*sigh* Family Tribes

[Im a flirt77]

About how long do you guys think family tribes can last on this world? I'm getting very impatient waiting for some family's to fall.

 

[DeletedUser]

About how long do you guys think family tribes can last on this world? I'm getting very impatient waiting for some family's to fall.

I believe gandhi said it best : "Be the change you want to see in the world"

Theyre still around because you are waiting for them to fall instead of making them :axemen:

 

[DeletedUser11188]

Family tribes will be a part of each and every world. And like sidney said, do something about it

 

[Rizzler]

Once big wars start they will be the first to fall.
Unfortunately there is usually one which is allowed to grow and becomes a power in the world which is why rooting them out early is imperative.

 

[DeletedUser]

This world ain't all too bad. The really succesful tribes (R4KI, Ego, Zero) are currently all non-family tribes.

 

[DeletedUser]

Once big wars start they will be the first to fall.
Unfortunately there is usually one which is allowed to grow and becomes a power in the world which is why rooting them out early is imperative.

Whats the difference between an alliance and two branches of a family tribe?

 

[Rizzler]

Alliances are conditional, different leaders, can be broken.
A family tribe is one overall leader leading many tribes, the reason they fail is because they are so eager to recruit they don't know who they are recruiting.
Also because even if they have a good leader, to control so many people that leader must delegate responsibilities to people he knows little about.
They are usually filled with inactives.

An alliance has double the leaders, so double the scruitiny on recruits and double the control over the tribe.
Less chance of spies, inactivity etc.

 

[DeletedUser]

Alliances are conditional, different leaders, can be broken.

I said difference not similarity. How many family tribes break apart? Hint hint lots.

A family tribe is one overall leader leading many tribes, the reason they fail is because they are so eager to recruit they don't know who they are recruiting.

Why do you say that? Stereo typing I would assume most families yes not all.... Anyway is recruitment only of the great players the way to victory?

Also because even if they have a good leader, to control so many people that leader must delegate responsibilities to people he knows little about.
They are usually filled with inactives.

Down to generalizations again, why cant he delegate to people he knows? I mean how many people does it take 2 or 4 with 2 tribes. I think I run a tribe with one duke pretty effectively.

An alliance has double the leaders, so double the scruitiny on recruits and double the control over the tribe.
Less chance of spies, inactivity etc.

Here you go again with unfounded evidence, double the scrutiny on recruitment? How does that even make sense, what if leader B just lets anyone through and happens to not have a family because of appearances, just as many l33t non-family tribe will die as family tribes will. In fact I would wager the succsess rate on family's is darn near or better than normal tribes.

Its clearly a viable strategy as you yourself said there are always a few which survive and become a world power. And you have still yet to show how that is in any way different from 2 close allies.. Most close allies I know fight every war together, they support each other through every war. So again I am missing it whats the difference a semblance of individuality which in the reality of the situation is non existent. Appearances can be deceiving.

 

[Rizzler]

Why do you say that? Stereo typing I would assume most families yes not all.... Anyway is recruitment only of the great players the way to victory?

Mass recruiting shows the leader does not think his players are good enough to win with just the tribe limit, hence they start taking lower quality players in bulk.

Down to generalizations again, why cant he delegate to people he knows? I mean how many people does it take 2 or 4 with 2 tribes. I think I run a tribe with one duke pretty effectively.

I suppose he can, but in a case where ther are more than 2 or 3 tribes it gets hard to find decent leaders, the family tribes might start to get different ideas on what their goal is and breakages appear.
If you have all your close friends leading then yes you do have a much better structure of trust. IF you think you can run a tribe with just one duke and nothing else it is clear you have not much late game experience.

Here you go again with unfounded evidence, double the scrutiny on recruitment? How does that even make sense, what if leader B just lets anyone through and happens to not have a family because of appearances, just as many l33t non-family tribe will die as family tribes will. In fact I would wager the succsess rate on family's is darn near or better than normal tribes.

It makes sense because if you are a good leader you don't ally with someone like that. When making an aliiance you check up players and ensure you are not allying with a mass recruiting tribe.
The only reason sucess rate would be better is because their are so many of them, some are bound to slip through unscathed.

Its clearly a viable strategy as you yourself said there are always a few which survive and become a world power. And you have still yet to show how that is in any way different from 2 close allies.. Most close allies I know fight every war together, they support each other through every war. So again I am missing it whats the difference a semblance of individuality which in the reality of the situation is non existent. Appearances can be deceiving.

It is a very high risk and disheartening startegy.
Most have so many inactives that they can't do much.
have explained the difference.
Close allies are two seperate entitys.
Different leaders, different goals. They may help eachother to reach those goals but they have different ideas.
Usually less inactives if the ally has been closely selected wheres as duke of a family tribe cannot always know the credentials of everybody coming into their family group.
Seperate tribes have more control.

