Kingdom unions: Rebalancing changes discussion

  • 40 days of server for an answer like that !!
    it's a total lack of respect towards the players who have invested golds on this server!
    more than 30 days late for such a vote!
    shameful !!!
    10 years that I play travian (legend then kingdom)!
    I have never been so disappointed by the lack of seriousness and communication on the part of the administrators

  • As I put in our kingdom chat after several attempts because of course chat wasn't working at first...(slightly edited)


    This server hasn't cost me a single cent, so a refund offer makes no difference to me, but many people have put in lot of money and expect a working game. That's the problem. We expected admin to respond to our concerns by refunding those who paid for something that's not working properly (just like when you buy something irl that isn't working properly) but instead their offer is to extend the server - which costs players even more money... That's just wrong and hopelessly inadequate.

  • Hey everyone!


    I'm Wizzball, the Gamedesigner for the kingdom unions features.


    Seeing that the mood is kind of sour in this thread (yes, that's an understatement), I'd like to throw myself in the fray just so that you've got a human to vent your anger on.
    I know there's other thread on this issue, but as a gamedesigner, I can't comment on the lag on com2x3 other than "lag sucks", so this one is more fitting for me.


    We've talked in the team about the situation multiple times over the course of this and last week, and by now you prolly know about the poll as I can see. In my personal opinion, of course either option is kind of sucky but I figure it's pretty obvious that things didn't go according to plan this time as far as timing goes, and there's no turning time back.


    But after all, just sayin' that as an 'insider', the guys sittin' next to me are a really small but passionate game team that has neither the resources nor can supply the predictability of a large corporation /no matter what/ - and as gamers we probably know that /those/ don't have the best track record of sticking with release dates either...


    Right now there are a whoppin' two programmers and QA's sweatin' their asses off to get this feature live the next weeks, and that's pretty much all the resources this small team can afford, and I'm answering questions on edge cases by the QA as I'm writing this (and unfortunately they're discovering a swath of bugs that were in the 'base game' all the time while testing the kingdom unions features, which makes deciding what to fix now or later to get the unions out as quickly as possible even more difficult!).


    Our problem is that we can't turn back time either, so of course the poll is 30 days to late, but we can't jump back 30 days in time to correct the situation, so we have to make what we can do, and since we really didn't know which option sucks less we figured we'd just ask as quickly as possible about that. Out of respect for our players, actually. :P


    It we didn't notify you about this in time, it's not because we're an anonymous evil company devilishly devising new ways to trick you and our boss is Loki the Trickster himself, it's possibly just because people here looked forward to this feature just as much as you did and hope prevailed over sanity this time.
    And to be perfectly honest, hope quite frequently prevails over sanity, especially in business. Humanity... just sayin'. :(
    Anyways, I guess "reasons" don't really matter when/if your strategy was royally screwed by this and you feel like you've lost a lot of effort and time. And being game designer, that's where I'd like to lead this dicussion as that's really my thing.


    Unfortunately, I've browsed this (and other) threads multiple times in search of some concrete feedback I could answer to, and while this thread started with very good feedback, what now prevails mostly is "devs, WTF?!", which doesn't really tell me what the actual problem is, and if CM deletes those posts so that we can actually weed out what the issue is, they get shouted at for censoring. :(
    But honestly, I've now read those threads, but I still have not grasped the actual problem.
    The last good post with concrete critical discussion points as far as I can tell in this thread was Ignis's Post #75, which I could easily answer to, but I'm not sure if those are root causes for the current outrage, because just after that the discussion veered towards ancient oasis rules which have nothing to do with the current changes, and our "development cycles", and all kinds of this that have nothing to do with the balancing changes the thread is about or the speedservers... :P


    Since the protest happens only right now as the merging-part isn't done in time, it seems to have to do something with that, but both having an account on com2x3 as well as being gamedesigner, I don't really understand that, because the strategy-changing things were released since the start of the server, and what's still missing amounts to adding a button to making something already possible and being done by players more convenient.


