Failed Vote Scheduled Tribe Disbanding

Do you like this idea?


  • Total voters
    45
  • Poll closed .

Basand

Senior In-Game Staff
Tribal Wars Team
Senior
Team
Speed Admin
Reaction score
54
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??


The coduke has the exact same "ownership" as the original duke and therefore the same authority to disband. Don't want that player to have the ability to disband? Set the player as a baron instead.

A duke SHOULD act in the tribe's best interest but that is not required. A duke could, for instance, take advantage of the tribe and then disband it as a requirement to move to a bigger tribe.
 

One Last Shot...

Contributing Poster
Reaction score
1,537
@AuroraMoon

Tribes can choose their number of dukes. That is fixable by tribes themselves without effectively creating an additional level above dukes in the hierarchy.
 

AuroraMoon

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
166
The coduke has the exact same "ownership" as the original duke and therefore the same authority to disband. Don't want that player to have the ability to disband? Set the player as a baron instead.

A duke SHOULD act in the tribe's best interest but that is not required. A duke could, for instance, take advantage of the tribe and then disband it as a requirement to move to a bigger tribe.

but a co-duke is 2 separate accounts meaning one can disband a tribe without discussion or while the other is not around
a time delay allows the other duke to keep the tribe together and just remove the accounts wanting to leave/disband

players can change tribes without being tribeless (that includes the duke)
honestly theres no reason to disband a tribe, especially not on a moments notice besides screwing players over that have put in alot of time and effort for personal gain (taking advantage of those under them and leaving a bad experience in the minds of those players )

especially for uber support worlds where support is sent home upon becoming tribeless - this would be ideal
due to how much an account (however many in tribe) will be crippled by a tribe disband - which is not a fun experience

@AuroraMoon

Tribes can choose their number of dukes. That is fixable by tribes themselves without effectively creating an additional level above dukes in the hierarchy.

but its not an addition level above dukes - its just a time delay of say 24hrs when the disband button is pressed and giving the option to cancel the disbanding...

which allows members to organize and plan rather then getting blindsided, bringing their time on a world to a premature end
 

One Last Shot...

Contributing Poster
Reaction score
1,537
@AuroraMoon

Everything you have just said can be sorted simply by a tribe considering their setup and having 1 duke if that is a a concern.

The additional power for a single glass duke (adding an extra password to disband) is effectively creating a higher role as the dukes wouldn't be equal in their specific rights. If the 1 person with password access goes inactive it could screw the entire tribe if disbanding is seen as necessary.

And all of that isn't exactly relevant as the entire issue isn't really about co-dukes, it is about coplayers. The original post makes that very clear. Which to me says the idea is trying to get coplaying built into the game on a settings level.

Regardless of stance on that, it is all down to choices of trust and that is a core element of strategy games. It's something I won't be convinced to support as dukes have the right to disband their tribe and it is (and has always been) a part of the game.
 

gibbles

New Member
Reaction score
1
@AuroraMoon

Everything you have just said can be sorted simply by a tribe considering their setup and having 1 duke if that is a a concern.

But when tribe members join a tribe, we don't really go through everything with a fine toothed comb, who has privs, who co plays on those accounts etc etc

And also after a period of time, the leaders could recruit new co players in that time

We as tribe members don't have alot of say in that sort of stuff
 

Black Hammer138

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
188
How about you make every tribe member the duke, so that they all have the opportunity to disband the tribe??? That makes it fair.
 

AuroraMoon

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
166
@AuroraMoon

Everything you have just said can be sorted simply by a tribe considering their setup and having 1 duke if that is a a concern.

The additional power for a single glass duke (adding an extra password to disband) is effectively creating a higher role as the dukes wouldn't be equal in their specific rights. If the 1 person with password access goes inactive it could screw the entire tribe if disbanding is seen as necessary.

And all of that isn't exactly relevant as the entire issue isn't really about co-dukes, it is about coplayers. The original post makes that very clear. Which to me says the idea is trying to get coplaying built into the game on a settings level.

Regardless of stance on that, it is all down to choices of trust and that is a core element of strategy games. It's something I won't be convinced to support as dukes have the right to disband their tribe and it is (and has always been) a part of the game.

the suggestion isnt to do with co-playing - atleast how i interpret it, its to do with "scheduled tribe disbanding" the title even says so

the make up of a tribes leadership, whether theres 1 or more dukes, whether there are co-players are all secondary to the idea
but seems to be the only part people are focusing on as a way to distract people from the idea itself - atleast in my opinion

the idea is to prevent players getting screwed over by their leadership disbanding a tribe without notice,
especially on an uber support world where troops get sent home, essentially throwing them to the wolves
and ruining the gaming experience for all those players involved

again there is no reason or need for a tribe to be disbanded quickly - not even for the person disbanding a tribe

also keep in mind its the people/community that make up a tribe
and a little bit of google :)
google search said:
The leaders of the clans and tribes were called chiefs. These men were elected or chosen by the people.
They generally did not have total power, but were respected men who provided advice that the tribe or clan generally followed.

You could implement this but a Duke could still kick out all the members, one at a time.

so can barons but this is not a "who can do what" thing
its more a safety blanket for the players within a tribe that have put the time and effort into a world - in particular uber support worlds

its basically just a "quality of life" idea/improvement for the game
 

One Last Shot...

Contributing Poster
Reaction score
1,537
the suggestion isnt to do with co-playing - atleast how i interpret it, its to do with "scheduled tribe disbanding" the title even says so

It's important to read the actual suggestion and not just the title. The suggestion directly says 'a pesky co logging in.

In your opinion there is no reason to quickly disband a tribe. That is subjective and definitely isn't a view we share. You keep bringing that up as if it is a fact but it simply isn't as it is pure opinion.

I'm not going to respond further on this topic as I feel all relevant points have been made and it has reached a point of going into circles.
 

AuroraMoon

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
166
It's important to read the actual suggestion and not just the title. The suggestion directly says 'a pesky co logging in.

In your opinion there is no reason to quickly disband a tribe. That is subjective and definitely isn't a view we share. You keep bringing that up as if it is a fact but it simply isn't as it is pure opinion.

I'm not going to respond further on this topic as I feel all relevant points have been made and it has reached a point of going into circles.

your focusing of 2 words out of the whole idea and overlooking the actual suggestion it self due to it
this is not a "coplayer" discussion, it is a "tribe disband" discussion

if they didnt mention the example of a "co-player" disbanding a tribe (rather then just saying duke)
what part of the suggestion would you be against?

ok ill ask you then - what reason would you (personally have if duke) have to disband a tribe on a moments notice?
 
Top