another opinion on how this game should progress

Upcoming Forum Maintenance Thursday, 04.06.2020
Thursday, June 4th 2020, from 12:00 pm CEST (UTC +2) to approx. 14:30 pm CEST (UTC +2)
Duration: approx. 2 1/2 hours
  • Hi guys and gals

    Lately there have been alot of remarks/idea's on how this game should progress + some problems have been pointed out.
    So with this tread i would like to my opinion on how to solve them, if you dont agree or have other solutions feel free to post them. (i am a bit late to the party but i was really enjoying the great weather we were having lately :) ).

    1) VP stealing from friendlies
    2) meaningless diplomacy
    3) overflows in treasuries
    4) kicking/abdicating dukes if they receive inc attacks (lategame problem)
    5) duke deletion
    6) hiding treasures with govenors (who deny tributes) or at wonders,...


    1) VP stealing from friendlies
    like said in an earlier tread i really like the idea that if your attack is succesfull against a treasury you remove VP instead of stealing VP (but if you completely remove the stealing aspect of VP i fear that attacking treasuries will be discouraged) so i would like to propose a mix of both systems:

    If you attack a treasury of a top 10 kingdom (or perhaps even all kingdoms) you remove 10 VP for each treasury you steal. It doesnt matter which rank that kingdom has.
    BUT based on the rank of the kingdom you will also get a portion of the removed VP added by your own VP (why this way; because it would work also together with solution 2) meaningless diplomacy).

    I propose you could steal the following percentages of the attacked kingdom based on their rank:
    Rank 1 50% of the removed VP (so 50% of 10 VP = 5VP/treasure)
    Rank 2 33% of the removed VP (so 33% of 10 VP = 3.33VP/treasure)
    Rank 3 25% of the removed VP ...
    Rank 4 20% of the removed VP ...
    Rank 5 15% of the removed VP
    Rank 6 -10 10% of the removed VP
    (Rank +10 0% of the removed VP)

    2) Meaningless diplomacy
    Right now it doesnt matter alot if you have a confed with the whole server or at war with the whole server, the only thing that changes is the colour that kingdom is displayed in...
    So what i propose is that we add some advantages/disadvantages about having confeds, NAP's & wars. (these advantages/dissadvantages are only possible if both parties accept it and they keep active upto 48 hours after the pact has been cancelled)

    - Confeds:
    You cant steal VP from confeds (the only thing you can do is remove VP)
    You can only loot upto a certain amount of resources from a member of a confed kingdom (perhaps the same as a kingdommember)
    If a confed losses VP, you also lose a part of your VP (perhaps lose 25% of the stolen VP?) this way you will have to be carefull with who you have confeds.
    the ability to reinforce the treasury villages of that kingdom.

    - NAP's:
    You can only steal half of the VP from NAP's you would normally be able to steal (you can remove the full 10VP/treasure)
    You can only loot upto a certain amount of resources from a member of a NAP kingdom (parhaps 3 times as much as from a kingdommember)
    you are not able to reinforce treasury villages from NAP's

    - War:
    You can steal an additional 50% of the removed VP (so from a rank 1 kingdom you could steal 7.5VP/treasure, from a rank 2 kingdom 49.5VP/treasure etc.)
    this rule can be easily exploited to transfer VP so offering peace (and accepting that peaceoffer) should cost also a PERCENTAGE of the VP from the 2 kingdoms.
    that would encourage a war till one of the kingdoms disband
    Members cannot switch between kingdoms when those kingdoms are at war, even till AFTER the peace is offered or a kingdom disabanded you shouldnt be able to switch to that kingdom for 48 hours (or even more)
    you are not able to reinforce any villages from kingdoms who are at war.

    3) overflows in treasuries
    I really liked the idea that @paulc_COM posted earlier regarding exchanging your treasures (that are overflowing) for kingdom wide bonusses.
    however i would propose different bonusses:
    - extra capacity of lvl 20 treasuries (-> more VP generation + more crop/treasure sold)
    - extra resources for each sold treasure
    - decrease the training times in barracks & GB (this should cost alot of treasures)
    - decrease the training times in stables & GS (this should cost alot of treasures)

    4) kicking/abdicating dukes if they receive inc attacks (lategame problem)
    make it cost time (8hours for speeds, 24hours for normal servers (not sure about the normal servers, i never play normal servers but perhaps somebody else who plays normal servers can give a good time)).
    Perhaps even VP but i dont like that idea to much because you should be able to kick bad/inactive dukes.

    5) duke deletion
    almost the same as previous point, but a duke shouldnt be able to delete without "abdicating" first.

    6) hiding treasures with govenors (who deny tributes) or at wonders,...
    make treasures in villages from members automattically (OVER TIME, it shouldnt be immediatly) move to the closest active treasury.
    if a duke/king has also somewere an overflowing treasury and another duke/king of the same kingdom has an empty/partly empty treasury the treasures should also move to the empty/partly empty treasury (also over time and at a slow rate)

    this are in my opinion the biggest problems and the best solutions for them, feel free to add your ideas. i am aware that the VP stealing from friendly kingdoms is still possible but these changes should reduce the effect from it.

    (i would also like to point out a (small) "problem" that i said already a few times: dont let raids (from kings) kick out govenors, it is really annoying when govs chiefs farms from kings and then are kicked out because they get a raid).

  • You need a reason for why people would want a confed :) Right now they would simply not make confeds, there are only disadvantages? :D Perhaps make it possible to send only reinforcements to confeds/people in your kingdom?

  • oh yes i wanted to mention that thx for saying that.

    however i am not 100% pro this solution it would perhaps better to reduce the amount of VP you are able to reduce from a confed (perhaps even to 5 VP/treasure)
    but i fear that would make it to complicated, i am aware that it might sound already pretty complicated

    EDIT: i have editted it and made a difference between treasury villages and normal villages, that might also be interesting :)
    from kingdoms were you have no pact with you should be able to reinforce only regular villages (no treasury villages)
    if you reinforce a treasury village from a kingdom where you dont have a confed with your troops should just bounce back.

  • Thanks a lot for your ideas @snappy_COM. We're currently looking into the whole victory point system, including the "abdication rotation" and treasure hiding issues.

    Issue 5) should be fixed very soon, we'll then handle duke deletion very similar to king deletion.

    Regarding diplomacy, I agree it's basically meaningless right now. One of the upsides of getting rid of alliances for us was that it would potentially allow us to do more meaningful gameplay changes to diplomacy without overcomplicating the system, so there could be some changes coming in that direction.