New type of village

  • Since I havent gotten any feedback, then I thought I should make a separate thread about my idea.

    3 different tribes commit to settling a united village, where everyone can build simultaneously their own troops, wall and special building.

    The bonuses might seem at first too OP to even consider, but then again every player loses 1 cp slot and gains only 1/3 of the income of normal village so this should balance it out.

    Reasons I think this is beneficial:

    *It might help the multiaccounting situation by helping honest players cooperate more closely.

    *It would help kings and dukes to contribute their tributes back to kingdoms in a way that governors can also benefit in development.

    *It gives an extra step in long and boring midgame to make it more exciting.

    *It incites more battling.

    *It brings whole lot of new strategies to the table.

    *Its never done in any of this type of browser games.

    I elaborated more on this idea in the thread "merging troops"

  • Thank you very much Sir Cin Sincere , sorry I missed it in the other thread.

    Let's see if I understand correctly, is this 3 different players settling a united "threesome" village?

    How would that work?

    Who would be in charge of the troops from that village?

    I find it difficult to understand how it would work.

    I as well have some more questions, just so I understand fully before talking with the team about it.

    *It might help the multiaccounting situation by helping honest players cooperate more closely.

    I guess having a village in common it would do that, but is this different than supporting each other from their own villages? What benefit would there be here?

    *It would help kings and dukes to contribute their tributes back to kingdoms in a way that governors can also benefit in development.

    How would 3 joining in a village affect Kings and Dukes and their tributes? What would be the change to how they deal with tributes?

    *It gives an extra step in long and boring midgame to make it more exciting.

    Ok, I guess it would be different... but why more exciting? And why is it boring now? If anyone wants to use their armies during midgame it can be very entertaining.

    *It incites more battling.

    Why? What would be the difference to how it is now?

    *It brings whole lot of new strategies to the table.

    Again, yes, the 3 that have the village would have something different... not sure yet how it could work, but, what new strategies would this bring?

    *Its never done in any of this type of browser games.

    Yes, I have never heard of it been done this way... well what little I understand from the idea, but... it may be for a reason... I wonder how possible it is to do something like this.

    Thank you in advance for the insight of exactly what are you thinking about with this idea.

    And for everyone else, what do you think?

    What benefit of downfalls do you see to this idea?

  • There are a lot of ways to make it work.. The troops could either be used by each tribe commanding their units separately or every member can use all the troops together. I like the latter version since this way the village has better chances of reacting to incoming attacks plus it introduces the idea of merging attacks with units from different tribes.

    Merging attacks might need to have special effect of some negative attack bonus for not overpowering the feature (could be explained with bad coordination between different tribes) or possibly make it impossible to be faked. Another way for not letting the feature to be overpowered is to cap the unit amounts that sort of village can train.

    The exact picture how the change would look like should be discussed during team meetings of developers and other other concerned parties.

    The answers to previous points made:

    *It might help the multiaccounting situation by helping honest players cooperate more closely.

    The fact that these kind of villages get buff in their combat capabilities should incentivize people to not multiaccount. Even if someone thinks to make 3 accounts to have united village all to him/herself, then its really hard to compete with authentic players who can invest much more energy into upkeeping those villages. Also I bet its easier to detect if same person is keeping that village.

    *It would help kings and dukes to contribute their tributes back to kingdoms in a way that governors can also benefit in development.

    If a King and 2 governors reside in 1 common village, then the King is most capable of helping to build it up thanks to his surplus of resource from tributes. The other 2 governors can then focus on building troops without wasting too much resource on village infrastructure.

    *It gives an extra step in long and boring midgame to make it more exciting.

    I have heard a lot of players complaining about the midgame stagnation because many are just training troops to prepare their lategame hammers and doing the daily tasks to manage villages. By creating a village where more players invest in and where some buffs to combat can be achieved, then it raises the stakes and therefore brings more fun to the game.

    *It incites more battling.

    The buff of faster troop regeneration encourages players attacks more..and players who dont prefer to be offensive get to be part of the action more closely by operating in same villages.

    *It brings whole lot of new strategies to the table.

    The main effect I would foresee from this change is that players could build different special buildings in same village and also have possibility of having 3 barrackses and stables for fast regenerating offenses that can spam attacks for extra aggresive playstyle. And when the village is defense oriented, then it could bounce back from defeat quicker.

    3 workshops in endgame gives extra spice for WW hammers and this should alarm other kingdoms to try and take those kind of villages down.

    Since the village layout stays the same then its not that easy to just go ahead and build 3 racks, stables, workshops and all special buildings right away, also it might not be the most optimal strategy. Instead players need prioritize their building sequence and choose wisely which type of units they need the most.

    *Its never done in any of this type of browser games.

    I bet the reason is that its hard to implement, yet the payoff could be huge in terms of inviting new players to the game and differentiating from competitiors while innovating the industry.

    These are just few points that came into my mind at first, there are also the benefits of :

    *Improving the learning curve of new players.

    By getting to share a village with other players they get a chance to see more strategies during single gameworld and also communicate more with others.

    *Smaller kingdoms have better chances against bigger ones.

    Usually smaller kingdoms are made of players with less experience and many times there are no other ways to exist in the server than by acting according to the saying "If you cant beat them, then join them".

    When there is easier to create highly specialized villages and easier to cooperate between kingdom members, then smaller kingdoms have a better chances against the bigger ones and incetives to join meta kingdoms decrease.

  • It does sound rather interesting, It could be like a kingdom capital and have the king control infrastructure and the dukes control military.

