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.

Seven Devils

Non-stop Poster
We tried this on a swedish server, it was Very successful and it was the world with most fun in ages. Given the servers were much smaller than .net is today (You would face 1 small war for half the world, than the end war) Making a 10 man tribe made it plenty of tribes and alot of fun.

Some key notes i take from it though; Allied victory can not be. Family tribes are looked upon as they are in all other worlds(Makes no diffrence), Support out of tribe is a key moment for the newer players, both positive and negative things can be said. I would prefere to let the axes speak if you are to support one and another.

I would like to see a 12 member count where the top 10 is accounted for in the ranks
 

Jeffrey Woods

Non-stop Poster
Im down for 10-20 tribe limt max, but in all honesty.. It does not matter what the limit is in my opinion;
What really should be the question is:

Changing the tribe, should it be allowed in an instant, within a certain time or simply not?

I vote certain time or simply not to improve loyalty in .net, to much disloyalty and silly reasons to not fight for the actual purpose of the game.
 
Last edited:

tman93

Still Going Strong
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.
Out of everything I read on here, I found this one the most interesting. I think it's a solid idea, but I think the draw back would be, wouldn't that add more family tribes? You could argue that it would even become a valid strategy to add extensions, rather than recruit to your own tribe. And then later would allow, all members of the family to join in one tribe. Which is the only slight thing holding back ridiculous amounts of family branches.

Im down for 10-20 tribe limt max, but in all honesty.. It does not matter what the limit is in my opinion;
What really should be the question is:

Changing the tribe, should it be allowed in an instant, within a certain time or simply not?

I vote certain time or simply not to improve loyalty in .net, to much disloyalty and silly reasons to not fight for the actual purpose of the game.
Would also have to make it so that you cannot attack own tribe. But I like the idea of a cool down between tribe switching.
 

nightblade.greyswandir

Contributing Poster
Out of everything I read on here, I found this one the most interesting. I think it's a solid idea, but I think the draw back would be, wouldn't that add more family tribes? You could argue that it would even become a valid strategy to add extensions, rather than recruit to your own tribe. And then later would allow, all members of the family to join in one tribe. Which is the only slight thing holding back ridiculous amounts of family branches.
interesting... maybe to prevent cross tribe supporting and sharing forums. And/Or leave that and make that system work by adding allied tribes to the sum of players and apply the same "bonus" to all allied tribes.
As all simplified systems, this one can be misused and can be broken.

About spies... make honor or reputation points part of the game. Something like likes and dislikes on player profile, and make it profile bound and visible on all worlds. If somebody is spy they will get bad honor very fast, and an overall bad reputation. Good players, respectful players will get positive honor, and you can even make honor requirements for tribe membership. I bet it will reduce spying by a lot.
 

Assassinking

Well-Known Member
interesting... maybe to prevent cross tribe supporting and sharing forums. And/Or leave that and make that system work by adding allied tribes to the sum of players and apply the same "bonus" to all allied tribes.
As all simplified systems, this one can be misused and can be broken.

About spies... make honor or reputation points part of the game. Something like likes and dislikes on player profile, and make it profile bound and visible on all worlds. If somebody is spy they will get bad honor very fast, and an overall bad reputation. Good players, respectful players will get positive honor, and you can even make honor requirements for tribe membership. I bet it will reduce spying by a lot.
Nahh thatd be dumb. Spying and treachery is part of the game, just as much at tribes and wars are. Without back-stabbings the game would become boring. Drama fuels many peoples current existence on .net.
 

Assassinking

Well-Known Member
Spying goes into the who diplomacy aspect of the game. Its something that is needed. Spying helps keep a balance.
 

JawJaw

Administrator
Tribal Wars Team
Community Management
I'm afraid we will never act against spying and backstabbing. Please keep in mind this is, and will always be, a war game. Trust is a huge part of diplomacy. It is, as others have mentioned, part of the game.

I feel very sorry for those that feel betrayed at those moments, but I'm afraid it is a real aspect and a strategy that is used within the game, and players should protect themselves against potential betrayal.

The support team, nor the development team, will ever create mechanisms to protect players against it, so the discussion about it is not worth having at the moment. Please get back on topic about tribe limits (advantages, disadvantages, alternatives,... )

Thanks again! The feedback that was provided so far is very helpful. As you can see, we have already lowered it a bit for 111, and we will continue to do so for the upcoming worlds!
 

Sashaahn

Non-stop Poster
It has been done before where everyone was locked into random tribes for 100 days. World 27 comes to mind.

A lot of new players got some very good exposure. And when the tribe lock was removed, the top players didn’t all just jump into the same tribe. Most felt some responsibility for their tribemates that they had played with for three months and the only immediate recruitment that happened was the recruitment of players from failed tribes (or of course entire tribal mergers).

It really was a big success. Not a big success for the masters and beasts of the game as they tend to huddle together like sheep. But a huge success for the noob/mediocre player. People got to play alongside some really top players instead of being their victims.

How all this relates to tribe size? Well I think each world should continue to have different tribe sizes depending on what inno hope to achieve from that world. We need to stop these novelty world ends, novelty game play ideas (they all make for the same world) and focus on the bigger world picture. Have entirely novelty set-ups to worlds. Locked tribes for 100 days. Worlds with no barbs. Worlds with 5 member tribe limits where coins are drastically reduced to make it very possible for 5 accounts to dominate. Worlds with 200 member tribe limit where each players is randomly assigned a tribe and they’re stuck for the whole world (probably 180 would be inactive anyway)

These things will change worlds, and what’s more important, it will get some people hooked on a game they would otherwise not have a chance of falling in love with.
 

Jeffrey Woods

Non-stop Poster
It has been done before where everyone was locked into random tribes for 100 days. World 27 comes to mind.

A lot of new players got some very good exposure. And when the tribe lock was removed, the top players didn’t all just jump into the same tribe. Most felt some responsibility for their tribemates that they had played with for three months and the only immediate recruitment that happened was the recruitment of players from failed tribes (or of course entire tribal mergers).

It really was a big success. Not a big success for the masters and beasts of the game as they tend to huddle together like sheep. But a huge success for the noob/mediocre player. People got to play alongside some really top players instead of being their victims.

How all this relates to tribe size? Well I think each world should continue to have different tribe sizes depending on what inno hope to achieve from that world. We need to stop these novelty world ends, novelty game play ideas (they all make for the same world) and focus on the bigger world picture. Have entirely novelty set-ups to worlds. Locked tribes for 100 days. Worlds with no barbs. Worlds with 5 member tribe limits where coins are drastically reduced to make it very possible for 5 accounts to dominate. Worlds with 200 member tribe limit where each players is randomly assigned a tribe and they’re stuck for the whole world (probably 180 would be inactive anyway)

These things will change worlds, and what’s more important, it will get some people hooked on a game they would otherwise not have a chance of falling in love with.
that actually sounded interesting
 

Faux Legend

Non-stop Poster
Tribe member limits mean nothing. People will always make family tribes no matter the limit. Only difference is the lower the member count the more tribes there will be.