    What we've done to the current worlds is to start them with certain (quite challenging) balancing-changes that this thread was all about to provide your feedback on. They may be a bit mis-branded in that they're not really the Kingdom Unions' inseperable twin, but actually they're something independent that just plays very well together with the merging-feature and that we actually wanted to have regardless.
    I do consider these changes to treasuries and treasury-slots the real game-changers in slowing down expansion of empires. On the recent worlds before these changes, I only saw giant empires with 50+ treasuries and a huge area by the endgame, which judging by the feedback I got bored players within them to death because noone within such a humongous blob had a quick travel time to a nearby enemy, and most people just turtled, and we just felt we had to do something about it. Being currently starved for developers (We were hireing, but the next 'new guy' can start next year earliest.) I just tried to do what little I could, and that's changing some values and building restrictions really drastically to alleviate the situation which had definitely become excessive, and we didn't want to start another round of worlds knowing that our endgame mostly just bored people to death, especially outside the speedservers.


    Granted, speed-servers are always a little special in their activity and patterns, but when I do look at, for example, COM2x3, this seems to be the effect - a patchwork of mid-sized kingdom areas, no color covering half of the map anymore, and there's also still a very healty active population on the servers, so it obviously wasn't game-breaking. Yay!


    And to answer Ignis and Jett (on page 4, gasp!): If we're slowing down territorial expansion of kingdoms (10K treasures) and at the same time don't touch expansion of each player (every player can still found new villages at the same speed), the result is of course that players will have to settle some of their villages outside the core area of their realm if a kingdom has more players than their kingdom's area would support.
    That's one of the core ideas behind this change - keep the kingdom's core with all its advantages, but if a kingdom hops dukes and accept a whopping' 155 players (*cough cough* you know who...), they at least will still only be able to collect the same tributes as a 30-people kingdom because they can't extend their area around all the 155 players' villages.
    Instead, these players will have to put a part of their villages outside the turtle-zone. I do consider that a valid choice - depends on how experienced a player is if he has most of his villages safe in the kingdom's core or outside as raid colonies. This feature serves to drive players outside the 'comfort zone' indeed! But to me,t hat's part of the fun - discussing within the kingdom who will get some space in the safe core, and who will have to settle where outside. Maybe settling in another kingdom will make them mad/feel threatened? Maybe it would be beneficial to have raid-colonies somewhere else? Sound like a lot of fun gameplay-challenges to me.
    If you don't like that - let's discuss about it, no problem! But so much as that this would be happening was clear to me at least from the start, and fully intended. :)


    The problem with the robber camps breaking is a known issue (has happened many times before as well, especially on densely-populated speedservers) and this feature unfortunately doesn't change anything about that, but balancing-wise, if your kingdom is so big that there's no free tiles for robber camps anymore then you possibly don't need the little extra boost they give. If densely populated empires don't get them and empries with sparse population get a stronger boost from them, I wouldn't call that a game-breaking design flaw, because it gives an advantage to those who have fewer villages and disadvantages those kingdoms that are densely populated and thereby again likely to be ahead by numbers. I wouldn't be too high on my to-fix-list to be honest.


    Now, the intended possibility to merge two kingdoms on top of all that is, for me, basically a convenience-thing for kingdoms so that one of them doesn't have to dissolve itself manually and they don't have to grab all the other kingdom's members by duke-hopping, which seems to happen often. It's also a reassurance for the governors that the kings intend stay for the rest of the game - but that ain't much of an issue on speedworlds usually.
    If you allow me to talk frankly outside cheerful blogposts - in the end, this feature is really just a button reading "merge" and a warning popup that warns the players that this action is equal to just dissolving the smaller kingdom and all the members of the smaller joining the larger, with a few extra king & duke-slots unlocked (of course I'm kind of understating the effort here for effect too, please excuse me. ^^).
    Granted, with the feature, a kingdom would get three extra 'VIP's', which spices things up a little, but without it, noone gets them, so it's still symmetrical.


    It's really annoying that the button ain't done by now, but it's absence should not ruin the gameplay or annihilate strategies?
    If you've coordinated and settled next to each other, working together against your enemies, planning your superiority together, the feature has already fulfilled its purpose without even being present - fostering communication and coordination between neighbors.
    But most of that happened already on the speed-servers anyways, because the speedservers don't get newbies directed to them, so the merging itself isn't even that purposeful on speed where allegiances are discussed routinely anyways.


