[Official] Family Tribe Debate

[DeletedUser]

Hello and welcome to the first ever Tribalwars debate. While called a debate, this is also a competition in politics, propaganda and of course argument. In this thread, you will see many players from this game arguing the merits of Family Tribes. This is the structure of the debate/competition:

Part I

Each player will be asked to write an essay that details their support or lack there of, of the following statement:


Family tribe employ an effective tribal structure for playing tribalwars.


The statement is intentionally general to give our debaters freedom to write in a direction that they want to. I do not anticipate the Affirmative and the Negative sides to be necessarily directly opposed to each other. Writers are encouraged to make a point and make it well. For the purposes of this debate, the following definitions should be used:


Family Tribe: A tribe composed of a large collection of players in a single tribe or several satellite tribes that have a central authority and a singular diplomacy.

Tribalwars: The online browser game found at www.tribalwars.net


Rules
1) Essays must be no more than 800 words long
2) Essays must have a clear, descriptive title
3) Essays must be submitted to me via PM in their final form. After they are submitted to me, no changes may be made. You are encouraged to write in a word processor of some form so that you can periodically save your work.
4) Essays may not contain anything that breaks the forum rules (Language, racist remarks etc.)
5) Essays must be submitted by February 4th, 2008 at midnight.


Part II

Each player will then be asked to write a short cross examination of an essay of their choosing. This cross examination should be focused on examining another player's argument for logical fallacies. Players are encouraged to pick an essay to cross examine based on their arguments rather than how well the essay is written.

Rules:
1) Cross examinations should be no longer than 400 words.
2) Cross examinations must be submitted to me via PM.
3) Cross examinations may not contain anything that breaks the forum rules (Language, racist remarks etc.)
4) Cross examinations must be submitted by February 7th, 2008 at midnight.


Part III

Once all of the essays and cross examinations are submitted, they will be compiled here for the public to see. The Judges will vote on several categories and the public will vote on the judge categories as well as several others.

Judges and Players:
1) Best Argument
2) Best Writer

Players only:
3) Best Essay
4) Best Cross Examination
5) Most Passionate Writer

Prizes right now will be awarded to the top three in the first two categories. Something to the tune of:

First place: 15 Premium points
Second place: 10 Premium points
Third place: 5 Premium Points

But remember guys, this isn't just about the prizes, this is about making arguments and points. This is your chance to make solid arguments and let others see your point of view unhindered by the normal forum traffic. Have fun

Footnotes:
1) As with my other competitions, you can't win more than one prize. There will be six (6) independent recipients of premium points. This does NOT mean that you can't win more than one category. It simply means that the prizes will be bumped down so that the #4 player will get the #3 prize etc. This is meant to spread out the prizes at least a little bit!

2) I reserve the right to change the prizes at any time, but the values posted here will be the lowest they will be. I am working to have them raised.

3) Discussion thread is located here: http://forum.tribalwars.net/showthread.php?p=969078

 

[DeletedUser]

ender_wiggin

ender_wiggin

Family tribes: The inefficiency of numerical domination.

Family tribes are an invention of tribalwars.net. In the die-staemme version of the game, anything similar to family tribes were destroyed before they could form. However, with the larger scale of tribalwars.net that comes from having a much larger player base, family tribes were conceived, much to the misfortune of tribalwars.net.

Originally, there were no tribal limits. This was changed when TW.com invaded tribalwars.net. The brutality and fervor which the large numbers were afforded by the huge tribal limits soon overwhelmed the smaller but more selective tribes. After a rather large scale war, in which the smaller tribes were slowly but surely overwhelmed by the huge masses of TW, the smaller tribes were destroyed. At that point, a large number of TW (the tribal) quit, considering themselves as the victors of the W1.

Sounds efficient enough, doesn’t it?

Having taken over an account in W1 during The War, I was personally involved in fighting in the war. Many villages that could have been used to fight by TW members were used to absorb each other. Many large players, who had gotten that way by absorbing large numbers of their tribesmembers, were unable to fight in a way worthy of their accounts. They were unable to efficiently use their villages, fighting in a way that only used the numbers they had to overwhelm the opponent.

Now, that was all too common on all sides of W1, as most of the players there have a large percentage (40% or more) of their village base provided by the absorption of their tribesmates. This is a common denominator among family tribes: Those players that remain active absorb huge numbers of their quitting teammates, who often quit due to the fact that they are surrounded by their tribesmates, unable to conquer anything but quitting players and abandoneds. These players are, quite often, more competent and active than their remaining counterparts, and leave due to boredom because of the huge numbers of alliances and fellow members.

Losing talented players of tribalwars.net to further promote inactivity and poor playing seems inefficient to me, besides the fact that the average “elite” player is more likely to spend money on premium than the average family player.

That only covers the inefficiency of family tribes when it comes to members of the tribes themselves. The fact of the matter is, most of the time family tribes are protecting players that would be unable to protect themselves, and would therefore be taken by players in tribes that are singular, and who are more able to use them. Helping foster a system which protects those who are unable to protect themselves without training them how to properly play the game is very inefficient, as the players continue playing in the slipshod manner which they learned. These players do not contribute to the game, either by premium or through meaningful play, and therefore are holding villages that, properly unprotected by the mass tribes that plague the server, would be allocated to those who were most able to obtain them, and would be more efficiently allocated, according to the Darwinian processes that best describe a wartime atmosphere.

There’s also a matter of player happiness, in and of itself. Many potentially excellent players join family tribes because they feel unable to survive in an area that has all of the members in that area belonging to a tribe, with additional supportable players in huge numbers in the surrounding areas. I have personally helped many players, formerly squandering their talents in family tribes, join tribes where they have been able to excel and truly enjoy the game. It is true that there are some members who honestly enjoy the family tribe atmosphere, and the ability to have a huge group of social contacts with which they interact on their external forums. However, the point of the game is war, and having tribes function as social organizations is inefficient, when you consider the purpose which this game is intended for.

Overall, family tribes are inefficient in all manners. They are a travesty against this game, which is designed for the enjoyment of a war-like simulation. If you want to have a social club, join myspace, facebook, or secondlife. This is a game of war, and if you’re going to play, come prepared to play hardball. Massing players with huge numerical superiority is an excellent strategy in real war, but where’s the fun in that? If you consider massing effective, then uniting the entire world into one tribe and dividing the abandoneds from quitting players is the game you support. Where is the fun in that?

 

[DeletedUser]

Free-eek

Free-eek

This debate should be interesting, I’m sure we’ll hear tales of the great power family tribes can hold, how such and such tribe in world 2 or world 3 proves they can be a power to contend with. I’m sure they will tell tales of organization and world power. But the reality is that even if this fantasy family they talk about really does exist, it’s the exception and not the rule.

But we’ll get to this delusional glorification later on, for now lets talk about the reality of “The Family”.

The reality is most families are not organized, they do nothing but allow players to hide behind numbers surviving while never having to learn how to play the game. Most families don’t care about the average players, who are only used basically as cannon fodder. They don’t teach their members how to play, often don’t send them support when they need it, in most cases the leaders don’t even know who most of their members are. Then because of their numbers, the player will never have to learn to play any better then mass attacking and building mixed villages.

Putting players in a position where they must either figure out how to play or die will in fact increase the enjoyment for everyone. In a family they may be safe, but sim-citying and mass attacking can only hold one's interest for so long. Thus long term enjoyment requires a challenge that they will never find in “The Family”.

Now let’s talk about that fantasy family tribe that works as a well oiled war machine.

First to the argument that a well run family tribe will dominate over solo tribes. I agree completely, but this argument only adds to why families are bad for TW.

Understand, this is a game, it’s not real war, no real dying involved here, if someone takes your village you’re still alive and you still have your bed to sleep in tonight.. So with that I ask a simple question:

Why do players feel the need to create such an extreme numbers advantage in this game??

This brings me to ask:

What other games do you play that you fell you need more then the set number of players?? Would you play a football game with 5 teams instead of 1 to give you a 55 vs 11 advantage?? Where would the challenge be in such a fiasco?? What is the fun in greatly outnumbering your opponents??

Here’s where they come back with, “well in war….”. Yes in real war a numbers advantage is expected by whatever side can achieve it. But once again this is a game, we play it to have fun and for the challenge.

As I see it there really are 3 types of family tribes:
1) Competent - Here the number game matters. On the whole the leadership is solid, the players have knowledge, and they work well together. Against one of these animals the solo tribe has little to practically no chance in the 240 to 60 war. Skill becomes unimportant other then determining how long one can hold out. And seriously what kind of game is that??

2) n00b - nothing but numbers, bound to fail and take their members down with them. Give false sense of security when in reality only exist for the betterment of the family leadership. A true crime that preys on the unknowing and innocent.

3) Mixed - generally 1 or 2 strong tribes with feeder tribes. The top tribes are formidable and process the numbers advantage against solo tribes. AND they have other tribes that they get good players from while using the rest as "meat shields".

The first is almost respectable other then they are trying to win with numbers instead of taking a chance on depending on their skill. Too bad some of these would probably make great solo tribes, and sometimes they split off and do.

The second is just pure bad, nothing good to say about them at all.

The third is the worst of all but the most effective. The top tribes usually last a while but they couldn't care less about the little tribes and often will break off from them once they have achieved a certain level. They take what they want through false promises and then crap on the little guy leaving him to the wolves.

