Kingdom member limitation

  • In my experience, if you play a small world and you are unlucky to lose some members to inactivity or take a big hit, this will cause a snowball-effect. Causing you to lose more members and end up in these kind of situations.

    These are also the results after ww-calculation, one or two big hammers on these small servers can make a HUGE difference.

  • My info was that the main WW had little over 600k def.
    And "hammers" were the size of regular army.

    That is usually the case on the smaller servers. And this is exactly what would happen to normal com servers if set limits to the player amount. Normal off armies, but fewer def units.

  • That is usually the case on the smaller servers. And this is exactly what would happen to normal com servers if set limits to the player amount. Normal off armies, but fewer def units.

    So the opposite of it with hammers not able to do any damage to millions and millions of defense is any betters ?

    Again , as players mentioned previously, defense strength is directly proportional to members counts and hammer's strength is not.

  • So the opposite of it with hammers not able to do any damage to millions and millions of defense is any betters ?

    Again , as players mentioned previously, defense strength is directly proportional to members counts and hammer's strength is not.

    Have you tried making bigger hammers?

  • Member limit is a good way. In classic there was so. Embassy lvl allowed to nv more. Here we have monster kingdoms who dont allow smaller teams to play.


    I agree with you TheSimon. And the bit disturbing part is that it appears as if a disproportional number of the critics of a Kingdom Member Limit are steady members of one of these "monster kingdoms". But I strongly agree with you in the conclusion that smaller teams are not viable in the game. And the strategic decision by already large premade teams to merge and completely dominate a server is a sign that also they know this fact about the game.

    "Remember upon the conduct of each depends the fate of all." ― Alexander the Great

  • Scorox: If limit, then 100 - from my side. Most of kingdoms can be inside it, for example on com3 - three of five biggest kingdoms with their wings are smaller then 100 players. That way would allow some new members to join too, probably.

    But 60 will ruin the game too much for new players.

  • Scorox: If limit, then 100 - from my side. Most of kingdoms can be inside it, for example on com3 - three of five biggest kingdoms with their wings are smaller then 100 players. That way would allow some new members to join too, probably.

    But 60 will ruin the game too much for new players.


    Maybe you are right. As some critics have said before, a hard limit may be hard to balance. Personally I'm for the most part happy that there is a debate about this issue. If I had to give a number I'm more leaning to a 60 man limit based on the Data I am about to present in a new post soon. But that is just my own guess what would turn out best.

    "Remember upon the conduct of each depends the fate of all." ― Alexander the Great

  • I am against restricting players, I would more lean towards restricting borders so that all kingdoms are fairer in terms of wealth and tributes regardless of how many members they have.

    Another suggestion would be for stolen goods to be worth the same amount whichever Kingdom you are in and not have it based on treasures and treasuries (since this just makes larger Kingdoms richer & leaves greedy Kings wanting more)


    If the rewards were the same for large and small Kingdoms then a more even fight would present itself and there would be less need for "metas" to happen

  • I am against restricting players, I would more lean towards restricting borders so that all kingdoms are fairer in terms of wealth and tributes regardless of how many members they have.

    Another suggestion would be for stolen goods to be worth the same amount whichever Kingdom you are in and not have it based on treasures and treasuries (since this just makes larger Kingdoms richer & leaves greedy Kings wanting more)


    If the rewards were the same for large and small Kingdoms then a more even fight would present itself and there would be less need for "metas" to happen


    I think the development just over the last 6 months to a year are more and more indicating that a "territory" limit will not do the job. On COM6 where Phoenix and Nemesis merged (temporarily for the COM6 server) we had no problem fitting all 143 members easily .. and even with smaller boarders that would not be an issue either. The problem, in my opinion, lies in the accessibility (and even optimallity) of massing a server "raid party" of a Game Winning size before launch.

    "Remember upon the conduct of each depends the fate of all." ― Alexander the Great