 

[Rizzler]

Not to mention more people depsise the idea of family tribes so more people are likely to oppose them in the game.

 

[Im a flirt77]

Sidney, I like the Ghandi quote.

This world ain't all too bad. The really succesful tribes (R4KI, Ego, Zero) are currently all non-family tribes.

That is a good point, however, outside the core things get progressively more family oriented.

Mass recruiting shows the leader does not think his players are good enough to win with just the tribe limit, hence they start taking lower quality players in bulk.

I disagree. Although this seems to be the case usually, sometimes a leader just sees more quality players on a K and wants them instead of having to fight them.

 

[Rizzler]

and I'm sure there are no noobs or inactives in their main tribe right?
Generally there are alot, but instead of kicking them and adding better players they just make more tribes.
Of course what I'm saying has to be a generalization, I can only go on the experiences I've had with family tribes in TW.

A leader has to be willing to fight quality players sometimes.

 

[Im a flirt77]

A leader has to be willing to fight quality players sometimes.

As much as I agree, I think some family tribe leaders aren't all about points but can still reason to themselves, "Hey, If I can postpone the initial fighting for us by adding more quality players, where is the downside?" The downside turns out that they cannot control the amount of players (good and bad) and the quality ones get fed up and leave and the whole thing crashes and burns.

Of course what I'm saying has to be a generalization, I can only go on the experiences I've had with family tribes in TW.

This is all any of us can say really.:icon_wink:

 

[Rizzler]

As much as I agree, I think some family tribe leaders aren't all about points but can still reason to themselves, "Hey, If I can postpone the initial fighting for us by adding more quality players, where is the downside?" The downside turns out that they cannot control the amount of players (good and bad) and the quality ones get fed up and leave and the whole thing crashes and burns.
This is all any of us can say really.:icon_wink:

Yea exactly.
IT also postpones wars where they could really test the strength of their family.

 

[DeletedUser]

Mass recruiting shows the leader does not think his players are good enough to win with just the tribe limit, hence they start taking lower quality players in bulk.



I suppose he can, but in a case where ther are more than 2 or 3 tribes it gets hard to find decent leaders, the family tribes might start to get different ideas on what their goal is and breakages appear.
If you have all your close friends leading then yes you do have a much better structure of trust. IF you think you can run a tribe with just one duke and nothing else it is clear you have not much late game experience.





It makes sense because if you are a good leader you don't ally with someone like that. When making an aliiance you check up players and ensure you are not allying with a mass recruiting tribe.
The only reason sucess rate would be better is because their are so many of them, some are bound to slip through unscathed.



It is a very high risk and disheartening startegy.
Most have so many inactives that they can't do much.
have explained the difference.
Close allies are two seperate entitys.
Different leaders, different goals. They may help eachother to reach those goals but they have different ideas.
Usually less inactives if the ally has been closely selected wheres as duke of a family tribe cannot always know the credentials of everybody coming into their family group.
Seperate tribes have more control.

*Sigh*/smashes head against desk

Okay we are comparing ideas. 99% of all single tribes fail 99% of all family tribes fail... So why talk about the 1% of the single play tribes that succeeds and then compare them to the 99% of the family tribes that fail? Do you understand the futility of your argument? Your argument boils down to why good single tribes work and bad family tribes dont.

That is not what I asked you nor does it go to help understand the situation, good family tribes work, you see it all the time. Bad ones don't I think we all understand that.

What I am asking you is if there are two good allied tribes, how is it different than a good family tribe of 2 branches?

 

[Rizzler]

Yeah but there are more normal tribes than family tribes.
Much more.

How many times must I answer your question.
Read over what I have wrote and then faceplam yourself several times before coming back and saying,"oh, so you did."

In a nutshell,

Allies are seperate
Families are one.

 

[DeletedUser]

Allies are seperate
Families are one.

How are allies separate if they support each other in the same way two family tribes do? If there is no single leader of a family tribe than it is the exact same thing? And before you say you answered it your answer included specifics like inactive which is complete and utter bullshit because again single tribes can be just as inactive.

 

[Rizzler]

Allies don't always support eachother.
They have different leaders
different ideals and different goals.
Inactivity is more likely to occur in family tribes.
I guarentuee if you did a mass poll on it you would receive the same answer.

 

[DeletedUser]

hedge the forum is like a battle field for you, stop arguing with every single person :icon_biggrin:

Family tribes and allies are a different thing. In a family tribe members can switch back and forward, you can't just grab a player from your allies huh can you?

 

[DeletedUser]

Allies don't always support eachother.
They have different leaders
different ideals and different goals.
Inactivity is more likely to occur in family tribes.

Inactivity is more likely to occur? why:icon_confused: Perhaps different idea's and different goals, but separate leaders in family tribes is common. And so is allies always supporting each other.

I guarentuee if you did a mass poll on it you would receive the same answer.

There was a pole that said 1/3 of people didn't believe in the holocaust, pole's really mean nothing.