Failed Vote Scheduled Tribe Disbanding

[Seven Devils]

Just to elaborate a little more on why I think this matters: The duke role has only a few extra privileges versus the baron role. Disbanding the tribe is the most important of those extra privileges.

The reason this takes away so much from the game, is that it removes the main reason why it's important to keep a duke account secure. It should be important to keep a duke account secure, to make sure only the people you can absolutely, completely, inherently trust have access to those duke privileges. Changing that affects the game in a variety of ways, even if nobody is actually spying or looking to betray your tribe, because you always have to assume that they are.

Also, in my opinion, the vast majority of cases (nearly all, I suspect) where this change would be relevant, are related to coplaying. In that sense, I personally would view implementing this suggestion as a change of stance on officially supporting coplaying.

I do suppose TW crew would help the tribe that has a duke account hacked and disbanded the tribe.

Cause it feels alot like the TW crew does not care about what happens "Hey, should have kept it more secure" Like yeah, we all are IT professionals who has a 24 letter pw with numbers and whatnot we keep in our pocket L. Shit will happen and to just point it at "YOU should have kept it more secure when actually YOU as in INNOgames could prevent shit from going down is just a laugh.

Sort of funny we actually have to request these things. 99% player base will find this useful, a few pricks thinks its all apart of the game.

 

[Kuzan]

Supporting the idea for worlds with uber setting.

 

[Basand]

I disagree with this suggestion.

Trusting those that you give duke privileges to is of utmost importance. If you do not, then why give them the privileges? If you do and then they still betray you, that is just showing their cunning in the way they wish to play the game. It is dirty, sure. But it is how this game has been played since the beginning.

As was said before, coplaying is not supported. What that means is that if a coplayer does something on your account it is the same as if the original owner did it. Stating that having a coplayer log in and disband the tribe is scary just doesn't make sense when from the TW point of view, all players on an account are one.

I am not 100% against this suggestion but I am more against it than for it. The only reason I am not 100% against it is that these small, fast worlds that make up modern TW are subject to faster spirals when a single player can affect a large tribe. When there were dozens of Ks, a single tribe collapse didn't instantly set the course for the world.

 

[One Last Shot...]

I do suppose TW crew would help the tribe that has a duke account hacked and disbanded the tribe.

Cause it feels alot like the TW crew does not care about what happens "Hey, should have kept it more secure" Like yeah, we all are IT professionals who has a 24 letter pw with numbers and whatnot we keep in our pocket L. Shit will happen and to just point it at "YOU should have kept it more secure when actually YOU as in INNOgames could prevent shit from going down is just a laugh.

Sort of funny we actually have to request these things. 99% player base will find this useful, a few pricks thinks its all apart of the game.

Hacking = people forcing themselves into an account without prior access to the password. That is essentially never the case. It is always down to individuals willfully sharing their passwords with the wrong person.

You don't need to be an IT professional with a 24 letter pw and numbers. You just need to keep your password safe. It really is as simple as that.

If you choose not to do keep your password safe, then that's entirely on you and anything that happens is entirely down to that simple decision you made.

 

[AuroraMoon]

As was said before, coplaying is not supported. What that means is that if a coplayer does something on your account it is the same as if the original owner did it. Stating that having a coplayer log in and disband the tribe is scary just doesn't make sense when from the TW point of view, all players on an account are one.

if co-playing was supported - would that change how you approach/view the situation??

also just personal opinion but considering that there are rules around merging accounts in order to co-play
i personally dont understand how it is not supported by inno/tw - comes across as more turning a blind eye to avoid the issues that it causes

 

[DaWolf85]

if co-playing was supported - would that change how you approach/view the situation??

Coplaying not being supported means that as a general rule, we don't consider who has the right to take actions on a certain account. Every player on an account has an equal right to use it and all of its privileges - you may have heard the term "We consider accounts, not players". Personally, I feel that when the main argument for this feature is the idea that not everyone on an account is trustworthy, that means this feature supports coplaying in a way that existing rules and features do not. It would of course be up to Inno whether they wanted to implement that, but I feel it is worth pointing out.

Cause it feels alot like the TW crew does not care about what happens

When people start suggesting changes to make it easier to allow people whom you don't fully trust onto the most important account in a tribe, I do think it's worth pointing out that is a fundamental change to the game as it is. I personally find it a bit of a ridiculous change. You might not. We're allowed to disagree about that.

Suggesting that somehow mods are in favor of tribes being destroyed is a bit disingenuous. First of all, because we're commenting here as players, not moderators. A few of us just happen to agree and feel rather strongly about this. That has anything to do with us being moderators (of course, that will never stop it being brought up needlessly). But second of all, because we actually do care about these sorts of things. That's why JawJaw made an announcement post explaining how we interpret the rules surrounding account recovery, and recommending some common-sense account security measures. Personally, I just feel it is better to combat these sorts of things by increasing the importance of account security, and emphasizing it to players.

The fact is that you recruit coplayers knowing that there are risks. For a duke account, that goes double. There is ample information to help you understand the risks. The game doesn't hold your hand or let you down softly with other social aspects. And to me, there is just no convincing argument for why this should be any different.

 

[Basand]

if co-playing was supported - would that change how you approach/view the situation??

also just personal opinion but considering that there are rules around merging accounts in order to co-play
i personally dont understand how it is not supported by inno/tw - comes across as more turning a blind eye to avoid the issues that it causes

As stated by DaWolf85 above, we consider accounts not players. If we supported coplaying, it would mean that we would need to address each individual player on the account instead of the account as a whole. The excuse "my coplayer did it" would be more prevalent than blaming your dog for eating your homework in school.

 

[gibbles]

I think this is a great idea!

