Kingdom member limitation

  • For kingdoms it’s kind of a goal to expand and have more members, the whole game is design around it.


    The thing is this expansions shouldn’t be friendly like they usually are, they should be done under intense war, destroying, conquering and gaining territory step by step.


    Limiting kingdom members would go against everything kingdom developers have been doing, and stil favour the "metas". I am confident to say it won’t even be tested.


    I agree with past comments, the problem is in the players, Limiting members would just mean much more food for Metas xD

  • Jak


    Heh, sorry if I'm venting. I think in the latest comment I was more in a hurry than actually venting though :D


    Anyway - It's precisely the anti-meta players like you and me that deserve venting if they still don't understand the role of incentives in any game. Yes, it's possible to completely wipe metas and even win servers if you have an amazing team of highly active players. It happens once in, who knows, 20 servers? Saying then that it's the people playing the game who should change, without the game changing, is just madness. It's like saying the majority of people who currently smoke, should stop smoking, of their own accord. Think we can expect 75% of the current smokers to stop smoking on their own accord? 50%? Even 25%? Or, the majority of people who currently don't care about climate change, should suddenly start caring and acting on it, of their own accord, with no further incentives at all. Because it's the people who should change and not the system... Right. You're technically not wrong, but it's just not how it works and it's probably not gonna happen!


    The old version still exists and people can go back if they want, but how is that relevant? TK's playerbase won't survive on the plateau it's on - if it isn't still declining. The game needs to be more fun to retain players, that's the crucial problem, always has been. As long as metas are the only reasonable game in town, it never will be. We've tried every approach by now to make players even safer, even cozier, and are still losing players. The devs needs to finally accept that players not being safe enough was never the problem to begin with. And maybe we really do need some moves back to the old game, if that retains more players. You can always make this game different from TL in whichever way you want. But it needs players.


    About the alliances: Having alliances that are full is exactly what is needed. It's an incentive to create new alliances! If an alliance is full, you have to join another or create one yourself -> more diversity of alliances. Yes, sometimes that will cause you to delete and start a new server, or leave altogether. Tough cookies, there's no free lunch here. Also, just to repeat myself, I don't think having a limit is anything more than a miniscule first step in the right direction. It's marginally better than the current situation. It doesn't "fix" anything.


    You really think enticing or not enticing a player back is dependent on them receiving prestige or not? Do you remember how everybody, especially the average player, used to not care at all about the endgames? How much do you think that's changed in TK? I would wager not at all...Do you personally care how much prestige you do or don't get? That's what keeps you coming back?


    Jallu


    But there would be more chance of random teams fighting other random teams in this scenario. Yeah - they wouldn't be able to compete of course, but this is still preferable to just having the entire would-be random teams autojoining the metas basically on server start!


    Completely agreed on wanting the devs to base this game on TL/T3 but with better graphics instead of the treasure crap. Honestly as you say - nobody really cares about the hoarding gameplay anwyay. It's irrelevant to most players, there's hardly any gameplay around it for them.

  • I still don't believe limiting members will have the required effect, there will just be 300 players split into 5 wings all working together for their main kingdom, (attacking and defending as one) being pushed around like pawns for the greater good of their "main kingdom" (which would be full of the best players at the end)


    IMO the VP system should not be based on treasures, since this is what gives the biggest kingdoms their unfair advantage.

    i.e. more members generate more camps and hideouts, so takes away the need to fight since the biggest kingdoms generate the most treasures and VPs from just passive play, this also makes them wealthier since more treasures give a higher return on selling your stolen goods.


    so what could it be based on instead?


    Attack? well maybe, but there would have to be changes made to attack points v robbers & nature etc (or the biggest kingdoms again would have the unfair advamtage)


    so that led me to think what if VPs were based on Defence? or rather def points of defending villages within your own kingdom? since that is the least manipulated stat available (spikers would not gain from this since grey villages are outside kingdom borders)


    what if VPs were generated on overall kingdom Def points divided by number of members within the kingdom?

    or based on overall attack & defence points (in fights against other players, so not robbers, nature, natars etc) but again reduced by number of kingdom members

