[Feature Feedback I ] Disbanding Kingdom Unions (KU)

  • 18547-bonefire-discussion1200x628-forum-png


    Dear players,


    this is your call to influence new leadership rules. Please read this post first and share your feedback with us.


    uniting kingdoms has huge drawbacks if you want to split again. If the Kingdom Union (KU) doesn’t work out and the vice-king might have deleted their avatar, all governors and dukes can leave the KU and join another kingdom. But the king stays behind. This happens too often and it's not a fun experience.That's why we want to introduce a better way to disband a Kingdom Union including changes to the leadership rules.


    STATUS QUO

    • The king cannot delete their avatar
    • The vice-king can delete their avatar
    • If a king or the vice-king goe inactive, the KU still remains
    • If a vice-king deletes their avatar, it’s not possible to fill their position

    If a king stays behind, even inactivity doesn't disband the Kingdom Union.



    POTENTIAL NEW WAY OF DISBANDING A KU


    When a king is the only leadership left in a KU, without a vice-king, they can dissolve the KU by abdicating. No kingdom member is left behind. BUT: We want the members of a Kingdom Union to think really hard if they really want to disband the kingdom or if it might be more beneficial to stay together. Hence, the Fealty System was born.


    In the rare case that the king and vice-king became inactive at the same time, the kingdom union will disband automatically.


    Consequences of disbanding a Kingdom Union:

    1. Any victory points are lost
    2. Treasures remain
    3. For abdicated kings and vice-kings, the new fealty system will become unavailable for the remainder of the game round

    New leadership rules:


    Kings and Vice-Kings

    1. Neither kings nor vice-kings can delete their avatar (new rule for vice-king)
    2. Both kings can abdicate (new rule for king)
      1. If a king abdicates, they either swap places with the vice-king, or, if there is no vice-king, dissolve the kingdom union.
      2. If a vice-king abdicates, they become a duke if there is a free duke slot or they become a governor, if all duke slots are full.
    3. Inactivity triggers abdication for kings and vice-kings


    Dukes

    1. If the vice-king slot is empty, the king can promote a duke within the kingdom become vice-king.
    2. Only governors within a kingdom can be promoted to become dukes

    This means that players cannot be invited via empty duke slot to a kingdom. Only via menhir or if there is a village of this player within the kingdom borders.


    :!: Overview of Leadership rules :!: King Vice-King Changes to status quo
    Invite Governors :thumbup: :thumbup:
    Set menhirs :thumbup: X
    Dismiss Governors :thumbup: :thumbup:
    Promote/Dismiss Dukes :thumbup: :thumbup: Only Governors within the kingdom border can become Dukes
    Promote Duke to Vice-King :thumbup: X New rule
    Abdicate :thumbup: :thumbup: New: Abdication of Lone Kings will lead to Disbanding a KU
    New for Vice-Kings to be able to abdicate
    Delete Avatar X
    X
    New for Vice-Kings that they cannot delete their avatar anymore
    Promote/Dismiss King X
    X

    Dismiss Vice-King X
    X


    :thumbup: = Can Do

    X = Cannot Do


    Before you head over to the next thread about the Fealty System, let us know what you think about the new leadership rules and share your thoughts as a reply to this thread. NOW is your opportunity to still influence this future feature. Do you have any open questions about these changes? What's your favorite change?


    We are looking forward reading your input,

    Your Travian Kingdoms Team


  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • 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.

  • 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 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.


    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 <3



    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.

    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! <3


    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?


    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?


    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.


    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?

    trick & treat Oct 4

    :spider: Community Communications Manager :bat:


  • 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 :D they just go on till near the end with a single king and 2 dukes :)

  • 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'

  • 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. :)