To conclude I reiterate that families at their best reduce the level of fun by turning Tribal Wars into nothing but who has more players, while at their worst they are nothing but a way to use unknowing players for the benefit of the family members that really matter.

But the reality of family tribes is they are only a way around the tribal member limits, used to create an advantage for those afraid to test their abilities.

 

[DeletedUser]

MrNagoo

MrNagoo

Family Tribe Faux-Pas?: An Examination
Beginning with the birth of a new world, tens of thousands of players have joined the struggle, sharing the same fiery desire to reign as some of the top players of the world. The same burning desire that would build up grand empires, overrun enemies with massive armies, and gain the begrudging respect of allies and enemies alike.
It is quite clear however, that these intangible desires are nothing more than wishful fantasies. Indeed, the harsh reality of competition has done everything but offer easy passage to victory. As lone players, one cannot even hope to defeat the world single-handedly. Nor has anyone accomplished such an unrealistic achievement in Tribalwars lore.
Realizing this has brought a great need for players to band together in tight-knit tribes in order to increase their survivability. Tribe membership has brought innumerable advantages to the Tribalwars player, ranging from wider, diverse protection against enemy attacks to advanced, coordinated attacks against the enemy. Exploring the nuances of tribe-level actions has allowed players to recognize the simple correlation: the larger the tribes (with respect to village count), the greater success and survivability the members gain towards reaching their ultimate goal of world domination. From that concept came the birth of family tribes; tribes with massive numbers of players denominated into single or several groups, governed by a common leadership.
Although family tribes resulted from a powerful correlation, does that correlation also translate to causation? Rather than mere speculation of its potential possibilities, we should examine the results that family tribes has revealed to the world. At the time of this writing, with the exception of worlds 8, 10,11 and 13, family tribes have infiltrated one or more top 3 tribe positions in their respective worlds. If my math has any bearing, it would mean that 10 out of the 14 worlds available on this server has seen successful family tribes at or very close to the top spot. Does that look like statistics of success? Could there be other hidden variables that are responsible for the strength these family tribes wield?
Despite the many benefits and innate successes of family tribes, anti-family players have been quick to criticize the family tribe system. Oft-cited allegations include difficulties in communication between the various branches. Although communication between a larger player base naturally requires a strong command in organization, family tribes can simply adapt to a reliance on micromanagement to compensate for this inherent problem. In other words, have a strong leadership at the local level, rather than just a strong central governing body. Whereas the latter was sufficient for small-scale tribes, the former became a necessity for effective family tribes. What with the extensive pool of players from which to draw from for training prospective leaders, family tribes again hold the advantage over the traditional small-scale tribes.
Sometimes the arguments have sometimes been pressed against the low quality of family tribe members. However that case may be for some family tribes, it is not an axiom to follow with any definite validity. Such cases are not the fault of the system itself but rather, the weakness of the players themselves. Poor-quality leaders and fellow members naturally leads to a low quality tribe. Even for those players deemed 'weak', family tribes would still be considered the safest tribe system to follow, for these people acquire an advantage in numbers or rather, an edge of quantity to combat the quality in elite tribes.
In regards to the classic 'quality versus quantity' debate, one cannot help but realize a large number of competent players forming a family tribe system would possess both advantages over their leading competitors, the small 'elite' tribes and the large 'conscripted' family tribes. Whereas small elite tribes relies on high-intensity devotion (extremely active) in supplementation to basic competency skills, family tribes have used their large numbers to offer some leeway against the hefty demands of activity. In other words, family tribes need not be active 24/7 in order to maintain a strong position, unlike their 'elite tribe' counterparts.
In retrospect, the argument lends to itself to a new question. Are family tribes truly synonymous with a low quality, essentially ineffective system of organization? Rather than associate the system with the failures that the game has seen, family tribes should be seen as a potent weapon; a lethal system for those skilled enough. For the many who simply lack the skill, family tribes still provide the safest system to operate from what we've seen thus far. Whether or not the system is something players accept as 'fair' is another matter, indicative of the system's great effectiveness.

 

[DeletedUser]

Immaneul Kant

Immaneul Kant

Family tribes employ an effective tribal structure for playing tribalwars

The statement is a nebulous one and thus it behoves us to discuss it somewhat. The word "effective" suggests that the family tribe structure promotes success in the game. Since this is the most obvious interpretation I will deal with it first.

The reason why a family tribe structure is superior is very simple: all else being equal, a larger group of players will beat a smaller group of players. There is nothing about a family tribe structure that precludes it having good players. There is nothing about a family tribe structure that means it will be uncoordinated, restricted in growth, killed by its own diplomacy or any of the other criticisms leveled at family tribes in the past. All else being equal, if you have greater numbers, you will win.