    Depending on the outcome of the poll, we may still see the feature on the speed worlds. But as a player, in case of a total failure to deliver, I would just have started duke-hopping and getting all my allies' members into my kingdom, period. Even more convenient if I have prepared for the whole game to have all my allies bunched up right next to my own kingdom in expectance of this to become automated anyways.
    Not saying that that’s a good thing, because it isn’t, but as gamer nowadays I’m so accustomed to announcements by developers never happening that just working around it seems pretty routine, and it’s fun to have a game where the players do have the freedom to do that just fine.
    If we devs say merging is officially intended on these servers but don't deliver the button, duke-hopping and treasure-transferring works just as well and doesn't need to feel dirty here and now, and everyone can get the victory-achievement that way, because technically that's just the same as a kingdom-merge with your allies, and that's just exactly what we're all waiting eagerly for right now to be done and playable. :P


    So while I understand that the non-timely arrival of this feature is frustrating - and it's highly frustrating for me too - I honestly don't see how the possible lack of a button could possibly suck the joy out of the whole game round, especially when the real game-changers were active right from the start? As a player, I'd just find other ways 'round and enjoy growing my hammer all game long to pound my opponents to oblivion, because what Travian Kingdoms mostly is about, isn’t it?
    And we didn't change much there, except that treasures are more defensible now when hoarded in very few villages, which is a thing many players have asked us to do as well but I'd judge to be vastly more discussable and game-changing and possibly frustrating than the lack of a merge-button for kingdoms. And no, we're not experimenting with you, all the changes we did were well-calculated in advance (by me, *cough*) and when I'm looking at the speedservers they do seem to have precisely the effects I expected them to have.
    You may not like them, but then let's talk about that. :)


    Is the recent anger really about the delay of the merge-button? Because to me, honestly, it's nothing fancy or game-changing really – the treasury changes are the significant part, and these were on the servers since the start (because we considered them to be ridiculously significant for strategies, and the merge-button... not at all, tbh.).


    Or is it some general dissatisfaction with the way the game is being developed as a whole and this delay or the form of communication is just pouring salt into old woulds? And is there anything I as gamedesigner and fellow gamer could answer or say right now, unable to turn back time, that would actually make you feel better?


    Was your strategy destroyed by the delay and if yes, what did you plan that isn't possible anymore?



    Yours honestly puzzled,


    Wizz

  • Hi Wizzball,



    I am a travian player since 2007 and i really love the game and i find TK in general a great upgrade. Unfortunately the situation on this last speed server is a joke... The company promised a kingdoms merge option and didnt deliver... simply as that... Me and my friends we spend literally hundred of hours and vast amounts of gold to build a strategy based on your announcements...



    Right now there are a whoppin' two programmers and QA's sweatin' their asses off to get this feature live the next weeks, and that's pretty much all the resources this small team can afford,

    I can understand that, but then why you promised something that you could not deliver? Basically you admit that you used us in a "secret test server"...

    as gamer nowadays I’m so accustomed to announcements by developers never happening that just working around it seems pretty routine,

    Really? This is your excuse????????????????



    Was your strategy destroyed by the delay and if yes, what did you plan that isn't possible anymore?

    Ofc our strategy is destroyed. I am suprised that you ask abut that. Isnt it obvious?




    I want my gold back.

  • The problem with the robber camps breaking is a known issue (has happened many times before as well, especially on densely-populated speedservers) and this feature unfortunately doesn't change anything about that, but balancing-wise, if your kingdom is so big that there's no free tiles for robber camps anymore then you possibly don't need the little extra boost they give. If densely populated empires don't get them and empries with sparse population get a stronger boost from them, I wouldn't call that a game-breaking design flaw, because it gives an advantage to those who have fewer villages and disadvantages those kingdoms that are densely populated and thereby again likely to be ahead by numbers. I wouldn't be too high on my to-fix-list to be honest.

    Hey Wizzball :) The problem with this part in 2x3 anyway, is that 2 big kingdoms did friendly treasure swaps on a massive scale some time ago and now it is them - the big kngdoms - reaping the benefit of robber camps. The smaller kingdoms have filled their borders and some are getting no camps at all while the meta which exploited a game mechanism is reaping the benefit of lots of camps. So they're only sparsely populated because they have so many treasuries and therefore a huge area, not because they're small (low population) kingdoms. It is them who least need camps, but it is them who are getting the most. I believe that the same has happened on at least one other server. And yes, we need those camps to get stolen goods to get to the next treasury level. The exploiters with their big number of camps are already many treasuries ahead of where they should be given their numbers of treasures.


    My issue though is more with the problems on 2x3 than the lack of the Union merges.

    The post was edited 3 times, last by Jett ().

  • I reported 3 Times that i receive lag... i got the answer that i am the only Person reporting it. You can read that this is Not the truth. I was Not able to Play for several days in the evening. If i report a Problem over a ticket i Want that checked and Not Reading that i am the only Person reporting.

