[Feature Feedback I ] Disbanding Kingdom Unions (KU)

Don't care before you handle multiabusing.

I Think Its good new rules

I dislike it. It would be better to just remove unions from the game. They don't really do anything but promote larger kingdoms. Removing the commitment side of a union further reduces any value of unions. Just remove them and solve these problems and create more competitive, smaller kingdoms.

I do like the idea that only governors within borders can become dukes. That changes a lot of early game schemes that rely on quickly maximizing kingdom size. It supports building a stronger core within the kingdom (both of players and in area) before expanding.

I like the idea of allowing king/vicekings who currently get left behind being allowed to disband the kingdom union and join the alternative kingdom. It allows them to continue to play the game to the end of the server whereas currently many just give up. The penalty of lack of fealty points maybe ok. Until I have played with it I cannot judge how onerous it would be.

New rules are nice!

I like it! Solves many problems

I think maybe there should be a time restriction added to disbanding (besides fealty)

You could have some teams make wing kingdoms, use their wealth as King/Duke to make armies, use their army & then join the main kingdom for the end game.

GJ

Quote from leo#EN(19)

I dislike it. It would be better to just remove unions from the game. They don't really do anything but promote larger kingdoms. Removing the commitment side of a union further reduces any value of unions. Just remove them and solve these problems and create more competitive, smaller kingdoms.

I do like the idea that only governors within borders can become dukes. That changes a lot of early game schemes that rely on quickly maximizing kingdom size. It supports building a stronger core within the kingdom (both of players and in area) before expanding.

I was never a big fan of it when it came out so if they remove it all together, would be okay with me.

I can not answer , if you don't tell me the real goal of this movement ( rules)

It's for force players to stay at game??

Is it about gold ????

or what?????

Personally, I've both liked and disliked the unions system. Since it is easily abused and far to easy to set up when you join a server as a premade team. Most premade teams and multis can preset their union up from the beginning, which is great but, makes any new player in a small kingdom not want to play and many kingdoms / players get abandoned if they cant union.

I think instead of unions, giving a duke slot at 5k treasures would be better. Ditching the gross meta-kingdom system.

However! I love that if I want to leave a game as king / v/king I can now!

I feel there should be a way to 'un-union' as previously I have clashed hard with the v/king I have merged with creating infighting and civil wars with no way to leave and move on, you remain chained to their corpse. :p

we do however feel that vice kings should have all the same controls as the king, since otherwise they're just dukes with a little extra tributes, right?

I also really feel memnhir would be better if it could be done with two villages maybe instead of just one. Since around the time when most players have two villages is when kingdoms start to fall and some governors get stuck alone without support and then get farmed and abandon their account etc, surely would be better for the game (and the company) if players could menhir with two and continue playing (and buying gold) ?

Also - Please, everyone stop crying about multi's in the forum, I get it, we're all upset about the sheer number of multi's but you have to go about it the right way, if you report and they don't get a ban, then they're not multi's they're just better than you!

Quote from dail2794#GB

Personally, I've both liked and disliked the unions system. Since it is easily abused and far to easy to set up when you join a server as a premade team. Most premade teams and multis can preset their union up from the beginning, which is great but, makes any new player in a small kingdom not want to play and many kingdoms / players get abandoned if they cant union.

I think instead of unions, giving a duke slot at 5k treasures would be better. Ditching the gross meta-kingdom system.

I want to focus on what you said about premades. It is very difficult for non-premades to organically union and succeed.

1. Servers are much smaller and more sparsely populated since they were introduced.

2. If they are located around a wonder, they are likely going to be destroyed/removed by a pre-made with far more players.

3. If they are not located around a wonder, they aren't really playing to win or even really support a larger kingdom.

Unions that need to disband are almost always smaller kingdoms that only union to keep up with the larger pre-made unions. They HAVE to risk even when their members or leadership aren't committed to the game. What happens after they disband? Two smaller kingdoms are now no longer attached because one is inactive or now their enemy? THey've hitched their only chance on union-ing. Now what's left?

