Give your opinion on academy tribes and if winning is important to you?

[DeletedUser]

Players,

There is a discussion on the World 11 forums (and really it happens on most worlds) discussing academy/family tribes. It was stated that an academy tribe should be happy with coming in 2nd. Personally, as a player I always wanted to win. Why keep score if winning isnt important? But not everyone is wired like I am. So I ask you, debate academy and family tribes and if winning is important to you (would you be content with coming in 2nd place?)

The discussion here could help shape future worlds in terms of tribal player cap size. Please keep all discussion civil, on topic, and do not violate any rules.

Post away!

 

[Sweeney]

There has always been a lot of talk surrounding family tribes. I have never cared much for them. Most of the time they are clustered and hamper their own growth. But with a strong leader they can be extremely powerful. On a server like this, with the worlds being as small as they are, a group of decent players/leaders could start a family and overrun the world.

Should they be happy coming 2nd? Well if they weren't, wouldn't they just leave? Or perhaps they feel that 2nd place is better than no place. I am not sure.

For the first half of my TW career, all I wanted to do was win and I was prepared to do anything for it. But that changed. When worlds started being won, it was clear to me that it doesn't really mean anything other than you picked the right tribe and stuck it out. Most of the top players around haven't won a single world. Nowadays I just want to make a decent name for myself, and hope that people will remember me as a decent player, and a decent guy.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think a lot of this boils down to your opinion on "winning". Lots of people feel that the personal pride and accomplishment of being part of the team (or family) of tribes that win a world is reward enough for their hard work, even if the label of "winner" isn't applied to them.

Also, a lot of the time they simply don't have any other option

 

[DeletedUser]

I think most players in academy tribes are strung along by the promise that they may one day join the main tribe, and by the knowledge by the end of the world that if they aren't going to join the main tribe they are "kinda" winners who couldn't have done any better. I think they also feel they couldn't win if they did rebel at the last moment, which is when most give up hope anyways.

I'd rather have low tribe caps, that said, because it discourages family tribes. The more tribes, the harder it is to coordinate them all through circular mails, etc. It's why tribes with 100 tribes have a harder time working together than tribes with 20 players; more noise means less listening. So while forums can be shared and circs can be sent to everyone, participation will usually be abysmally lower percentage-wise, and I'm all for letting family tribes try to coordinate that on low tribe limits rather than have the ability to at least have it a bit easier to check activity, if one tribe is plotting against the rest, circs, etc.

 

[DeletedUser3141]

I'd say it's not so much whether you want to win as the price you are prepared to pay for it. Is it worth betraying your friends? Could you feel pride in a win that you had to go to extreme lengths to get? Are you prepared to play with people you dislike to gain a win over friends?
For myself I think I'm with Sweeney. Winning is nice but really proves very little in itself. Maybe a more interesting question is which players are most respected regardless of whether they won or not.

As for academy and family tribes I guess to some extent it will depend on the win conditions for the world. I suspect it may also depend on how the main tribe views and treats the others. Also whether what will happen is known and understood or if they are strung along.

 

[DeletedUser]

There has always been a lot of talk surrounding family tribes. I have never cared much for them. Most of the time they are clustered and hamper their own growth. But with a strong leader they can be extremely powerful. On a server like this, with the worlds being as small as they are, a group of decent players/leaders could start a family and overrun the world.

Should they be happy coming 2nd? Well if they weren't, wouldn't they just leave? Or perhaps they feel that 2nd place is better than no place. I am not sure.

For the first half of my TW career, all I wanted to do was win and I was prepared to do anything for it. But that changed. When worlds started being won, it was clear to me that it doesn't really mean anything other than you picked the right tribe and stuck it out. Most of the top players around haven't won a single world. Nowadays I just want to make a decent name for myself, and hope that people will remember me as a decent player, and a decent guy.

I agree with you here. Early on in my time of TW, I was never really playing to win, and would just join big family tribes for protection to grow. Nowadays, I prefer smaller tribes, usually smaller than the limit, as a large amount of experienced players in a tribe (on this server), makes it a lot less of a challenge. I'm also a big fan of small tribes, as a small, tight knit group of friends in the one tribe usually means high participation and communication, and all over a better game experience. Leading smaller member limit tribes is also a lot more fun for me.

I think a lot of this boils down to your opinion on "winning". Lots of people feel that the personal pride and accomplishment of being part of the team (or family) of tribes that win a world is reward enough for their hard work, even if the label of "winner" isn't applied to them.

Also, a lot of the time they simply don't have any other option

Agreed, a lot of less experienced players will just join because if they don't they're going to get rimmed.

I think most players in academy tribes are strung along by the promise that they may one day join the main tribe, and by the knowledge by the end of the world that if they aren't going to join the main tribe they are "kinda" winners who couldn't have done any better. I think they also feel they couldn't win if they did rebel at the last moment, which is when most give up hope anyways.

I'd rather have low tribe caps, that said, because it discourages family tribes. The more tribes, the harder it is to coordinate them all through circular mails, etc. It's why tribes with 100 tribes have a harder time working together than tribes with 20 players; more noise means less listening. So while forums can be shared and circs can be sent to everyone, participation will usually be abysmally lower percentage-wise, and I'm all for letting family tribes try to coordinate that on low tribe limits rather than have the ability to at least have it a bit easier to check activity, if one tribe is plotting against the rest, circs, etc.

Yup, communication in bigger tribes is a lot harder to do. Another reason I prefer smaller tribes.