Treasures and treasuries - Kingdom member can't take treasures out of active treasury

    Quote from Qwr

    So you want to ruin the balance of the game because you cant steal treasures? Pretty nice logic. Let's destroy one thing that aint broken.

    Offence outscales defences maybe even entire game. Dunno, what you talking about.
    The game would be so boring. You always have to defend mega's , so any other capitals will get zeroed for free. Game would end up being who has more teutons to smash into walls

    I want to hear, where you see balance now, please give me examples. I'll give you mine, how I see balance now.

    - Winner of the round is kingdom with most VP. Active treasures generating VP.

    - Main source of the treasures are robber hideouts and robber camps. With more population in the kingdom and wings you get more of them, so also more treasures.

    - Thats mean more people in the kingdom and wings = more VP, passively, without any strategy and activity.

    - Treasures and VP can't be won by fighting from the organised kingdoms, because they are hide them, when they are under attack.

    - No need for a fight between players and kingdoms, it doesn't help you to achieve the win.

    - Final verdict of the balance now = have most accounts in the main kingdom and wings to farm robber hideouts a camps, play simcity for the most time of the server and build everywhere defense for the WW, then win. Everything else is waste of time and resources, if you want to achieve win.


    When you can fight for the treasures, it will bring many action and fun to the game for the whole game round. Its true, that will be harder to defend treasuries, especially later when kingdom have more and more of them, but on the other side, everyone will be the same, so you can lose the treasures, but you can also get them by fighting. There will be not only one strategy in the game.


    If defending treasuries were really too complicated, active treasuries could get a bonus feature to make it harder to fake, for example, by improving the function of the rally point to detect fakes by 5% for each level of the treasury built, the treasury at lvl 20 would thus improve the function of the rally point by 100%. The large treasury would therefore be more difficult to fake, it would cost the enemy many more units.

    This just show how little understanding of a game you have. Please go play few more servers in a decent kingdom, maybe you will learn how the game works, before coming here and throwing out dumb ideas.
    You can stop other kingdoms generation of VP by multiple ways - destroying their treasuries, forcing them to clear treasuries before 00:05:00. You know you cant insta build treasuries, it takes insane amount of time to build it? Or its still new information for your little brain?
    And lastly - WW makes all the difference on VP scale at the end. If you really that better than the oposing team, you wont have any problems having multiple ww's and zeroing their ww constantly, right?

    Quote from Guncek_COM

    When you can fight for the treasures, it will bring many action and fun to the game for the whole game round. Its true, that will be harder to defend treasuries, especially later when kingdom have more and more of them, but on the other side, everyone will be the same, so you can lose the treasures, but you can also get them by fighting. There will be not only one strategy in the game.

    Kingdoms are sending multiple off ops every weeks agaisnt each others. it would just become boring, because mega's will be stacked with def and random govs capitals will be destroyed every night

    Quote from Guncek_COM

    If defending treasuries were really too complicated, active treasuries could get a bonus feature to make it harder to fake, for example, by improving the function of the rally point to detect fakes by 5% for each level of the treasury built, the treasury at lvl 20 would thus improve the function of the rally point by 100%. The large treasury would therefore be more difficult to fake, it would cost the enemy many more units.

    Just illogical thing.. So yeah, i have 16 x lvl20 treasuries, so you would need to fake the treasury with 340 units, instead of 40 units. WOW. WHAT A BIG CHANGE. It makes it totally imposible to fake, right??

    Try playing in a decent server for a round.

    You would lose badly if you just defend mega treasuries.

    And as qwr said above, there's a lot of ways to force other kingdom to clear treasuries.


    It doesn't really make sense to even make defence harder than now.

    Offence outscale defence from the start of the server till the end.

    If some decent ops is made on a kingdom, like 20 target at a time, if no scouting is performed, it is close to impossible to defend correctly.