They would benefit more from getting rid of unions are you point out where competitive balance can be closer. Especially if you did the fealty system and then attached a 60 player limit (or something) after.

Quote from dail2794#GB

Also - Please, everyone stop crying about multi's in the forum, I get it, we're all upset about the sheer number of multi's but you have to go about it the right way, if you report and they don't get a ban, then they're not multi's they're just better than you!

No, they just use VPN, not so hard

Nice QoL changes.. Please let us see battle reports pasted in chats from mobile app.. That one is way overdue

Quote from leo#EN(19)

It would be better to just remove unions from the game. They don't really do anything but promote larger kingdoms. Removing the commitment side of a union further reduces any value of unions. Just remove them and solve these problems and create more competitive, smaller kingdoms.

Quote from dail2794#GB

I think instead of unions, giving a duke slot at 5k treasures would be better. Ditching the gross meta-kingdom system.

That's the thing, removing KUs altogether will not resolve that players and kingdoms form a large group and play together. We already see it in-game, even with KUs, that kingdoms have similar names, e.g. Celtics1, Celtics2 and so on (placeholder names to point fingers on any kingdom). It's a normal human behavior to from groups and cooperate. And what about competitive, smaller kingdoms? If two of them work together in fighting a bigger kingdom, isn't that already a kingdom union, even if it's time limited? What I want to say is, I don't think removing KUs is helping the game but creating other problems to fix. Let's focus on these changes presented here. I hope I was able to make my thought process a bit clear and understandable.

Quote from leo#EN(19)

I do like the idea that only governors within borders can become dukes.

Thanks for the feedback on this point! I actually was expecting a bit more controversy around this topic. Glad you like it

Quote from ShinyPink#EN

I like the idea of allowing king/vicekings who currently get left behind being allowed to disband the kingdom union and join the alternative kingdom.

Quote from dail2794#GB

I feel there should be a way to 'un-union' as previously I have clashed hard with the v/king I have merged with creating infighting and civil wars with no way to leave and move on,

YES! that's the main purpose of these changes. No person getting left behind anymore. Thanks for sharing your feedback!

Quote from Jak

I think maybe there should be a time restriction added to disbanding (besides fealty)

You could have some teams make wing kingdoms, use their wealth as King/Duke to make armies, use their army & then join the main kingdom for the end game.

Can you please elaborate a bit? What kind of time restriction do you have in mind? And do you think the fealty system can counteract those wing kingdoms a bit?

Quote from rita_COM

I can not answer , if you don't tell me the real goal of this movement ( rules)

It's for force players to stay at game??

Is it about gold ????

or what?????

The real goal is to not leave the king behind when players leave a kingdom union. That is happening rather often in game and it's not a great player experience for this king.

The second goal is to counteract the disadvantages of having an empty vice-king slot in a kingdom union. That is also happening rather often and it's hard for the whole kingdom to not have a full set of leaders.

I hope this answers your questions?

Quote from dail2794#GB

we do however feel that vice kings should have all the same controls as the king, since otherwise they're just dukes with a little extra tributes, right?

no, that's not a consensus.

Quote from dail2794#GB

I also really feel menhir would be better if it could be done with two villages maybe instead of just one. Since around the time when most players have two villages is when kingdoms start to fall and some governors get stuck alone without support and then get farmed and abandon their account etc, surely would be better for the game (and the company) if players could menhir with two and continue playing (and buying gold) ?

I am curious on what other players think about this topic. From the past discussions around menhir, I got the impression that this is not a majority wish. @all: what do you think?

this game is dying and there is nothing you can do about it. Right now the only active players are just trophy hunters. There is no actual challenge or fair competition in none of the servers.

It is always like this: 1 super big kingdom with 10 sub-branch, 2 to 3 medium-sized kingdoms everyone knows has no chance of winning.