The only way a single tribe can hope to defeat a family tribe on a level playing field is to procure alliances. When a single tribe does this it is merely mimmicking the strength of a family tribe. Alliances in Tribalwars are often temporary affairs, and often fraught with mistrust. A single tribe with even powerful allies can only ever be a pale shadow of a family tribe. The best family tribe can do everything the best single tribe can do, but it can do it better, more frequently, and on a larger scale. The primacy of the family tribe structure is a simple mathematical fact.

The argument as regards effectiveness in terms of victory and success is done and dusted. However, there is another way we can define effectiveness when playing Tribalwars, and that is in regard to fun. Perhaps it could be said that you are not playing a game very effectively if you are not having fun whilst doing it. There is a case to answer here, because an oft-repeated criticism of family tribes is that they are boring, or make the game boring for others. It would be easy for me to point out that such critiques fall foul of assumptions made about family tribes that are not necessarily true. It would be easy for me to point out that a single tribe can just as well fill its diplomacy screen and never fight anyone. It would hardly be worth mentioning that a single tribe can mass recruit in a short-sighted fashion. However, instead of treading further along the path of rebutting the supposed negatives, I will step into the light of the positive. I will explain why family tribes are a more effective way of having fun while playing Tribalwars.

Imagine the best tribe you were ever in, or could ever hope to be in. You loved everyone in it, your forums were active and you routinely carried out brilliantly co-ordinated attacks with flair and poise. You were the envy of all those around you. Other tribes in your area could only look upon you and despair. Your armies fought with biblical might, your villages were models of such Teutonic precision that even clockmakers had cause for "alarm". However, amongst all of this joy there was the sad fact that it was limited. You had several friends who you wanted to share this experience with. Other tribemates had siblings and co-workers, but none could come and have fun with you. Oh, certainly they could take part in the odd combined attack, or hang out in your IRC channel, but they couldn't participate on the forums, they couldn't feel the unity that those within the tribe felt.

That was, until someone hit upon a very bright idea. The tribe forums could be external! They could be shared by the same tribe! And although some arbitrary limit on tribe numbers would necessitate a naming theme rather than one name, none of the unity was lost. Friends could be together, joy would be unconfined, the more would indeed be, the merrier. But wait, I hear you ask, wouldn't this much success become boring at some point? What do you do when all the battles are won? And it is here that the family tribe structure wins through yet again. You can divide yourselves into equal sides and battle for supremacy! With your pre-existing network and organisation you can do this in a way that is fair and balanced and provide something yet to be seen in tribalwars: Two well-poised and talented giants trading blow for blow, with the only edge coming from skill and cunning. What a fitting vindication of family tribes, that they are in fact the best organising tool to provide what many people feel is lacking in Tribalwars: A fair fight between skilled players.

The beauty of the family tribe structure is that it allows for everything and precludes nothing. They can do anything that a single tribe can, only better.

 

[DeletedUser]

Floopy Pancake

Floopy Pancake

My position in this debate will be pro-family. Despite all the constant criticism directed at family tribes, well-structured ones with solid communition will always outlast a smaller and “elite” tribe.

We have seen this reoccurring theme in several worlds, 5, 8, and 10 to name a few of them. In world 5 the alliance known as LFKD has destroyed everyone in its path. I am not too familiar with the world but I know PKs is in it and still remains a strong #1 tribe and DA which was a very competitive teaching tribe with the likes of openeye, Ender_wiggin, and russki that was in the alliance.

In world 8, ever since the BLOC has formed nothing has even come close to taking it down. REL, THE, CEG, CLOROX, and NG made up the original BLOC. When the BLOC kicked out NG, CLOROX and NG went to war and CLOROX simply annihilated them. I have not paid attention to that world recently but I am aware those 4 still sit atop (CLOROX merged with TPA.)

In world 10, CTRL and Die. have a very strong bond which has brought them to the top positions in the world. Although MuFFiN was not elite we were becoming one of the better “small” tribes Tribalwars has seen, with great strategy they took us out and have not looked back since.

Although I don’t know much about NUKE in world 12 (I’m sure you’d know more) apparently they’re doing okay as a family to have the top two spots. I have also heard of OA which was lead by vpar2. Although, I don’t know who took them out, their destruction still helps support my argument based on the fact that anti-family tribes tend to fail even if they are as elite as OA was.