    You guys seem to miss the point. The optimal way of playing the game is simming. Population wins in the long run and WWs are all that matters. It is like that, because it is impossible to steal treasures and VPs from a decent kingdom. Kingdoms most of the time play suboptimally since simming is boring and brawling is fun. This is why having fun and winning the server are separate goals that often do not overlap.


    Qwr's point about destroying treasuries works exactly the same way whether OPs idea is implemented or not, the same is true for destroying random govs. The big treasuries are stacked pretty much every single op and rarely emptied anyway. The insults are somewhat redundant, but hey, everyone deals with disagreement differently.


    And imo, there should be NO default low risk go to strategy for defense. Defending kingdoms should be either scouting or risking heavy losses.

    Unless you have access to def of 33% of the server, lol. (As 33% of the server plays in the same meta, like current com1x3n)

    Quote from Cool and Crazy#EN

    You guys seem to miss the point. The optimal way of playing the game is simming. Population wins in the long run and WWs are all that matters. It is like that, because it is impossible to steal treasures and VPs from a decent kingdom. Kingdoms most of the time play suboptimally since simming is boring and brawling is fun. This is why having fun and winning the server are separate goals that often do not overlap.


    Qwr's point about destroying treasuries works exactly the same way whether OPs idea is implemented or not, the same is true for destroying random govs. The big treasuries are stacked pretty much every single op and rarely emptied anyway. The insults are somewhat redundant, but hey, everyone deals with disagreement differently.


    And imo, there should be NO default low risk go to strategy for defense. Defending kingdoms should be either scouting or risking heavy losses.

    I read your messages and I understand , that you have 0 knowledge about the game. Just pls, stop trying to implement some stupid game changes. TK are dumb enough to listen to you.

    Quote from Qwr

    This just show how little understanding of a game you have. Please go play few more servers in a decent kingdom, maybe you will learn how the game works, before coming here and throwing out dumb ideas.
    You can stop other kingdoms generation of VP by multiple ways - destroying their treasuries, forcing them to clear treasuries before 00:05:00. You know you cant insta build treasuries, it takes insane amount of time to build it? Or its still new information for your little brain?
    And lastly - WW makes all the difference on VP scale at the end. If you really that better than the oposing team, you wont have any problems having multiple ww's and zeroing their ww constantly, right?

    Kingdoms are sending multiple off ops every weeks agaisnt each others. it would just become boring, because mega's will be stacked with def and random govs capitals will be destroyed every night

    Just illogical thing.. So yeah, i have 16 x lvl20 treasuries, so you would need to fake the treasury with 340 units, instead of 40 units. WOW. WHAT A BIG CHANGE. It makes it totally imposible to fake, right??

    Lemme just reply your point one by one.

    1. You're supposed to hit all treasury when you have ops. There won't be enough active treasuries for a kingdom to transfer treasuries. Of course there can be hidden treasuries. But they will be unhidden once the mega treasuries are destroyed. In terms of saying there's not enough firepower, it's either the big kingdom have way too many players, or the other team has too little. No matter how you change the game mechanics, big kingdom wins, which makes sense i think. But generally, if the number of players aren't having a huge gap, offence should still have advantages. You simply can't defend every single treasuries and capitals. If there's some meta kingdom there, I would assume others would cooperate together against the big one? There won't be lack of firepower, unless the player sucks.


    2. Big kingdom wins. I mean that's pretty fair. And that doesn't seem to relate to the topic. On top of that, how can small team survive if big kingdom attack small kingdom's treasury when they can't even move their treasuries away?


    3. I don't see how changing the mechanics would protect better for the govs. For saying gov's capital not protected, it's more like your kingdom decision's issue. We (LIHKG) always tries to protect governors. not only treasury. So maybe you should join a better kingdom.


    Attached the result of one of the most intense speed server in the past two years. Big meta with the most treasuries and players doesn't necessary win the game.