  • Wizzball, u support lie every day.


    Problem on russian host servers,
    Problem only on ukraina,
    Problem only in belarusia,
    Problem only with u, other haven't bugs and lags.


    Clear u cookie and now u haven't lags.
    Clear u self and now u haven't problem.


    thx for game, very bad server.
    U cannot clear zerg, zerg won in this situation too.


    REFUND MY GOLD TO LOBBY, AND I WILL PLAY IN FUTURE OR I NEVER BACK IN THIS GAME

    Я играю в эту игру ради одного - Драма.

  • Hey Wizzball :) The problem with this part in 2x3 anyway, is that 2 big kingdoms did friendly treasure swaps on a massive scale some time ago and now it is them - the big kngdoms - reaping the benefit of robber camps. The smaller kingdoms have filled their borders and some are getting no camps at all while the meta which exploited a game mechanism is reaping the benefit of lots of camps. So they're only sparsely populated because they have so many treasuries and therefore a huge area, not because they're small (low population) kingdoms. It is them who least need camps, but it is them who are getting the most. I believe that the same has happened on at least one other server. And yes, we need those camps to get stolen goods to get to the next treasury level. The exploiters with their big number of camps are already many treasuries ahead of where they should be given their numbers of treasures.
    My issue though is more with the problems on 2x3 than the lack of the Union merges.


    Hey @Jett,


    thanks for the calm reply.
    I can unfortunately only comment on the gamedesign-side. I can't really say much on the other issues.


    Yeah, treasure-swapping is a thing that this part doesn't touch at all. We've discussed that among the team many times too, but as of yet the "freedom" of the players was considered to be more important than stopping that thing dead by imposing certain restrictions on gameplay.


    I think I've said that earlier, but it's impossible to stop players from cooperating unless you make it impossible for them to interact, and cooperation between kingdoms is actually meant to be an essential part of the game.
    Even in a pure 'team-vs-team'-game like DotA or LoL a gamedesigner can't stop both teams from cooperating and meeting peacefully in the middle of the map and just having a chat. They also couldn't stop two teams to partake in a tournament and the one deliberately losing to the other to push their buddies to the finals. They can maybe punish it afterwards if they have the resources to detect and prove (!) it happening, but they can't stop it from being possible.


    When I'm analyzing the ends of recents worlds (which I've done before this change, so my memory should be relatively recent.), the endgame highscore always looked something like an exponential curve (first has twice the VP's than second, second has twice the VP's than third...), and the first kingdom always had twice (or more) as many players than the second.
    That, right now, as per my analysis, is the essence of the game - someone who's ahead already often starts snowballing, and the more players are within a kingdom the better, period.
    I guess way more fundamental changes to the game would be necessary to fix that than what we can do right now or in the near future.


    I'm always kind of sorry to read people in the communities of such games (This not being the only one that has it, as I've described above there's nothing any gamedesigner can do to stop people from cooperating if they start the game determined to cooperate no matter what type of game it is, which means any PvP MMO is especially susceptible to it.) fighting among themselves over such things.


    My stance as gamedesigner on the issue is that when the game's rules (or official 'community rules') permit it, you should do it to win if that's fun for you. If that gets out of hand, the developers must think up something they can stop it with, either a rule change or some form of policing, but it's nothing players should stress each other over.
    And people must be sware that policing is ridiculously expensive (see the problems Blizzard has with Overwatch or Riot has with League of Legends, both must spend ridiculous resources to police their communities.)


    And if a MMO's community wants to police itself, at least duke it out in-game. If there's a majority in the community of a server who loathe a certain behavior, they can still feel free to team up on the offender and punish them with numerical superiority.


    In this case, I would actually have recommended everyone to use friendly treasure-swapping, because as I've described, merging two kingdoms is just an official button for an even more powerful version of friendly treasure-swapping (the smaller kingdom loses all its VP, but the treasures are transfered to the bigger kingdom - and not just the treasures, but even the treasuries they're stored within!)


    As far as strategies go, this must be done as early as possible because you can't transfer VP's and the longer you wait, the more VP's are lost to your union, but the treasures generate VP's over time so the winning strategy is to get the treasures over to your buddies as quickly as possible. And that's why people still will swap treasures when kingdom unions are implemented (because when you start knowing that you'll merge later with a fixed partner you'd want to swap the treasures earlier than 30 days in the game anyways!). also, since this feature doesn't combat metas at all, people will still swap treasures because the official version allows only 2 kingdoms to swap treasures 'officially', but most metas have way more wings to swap treasures with.


