# [Feature Feedback II ] Fealty System explained

• Looks like a new buff for METAs, polite way of saying we don't care about feedbacks

I don't know, you still listen to certain players instead of the general audience, I wish you would start listening to the general audience.

Let's do a very simple calculation. In a kingdom of 200 people, 100 players play defense and 100 players attack. The overall gain of this alliance is 100*10/100 = x10. In a kingdom of 80 players, 40 players attack and 40 players play defense. The overall gain of this alliance is 40*10/100 = x4.

For the excitement of the game, consider directing players to 8 kingdoms with 50 players instead of 2 kingdoms with 200. Really, stop listening to specific players and listen to the general public. Not to mention working on a Meta buffing feature like this instead of a new multi-hunting system

Anyway, I don't want to break your enthusiasm, great things, congratulations...

Edited 3 times, last by LovëGood ().

• Again the 1% that dont understands the game, comes and cries about limiting player amount in a kingdom, like that would change anything.

• Again the 1% that dont understands the game, comes and cries about limiting player amount in a kingdom, like that would change anything.

Maybe I expressed myself wrong, I'm not talking about any limit. I just said that it is necessary to encourage players to establish more kingdoms with less players. Everyone can make a META, I'm not against it, but while META already has an advantage because of the number, they increase that advantage with new features. The numbers I have given are just examples, to do simple math. Otherwise, players can create a kingdom of 300 people if they want, or 10 people if they want.

• Again the 1% that dont understands the game, comes and cries about limiting player amount in a kingdom, like that would change anything.

As-is, sure. You completely misunderstood the point because you wanted to be negative and pretend to be superior.

If you have 300 players on a server. 10 kingdoms of 30 players fighting seems more interesting than 2 of 150. So the mechanics should be changed to encourage/incentivize those smaller kingdoms. Not discourage them. "Well, the kingdoms will just team up." but that create diplomacy, drama, etc if there is enough incentive for only 1 to win. The game used to have those elements.

• LovëGood leo#EN(19)

Let's discuss this.

This change implements that the highest bonus will be gained for players who stay with their kingdom as long as possible. So one premade kingdom with a plan to unite will consist of 3 starting treasuries in each kingdom, so 6 treasuries total for a team.
6 Treasuries can realistically cover ~4-6 (15 crop) fields and ~4-6 (9crop) fields, out of which only 4-5 will be high quality (>100% oasis bonus). So 5 gold-using members can play to their full potential.

If you have more than 5 gold users in your team, they will need to:
A) Play inside the kingdom but with shitty field for their capital;
B) Play inside another (or his own) kingdom, but later lose 10% power when switching to main kingdom.

If we take a real example, the team I represent - LIHKG, which has 100+ members, I can state that 70% of our players will not be able to play with high quality croppers or we will lose 10% bonus.

So I must conclude that this system IN NO WAY supports huge META kingdom, on the contrary, it makes choices very hard for 70%+ players of META kingdoms. And it seems to me the most optimal way to utilize 100% of this bonus is to play with 20-30 people kingdoms, which would have ~5 heavy gold users and the rest would be casuals. If a kingdom has any more members this system starts getting exponentially worse for that kingdom.

• Extremely unbalanced, unfair proposition.
Start working on multi abusers punishement first.

Maybe we work on both at the same time, but we are not discussing punishments changes. We are discussing new features and the players' insights will have an impact on them. If you think this feature is unbalanced and unfair, how can we change this in your opinion?

Starting not from day 1 is a bigger disadvantage now. Maybe some catch up system at least?

That's a good point. @all: do have something in mind on how to catch up?

Perhaps a 25% increase I could understand.

Maybe downscale the points needed somewhat (15-20%)

Thank you for the concrete suggestions! We will consider them.

You let a new player with zero prestige zero experience zero knowledge choose to play king, creates a bad random kingdom, then he finds he can't continue and disbands kingdom

or he is so bad that governors leaving him

Then you make fealty system so governors stick to a moron king?

Personally If I feel my king is not worthy, I will quit that kingdom at any cost. fealty bonus will not change that.

Yes, that's an important point to make, thanks for sharing!

- so would the defense bonus apply to all troops inside of a players village - or would they apply to a players troops regardless of village? I think this is an important distinction.

Which variation would you prefer? This question goes out to everyone!

I also belive cp bonus and workshope time reduce should switch places,

Yes, switching Workshop and CP was already mentioned before and we highly consider this change! Thanks for sharing your insights!

The patch is little buffed to teutons because they can get crazy att power considering brewery bonus x hero %att bonus x sieging x troop attack bonus they all multiply, so we will see even more teutons off players, also they will have easier time rebuilding ramms after splaing in the walls, although if they didn't splashed their off during midgame the workshop buffed won't be noticeable. This is good side-buff considering how the 2000 outgoing attacks limit hit the tribe.

I would love to see more teuton off players!