The stereotypical view that has been developed about family tribes is often false and many players should reconsider their views and base their conclusions on fact. The fact remains that family tribes conquer small and elite tribes in the end. The fact remains that family tribes win wars against smaller tribes nearly every time. The fact remains that family/tribes in large alliances are in the rank 1 position in 9 of the first 12 worlds. This isn’t a coincidence; with strong coordination they overpower tribes with less and often times stronger players. The RAKI’s and OLB’s of the game are not family tribes. They are simply, for the most part new, inexperienced players who think that having many people associated with them will keep them protected for the rest of the world. Of course, that is not true and they usually die out within a month or two. Players tend to see these tribes at the top of new worlds and then watch them fall and be ridiculed and their opinion on family tribes is, “Well, they’re noobs.” I feel as though they shouldn’t be called family tribes I think they should be referred to as “beginner” tribes because they do not have the qualities of a family tribe. The long-lasting family tribes have proven they know how to play.

Well my goal isn’t to bore you so I think I will wrap this up. Facts and stats show that pro-family is the clear choice. Many anti-family tribe supporters will choose that side because it is the “more respected” thing to do since family tribes are looked down upon. I just don’t see how they can look at the facts and still remain supporting the anti-family view.

 

[DeletedUser]

Kutsuu

Kutsuu

Why we don’t like family tribes.​

The given statement to comment on was: “Family tribe employ an effective tribal structure for playing tribalwars.”. the following will be an explanation of why I and other Tribalwars players don’t agree with this statement.


Point 1:

The First reason is the fact that when you are in a family tribe, you get surrounded by tribemembers (Or, as some may call it, a sea of blue). When this happens, you have no place to farm (at the start of the world), but you also don’t get good noble targets. You suffocate yourself and you have to find a way out. One way is to kick a member and noble him. Another is send a noble to outside your tribe’s area and start expanding there. Both options aren’t fun.



Point 2:

The challenge. What fun is there, if you are safe in your tribe, and you never get a challenge? The only thing you can do is send support to your tribemates who are at the war front and wait… wait… and wait, whereas if you’re not in a family tribe, about every player reaches to another tribe’s territory in some way and you get some challenge instead of just sitting there while the stacked villages at the war front are getting attacked.


Point 3:

The experience of the players.
If you’re in a regular tribe (e.g. not a family tribe), you recruit those who you think will be active and a good addition to your tribe. You have a selective recruitment and this is how it is supposed to be. If you are in a family tribe, on the other hand, you tend to recruit everyone who wants to accept your invitation you randomly sent to whoever you could see on your map, or to whoever sends you a mail to ask you for an invitation. It is alot more fun to play with a bunch of active, experienced players, then to play with say 10 times more players, but 90% of them being inactive and don’t talk on the forums.



Point 4:

The last point which i’ll talk about, is helping eachother. It is common knowledge that in 99% of the family tribes, the members only help eachother if they get better of it. In normal tribes, this also happens, but a lot less. Let’s say that only happens in about 50% of the cases. Also, members of a family tribe think they’re safe, and build less troops, which makes them ‘pointwhores’. If you’re in a regular tribe, you dont have this feeling, and you have to take care of yourself. This means you automatically will build more troops and therefor have a bigger chance of survival.





Now, lets talk about my experiences:
I have started my ‘tw carreer’ (as some may call it) in world 5, on request of a friend. I ended up in k72 there, and i joined the local #1 continent tribe, who was also holding a lead in k64 or so.
As for my First tribe, i thought it was quite a good tribe, untill one day they decided to become a family. On First notice, i though “Hey, it’s just what’s best for the tribe, no?” but when i got split from all the people i liked talking to, because they were in the other k, i started seeing there wasn’t much communication between the tribes.
For that reason, i gave up on World 5 and let some friends noble me out. My next serious World was w10. I was in a normal tribe, that had the idea that they shouldn’t ever become a family tribe, and they’d fight till the end (which in the end, we did). Now, this was my best experience in Tribalwars ever. I worked together with a select Group of active, fun, talkative players, who were willing to help eachother in any way they could.
I planned together with them to take down targets, we planned wars together, we planned support together. In the end, it was like heaven for me. I wont go on about other worlds as it’s basically the same point. I joined ‘regular’ tribes, and it’s alot more fun then family tribes.

So now i’ll get to one last point, which is the following:
The amount of ‘good’ players. If you are in a ‘regular’ tribe, you can have 70/80% good players, then some inexperienced players who you have to teach the game a little. When you are in a family tribe, that percent gets reduced to maybe 5/10% per tribe. Which means it’s just simply not possible for 2/3 players to teach a whole tribe how the game works.


Time’s up, i’m afraid, i’ve just reached my 800 word limit. Thanks for reading, hope you had fun.

 

[DeletedUser]

Mimelim

Why family tribes aren't all that bad

I've heard it said again and again, family tribes aren't as good as elite tribes. To me however, this is flawed logic. The terms 'family' and 'elite' can apply to the same tribes, they are in no way mutually exclusive. 'Family' denotes the structure of the tribe, 'elite' simply confers that the members of that tribe are superior to others in the world.

