribes just to have a morale advantage against bigger tribes. It would solve some problems but probably would create too many, unless there was some way of governing how that happened.

I think adding diplomatic limitations could be one possible solution. For example, NAPing a tribe for x days upgrades it to ally status. For all non-allied players or tribes, support can be sent back and forth, but only fights at a certain % strength (for realism purposes, why would your troops want to fight full strength for someone you don't know?). Allied tribes/players fight at 100% strength when supporting each other. This could add in some diplomatic significance, but could limit other interesting aspects of the game (supporting friends outside the tribe, underhanded tactics, etc. Maybe mutual friends for x days could support each other at 100% or something.)

Another interesting one would be a lock out from leaving your tribe for a certain period of time, but I feel like that is the kind of mechanic that might make the game unfun for some people if they are stuck in a bad tribe and can't leave. It'd also probably encourage more premade tribes which are a problem in and amongst themselves.

Personally I think the only real way to have a truly balanced experienced is a world with low tribe limits (eg. 15-20) to reflect the lower population, with random player placement on the map. Of course, this means you can't play with your friends, which is a pretty key part of the game. Premade tribes almost always cause a huge balance shift in a K and will usually try and avoid other premades at start up because why would they want to fight another premade tribe. Then you end up with premade tribes in each K, pulling the best players from the tribes around them, causing the 1 dominant tribe in each K until something breaks around early-mid game.
 

Ascendis

New Member
I like lower tribe limits. Like 20 or so. US server have 10 on some worlds I have played and I love it. Compact teams that move well.
 

Horde

Active Member
It will be more competitive if we reduce tribe limits and moves from tribe to tribe, maybe added one player can change 2-3 tribe per world ;)

This backstabbing will be reduce, more players will be loyal and people will get more involved in playing this game.
 

SWOT

Member
1. Setting the tribe member limit to 15 member.

2. not allowing people to change their tribe for 100 day ( invite everyone to random tribe )

3. not allowing people to attack each other first month or two month .

4. add night attack protection ( For Example Speed but this one you can log in For Example .us version )
 
Last edited:

JawJaw

Administrator
Tribal Wars Team
Community Management
Maybe make a poll about this to see if people are in favor? Put all the pros and cons together and have a vote.
I have added a poll to this thread! Thanks for the suggestion!
Note however, I want people to actually discuss the subject and not just blindly post a vote, so please do elaborate on your votes! Thanksssss!

It will be more competitive if we reduce tribe limits and moves from tribe to tribe, maybe added one player can change 2-3 tribe per world ;)

This backstabbing will be reduce, more players will be loyal and people will get more involved in playing this game.
About the moves from tribe to tribe, how would this work? Wouldn't that mean you can get blocked in a bad tribe? How will you deal with tribe disbands? Will that count as a change? What are the disadvantages?
 
I prefer smaller tribes so voted for 10-20. In many tribes the actual active members are no more than that anyway and the rest are dead weight.

I like the idea of limiting the tribe changes too. 3 is a good number to find the right tribe imo. Right now players join tribes minutes after the world starts, maybe this will make them think a little before doing so. Or maybe tribe changes count can rise depending on how long you've been staying with your current tribe (increase by 1 per month?)
 

Butonel

Member
I vote +40
Maybe because my best world it was W6 where the limit it was 150.
I hate the system with only 5 members and support can be sent only for tribe mates. I did not play on that world for long, to see how is when this 5 tribe mates have many villages though.
On the other hand, I hate the worlds won by recruiting from other tribes.
It should be a condition like approval of Duke to leave tribe.
Or just leaving tribe to be allowed if you are member of tribe for less than 1/10 of the world age.
 

Varlon

New Member
I like the tribe morale idea but I think it could be too easily abused. You would probably have tribes breaking down into two or three smaller tribes just to have a morale advantage against bigger tribes. It would solve some problems but probably would create too many, unless there was some way of governing how that happened.

I think adding diplomatic limitations could be one possible solution. For example, NAPing a tribe for x days upgrades it to ally status. For all non-allied players or tribes, support can be sent back and forth, but only fights at a certain % strength (for realism purposes, why would your troops want to fight full strength for someone you don't know?). Allied tribes/players fight at 100% strength when supporting each other. This could add in some diplomatic significance, but could limit other interesting aspects of the game (supporting friends outside the tribe, underhanded tactics, etc. Maybe mutual friends for x days could support each other at 100% or something.)

Another interesting one would be a lock out from leaving your tribe for a certain period of time, but I feel like that is the kind of mechanic that might make the game unfun for some people if they are stuck in a bad tribe and can't leave. It'd also probably encourage more premade tribes which are a problem in and amongst themselves.

Personally I think the only real way to have a truly balanced experienced is a world with low tribe limits (eg. 15-20) to reflect the lower population, with random player placement on the map. Of course, this means you can't play with your friends, which is a pretty key part of the game. Premade tribes almost always cause a huge balance shift in a K and will usually try and avoid other premades at start up because why would they want to fight another premade tribe. Then you end up with premade tribes in each K, pulling the best players from the tribes around them, causing the 1 dominant tribe in each K until something breaks around early-mid game.
I like the idea of being able to support tribes that are allied but with a lower level of effectiveness, possibly also only allowing support between tribe members and allies.
 

EmperorFluff

Well-Known Member
I would of voted for 10- but that was not a choice lol so voted 10-20

I feel this will be a slaughter for 10-20.
 

Horde

Active Member
About the moves from tribe to tribe, how would this work? Wouldn't that mean you can get blocked in a bad tribe? How will you deal with tribe disbands? Will that count as a change? What are the disadvantages?
I don't know can you guys do that, to make per player moves from tribe to tribe. If tribe disbands, it will not count, if you get kicked from tribe that will not count too. If you don't put your points to tribe you lose some of moves... Maybe i can't put on paper what i think about that but i hope you understand what i want to say :)
 

Horde

Active Member
And i think you should put this thread on focus. Advertise it in ingame, bcs it can change game play for further ;)
 

jorge1332

Non-stop Poster
I love the idea of 10-15 member tribes. it would increase competition and help worlds last longer with hopefully better wars as a result. However I'm skeptical as it would result in a lot of family tribes as TW players seem to love hugging these days instead of actual war. You would probably need to prevent supporting players outside the tribe to make it work.
 

JawJaw

Administrator
Tribal Wars Team
Community Management
And i think you should put this thread on focus. Advertise it in ingame, bcs it can change game play for further ;)
The thread has been announced through an IGM during the last week. By now most should be aware of it. If they don't wish to express their opinion right now, it's their loss I'm afraid. We can only take into account the feedback we are actually receiving :(