What about the tribes Duke creating a password to disband the tribe, so only trusted dukes know it, and then the dukes could also have coplayers, safely, knowing that the co cannot disband the tribe.

I don't mean the dukes account password, just something totally different, and if they forget it they could contact inno CS

 

[Basand]

I think this is a great idea!

What about the tribes Duke creating a password to disband the tribe, so only trusted dukes know it, and then the dukes could also have coplayers, safely, knowing that the co cannot disband the tribe.

I don't mean the dukes account password, just something totally different, and if they forget it they could contact inno CS

This would still require coplaying to be supported. If you have the duke's password, you ARE the duke. Further, if you do not trust someone to be duke then do not make that person a duke.

Implementing features that support coplaying when we do not support coplaying is extremely unlikely to happen. I suppose anything could happen, though.

 

[gibbles]

This would still require coplaying to be supported. If you have the duke's password, you ARE the duke. Further, if you do not trust someone to be duke then do not make that person a duke.

Implementing features that support coplaying when we do not support coplaying is extremely unlikely to happen. I suppose anything could happen, though.

I think you might be misunderstanding me (my fault, i talk in riddles sometimes)

Dukes password is "123456"

The password to disband the tribe is "peanut"

The disband password stays secret, only the top duke knows this (because they created the "peanut" password, upon creation of the tribe)

 

[Basand]

I think you might be misunderstanding me (my fault, i talk in riddles sometimes)

Dukes password is "123456"

The password to disband the tribe is "peanut"

The disband password stays secret, only the top duke knows this (because they created the "peanut" password, upon creation of the tribe)

I did understand that. Why should the "peanut" password exist? Because a duke does not trust the coplayers on the account? We don't support coplaying so as far as we are concerned everyone on the account is the same person. Would you need the password so that another duke account doesn't disband the tribe? Don't make them dukes, make them barons. If you don't trust them, don't make them anything.

 

[gibbles]

But you guys know that to be competitive, we need co-players (unless your going to outright ban it?)

I've played in the same tribe on w123 from the get go, i think we were/are quite an active group (was ranked 4th)

We were having a war, they hammered our duke with fakes and nukes his co-player quit, so he needed help from another player.

Along comes new co-player (I don't know if he offered or was recruited), someone must have known him from the opposing side and the new co disbanded the tribe.

I understand what you are saying about trust, but inno should acknowledge that this underhand stuff happens, and it sucks tbh

 

[Basand]

It does happen and it is terrible when it does.

That does not, however, take the responsibility from the account owner. We start by adding this, what comes next? A big UNDO button for when your coplayer does something wrong? I can't agree with making alterations based on coplayers but I am not the majority, just a single person.

 

[gibbles]

Well no, that would be ridiculous...

But we aren't talking "activating a flag doubler on the wrong village"

We are talking about undoing 20+ peoples community (tribe) and decimating it in 5 minutes...

I think we will have to agree, to disagree

 

[Eakshow McGee]

Somehow i feel this thread has gone a totally wrong way and started to discuss rule of Coplayers etc and not the actual suggestion, but thats just me...

Yes the Duke should be trusted, but it's impossible to actually know someones true intention, i've had players being part of creating OPs for the tribe but also actually playing for the enemy, and yet this players had played multiple times with people in the tribe and was trusted by most of us.

Giving a safety measure in an Uber-world where disbanding actually affect gameplay significantly doesn't remove dirty play in any way, you can still spy, backstab, the damage just won't be as crucial. Imagine a disbanding of tribe just a few minutes before an OP landing, sending home all troops. Is that a mechanic that have to exist? Hell no.

Will this suggestion improve gameplay? Not really, but it will increase the quality and feel like 1 click wont ruin everything you worked for.
And the duke would still be able to just kick every single player one by one, but atleast it's a bit more work. and i don't think having a cooldown for kicking someone is a good solution.

 

[gibbles]

I have nothing against co-playing, i just made a suggestion about an extra password on the disband tribe button...

I didn't concider dismissing people one by one

 

[One Last Shot...]

I have nothing against co-playing, i just made a suggestion about an extra password on the disband tribe button...

By simply having 1 duke in a tribe this would have the same result?

 

[AuroraMoon]

besides giving tribe members a little peace of mind when it comes to their tribes future
can anyone explain to me how this suggestion will impact gameplay??
and what are the negatives to having it implemented??

personally only seeing benefits from the original idea - especially for uber support worlds

so trying to understand why people are against it

 

[One Last Shot...]

so trying to understand why people are against it

• It is a suggestion that is only made because to an issue involving poor choice of coplayers.
• Coplaying isn't supported.
• Adding elements in that are designed directly to make coplaying less risky isn't compatible with the game's current stance/trajectory.
• Duke accounts are responsible for their tribes and trying to find ways to restrict that changes the role, power and authority that comes with it.
• The suggestion doesn't add value to the game itself, it boils down to issues of who to trust which is perhaps the most integral skill of the game.

 

[AuroraMoon]

• It is a suggestion that is only made because to an issue involving poor choice of coplayers.
• Coplaying isn't supported.
• Adding elements in that are designed directly to make coplaying less risky isn't compatible with the game's current stance/trajectory.
• Duke accounts are responsible for their tribes and trying to find ways to restrict that changes the role, power and authority that comes with it.
• The suggestion doesn't add value to the game itself, it boils down to issues of who to trust which is perhaps the most integral skill of the game.

it is possible to have more then one duke in a tribe - been in quite a few tribes that have a co-duke set up
would it not be beneficial in that case, rather then focusing on the coplayer aspect of the suggestion??

think it was more suggested as a form of security for the members that make up a tribe - that put in months on end on a world
rather then an attack on co-playing

isnt a duke ment to act in their tribes/members best interest,
wouldnt the sudden disbanding of a tribe (whether it be mid op or not) be counter-productive to that??