Now, are families effective? Yes, undeniably they are stronger and more capable than their single tribe counterparts. No one would deny that having a numerical advantage helps in war. From armies to support to sitters, family tribes have more resources at their disposal, they have a higher capacity war machine than single tribes. Often, it is cited that with this increase in numerical advantage comes an inevitable drop in coordination and teamwork. I'm sorry, but there is zero evidence to support this claim. Are there family tribes that have had communication problems? Of course, but by the same token, aren't there single tribes that have fallen apart because of the same communication problems?

Simply put, what is the difference between 60 players and 200 players? Is it any harder to organize 200 players rather than 60? Absolutely not. It takes organization skills, but because players are spaced around the map, they don't need to know what all 199 of the other players are doing, in fact they don't need to know about any more players than someone who is in a smaller, more localized tribe. You can only have so many neighbors.

From a meta perspective, look at the number of tribes that have failed over the months. I don't think that by percentage family tribes or large tribes have failed any more than individual tribes. Poor leadership is poor leadership. Lack of communication is lack of communication. Family tribe structure doesn't require more functional communication. The concept that a family tribe needs a strong leader to survive and prosper is right on. But this fact is taken out of context. In reality, ALL tribes need a strong leader to withstand the passage of time.

 

[DeletedUser]

robj

Family Tribes: Strength in many, Strength in unity

Point: Having multiple tribes promotes hierarchy & focus

Rather than trying to lead all players directly, having multiple tribal forums allows geographic groupings of players & focuses them on local issues. Single tribes certainly can have clusters, but there are no permissions in TW to restrict/focus players to their own cluster.
Capable lieutenants can lead the sub tribes & focus on the local issues while the leaders can worry about higher level concerns instead of interacting with every player. IRC & External forums can be used for areas where all players have concern, but these don't replace the local focused forums.

Point: Multiple tribes with a single vision allows focus & greater coordination than allies with similar purpose

Allies come and go, but a family tribe will remain united in one purpose. This allows long term planning that would be impossible for single tribes. While single tribes have to trust others & worry over diplomatic ties, a strong family can rely on itself. Family Tribe lieutenants will know each other much better than single tribe leaders will know their shifting allies & stronger bonds of trust will form.


Point: Multiple tribes allows the family to effectivley dominate multiple K's earlier in the game.

"Spread" Elite tribes attempt to dominate multiple K's (w10 POKE, w13 Halp!) but with very small numbers of players. This is very risky: if a few players are eliminated/quit/defect early then the whole cluster can be lost. An organized "spread" family tribe could have as many members on a K as a typical K based tribe, leading to a much higher probability of early game success. With multiple tribes on multiple K's the "spread" family will also fare very well in the late game, able to support each other across neighboring K's.

Point: More players does not necessitate higher density

With care and planning involved in starting location & recruiting, greater numbers can be spread over greater areas. This leads to the same density as a single K tribe. Properly done, family tribes can be close enough to support once they dominate their K, but far enough away to grow without choking.

Point: A Large pool of leaders means that the chain of command survives longer

Just like a real army, if a leader is no longer able to serve (rimmed, quits, etc) another leader can be reassigned from another unit. A single tribe would have to elect another leader from the masses, or might completely fragment if their only duke was eliminated.

 

[DeletedUser]

KoalaBear

As a member of T:V (formerly TW and T/W) since its inception in World 1, I have seen many people complain about tribes (or family tribes) with large numbers of players. They cry foul and argue that having hundreds of players on one side ruins the game for others (generally, smaller or less coordinated tribes).

However, I argue that a family tribes/I] is not as ominous of a concept as many claim it to be. Family tribes are an inevitability of human nature and, with large player numbers, will always be present in the game.

Since pre-history, civilization has transformed from small family groups (of less than 20 people) to metropolitan centers of several million people. People find comfort in numbers and it is human nature to surround oneself with numerous powerful allies.

Take this into consideration: Family tribes can be viewed as a glorified and powerfully bound alliance. For instance, say there are three 60-member tribes, Tribes A, B, and C. Tribe A has the most skilled warriors and, one-on-one, can take out either B or C. To combat this foe and avoid annihilation, B and C team up to take out Tribe A.

They are not "Family Tribes", per se, but they found strength in numbers to overcome a common threat. This is no different than the basic underlying principle of a family tribe, and I don't believe anybody is going to argue that alliances are inherently bad for the game.

There currently is and never will be a well-executed mechanism to effectively prohibit family tribes or cause them a hindrance. The ability to coordinate attacks and/or support with anybody in this game (by means built into the game or outside of the game, which leads to the topic of "What is the purpose of member limits?") allows for a more dynamic playing experience and can level the playing field when used effectively.

