Reducing VP production for big Kingdoms

    for start would be nice to just change how VP´s are gain.it won´t prevent multiple wings working together but at least biggest kingdom on server wouldn´t get too much a lead just because they have most members in kingdom. by simply implementing reduction of VP production per number of players.

    let say:

    50 players / 100% VP´s gain per treasures

    60 players /90% VP´s gain per treasures

    70 players /80% VP´s gain per treasures

    80 players /70% VP´s gain per treasures

    90 players /60% VP´s gain per treasures

    100+ players /50% VP´s gain per treasures


    or


    1-70 players /100% VP´s gain per treasures

    70-90 players / 80% VP´s gain per treasures

    90+ players / 60% VP´s gain per treasures


    just example not sure how % should look like exactly in order to work it properly


    big kingdom or even meta would still have advantage of numbers in terms of deff/off power , resource production etc. but at least they wouldn´t have insane VP lead so other smaller teams have bigger chance to fight and compete for first place. i believe it could make rounds more balanced.

    Your idea is not bad, but it just makes life difficult for large kingdoms.

    My version of the change complicates and provides new opportunities for everyone. Gives the kingdoms the right to choose between attack, defense, or the number of members. This will increase interest and the game will be more active.

    Thank you very much Shpagin, I really see your proposition interesting.


    I have moved your comment to its own thread, as I really believe it deserves to have its own area were to talk about it, since it is a different way to achieve the same thing, but it been so different it would be nice to discuss it on its own merits.


    So, the idea is to change the % of VP gained by bigger Kingdoms so it levels the playing field, or discourages the creation of big Kingdoms, is that right?


    What does everyone else think about it?

    Quote from Алёнка Алкашка

    Your idea is not bad, but it just makes life difficult for large kingdoms.

    My version of the change complicates and provides new opportunities for everyone. Gives the kingdoms the right to choose between attack, defense, or the number of members. This will increase interest and the game will be more active.

    Yes, obviously the goal is to make it harder for larger kingdoms...

    I agree with @Shpagin, even small kingdoms would have a chance to shine :) And it also support elite kingdoms, which is healthy for the game.

    Thank you very much Shpagin for the suggestion and your patience.


    We have the same aim, or goal, to have more competitive game worlds with several Kingdoms of similar sizes fighting for supremacy.


    But we feel that we cannot find the balance that would work this way.

    The issue is always the same, damaging smaller players and as Алёнка Алкашка pointed out, Kingdoms just working around the issue having wings that eventually join up or something similar.


    The issue with smaller players is that once you force limit the size of a Kingdom, then we have the issue that smaller or new players will find themselves without any Kingdom willing to have them. They will like to use the space they have for proven veteran players that in the opinion of the King or Duques "add more value" to the Kingdom.


    That doesn't mean you are not in the right track, it is what we want to achieve, we just feel we have not found the right way to achieve it.


    May be the only way is for players to re-educate themselves about how the community wants to play, I don't know... but we will keep looking at how we can achieve those more interesting game worlds for everyone. :)


    Again, thank you!

    Bigger kingdoms has big profits and usually win game by population. Easier win is make huge kingdom, invite half of server and you will not need to any strategy, theese huge number of players will produce amounts of treasure to guarantee victory. I think game can be more interesting when you change it. Let smaller kingdoms have bigger profits to compensate general power loss. Consider few things:
    1. Change number of kingdom robber camps, reduce camp numbers in bigger kingdoms than 10 players, maybe make proportional to player number longer respawn time.

    2. Introduce "corruption" element - (i writed this proposition many years ago with no efect) - let number of kingdom players generate small loss in crop production (1% - 20% )

    3. Decrease bonuses from kingdom treasures collected, smaller number of resources for selling good in bigger kingdoms.

    increase cost and building time of treasuries building (by 5-25% or more, it is need to be tested) per each next treasury building.

    That will make harder to earn PV in big kingdoms, they will have to spend a lot of resourses with each treasury.

    That will nerf king s and dukes huge tribute , in big kingdom.

    That will decrease the speed of gaining PV in big kingdoms.

    That will increase the cost of one big treasury and the strategic value of new(2nd 3rd ).

    Players in big kingdoms prefer to make a lot of little treasuries instead of one big so they need to defend all treasuries, no just take off all treasuresand skip attack.

    Maybe will be better change to limit number of treasuriesin one village and let build next village with treasuriesat less number of treasures(10k to 5k or less).

    That 2 changes can make game of big kingdoms and kings/dukes in big kingdoms harder, it will be harder to gain PV and easier to lost PV or treasuries that produce PV.

    As @Алёнка Алкашка said easy to get around those rules instead of 2 big kingdoms unite in 1 big with 200 pop for example there will be 4 with 50 ppl so they can dodge the penalty and before WW spawn they merge... easy fix is instead of more camps the bigger the kingdom is reduce the amouth of camps for top 5 or so kingdoms that will hurt alot more.Less clamps mean less treasures,less resourses and harder managment of troops.Remember that 200 pop kingdom will get around 40-50 camps atm that is like 4-5k treasures every 2-3 days.If this is redused to 10-15 camps this will be diffrent story :)

    Quote from kirkata#EN

    easy fix is instead of more camps the bigger the kingdom is reduce the amouth of camps for top 5 or so kingdoms that will hurt alot more.Less clamps mean less treasures,less resourses and harder managment of troops.Remember that 200 pop kingdom will get around 40-50 camps atm that is like 4-5k treasures every 2-3 days.If this is redused to 10-15 camps this will be diffrent story :)

    Interesting notion, a different approach.