    And that's why adding the unions late sucks either way and whether these worlds will be delayed or not doesn't make a difference anymore,, since those who play to win must have done this way earlier, and even if it had arrived earlier then the people who don't use treasure-swapping would still lose to those who do regardless.


    Because many players supporting a cause are more powerful in this game than few players cooperating to support a cause, and there's nothing I could do to stop that really. Treasure-swapping worked long before com2x3, and it will be the dominant strategy after any update we could do now or in the near future as far as I can tell.

  • Hi Wizzball,
    Maybe we all get angry not for lack of merge option but for your action or better to say lack of action.
    as I understand you lunch cardinal new game style system before testing and get back proper reviews
    so I'm personally angry for :

    • I'm used as experimental rabbit who payed himself for all experiments.
    • new system obviously don't work, I even don't think merge option, in this server there was so many bugs that in past test servers had less bugs.
    • 10k treasuries for next treasury slot also don't work, as i wrote metas use this as advantage to get more slots available, so they get more players in territory, more robber camps, etc with system when was 4k for next slot smaller kingdoms had biger change to grow and made some bigger damage to metas. if your intention is to support metas you did it well, good job!
    • now we have mini WW with 20-50k of treasuries and lot of stat. def in there. no-one is attacking those treasuries maybe I don't know, but would like to see reports there mini WW with 30k treasuries is destroyed i Think one has such report to share. So you plan with new change to get game more exiting but you get exact opposite effect.

    basically this is TEST SERVER. and i don't like play test server even if you give 300 gold each week, but in this test server i payed myself.


  • Hi @Sensor_COM,


    yes it isn't "obvious", that's why I'm asking and wrote a huge-ass wall-of-text why the merge button doesn't make a difference to the game. If things were "obvious" we obviously wouldn't need to have a talk in first place? :P


    The main thing I can guess by the kingdoms on the server itself is that some teams apparently thought hat VP's would get merged as well and have maintained two kingdoms clearly marked as unions, but collected treaures and VP's with both of them instead of swapping all their treasures to one of them as Jett described is what the tops do.
    Like thinking that if they have two kingdoms with 500k victory points and they'd merge them they'd have a million afterwards.


    But kingdom unions won't and were never meant to merge victory-points (that would lead to huge frustrations as the dominant strategy would then be to wait with merging 'till the endgame and then merge among the most powerful kingdoms, not merge early and strong with weak kingdoms).


    In that case, the strategy would have failed miserably regardless if with or without the feature, because people have built their strategies not on this feature as designed but on fantasies we can't read out of their minds. That's currently my only explanation and to see if there's anything actually messed up systematically instead of just a frustrating misunderstanding is what I wanted to investigate with this response. :P



    I reported 3 Times that i receive lag... i got the answer that i am the only Person reporting it. You can read that this is Not the truth. I was Not able to Play for several days in the evening. If i report a Problem over a ticket i Want that checked and Not Reading that i am the only Person reporting.

    Hi @Spaceball_COM and @Wahlberg (you both seem to be more about support and problems...),


    I really can't comment on lag or support, because I'm not working in tech support. I would recommend opening a specific thread about the support responses you've been given if they were not helpful. Your complaints *will* not arrive at the appropriate person when you're complaining inside a balancing threat meant to give feedback to gamedesigners, so much should be very clear when using forums - derailing a thread from it's topic is a bad idea. :P


    But just to lend you some human understanding, what I did have on speedservers myself is that the frontend is sometimes really slow (3fps for me) especially on the map view due to all the villages and interactions going on, which is nothing new, and also sometimes the eventhandler seems to lag for me (buildings not being finished when the timer runs out, armies not arriving...), but unfortunately so far always when I actually moaned about it I couldn't reproduce it anymore, so while playing my account I have not found out what actually causes lag when, and we must receive very few reports about it because I too was actually the only one complaining about it at that time.


    So be assured that the anwser to this complaint is the same even when the gamedesigner complains to the project director, and it's very likely a honest one. It seems like a really hard to pin down issue that doesn't seem to affect many and not all the time. What I was told is that com2x3 had an emergency maintenance on one day last week which took us 30 minutes to handle (depending on timezone, that may have been in your evening, for us it was morning if I remember correctly).