So we have 12% deff bonus (10 %+ 2% water ditch multiply + walls!!! but they will be destroyed by rammer but keep in mind that still this exists) vs 10%off bonus (12% if you siege because sieging is multiplying).

i tried to explain why it favour the deff players

Thank you for pointing out that deff players will benefit more from the bonuses. Would you like to see more off bonuses? If so, what do you have in mind?

i believe the rewards "PVE in nature" are so small that you'd ever feel fealty system was introduce that's why the troop power bonus/consumption reduction is needed so will plan you gameplay around it

Yes, the other PVE bonus suggestions are great and we definitely keep them in mind. Maybe for additional levels if we'd change them to be exponential instead of linear. And yes, at the same time, the fealty system should be meaningful and not too small. Thanks for pointing it out for this one. Maybe there is a way to make it count as well

By performing well for the greater good of the kingdom, fealty could be used as a progression&reward system that does add to the overall gameplay experience.

Like combining them with daily quests or so called kingdom quests? How could they look like without the feeling of being repetitive or boring? What I try to avoid is for example that daily quest of annexing an oasis even though you can't because your villages are too close together (do you know what I mean?)

I wish you would start listening to the general audience.

Why do you think we are discussing these feature here? We want to give everyone the same opportunity to speak up and share their insights. We even translated these features so that we can discuss them in every domain and players who don't speak English can participate.

Thank you all for sharing your insights! We already got a lot of very constructive feedback

So I must conclude that this system IN NO WAY supports huge META kingdom, on the contrary, it makes choices very hard for 70%+ players of META kingdoms. And it seems to me the most optimal way to utilize 100% of this bonus is to play with 20-30 people kingdoms, which would have ~5 heavy gold users and the rest would be casuals. If a kingdom has any more members this system starts getting exponentially worse for that kingdom.

Thank you for sharing a concrete example!

Community Communications Manager

• Again the 1% that dont understands the game, comes and cries about limiting player amount in a kingdom, like that would change anything.

I said nothing of limiting players in a kingdom.....ONLY that there should be a Fealty penalty for large kingdoms above a certain amount of players.

• Where did they mention you must have a village inside borders to get fealty point?

Afaik being inside kingdom doesn't mean you must be inside borders.

If so, players can Menhir inside the main kingdom, settle a cropper, and destroy their start village for others to Menhir again.

BridgetB Please clear this: Is it required to be inside borders for earning fealty points? or having kingdom is enough?

• As-is, sure. You completely misunderstood the point because you wanted to be negative and pretend to be superior.

If you have 300 players on a server. 10 kingdoms of 30 players fighting seems more interesting than 2 of 150. So the mechanics should be changed to encourage/incentivize those smaller kingdoms. Not discourage them. "Well, the kingdoms will just team up." but that create diplomacy, drama, etc if there is enough incentive for only 1 to win. The game used to have those elements.

2 of 150 is much more interesting. Two kingdoms smash vs each other and the best would win. 10 kingdoms of 30 players is a mess.

And "meta" is being thrown around too much over here. 100-150 player kingdom is not meta. Its normal kingdom.
META is 500+ accounts kingdoms that are now starting to appear when all russian speaking kingdoms united into one.

• Where did they mention you must have a village inside borders to get fealty point?

Afaik being inside kingdom doesn't mean you must be inside borders.

If so, players can Menhir inside the main kingdom, settle a cropper, and destroy their start village for others to Menhir again.

BridgetB Please clear this: Is it required to be inside borders for earning fealty points? or having kingdom is enough?

Well if your capital is outside the borders, it means you get no oases and not able to sell stolen goods or contest camps, even if you are technically part of the kingdom AND get the Fealty bonus. In other words, you're still f*cked.

• I like the idea about the fealty feature but I do not dig the rewards.

- Instead of Hero XP boost then maybe get an amount instead each day? That would be more helpfully for less active players.

- The Culturepoint bouns is fine.

- Instead of crop "Troop crop consumption" bouns I would rather see a bouns to income of ress (not crop) to boost the players within the kingdom that do not have a cropper.

But I would remove the others and add something else instead. Could be cool with access to a special buidling that does somthing or a new unit of some sort.

(note I have not read the other ideas)

• Everyone can settle a village into the field and join the kingdom, it will take 1 day for X1, 8 hours for X3, which will make the difference between kingdoms with +100 players and kingdoms with +50 players in end game wars even more due to this system. The game leads to crowding rather than tactical. The system is considered a novelty but will exacerbate what is killing the competition in the game... The discussion here is not about populations of kingdoms, everyone can play this game with as many players as they want. But when there's an advantage to being crowded already, it's funny to add more to it.

• When will this feature be active?
just dont test it and put it in in the upcaming march servers
op stuff is always fun : )

Bragas
bad player with a good heart

• Yes, the other PVE bonus suggestions are great and we definitely keep them in mind. Maybe for additional levels if we'd change them to be exponential instead of linear. And yes, at the same time, the fealty system should be meaningful and not too small. Thanks for pointing it out for this one. Maybe there is a way to make it count as well

Like combining them with daily quests or so called kingdom quests? How could they look like without the feeling of being repetitive or boring? What I try to avoid is for example that daily quest of annexing an oasis even though you can't because your villages are too close together (do you know what I mean?)