    Maybe you can only build one after merging with another kingdom and having a vote between all governors to decide if it should be built (like that if everyone agrees 1 culture point slot gets taken from each member as well as a medium amount of resources and a small amount of troops from each governor and then a large contribution of both troops and resources from the king and the dukes)

    An entire mid game mechanic could even be made like that each kingdom capital holds a special item like the "Crown of the kingdom" that then factors in to how the WW enterprise goes later on (sorry if i piggybacked on your idea but i just got so excited at the prospects of what it could be like) :saint:

    • Helpful

    I did understand this correctly, that you want a village, that three players own simultaneusly, right?

    1. No ... actually the contrary is the case, multiaccounting gets a massive boost by this. I could make three accounts and make an united village. Then I send all ress from my multies to that village and from that village to my villages to bypass pushing protection. But tbh I don't think multiaccounting should be a consideration when implementing game features (unless it's an extreme case obv).

    2. Kings and dukes can currently do so by helping others with resources and def ... if they don't do it now, they won't do it with such a feature.

    3. I guess that's kind of subjective. I would mainly find it rather funny than useful. Special buildings don't matter outside of capital (actually HDT does but only benefits roman troops anyway). I guess it would enable clubswinger-caesaris-hammers, didn't do the math on that but TKs are relatively weak, so I guess that would be strong af.

    After reading your 2nd post, I realized you want 6 barracks/6 stables/3 workshops in there. Wtf? That's on a bunker-meta-level of broken. xD

    4. No, not at all. Why would you even think that?

    5. Which ones? I don't see anything new you can do with it (yes, club-caesaris-hammer, but building strong hammers is no new strategy).

    6. Again, that's kind of subjective, but I agree, it would be very unique.

    And why is it boring now? If anyone wants to use their armies during midgame it can be very entertaining.

    Because playing defensively and not using hammers is ridiculously overpowered since the Kingdoms-Alliance-Merge. You have 1-2 villages per kingdom where 50k treasures are. Attack the kingdom = 99% def in the treasuries behind a level 20 water ditch and screw everything else that could possibly get attacked, because there is literally nothing relevant except these two giga-treasuries. Boring af.

  • At this point its all hypothetical...nobody can foresee what exactly are the results of this.

    What I think of broken mechanics in multiplayer games-If everyone has access to the mechanics, then this itself gives everyone equal chances...I also explained in the start of the second post that multiple troop training facilities or any new features should have some controlling mechanisms to keep them from going array.

  • More thoughts about the merged village..

    What if the village union happens between 2 players only. Both have to send 1 senator or 3 settlers to a wilderness tile, whereas the type of the wilderness is going determine the resource fields of the village.

    When examining the map I saw basically 8 types of wilderness areas

    There is mostly pure clay, iron and woodland wildernesses. =3

    Then there are about 50/50 mixed wildernesses of wood/clay and wood/iron. =2

    There is no iron/clay one, but instead wood/water wilderness....for the sake of simplification lets say these count as Iron/clay ones. =1

    Also a mostly pure crop wilderness and a mixed crop/woodland wilderness aswell. =2

    No mixed ones of crop/clay or crop/iron...for greater harmony and diversification, these could be added to the map. (=all 10 possible combinations between different types wildernesses corresponding to resource type)

    When the 3 settlers or 2 senators have both arrived on the wilderness tile, then the pure tiles turn to a village with mostly corresponding resource fields and less of other complementary resources.

    So pure woodland wilderness turns to 7335 tile, other pure wildernesses to 3735, 3375 and pure crop wilderness to 222 12 tile or 00018...keep in mind that 2 players are occupying 1 village.

    Mixed tiles could give the following tile types: 6633, 6363, 6336, 3663, 3636 and 3366.

    Now the questions of CP, how many troop training facilities and which special buildings can be in that sort of village.

    For the issue of CP I propose both players receive the maximum amount that village produces, so players losing expansion slot can get no extra debuff in CP generation...the players are already debuffed in ability to produce resource by sharing fields.

    As for troop training facilities, might be right to not overkill. Maximum number of facilites might be 4 for a little extra push, because players are handicapped for having fewer villages.

    Workshop count cant be greater than 1...1st player to build a workshop there, will determine the tribe of siege weapons.

    The extra 1 training facility creates the ability to try out more unit combinations. 1 tribe can build both barracks and stable, the other only 1 training facility, either stable or barracks....which combinations do you like the most? I feel Druids and Paladins or Paladins/Haeduans creates strategy of mobile and active defensive or semi-offensive player. Then 1 tribe of infantry only spices the possibilities.

    Both players can control the whole army there..which means there is small effect of merged village attacks. The effect is about 1,5 villages offensive force, not counting the effect of siege weapons or brewery celebration.

    I would like to see that merged villages special buildings effects expands to every tribe using it, but im afraid of the effect of HDT to other tribes...gauls gain freakishly massive advantage with TTs, druids and Haedus, but then again it eliminates the possibility of brewery, so maybe the 2 crop worth TKs and 1crop paladins have the upper hand here. The special buildings could complement eachother excellently..defensive gaul/teuton cavalry combos can gain extra defense behind traps and offensive gaul/teuton gain better ability to protect fragile teuton clubs early on...TTs and clubs looks like a mighty potent raider combination aswell.

    This doesnt conclude the question of special buildings yet. What about the walls? Does this also works as whoever is first to build the wall there, determines the wall type. Here is where I would go the extra mile of adding another wall to the village. The total maximum wall level would be still 20, but in that case only pure roman, gaul or teuton wall and every combination of 2 tribes in between. Building level 10 of either tribe wall doesnt seem to be very beneficial total defense % and wall sturdiness against siegery, but this means that village is able to build wall quicly up between attacks and therefore adds some safety and also a bit of room to try how for examle teuton and roman wall complement eachother with def % and wall sturdiness.

    ...What do you guys think...does this idea have some quality to it?