    I am not sure how it could be implemented, but it can be studied. I will mention it to the team.


    So, instead of limiting VP production, you propose to limit the treasures the Kingdoms receives, in turn limiting those VPs. Right?

    little kingdom will get less camps and treasures too, that can only reduce all VP all teams at map.

    Why only top5?

    we cant make relation "treasures/kingdom member" that only cause a lot of wing kingdoms

    if you want reduce VP by ranking position it should be increasing relation "place/percentage" like at WW 45 33 25 15 10 .....

    Quote from Аватарис

    little kingdom will get less camps and treasures too, that can only reduce all VP all teams at map.

    Why only top5?

    we cant make relation "treasures/kingdom member" that only cause a lot of wing kingdoms

    if you want reduce VP by ranking position it should be increasing relation "place/percentage" like at WW 45 33 25 15 10 .....

    It wont make more wings since it will be pointless.For example Kingdom A got 200 ppl in it and get 15 camps they are top 1.Even if they are 50 ppl top 1 they still will get low amout of camps.There wing will be lower rank but since they have less ppl in it they still wont get alot of camps.Did you get the point?and for example Rank 6 kingdom got 100 ppl but since they dont have penalty they will get 35 camps and that will help them to catch up to those at the top.

    Quote from kirkata#EN

    It wont make more wings since it will be pointless.For example Kingdom A got 200 ppl in it and get 15 camps they are top 1.Even if they are 50 ppl top 1 they still will get low amout of camps.There wing will be lower rank but since they have less ppl in it they still wont get alot of camps.Did you get the point?and for example Rank 6 kingdom got 100 ppl but since they dont have penalty they will get 35 camps and that will help them to catch up to those at the top.

    what if i have team A and 2 kingdoms in it : AA and AB .

    AA get king build a lot of treasuries and all treasures in that kingdom

    AB get all other members

    all players have 1-2 villages at both kingdoms so they can join AA and sell treasures for maximum crop bonus and join back to AB

    so AA get 1st rank and a lot of VP and 0 camps

    AB get 0 VP and maximum camps


    System is broken

    Why it's broken Again? 1st your point is usless why they need to sell treasures to AA team when they can sell it to AB and AA steal from them :).But again what is the diffrence from now?Atm every big kingdom start with 3-4 Wings and then merge so it's the same but where become diffrent is in late game.After WW spawn you can merge kingdoms or make unions so they need to make one sooner.The moment they make it they will have way less camps.Those hammers that want to farm Stolen goodies from camps will still farm but way less this mean you need more team play to manage those big hammers crop consumtions.Mean less Treasures for the kingdom and less VP overall.At this point lower rank kingdoms can catch up.They will have 2 weeks (if speed server) to catch up and we wont see so big gap diffrence in VP at the end.Another point is that WW will became more important since now some big kingdoms have so much VP made before WW that they dont really need to be rank 1,2 or 3 in WW race to win the game world.My point is there is no buff in my suggestion only small penalty for big kingdoms so that smaller kingdom can have a chance to win atleast (if they have good communication and tactic).There is nothing they can exploit in it and nothing they can do to dodge it.

    I have a suggestion that would not ruin the experience for new players.
    What if, for the first 111 days, leading kingdom in VP has their production of vp reduced by 50% while they are on top? This will allow kingdoms to still invite 100+ members and would not result in them falling behind by having a superior amount of players, but would also not let them get too far ahead from the rest of the kingdoms with fewer members.
    The reasoning behind this thinking has taken place in COM5 with this VP destribution seen below.
    pasted-from-clipboard.png

    Now looking at the stats above 4UMA has a clear and obvious lead. By giving them a "penalty" of 50% reduced vp while they are on top would result in the race being closer.
    Say for the next 10 days, 4UMA will get 50% reduced vp, this will result in 500k VP instead of 1mil, meanwhile CZ&SK would get 700k and letting them catch up and eventually be above 4UMA. This would then result in CZ&SK getting the "Penalty" of 50% until a new kingdom takes the lead. This would mean the lead would shift around more frequintly during the round if this would take effect from day 1.

    After day 111 the penalty would be removed starting the endgame and the race would go on. This will make the highest WW more desireable and wouldn't allow kingdoms with high VP lead to chill and would result in them eventually getting more VP form a 10% bonus than someone with a 50% bonus.

    No.

    There is an underlying issue with the COM5 example but guidelines prevent me from addressing it.

    Fixing the underlying issue would fix the situation without the need for VP production penalty mechanics.

    I kinda like this idea (not just for com5, but in general) it would lead to a more balanced endgame, regardless of kingdom size in relation to players.


    Since this game is won on VPs, I think the amount of players shouldn't be the only path the Victory & if there were restrictions around it, then the Underdog kingdom could also have a better chance at winning.

    Thank you narwhal#EN(2) interesting notion.


    I am not saying I dislike it, I actually am intrigue by the possibilities...


    My question here would be, don't you think it could be a bit unfair in the TOP Kingdom whose players are doing everything possible to get as many VPs as possible?


    Pinkguy#NL, may be you want to create a different thread with your suggestion on how to address it?


    That way we can study that too. :)