    Files

    • 8.JPG

      (70.43 kB, downloaded 14 times, last: )

    • 6.JPG

      (74.04 kB, downloaded 13 times, last: )
    Like 1

    1. How does this relate to the OPs suggestion? It works exactly the same way now.

    2. Imo, small team can survive even better, as their chance of wounding the big kingdom would go up. It will be much harder for the big kingdom to defend treasuries than for the small one. And the bigger kingdom risks VP loss as well. So, I think it works exactly opposite.

    3. How many gov capitals are you able to cover in an op? One, maybe two, unless you can snipe? In how many ops percentagewise have you left your big treasuries undefended? I can pretty confidently say that its 0% on my side.


    And the screenshots you provide never provide the full picture. I could easily find some when the big meta gets its ass kicked. Quality still matters, especially when the pop differences are not that big. But judging from the pictures, it looks like the fate of the server was decided by a few WW hits in the last minutes.

    Nice reply. But.

    1. Good idea, but for the whole of the game round you cannot do this. Also, if you have only one option to stop or decelerate and it is one huge hit on every treasure, its not option. Most wars are done by striking at one place, which damages the enemy, takes something away from him, or the attacker gains an advantage, resources. Here it is not played to collect territory and some profit from it, here it is played on treasures and victory points, this is the basic mechanics of the game. As long as this mechanic is the basis of the whole game, it should be possible to work with this mechanic.


    2. I dont have a problem against big kingdom wins. Problem of the game is big kingdom wins and do nothing for it, just farm robber camps and robber hideouts. Thats the point. They are more populated, they are larger, till ther its ok. But, when now 3 small kingdoms go against one big one, where you see profit for them, if they win? To see they slow down bigger kingdom in generating VP? How does it help them, if they cannot profit from it? To your question. How smaller kingdoms survive now? Whats different? If big kingdom attack small kingdom now, the result will be exactly the same as if he attacks him and will be able to steal treasures. If small kingdom lose the treasures, they can also attack big kingdoms to grab them back, maybe more. Also, defending smaller kingdom against big kingdom is easier, if you cooperate with someone else. Big kingdom is difficult to defense at all, thats the reality, always was, just have a look in history. Thats the price of the big kingdom. Profit from have a lot of troops, treasures, VP, influence, but also disadvantage when you have to defend.


    3. I agree with you, i never say chance for steeling treasures protects governors, my words was it will be the same as it is now. I dont see anything different. Always you have to choose, who you will defend. Thats the point of attacking and defending. Against, i dont see anything to change.


    My (and many others) result is not only from last server. Many players are leaving game from many reasons, mostly because they see the game stopped being interesting and fair. I dont think is bad, when we have an option to fight against each other with chance for profit, or smaller kingdoms get the chance to be important component of the game.


    The only thing this change would bring is more interesting fights, more often changing the course of the game, chances for many more players and kingdoms, a greater number of strategies ... and most importantly more fun.

    Quote from Cool and Crazy#EN

    1. How does this relate to the OPs suggestion? It works exactly the same way now.

    2. Imo, small team can survive even better, as their chance of wounding the big kingdom would go up. It will be much harder for the big kingdom to defend treasuries than for the small one. And the bigger kingdom risks VP loss as well. So, I think it works exactly opposite.

    3. How many gov capitals are you able to cover in an op? One, maybe two, unless you can snipe? In how many ops percentagewise have you left your big treasuries undefended? I can pretty confidently say that its 0% on my side.


    And the screenshots you provide never provide the full picture. I could easily find some when the big meta gets its ass kicked. Quality still matters, especially when the pop differences are not that big. But judging from the pictures, it looks like the fate of the server was decided by a few WW hits in the last minutes.

    I must react to the point 3., this is absolutely what we are talking here about. But not to you, Cool and Crazy, to any others, i just use your reply as very good arguent.


