Rejected [Tribe] Different governmental systems

[Jariid]

This isn't a wild idea whatsoever. I suggest that you can make a tribe one of three things. A democracy, an oligarchy or a gerontocracy.

Essentially it's like this.
You join the game, find some mates. When you get to 10 people, your tribe beeps and boops and goes. Hey boys and girls, it's time to voooooottteee. Then Whoosh, out go the letters.

Each member of your tribe has the chance to vote for a type of tribe, with +5 votes going to the person who starts it. After two days, when the votes are tallied. They can be either of the three things.

Democracy, speaks for itself. You have the ability to vote for a new tribe leader for the next two weeks (Edit: and it repeats every two weeks). This way you have the chance to alter leadership if you think the tribe is going to the shitter in terms of what the leader is doing/notdoing. Upon reset of the new duke, you will have all titles and rights reset allowing the duke to choose from the people, those who he wishes to be what role.

Oligarchy. The standard approach. You have a single leader, no changes no votes. All power to the bigman, and to whoever he chooses to have as council/whatever.

Gerontocracy, the way to preserve the ancient goals. This style of leadership allows the five oldest players in the tribe to all have custody over the tribe. This includes the oldest playing player, the original maker of the tribe, to have dominance over the other four, in terms of changing the tribe itself like changing the name/deleting the tribe. Essentially it's a duke (the oldest) and then four barons, who have equal rights. The line of succession would go by the time that players have been in the tribe. Kicking out a baron is a 5-man voting matter also. You can't boot the duke.

Thanks for reading. I think this idea has potential, while still being simple. The type of tribe would be entirely fixed until the end of the game.

 

[DeletedUser1993]

if your idea is to have the first 10 members of the tribe vote and take a decision on the fate of the tribe for good, then i'm against.
one reasonable scenario - the first 10 vote for democracy, then tribe expands and reaches 50 members, who will all have the same voting right. this tribe will never be able to take one single decision
also, unless the type of tribe is tied to some bonus to the tribe (for example: slightly reduced building time, or training time, etc.) then the type will be just a burden with no benefit, imo

 

[Jariid]

if your idea is to have the first 10 members of the tribe vote and take a decision on the fate of the tribe for good, then i'm against.
one reasonable scenario - the first 10 vote for democracy, then tribe expands and reaches 50 members, who will all have the same voting right. this tribe will never be able to take one single decision
also, unless the type of tribe is tied to some bonus to the tribe (for example: slightly reduced building time, or training time, etc.) then the type will be just a burden with no benefit, imo

I don't know how bonuses for democracy have any relevance? It's just a suggestion, but it you don't want to have a potential democracy, discuss it with your players beforehand.

 

[DeletedUser80]

I don't like that idea. The goal of TW2 is that it is as easy as possible to handle. If you have different governmental systems, the game would be to complex, especially in the early phase of the game. You can disabuse me, but I don't think that your idea is implementable.

Edit: Please use a clear threadtitle - I changed it.

 

[Jariid]

I don't like that idea. The goal of TW2 is that it is as easy as possible to handle. If you have different governmental systems, the game would be to complex, especially in the early phase of the game. You can disabuse me, but I don't think that your idea is implementable.

Edit: Please use a clear threadtitle - I changed it.

The way I formed the idea was to simplify yet have some room for different styles.

Having the choice of the three governing styles was intended to provide a way of overthrowing players who aren't doing a good job according to the majority. The whole style issue was only thought of to add a sense of varying structure to the game. And regardless, it's an idea basically limited to be "complex" to the tribe leader at the time of creation, and having a voting system every two weeks for democracy is EZPZ. It may seem new and strange, but I hope it doesn't get overlooked for those reasons only.

 

[DeletedUser80]

If the leadership of your tribe doesn't make a good job, I would say it's time to change your tribe. I don't reject that idea, but I'm pretty sure, that our devs don't implement a system like that.

Btw. what means EZPZ?

 

[Jariid]

If the leadership of your tribe doesn't make a good job, I would say it's time to change your tribe. I don't reject that idea, but I'm pretty sure, that our devs don't implement a system like that.

Btw. what means EZPZ?

A english colloquial term referring to the phrase "Easy Peasy". Just a play on words to refer to the Ease of a situation.

This gives you the chanceto reform a tribe without having to leave the players you have been working with for a time. It's just another way to redo tribes.

 

[DeletedUser1879]

Nothing fractures a tribe more in this game than sudden and regular changes in leaderhip.

Here, it isn't the player everyone wants to "try and see if they can handle it" a leader of a tribe is the one who commands the authority and respect of his/her tribe, but above all the trust that he/she will fight against the tides and go down swinging to protect his/her players.

If a tribe's current leadership can't naturally bring out the best in their players in a way that THEY enjoy playing then the leadership is doomed, the tribe is doomed and the players are doomed.

 

[Jariid]

Nothing fractures a tribe more in this game than sudden and regular changes in leaderhip.

Here, it isn't the player everyone wants to "try and see if they can handle it" a leader of a tribe is the one who commands the authority and respect of his/her tribe, but above all the trust that he/she will fight against the tides and go down swinging to protect his/her players.

If a tribe's current leadership can't naturally bring out the best in their players in a way that THEY enjoy playing then the leadership is doomed, the tribe is doomed and the players are doomed.

I'm aware. I've been in tribes early-game (mostly against my will) where I can just tell from inactivity on the forums, silly decision making and stupid actions that they aren't cut out to be a leader. If you have a democratic vote every now and then, what's the chance that a dud-leader will be voted out? It's more about having the dynamic option, rather than just having a tribe doomed to fail, and having to leave a potentially viable community around you.

 

[DeletedUser940]

ZAR is a theocracy... just to let you know so those three arent the only ones you can do.

also to add more democracy wont work. if you have a bad leader and youw ant to cycle him out he wont let you. if you have a system that forces that well democracy wil never be picked. i could see elite tribes using this but i think smaller elite tribes will pick Gerontocracy over anything else. basically no one in their right mind would pick democracy for this game. it just doesnt work well in Tribal Wars 2. i have seen it tried and seen it fail. gerontocracy can work and oligarchy. and im trying theocracy at the moment, which is beautiful

 

[Jariid]

ZAR is a theocracy... just to let you know so thos three arent the only ones you can do

Sort of irrelevant. As a deity cannot play TW2.

 

[DeletedUser924]

One problem i have with this is part of the people voting are the ones who are "I could do this so much better if i as in charge" But then the time comes they are given a role and they freeze under the pressure. Nothing humbles someone more than being thrown to the wolves o handle the job of the ones thy are bashing while those same people in turn bash their every move they way they did to them. Speaking as a Sports Official who's had to deal with rowdy parents and coaches who think they know the job or could do it better but wouldn't know the first thing to do when handed the whistle. If th tribe truly needs reforming then take the good players and go make a better one. But if you ar the only one who thinks the leadership sucks then the tribe might not be the issue it my be how you view things just saying.

 

[Jariid]

One problem i have with this is part of the people voting are the ones who are "I could do this so much better if i as in charge" But then the time comes they are given a role and they freeze under the pressure. Nothing humbles someone more than being thrown to the wolves o handle the job of the ones thy are bashing while those same people in turn bash their every move they way they did to them. Speaking as a Sports Official who's had to deal with rowdy parents and coaches who think they know the job or could do it better but wouldn't know the first thing to do when handed the whistle. If th tribe truly needs reforming then take the good players and go make a better one. But if you ar the only one who thinks the leadership sucks then the tribe might not be the issue it my be how you view things just saying.

phwooo, jeez. calling me out much? It's just an idea, and not everyone is the "I can do it so much better type" when it gets down to it, you're a leader or you're not. You only figure it out once you've been playing TW long enough.

For example, starting a tribe is something probably everyone who's ever played TW has done. The leaders then either give up and join another tribe, or succeed and get to mid-game. Either through prior experience or mass-recruiting. The only leaders that make it to late game are those who are carried by decent players, and those who are good leaders. By that time you know if you're a good leader or not. And if you are having reform issues at that point, it's not to do with the capability of the leader, but of the leadership style and the direction they take the tribe.

Pressure cures incapability, and your tribe will either support you as you are competent, or will vote you out because they think that you are one of those "start a tribe because u r L from Death Note" guys.

 

[DeletedUser940]

ZAR does play Tribalwars 2 though. he is almighty and inspires us to destroy all those in our paths. without him we would be nothing. it is completely relevant as our god guides our decisions and all our actions.

 

[DeletedUser1587]

XD that would only make the game more complicated, maybe they need to fix the existing bugs first, then try to implement new things
Also I still don't get why inactive players aint turning into barbarians (sorry this is off topic)

 

[DeletedUser80]

Of course, first the bugs will be fixed and the missing features will be implemented. Then our devs maybe improve any player suggestions.

 

[Jariid]

Of course, first the bugs will be fixed and the missing features will be implemented. Then our devs maybe improve any player suggestions.

Bugfixes are standard. If you were looking for bugfixes, you'd be in the bug topic. I think that having government types doesn't have to be as hard as it sound. If it's done right, it can be good.

 

[DeletedUser2184]

voting to replace the leader.... lmao you have got to be kidding, id quit tribes all together

 

[Jariid]

Well think of it this way. It's not just a "omg my leader sucks vote him out". It's a 14 day commitment. Anyway, it's not the only option. Having a totalitarian government (The standard one) is still on the table. (Probably going to be used more)