I wrote before, for me the best idea how to combinate is rework weekly TOP 10 for kingdoms.

TOP 10 for kingdoms can be simillar as now, just with this changes:

1) There will be attacks, defense, population build (no position in ladder), robber. Maybe can be also VP steeled.

2) All kingom numbers are recount between number of kingdom members, so when you have 100 players in kingdom and they have 1000 attack points for week, in the ladder they have 1000/100=10. So there you need activity of all members of the kingdom to be high in the ladder, no just be big, small kingdoms have high chance to be in the ladder.

3) All members, who is on the recount time in the kingdom, who is in the top 10 (same as now, sunday midnight) receive fealty points. When the new member come to the kingdom, numbers are recount between him also and his numbers are count from the time, when he join the kingdom (i think is same as now)

4) At sunday midnight, players from kingdoms in the top 10 recieve fealty point, that depends on the position in the ladders. Numbers go down from the first one to the last one (like 100, 90, 80, ...) for every position in the ladder. Numbers are just example.

For me it looks fair and fun, its a price for active kingdoms.

• Like combining them with daily quests or so called kingdom quests? How could they look like without the feeling of being repetitive or boring? What I try to avoid is for example that daily quest of annexing an oasis even though you can't because your villages are too close together (do you know what I mean?)

Thanks for actually taking the time to talk this through properly, feels awesome to not talk to a brick wall for once. xD

Anyways, i get your point, but repetitive quests wouldnt need to be boring. Depending on how much coding you guys are willing to put in, could be something like "kill 50/100/200 (scaling with game time) troops while defending". Or "destroy 5 building levels in enemy kingdoms", which would incentivise defs to also research and build catapults, which overall is teamplay in the sense of the kingdom. Ideally should be linked to kingdoms you are diplomatically at war with, so that its not as easy to abuse by attacking wings.

Another simple one could also be "sell X treasures to your royal (5/10/20 scaling with time)", which counteracts -especially with newer players- hoarding goods in inventory in earlygame. Theres a lot of small steering wheels you have here, that could be utilized to great potential.

Game sux... ?

• I know what you mean. Good points. But I would be little bit sceptical about the two scenarios A and B. Mainly because distribution of players skills is not gaussian, it is pareto. Means (for example): 20% of players posses 80% of server-firepower. So lets say, I switch kingdoms, I lose my bonus, but I dont care that much, because I know, that it weakens my position only against some small portion of top-players. My position against the vast majority of enemy players (players on lower side of pareto chart) wont be affected . Another complication in the A-B scenario could be, that if Im already gold user, I dont care that much about having perfect 15c as main, or shitty 4-4-4 as main, simply because I will be NPC-ing the whole time one way or another

edit: the scissors betweeen big and small kingdoms will open up. Bonus points will be cumulated in bigger kingdoms much more than in smaller ones. So, bigger kingdoms gain even more advantage than earlier. Would by my guess

• FInally, someone with some sense of rationality.

20% of players posses 80% of server-firepower.

The top kingdoms are already well refined and the distribution inside a kingdom becomes neither gaussian nor pareto, but a filtered variant of pareto. So the skill gap is not so big that 20% of players have 80% of firepower. Really, I've played enough highly competitive servers against Ottomans, OCG, Doom, AK, YIY, Unreal etc...
What you're talking about is purely the statistics of a random server with no premade teams.

if Im already gold user, I dont care that much about having perfect 15c as main, or shitty 4-4-4 as main, simply because I will be NPC-ing the whole time one way or another

And I am very sorry to say, but this clearly indicates that you have never played with unlimited gold and 15c
The difference in early game economy between 6c and 15c capital can be around 300% at day 3 of the server, because croplands have much much better economy of resource gain/resource invested.

Having said those 2 things, In a highly competitive server with big kingdoms of refined professional players this new changes will be a hard hit for such kingdoms, while also being a buff to smaller kingdoms with less gold users.

• Contact me in PM if you wish, I will share some numbers of our ongoing server (COM3x3 kingdom LIHKG), and you will see the power distribution is nowhere near the (20% players have 80% power) distribution
In a well established kingdoms numbers look differently.

• And I am very sorry to say, but this clearly indicates that you have never played with unlimited gold and 15c
The difference in early game economy between 6c and 15c capital can be around 300% at day 3 of the server, because croplands have much much better economy of resource gain/resource invested.

I did. You are right about the earle game economy, but that has some meaning only at the beginning. Everyone of us gets smashed at some day 15/27/34/49, etc. So your advantage at the start will be erased very soon in the game. That would be my guess. That is why it is possible for skilled smaller player without proper mc can sometimes beat lesser skilled big player with 3x crops. I did this thousand times