The game is corrupted already and this new rule just promotes the use of wing kingdoms, letting their king join the main one at the end. We see the multi-kingdoms do not use union because they lose the achievement at the end. Pathetic they just go on till near the end with a single king and 2 dukes

Quote from leo#EN(19)

I want to focus on what you said about premades. It is very difficult for non-premades to organically union and succeed.

1. Servers are much smaller and more sparsely populated since they were introduced.

2. If they are located around a wonder, they are likely going to be destroyed/removed by a pre-made with far more players.

3. If they are not located around a wonder, they aren't really playing to win or even really support a larger kingdom.

Unions that need to disband are almost always smaller kingdoms that only union to keep up with the larger pre-made unions. They HAVE to risk even when their members or leadership aren't committed to the game. What happens after they disband? Two smaller kingdoms are now no longer attached because one is inactive or now their enemy? THey've hitched their only chance on union-ing. Now what's left?

They would benefit more from getting rid of unions are you point out where competitive balance can be closer. Especially if you did the fealty system and then attached a 60 player limit (or something) after.

Display More

I think the biggest drawback of the union is, as you said, it favours very heavy on premade teams. Two kings around a ww can very easily get 60 players to the ww in a day or so with speed settling, menhir, etc, so they already have basically 6 treasuries from the start, the union is just a formality. (Ive even noticed a few kings multi-ing and running both the king & v/king account from the start to get an edge)

Scrapping unions for just an extra duke slot at 5k treasures means they can only start with 3 treasuries. balancing out team sizes. Slowing down big premade teams considerably so new teams connect and find their feet. a bit of a boxers weight class' balance.


I think the thing with smaller kingdoms, its more about survival than success. It could take years for you to build a team to play multiple servers with etc. Its the morale loss that must be so painful for small kingdoms, the bonuses should favour more balanced, eg, def bonus to small kingdoms, since it would be in the best interest of gameplay to keep every team alive and playing. Someone new to the game might play king, get hit with 10k clubbies in week one all for his meager 20 treasures (3x speed) then feel like 'well I don't even know why I tried this game, every time I do, I just die'

Quote from BridgetB

That's the thing, removing KUs altogether will not resolve that players and kingdoms form a large group and play together. We already see it in-game, even with KUs, that kingdoms have similar names, e.g. Celtics1, Celtics2 and so on (placeholder names to point fingers on any kingdom). It's a normal human behavior to from groups and cooperate. And what about competitive, smaller kingdoms? If two of them work together in fighting a bigger kingdom, isn't that already a kingdom union, even if it's time limited? What I want to say is, I don't think removing KUs is helping the game but creating other problems to fix. Let's focus on these changes presented here. I hope I was able to make my thought process a bit clear and understandable.

Thanks for the feedback on this point! I actually was expecting a bit more controversy around this topic. Glad you like it

YES! that's the main purpose of these changes. No person getting left behind anymore. Thanks for sharing your feedback!

Can you please elaborate a bit? What kind of time restriction do you have in mind? And do you think the fealty system can counteract those wing kingdoms a bit?

The real goal is to not leave the king behind when players leave a kingdom union. That is happening rather often in game and it's not a great player experience for this king.

The second goal is to counteract the disadvantages of having an empty vice-king slot in a kingdom union. That is also happening rather often and it's hard for the whole kingdom to not have a full set of leaders.

I hope this answers your questions?

no, that's not a consensus.

I am curious on what other players think about this topic. From the past discussions around menhir, I got the impression that this is not a majority wish. @all: what do you think?

Display More

Also my thought about disassembling unions. it took me a mo to click the pieces together. Ty!


Oooo, to help balance the multi-wing system, when a king abdicates to join another kingdom with his big army (Hammer) mid to late game perhaps just make the first few robber hideouts highly aggressive? It would force him/her to lose some of it in order to balance the system out a bit.