    We do have a person from tech support with us literally every day reporting on issues and most of the time the report is "no issues at all" (again today, so if you have lag today then we do honestly not have *any* idea about it). When reports of lag arrive en masse there's usually immediate action taken and I hear everyone searchin' for solutions and root causes all the time.


    Support people don't know "the truth" (and it's a philosophical question if anyone can) - they wanna solve problems, and if they're not swamped by tickets on a particular problem they follow procedures that work for 95% of the people having problems (clearing cache and such basics). :P


    I do agree though that getting an answer like "It's only you" sucks. Silly answer. Doesn't make it better for you. All I can say is that I receive the same answer when I run into bugs and such (and the above test fails), and as a developer, I do have to admit that things affecting many are higher priority than problems affecting me alone, or me and 5 other guys on the forums among a thousand. Sucks, but that's still the truth. :P


    When an internet provider somewhere in the huge interconnected thing that's the internet has a defective switch and has issues forwarding packets to our servers and we don't perceive any lag and our server doesn't report any load out of the usual, just the X players connected to that defective switch on that particular node over that particular route of that particular internet provider, and there's also most of the time we can't even tell what it is (and clearing the cache seems like the only thing that one could try) and there's nothing we can do about it anyways when our servers report to be are up and running just fine and not overloaded.


    It may not have been that, maybe there was an actual widespread problem with us I've not heard about, as I said I don't know, but judging from the reponses you've got from support that sounds indeed like something like that. "Problem only in ukraine" may mean that we've received multiple reports from ukraine and you weren't the only one, but maybe that's because some internet switch there cracked and we don't know what it was or is and we can't do shit about it until *someone* from an unknown telecom company in ukraine replaces their cracked switch.


    But as I said, I'm just poking in the dark here being no tech support and not actually having the server statistics for last week - all I can say is that when our own stuff just failed for just one day the whole company was head over heels at fixing it, and that day is still called the "black wednesday" in here, and judging by the flurry of activity on that day I would not assume that any bigger issue would just brush past this company and get lied about... :P



    cheers,


    Wizz

  • You have been trying for a long time to complicate the game for big kingdoms, but still you complicate the game for small kingdoms even more.
    Since something that is difficult for large becomes impossible for small kingdoms

  • well that is exactly the point ... YOU ruining the game experience for thousands of players with this poll ... with this server and with this game version.


    You should not keep this server alive you could make so easy a solution without losing your face but i think this is the point right?


    You dont want to make that what we want because you think this would make you look weak.


    But i can promise you you would win the hearts of thousands.


    Give back the gold and restart server when you are ready with a working game.

  • Let me clear things up here, actually I do play with @sersor_COM. I do not want to tell our whole plan here but this gives us no choice.


    First of all, we knew that when merged, the other VP will be unused. That's why we had a plan that the other kingdom (sersor's) will attack and take as many treasure as wanted to gain enough VP to contend. While the other kingdom (which is us) to stay blind side and gain enough troops once the merge happens. We also thought that the merging will happen mid game as you said, if that happened mid game, we couldve had controlled the area faster. Since the delay was too much, it came to the point that our kingdom has overtaken their VP because of too much attacks and controlling of the area happened to us.


    Now we ranked as 10th place and them as 11th. Take note that if the merging happened few weeks back, they were 5th place and we are 29th place. You think nothing wont change if the merging happened during those week? There's already so many factors that changed this late merging. So now if we will merge, their VP will be of waste.


    Think of it, if we merged during mid-game and we made war with the other kingdoms, our generated VP could've added on their kingdom. But instead it was added to us which then generated enough VP to overtake theirs.


    These are only few of those plans that were wasted, a lot has happened due to the delayed merging. A lot of players thought merging is not going to happen, resulting to their inactivity and boredom.

    ❱❱❱Shōgun | FOUNDER

  • So please with all due respect, don't say that its just a click and nothing will happen.
    If that merge happened during mid-game, psychologically people will be threatened with our massive increase on coverage of area. This is not only played with gold and spare time, there are too many factors here that affected the game in a very different and negative way.

    ❱❱❱Shōgun | FOUNDER

  • 7ᵗʰ,
    plans for many players are broken, this applies to both large and small kingdoms.


    True, small kingdoms lose more on victory points that puts them in a less favorable situation.


    Yes I know sir, we are just explaining our side since the Game Developers said that the delay of merging didn't gave any factors on the game. Big or small kingdoms are affected with this, I know. I'm sorry for the problem on your side too. As a co-player it saddens me the way they handled the situation.

    ❱❱❱Shōgun | FOUNDER