Simply stated, family tribes are not an implement of destruction and despair that many make them out to be. Family tribes are a tool for surviving the game, and are no different than having members from two tribes allied to one another to take up similar causes, and nothing is inhibiting smaller players (or tribes) from binding themselves with other players with a like goals.

 

[DeletedUser]

ender_wiggin

MrNagoo’s Oversimplification: An Edification
The simplistic view that is presented in Mr. Nagoo’s presentation seems to ignore a very important fact, one that many family tribes ignore: This is merely for amusement, and not intended to be a serious, life-or-death situation. Allowing or choosing to gather in such large groups for protection isn’t in the best interests of the game.
Fairness, greatness, and efficiency? All of these are secondary to a much, much easier word: Fun. Why play tribalwars? Hopefully, this isn’t where you find self-actualization, and life isn’t dependent on the number of villages you possess. Tribalwars is for the enjoyment of a war game, not for building villages or playing diplomat-world. What family tribes are “lethal” to are the enjoyment of the game. I guess some think that winning is more important than enjoyment.

 

[DeletedUser]

MrNagoo

Family Tribe Argument a True Faux-Pas

Nagoo's “Family Tribe Faux-Pas” essay, while elegantly written, has failed to persuade me on the valuable effectiveness of family tribes.

Nagoo uses a variety of examples in citing 'unstoppable' family tribes, where competency and superiority in numbers merge to form a strategically superior fighting force. In addition, Nagoo has gone even further to request a blind-eyed overview of family tribes; to look at its potentials rather than its actual cases of failure.

Such demands are highly hypocritical of Nagoo, and it shows. Why should the failures of family tribes be ignored whilst the successes be raised up? Whereas family tribes have been successes in the top 3 or so in nearly every world, so has smaller 'elite' tribes. Thus, the use of statistics of family tribes “doing well” in most worlds is misleading. Given the near-equal performance of smaller 'elite tribes' seen thus far, it is entirely possible that their success is not simply due to the system itself. Be ever vigilant that correlation does not equal causation.

In comparison to the successes of family tribes quoted by these pro-family arguments, lies an equal or greater number of family tribe failures. Whereas failures does not necessitate instant death, destruction and disbandment, the wars with WL family, ISCROM families and all other lesser families/academies sister tribes have consistently shown poor performance when facing a tribe of equal ranking. Although family tribes offer greater resources for attacking, it is nearly common knowledge that long-range attacks have minimal military value. Unless the entire family is located within a highly localized region (1-2Ks away from action)--something highly unlikely, Nagoo's claim of an offensive advantage in size is actually quite negligible on the short-term; a crucial weakness that may be capitalized on by competing 'elite' tribes.

As a tribe on defense, it is admittingly quite difficult to knock them out, as Nagoo pointed out. However, Nagoo doesn't provide the ever-crucial evidence that individual members survive longer as a family tribe member. In fact, with the right strategies and tactics, individual members of your average family tribe have shorter lifespans than their elite tribe counterparts (this is due to diluted attention and generalized selfishness of players)!

If you really wanted to be fair on the analysis Nagoo, look at the 'average' family tribe...not the paper potential that you entitled.

 

[DeletedUser]

Immaneul Kant

Family tribes: The inefficiency of numerical domination.

Originally, there were no tribal limits. This was changed when TW.com invaded tribalwars.net. The brutality and fervor which the large numbers were afforded by the huge tribal limits soon

overwhelmed the smaller but more selective tribes. After a rather large scale war, in which the smaller tribes were slowly but surely overwhelmed by the huge masses of TW, the smaller tribes were

destroyed. At that point, a large number of TW (the tribal) quit, considering themselves as the victors of the W1.

I'm glad you used the example of TW. I was a Duke in that same tribe, and it is a perfect example of why family tribes and elite tribes can be one and the same, and why a single tribe can succeed

best by mimicking a family. TW had 600 members but was the most organised and powerful tribe ever to play the game. Its power did not lie in sheer numbers, indeed for many months TW was not the top

tribe on any of the continents if existed on, because larger continental tribes with more members were present. TW's organisation was exactly that of a family tribe, and it is proof positive of why

family tribes are the most powerful when done correctly. I should add that my time in TW was the most fun I ever had playing this game.

Now, that was all too common on all sides of W1, as most of the players there have a large percentage (40% or more) of their village base provided by the absorption of their tribesmates.

This is a common denominator among family tribes

This is not just done by family tribes. All good tribes absorb their inactives.

The fact of the matter is, most of the time family tribes are protecting players that would be unable to protect themselves, and would therefore be taken by players in tribes that are

singular, and who are more able to use them. Helping foster a system which protects those who are unable to protect themselves without training them how to properly play the game is very

inefficient, as the players continue playing in the slipshod manner which they learned. These players do not contribute to the game, either by premium or through meaningful play, and therefore are

holding villages that, properly unprotected by the mass tribes that plague the server, would be allocated to those who were most able to obtain them, and would be more efficiently allocated,

according to the Darwinian processes that best describe a wartime atmosphere.

