.
I have just proven him wrong. An offense player ALWAYS needs more offense troops then a player with defense troops. This base on facts, facts by the simulator and real experiences among many players. so would this not only prove him wrong but shows that it is the offense player that will be slowed down when he/she attacks the defense player.
If you are defense there are good barbs to noble with high points but your tribe members could also help you out in this situation. Then you can noble that village AND protect it from any attacks headed to that new sweet village of yours. There is also a way to get a higher point village, make him attack you and let him lose his troops, then you can send a small group to noble them.
I also have a higher ODA then you but i was slowed down as i was an offense player and got nobled!! That slowed me down alot, alot more then what you would say that a defense player is slowed down which is not true. You base this on player skills but if 2 players have the same skill the advantage is on the defense player as he will lose less troops. Aslo, you are arguing as is the defense player only has one village but the question is does a player with MORE DEFENSIVE VILLAGES THEN OFFENSIVE VILLAGES stunt your growth. Not only is the answer no but realize the s at he end of village's making it more then one village which concludes to the fact that you would have at least 1 offense village and to another fact that you can defend yourself which will weaken the attack and you can counter attack him and then noble his village. Defensive players have the advantage in defending themselves from threats which allows them to be more secure then offense players but as well as the fact that when you have multiple villages and if at least 1 is offense even though the majority is defense, you can counter attack, win and grow alot faster as the player will not have to rebuild ALL his troops after there offense villages get attacked, but instead being able to defend any village without losing all there troops. These are not only facts on the game but answers the question correctly.
Betto said:
Betto said:
Betto said:
Betto said:
Betto said:
Could you please explain to me where I said he was to scared to fight? I said he was preparing to get into a conflict with the bigger guy, he was planing on a strategy and he was preparing his troops to fight. To often you see people barge in head first without a plan and they get annihilated because the other guy was a step ahead the whole way. If you were getting in a conflict with someone 1.5x your size would you barge in immediately and "see what happens." Acting like this allows the enemy to dictate your actions and you are closed off from making your own plans effectively and you could easily lose.
Again, you aren't giving any details, all you do is state weakness for not being able to take his village while the person was active. And whose to say you couldn't take the person while he was active. Most commonly when you find good barbs to noble it is because you recently expanded into an area and you find some good abandoned villages nearby the ones you just recently took, so you take those too to strengthen your presence in the area.
Googly said:
sorryyougotnuked said:
SpearNuke said:
Matagot said:
You can't say that family tribes always share those. I know plenty of family tribes that I have been in (Usually for giggles
) that don't share the same forum, area, and sometimes not even the same diplomacy, and most family tribes that aren't half competent don't even use skype. By saying that all family tribes share those, cuts out around 80% or more of all family tribes because they do not possess those qualities. Yes, it is very common for family tribes to have the same forums and diplomacy; but sometimes this is not the case. Many a time a family tribe actually don't share the same leaders, they may have to same leader in theory, but it is very common for people to become more bonded to influential and inspirational people within their own tribe, causing them to respect and hold those people to a higher position than the actual leaders of the family tribe. Sharing a same area is more of a preference among tribes, can't really say anything against that since that's more of a preference on how they like to do things.Okay, we have now weeded out the lower 80% of all family tribes for not even having all these. Now ask yourself, for each of those similarities. Which would be easier for each of these? A family tribe? Or a normal tribe? Naturally, having the same forum is easier for the normal tribe than the family tribes. This is because their is less control over the forum because the only mods would be the ones in the tribe controlling that part of the forums, also because a family with a participant size that is much greater than a normal tribe will have a much tougher time weeding out unimportant information with important information and the constant blue symbol beside the forums will disorient members and they will often time start ignoring the forums all-together. Having the same skype chat would also be easier in a normal tribe. What would be more confusing? A chat with 30 members, or 120 members? I'm sure you can answer the reasoning behind that yourself. When it comes to having the same leaders, the leaders will be much more stressed out if they are controlling several tribes instead of one and will be more likely to not be able to handle every situation with 100% effectiveness, unless if the family tribe decides to have many more leaders than a usual tribe and many of them will be spread throughout the different tribes, but as I said before that members of a tribe generally become more connected with the influential people within their own tribe causing there to be shifts in leadership and the different tribes will more and more resemble just mere alliances with each other because there isn't as strong of a central presence of leadership since the leadership is spread. It is also harder for family tribes to share the same area, because the only way they have to identify each other is if they are marked as an ally, but if the tribe also has separate allies besides their family then there is a problem. Members with premium and have all the family tribes marked won't have as much a problem but many people do not use premium.