    When treasuries are under attack, no matter if small ones or big ones, you always defending them, depending how important they are. The same is with governors. Unless you know where are real attack coming or where they are not, thanks to spy or attacker mistakes, you have to choose or defend everything what is possible. The only one change, whats can be different, if you make wrong decision about defense or you dont have enough defense to defend your kigdom treasures, you will lose them. But, you can try to grab them back, or go for them somewhere else. Thats all. Thats the big change, that people are afraid of.

    We do have times when we don't defend treasuries.

    Usually we would cover at least half of the governors who are under attack.

    I know some russian team also don't defend treasuries that much. They even protect governors more than the treasuries.


    Never put some assumption that you do on others.

    Quote from Revolution

    We do have times when we don't defend treasuries.

    Usually we would cover at least half of the governors who are under attack.

    I know some russian team also don't defend treasuries that much. They even protect governors more than the treasuries.


    Never put some assumption that you do on others.

    So, if I use your example. If 20 cap/treasuries are under attack, you are able to cover 10 of them? And you say offense outscales defense? Of course you protect governors, especially huge WW hammers, but you also cover your huge treasuries, thats what I am trying to say. I am not talking about all treasuries, but only huge ones which can hold maybe 40k treasures. Have you ever let them undefended? Naturally, lets just ignore the very end game, as the last couple days are different and the priorities shift heavily.


    Also, I know a friend who has a friend who does this, is without a doubt a top argument.

    Quote from Cool and Crazy#EN

    So, if I use your example. If 20 cap/treasuries are under attack, you are able to cover 10 of them? And you say offense outscales defense? Of course you protect governors, especially huge WW hammers, but you also cover your huge treasuries, thats what I am trying to say. I am not talking about all treasuries, but only huge ones which can hold maybe 40k treasures. Have you ever let them undefended? Naturally, lets just ignore the very end game, as the last couple days are different and the priorities shift heavily.


    Also, I know a friend who has a friend who does this, is without a doubt a top argument.

    I don't understand.

    So how would the proposal in this topic improve the situation here?

    If treasuries can't be taken away, more def would stack in active treasury.

    The proposal here i see is to only leave more governors undefended.


    I don't think it's possible to defend 10 govs. But defending like 5 is kinda do-able.

    And that's what normally you need to defend.


    Tired of arguing such kind of thing, as no matter how many discussion there is, admin wouldn't change anything at all.

    They would just say they listen to your voice, and that's all they gonna do.

    So it's pretty meaningless to discuss no matter what the conclusion are.

    How does the little kingdom survive against the huge kingdom attacks (or even worse against multiple kingdoms attacks) if they don't have the option to move their treasures?


    I would like to see a limit on kingdom sizes too though, although not necessarily on numbers of players ....but on size of max territory/area of the kingdom.

    This would restrict how many players/villages they had inside their borders & help reduce the wealth of those huge greedy tribute kings.

    My proposal would be max of 18 active "fixed" treasuries (meaning you could not move them.) They would still be split equally between the amount of kings/dukes, so if you only had 3 royals it would be 6 treasuries each, if you had 6 royals then 3 treasuries each. This would not solve the problem of the meta, but it would stop them endlessly expanding their borders to absorb more & more players in the endgame stages, meaning those wings would just be a pawn in someone else's game (no one wants to just be a pawn, do they?)

    also it would mean if they had silly numbers like 150+ players a lot of their villages would be more vulnerable living outside borders. Giving more attacking options for other teams.


    If the treasuries were limited & in fixed places, then kingdom leaders/planners would have to be a lot more selective about where they decide to have them

    Yeah, I agree with what you say. I think that the proposal here would make it harder for big metas as they would need to carefully organize their treasuries. Too often, I see bunch of small treasuries with 4k treasures spread all around the kingdom, which is not a problem now, but would be then. It would also increase the need to scout. The better kingdom would get larger advantage over poorly organized ones. It gives more power to the smaller kingdom which would be able to punish big metas for poor management and have a larger impact. In my opinion, of course. I am pretty sure we are unable to see the full picture, but I am for any change that makes the game more dynamic.