This entire paragraph is contradictory. If you believe that a Darwinian process is going on, then the strongest will survive, which proves that people in family tribes are the strongest. If so many

players in family tribes were unable to protect themselves, then many villages in a family tribe would be taken by the people who apparently "deserve" them. So in fact there are two states of

affairs here. If family tribes can't be taken down because they're too powerful then they're winning and you should have no problem with that if you approve of Darwinism. If on the other hand

family tribes are full of weaklings then stronger players can take their villages with impunity, which you should also have no problem with. So choose one position or the other, but either way your

argument falls down.

It is true that there are some members who honestly enjoy the family tribe atmosphere, and the ability to have a huge group of social contacts with which they interact on their external

forums. However, the point of the game is war, and having tribes function as social organizations is inefficient, when you consider the purpose which this game is intended for.

The purpose of the game is for people to enjoy it; how they find that enjoyment is immaterial. If you want to make a point about people contributing (via premium) then perhaps it's a bad idea to

chase away the vast majority of players just because they don't play in a way you approve of. Over 90,000 people play in many of the worlds and only a tiny fraction of them are the type of players

you want playing. There are many more premium accounts amongst this vast majority than in the demographic that you are a member of. Like it or not, your fun is paid for by family tribe members.

 

[DeletedUser]

raymundus615

Cross Examination - Mimelim

To begin, i would like to say that your examination of flawed logic is very important. Who is to say what consists of a family or what doesn’t. In my experience over many different worlds I have played and been part of leadership of both "family" and "elite" tribes. I, based on personal experience, would say that a stronger group of fewer players is a more effective fighting group.

Families, for their sheer numbers, can be more effective in a war situation. But inside that family, who does most of the attacking and the defending. I would have to say that, without trying to offend any newer players, those smaller players overall make less of an offensive impact on a war. In this same vein it would be safe to say that most of the players taken over in Wars including families are smaller members. You have the occasional large member go down, but the biggest targets are the mid to small range player.

Following the above logic; if a fighting force of say 60 experienced, large, and active players goes to War with a group of 200 mid to small sized players, i believe that they have the advantage. They have fewer people to suffer losses, and each of the 60 people is more capable of defending themselves as well as having effective offensive forces.

Also in this same situation, say that those 200 players have the same number of villages, combined, as those 60 players. Those 60 would have an organizational advantage as well. If there are fewer minds involved in any given operation, there are fewer chances something has to go wrong. But, on the opposing side, if any one of those players makes a mistake, it has the potential to be a bigger and more costly mistake. The chances of these mistakes happening are far less, however, if these players are, as typical for elite tribes, some of the bigger and more experienced players.

But you are right in one important respect; bad leadership is bad leadership. Any tribe will fail for lack of capable leaders.

 

[DeletedUser]

Free-eek

Cross examination of Immaneul Kant

Let’s simplify your over wordy essay into the basics of what you’re saying.

First you say: more then 1 > 1

Duh, it’s obvious that a larger number with all other things being equal would be superior to a smaller number in battle. This has never been an argument, it’s something we all agree on.

So the question really is can everything else be equal?? Since you’ve stated it can without supplying any sort of fact to back up your statement I’ll have to rely on my experience and knowledge to counter. There are many reasons why all other things will not be equal, I’ll just concentrate on two I find most important.

1) Communication, in order to be effective a family tribe will essentially have to use a method other then the built in tribal forum. The most obvious solution is an exterior forum. Now I’ve had some experience with these and in every case I’ve found the exterior forums to be far less used then the built in ones. It’s just one more thing to open and keep track of, you don’t have the little blue star telling you when someone has posted therefore you tend to look at the tribal forum less often.

2) Average member quality. You seem to like math so I’ll give you a very simple formula here. There is a limited number of good active players in each world, and most of them would rather be in a solo tribe for too many reason to list. This limits the number of quality players you will be able to get into your family.

Secondly you argue that being in a family can be as fun

I could argue this in so many ways but because of limits, I’ll use only one.

Challenge, mass attacking and always outnumbering your opponents can only be interesting for a limited time. Seriously, pressing send over and over again knowing that you and all your family are going to win due to the numbers advantage isn’t even a game, it’s glorified sim-city with a ranking system. In your fantasy ride, through the world of the family, you only provide for a challenge after everyone else is gone, we’re talking well over a year of boring play before the game gets interesting…yawn, I’m sorry but everyone quit your version of the game months before it ever got fun.

Simple fun factor formula here:
Solo > Family