    BM Independent Unbeaten Kingdom

  • so that led me to think what if VPs were based on Defence? or rather def points of defending villages within your own kingdom? since that is the least manipulated stat available (spikers would not gain from this since grey villages are outside kingdom borders)


    what if VPs were generated on overall kingdom Def points divided by number of members within the kingdom?

    or based on overall attack & defence points (in fights against other players, so not robbers, nature, natars etc) but again reduced by number of kingdom members

    VP revolving around something you have only indirect influence on is not that great of an idea tbh. if noone attacks you, you would not win. although you could (and that would be the other downside) push it by the good old 10k scouts + 1 other unit attacks on your kingdom (the attacking acc leaving the kingdom before that if it only counts from external sources)

  • yeah it's not a finished solution for sure & there will always be the minority that find pleasure in abusing any supposed fix for the game, we cannot be ruled by these individuals.


    At least if VPs were generated by players using their troops, it would get players back to attacking & defending each other, with restrictions in place to disadvantage a larger team, since they have bigger advantage & strength in their numbers.

    BM Independent Unbeaten Kingdom

  • + We can see small five different alliance.It means 300 players again.We need less diplomacy too.

  • VP from defense would be incredibly stupid idea because attacking your enemy makes them win harder (not to mention it would just devolve into everyone attacking themselves)

    Attacking isn't much better since that encourages folks to attack the weakest players with just rams over and over.


    If you want an example of fairer VP system check out my earlier post about static VP generation + VP stealing revamp though even that one has possible abuse case with wings even if it's less prominent.

  • I think it’s so wrong that we can only steal VPs until both kingdoms are equal.

    I understand this was created to stop VP boosts but something like 60/40% Or 70%/30% (100%=total of both kingdoms VPs) would stop VP boost and this would nerf the metas a lot.


    Because even a kingdom with 20 members with a successful operation would not only send a meta down but emerge from the death as well.


    This is a war game 50%/50% on a successful strike benefits the looser, it should n t be like this.

    I understand it was needed to stop vp boosts but it was taken too far.

  • Ok, enough people made some points, why VP based on def points is a incredibly bad idea. No need for me to repeat this. Based on attack points is an equally bad idea. Nobody mentioned this for defense points, but with both variants you will basically say "fuck you" to the respective other type of account. If you get VP for defending, why would you need off accounts and hammers at all? Especially since they can do nothing, but donate def points? If you get VP for attacking, why would you need def accounts? Just let the attacks go through, on filler accounts they don't matter, the relevant accounts have tributes to compensate. Maybe you can time your own hammer at their return time (or have at least a hand ful def accounts to prevent the worst), but how will a player ever feel good or relevant, if he's completely irrelevant for the victory?

    Reducing VP by member count will eventually lead to a single player winning a gameround singlehandedly. We had 2,3 million offpoints as one account, so a 1-man-kingdom with only us would result in 2,3 million offpoints on average. Also just create wings for dummy accounts for tributes, and get the ones who build a good amount of troops into the main. Or, even more intelligent, when making off actions pull all running offers into the main, when having to defend swap the deffers in, and so on. It's really, really, really easy to abuse this in hundreds and thousands of unintended ways. And you can't even blame them for it, the system just screams "please abuse me".

    + all the points the guys before me made.

  • yeah sorry my bad, I am simply not corrupt enough to see such things, as i said it was just an idea to bring the game back to actually using troops, rather than just sitting petty with the largest empire & winning without much skill.


    you would defend to protect your villages, your treasuries and you kingdom & to keep your kingdom rich, since treasures would give you the wealth from selling SGs (just not VPs)

    and you would attack to destroy your enemy, their vilages, treasuries & steal their treasures to make you richer, the enemy poorer & poke the bear to encourage the enemy to attack you in return.


    a time restriction could be added to stop players just leaving their kingdom and exercising friendly fire & same kingdom attack/defense would not have an effect on VPs (but sadly there will always be those that would be sad enough make 2 kingdoms just to abuse things)

    just for fun though ..... if one player did manage win a server I'd see this as a massive victory over the meta's :D

    BM Independent Unbeaten Kingdom

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Jak ().

  • yeah sorry my bad, I am simply not corrupt enough to see such things

    It's just natural to not think about its own ideas in a bad way, because you want them to be good. That's not you being allsogreat, but just you being normal, like most people are. No need to accuse the people who can think more critically about it. :rolleyes: