After the strange stuff happening with LD 2, 1 and Nomercy, I think some kind of voting system or panic button should be introduced in WD.
Or, is really needed!
At this moment the situation is that a lot of people work their butts off for a team and 1 single loco can destroy it all, kick out people, give castles away, quit the team, change name and fly with an other team. A team, that raises question btw
give players a chance to vote against leadership.
example: when a member of leadership gets 26 votes against him, this person is no longer officer/leader.
The team can introduce a new leader or officer, also by voting.
the maximum of people who can be kicked out a team in one day should be reduced to 2. So people have a chance to get rid of bad leadership.
I really hope PG is looking in to this suggestion.
Yeah, I was joking. Actual answer is that it seems tricky – autocratic rule has some nice properties for a game: it’s simple to implement, it’s easy to understand, and it provides an absolute answer for all questions of ownership or authority over team affairs. This makes it pretty ideal for orgs in which governance isn’t meant to be an interesting question and expediency is valued, e.g. MMO guilds. WD’s a fine example, when things are going well: you need a team so that you have people to play with, and teams need ways of making decisions, and that’s the only reason why you need leaders.
It was probably a better approach early on in WD than in the Atlas era, since that was what introduced actual assets that belonged to the team entity (infrastructure, team glory; to an extent, castles). The idea that you can contribute toward something and not get any ownership of it is not ideal.
Getting a bad leader with control of a team to step down is generally not easy.
I think a vote of no confidence probably is a non-crazy idea, in a world with unlimited development resources. Though in our world, it seems like a better use of effort to address root causes of why abstract entities can own valuable things even if their players leave, e.g. why team glory is so valuable, or why castles are so hard to conquer.
Personally I think that this is not the best idea. Many leaders and officers literally carry their team after being voted out who replaces them? Someone with high popularity or someone with the brains and know how to run a team? Besides if people are voted in are not wanting to be that can cause issues. So sorry I do not think it is the best idea.
What can be done is that a ‘governing’ system can be made transparent on the team details (like how we can see team achievements). By default, all teams start as they are - Authoritarian - where in the leader yields power that cannot be challenged. However, a leader may change the system settings to be more democratic, by giving his or her teammates the option to ‘oust’ them… tbh, this really doesn’t solve the problem of a bad or crazy leader because they could always switch it back to Authoritarian and kick everyone unless it requires a majority % of players agree to set it back to ‘Authoritarian’.
The issue with “Democracy” as a setting is not that it distributes power and invites chaos; it’s because there is no way to distinguish alts from main accounts - thereby, allowing one person to have more say on a certain matter than the others.
Though really, the root problem likely lies in what Tinsir has pointed out:
If the leader of a team is TERRIBLE, why would we actually care to be kicked? Why can’t we just start a new team or, given the context of mega-alliances and needing atlas, disperse loyal players across the alliance of existing teams to strengthen each of these while harmonizing individual playstyles that evolved over time?
A team can have up to 50 players but how many players truly make a team perform as well as it does? (And no, we are not going to haggle about smaller team sizes bc 50 is a sweet spot of being both a pretty number and having a chance at 24/7 coverage by 1-3 players assuming everyone plays a minimum of 1 hour a day)
I’ll put forth the concept of in game rights.
As something to consider and how that’s implemented is highly variable and may offer the solution you are looking for.
For officers and players alike
Such as diplomacy rights that way you know the player your speaking with is authorized to speak on behalf of the leadership team!
And yes founder rights and kick players rights.
By the way this allows leadership to assign non officer positions and spread the work load easing officer burden and encouraging participation and teaches players seeking leadership what a officer role is like.
Just an idea to discuss