Merging Alliances and Kingdoms?

  • @ 50 Calibre,


    You sound a bit exasperated. I was reminded of this recently and thought to pass it along.


    http://prntscr.com/b0bape


    “All the darkness in the world cannot extinguish the light of a single candle.”



    ― Francis of Assisi


    Do not discourage...that's my job ;-)


    Can i start calling you Beacon?

  • This brings me back to something I have said all along. A king needs to be an experienced and strong leader. How do you propose to introduce new players to this position?(Such a leader will always put the welfare of the team itself above that of his/her own account. There is too much gimme among players in the game today, to much emphasis on individual medals and stats, among both kings and governors/dukes.


    In the games descriptions of the different roles, it is still said that a king should protect the governors. In game play, we have seen that that is not possible once a kingdom has gained more than a few governors/dukes. A strong and experienced king can protect all team members but not with his/her own account - it must be done by leading and guiding the team, and the team's most valuable assets are the treasures held by the king and dukes - it is those which must be the first defense priority for the entire team if it is to be successful. (I couldn't agree more) That means it is, in the end, the governors which must provide defense to the kings and dukes. In this new concept, kingdoms will be much larger and so it is even more important for the different roles to be better defined, I share this view. and even more important for kings to be experienced at leadership and to possess strong leadership skills.


    As to being afraid to lose, speaking only of myself, over the years I believe I have had as much fun and enjoyed the game as much in the servers we lost as in those we won.


    Me too, I like when things get a little hot because it burns away the dross and what remains are the players you know you can count on, and new friends.

  • @ Rom,


    If the wiki and tutorial provides an adequate description of what is needed in a king, and some minimum qualifications for the position imposed (such as a certain global prestige level, having played three full servers as governor or one full server as duke, whatever is deemed adequate) for the position, then inexperienced kings will be a thing of the past.


    As for their performance in that position, game play itself would finish the winnowing process. Good kings would build good teams and others would then want to be a part of those teams. Poor leaders will have disfunctional teams whose members will wish to leave for better teams.


    Currently, just reading about the game gives you the impression that it is only the kings who are important. However, for a team to be successful, each and every team member is - or can be - of equal importance. The kings and dukes hold the treasures which produce VP, true - but it is the governors who provide the great majority of those treasures and it is the governors who will provide the majority of the defense of those treasures. Any online description of the game should clearly reflect these facts.


    Governors will provide the majority of all troops, in fact. Defenders will defend and attackers will attack. Having played in all three roles, I can say that neither is more important to the success of a team than the other. However, leadership is the key to holding any team together and getting it to function as a team - this is as true in any real life situation as it is in the game. Leaders lead, but only by consent from those they lead. In TK, as in any other team game. sport, business or what have you, those who follow are as much integral parts of the team as those who lead.


  • I really enjoyed this post of yours, DH.

  • @ Rom,


    The way TK lobby works, no matter what IGN you choose for individual servers, the lobby account is tied to your email address. You can change the email address, even, and still have the same lobby account. I would imagine TG has a record of how many servers you you have played, and your global prestige is kept in the lobby account. While I agree that global prestige is no measure of a players ability to lead, it is at least some measure of a player's experience playing. Finishing a server (or more than one) as duke, at least shows a player has been introduced to the concept of leadership.


    I didn't mean my suggestions to be perfect solutions to the new player/king problem - and I believe it is a problem. Many new players see the descriptions and think being a king would be cool; they have no real idea how to play, let alone lead a team, and within days or weeks they delete because being a king was not nearly as cool as they were led to believe and the idea of being "just" a governor doesn't seem cool at all. I doubt there is a perfect solution to this. However, there is a better way than the current one.


    The new concept will make it even more important for everyone to know and understand the different roles.

  • Maybe someone who has never played shouldn't get the option to be a king and should automatically be a governor? Second time they play they can choose.


    - - - Updated - - -



    I guess I shouldn't say the larger the better - the more active govs and denser your kingdom is the better though. A huge kingdom with a lot of inactivity is no good. I see the benefit to kingdoms is that you can cover a decent area and if you have a lot of active members and grow your kingdom so it is one solid area of influence, it also helps protect those in the middle. This is where I think things could be improved though as that aside from govs/players, the only benefit to expanding your kingdom as large as possible is to activate more treasuries.


    As far as tributes are concerned, sure that is a benefit to being a king, but its all about team work. Inactive govs don't help and everyone including the kings need to help members grow and expand themselves too.