Yep, no one said a family tribe can't win a world. There is always a first for everything. And your are also right about Apocalypse being proof that a family CAN be successful. But they are a very rare example of a family tribe that operated better than just "Glorified Alliances," commonly family tribes do not operate nearly close to the degree at which they did. Congrats to the leaders of Apoc, because it takes loads of skill, determination, and perseverance to last all the way to the end of a world, a family tribe especially. They obviously had great communication skills and overcame the obstacles that most other family tribes cannot overcome. But just because 1 family tribe could be that successful does not mean they represent the level of bondage that all family tribes have. When finding an average or a third quartile (math term
) you never want to include the outliers or the outstandingly greater variables. Apoc cannot be a representative for all family tribes because they are vastly different than the majority of family tribes.
I recognize these facts, but they don't directly relate to the amount of leaders there are. These are leader qualities that don't exactly explain why having more leaders might be better. In the following paragraphs Matagot, you tell us a story of a tribe you were once in, that had a tyrannical ruler who ruined everything, but eventually, a new tribe was made with many people making decisions and everyone was happy (these were different leaders, mind you). Since the leaders were different, how can we not conclude that the big group was not just a group of people with better leadership qualities? The tyrannical ruler was tyrannical for reasons other than the fact that he was the only leader, but because led that way. As I've stated before, leadership qualities are different than the amount of leaders.
Now let's go back to that football team I mentioned earlier. You take 30 inexperienced players, and put them on a team, and the team suddenly becomes better than the rest and wins the state championship. Yes? No! It doesn't work that way! My high school football team is terrible, with something like a 20 game losing streak, which started a few years ago. My team is exceptionally large too, but obviously having more players does not make the team better! There's a popular phrase saying that “a team is only as strong as it's weakest player” or “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link”. This holds true for more things than people think. Everything from a high school football team to leadership in Tribal Wars. Having more leaders does not help them to make smarter, more beneficial decisions, and it creates more room for error due to communication and confidentiality issues.
Don't go popping blood vessels now
Winning a world is something that is supposed to be a great accomplishment worthy of praise. Do you think every one of the people in those tribes is happy? I did some research through resources, the forums especially, and many people flocked to the Apoc family so they could ride the coattails of success so they could make it to the end-game. The winning tribe of a world is supposed to end a world through domination, not by sucking in many of the opposers that come their way. Do you think every person within the Apoc family and BA were happy that many of their enemies joined them to win the world? Do you think they were happy that they won by sucking in several enemies? It is obvious through the forums on world 18 that many people who the world were not happy with how the world turned out.
"As shown by Example #1 Family tribe are not a glorified alliance." Yes, you have shown that Apocalypse was not a glorified alliance. However, you can't hide behind the fact that one family tribe was successful, that one family tribe dominated a world, that one family tribe communicated well, that one family tribe etc, etc, etc. But what about other family tribes? It's a well known fact by the tribal wars community that ;family tribes often fail and that's why most experienced players avoid them. Why did this idea come about that family tribes are not the best way to go? Because statistically and realistically speaking, most family tribes do not have the communication, the co-ordination, the determination, or the longevity to become a great tribe.
The way you are explaining co-ordination is the way you ask for it and the way you talk about it. But the fact is that in a family tribe you do not create as strong a bond with each other because there is to many members to get involved with the affairs of every single one. Out of all those operations of communication the only one that doesn't get effected by the massive member count is the messaging chat (Includes private skyping), but think of it as if you were in their shoes, you are in a family tribe of about, say, 125 members, and you get messaged by 1 of those members and you just barely know the person, or even if you somewhat know the person, will you give your 100% effort to help a stranger you barely know? Would you give your 100% for someone when there may be other people, or even yourself who also need help? Generally speaking, members of family tribes do not create as strong a bond to each other as a normal tribe does.
If you cannot see the difference between a regular tribe and a family tribe then you are ridiculously biased. There isn't much difference between an average family tribe and an alliance, you help each other, you communicate with each other, and you plan ops with each other; but you do not create strong enough of a tie to each other to call each other the same family/tribe.
This officially ends my side of this debate.
That's an interesting idea... But the statement itself goes back to my football reference, but let's use ice cream. Let's say you're the kid on the right with the bigger scoop. If there is, I don't know, let's say dead coackroaches, in that scoop of ice cream, it doesn't matter if you have so much more than me, it will still taste nasty. Having more experienced leaders in a tribe does not replace quality, just as unity does not replace inexperience.