  • @ Rom,


    The way TK lobby works, no matter what IGN you choose for individual servers, the lobby account is tied to your email address. You can change the email address, even, and still have the same lobby account. I would imagine TG has a record of how many servers you you have played, and your global prestige is kept in the lobby account.


    Nope, trust me on this one. The prestige is linked to the email address, not the lobby.

    While I agree that global prestige is no measure of a players ability to lead, it is at least some measure of a player's experience playing. Finishing a server (or more than one) as duke, at least shows a player has been introduced to the concept of leadership. Agree.


    I didn't mean my suggestions to be perfect solutions to the new player/king problem - and I believe it is a problem. Many new players see the descriptions and think being a king would be cool; they have no real idea how to play, let alone lead a team, and within days or weeks they delete because being a king was not nearly as cool as they were led to believe and the idea of being "just" a governor doesn't seem cool at all. I doubt there is a perfect solution to this. However, there is a better way than the current one.


    The new concept will make it even more important for everyone to know and understand the different roles.[/QUOTE]


    Absolutely. We are in agreement on this one.


    DanielHart, I don't think anyone who puts up a thought or suggestion believes that it will be perfect solution or the end all - no need to explain.

    @ Maytrix, I think that's an idea worth considering and would like to hear what others think.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Rom: Blue ().

  • Nope, trust me on this one. The prestige is linked to the email address, not the lobby.


    Indeed. I have two accounts, linked to different email addresses, due to confusion when I started playing caused by me following a link that was (I didn't know at the time) to an Australian Server and then signing up to a UK server on another email without realising that meant 2 different accounts.


    It is best that n00bs aren't Kings, but what I'd suggest is that rather than forbid them, rather give them enough information at the start so they realise what the role of King requires. This will be even more vital in 1 King Alliances, but I have seen a new player, willing to listen to advice, make a very capable King. There are other games with similar requirements for organisation and team working, they are not skills particular to this game.

  • Maybe someone who has never played shouldn't get the option to be a king and should automatically be a governor? Second time they play they can choose.


    What we'll do in an upcoming update is limit the king position to player's with at least 25 prestige. Just to make sure to prevent first-time players from picking it.


    Thank you all for your continued feedback by the way. The concept for the test server is taking more and more concrete shape. :)

  • It is best that n00bs aren't Kings, but what I'd suggest is that rather than forbid them, rather give them enough information at the start so they realise what the role of King requires. This will be even more vital in 1 King Alliances, but I have seen a new player, willing to listen to advice, make a very capable King. There are other games with similar requirements for organisation and team working, they are not skills particular to this game.


    This idea has more merit to me than banning new players from trying out the position and learning a little as they go.

  • Hi, I don't understand treasury part,
    1.
    so king must decide- or he will open extra treasury slot or dukes slot? If it's correct then the main big players don't promote dukes but will add only extra treasury slot, because they will obtain more resources.
    2.
    or king have only one active treasury and rest of treasury is on dukes. Then in this situation you are reducing kings power.
    or I get it wrong ?
    And what happens then one duke is betraying his king and goes to another king?
    dukes can activate only one treasury or king can granted to duke activate second treasury?


    If in one alliance=kingdom is only one king then it's mean that alliance influence area now will be 3 times smaller, maybe it's would be better to grand king for one expansion slot grand 2 duke slots.

  • @Ignis: It's basically the second version you mentioned. Kings unlock duke slots by using expansion slots and treasury slots by reaching certain treasure thresholds. Now, kings can grant treasury slots to themselves or dukes, but they need to distribute them evenly (so they can't give themselves 3 slots while all the dukes only have 1, but have to get everyone to 2 treasury slots first). Yes, this does reduce a king's power somewhat. And it strengthens dukes.


    If a duke changes kingdoms the new king needs to grant him new treasury slots again.


    The influence area won't really be 3 times smaller because we plan on having a few more dukes and more treasuries in general, but overall it will still be smaller than before, yes. Our goal are more stable groups of fewer players, rather than huge alliances spreading all over the game world.

  • And that will happen to treasures when duke change king? They disappear or leave with duke to another king or they have been distributed to dukes and king in old kingdom?
    I think that if duke is changing king then there should be some penalty for betrayal. It's seams that now kings will be depending on dukes.
    and if 2 dukes will leave from one king then kings treasury will be deactivated?
    So as I understand for king in treasury don't change treasury number. if now king for every 2 villages can activate 1 treasury. then in new game there will be +2 expansion slots = 1 duke+1 treasury for king.

  • maybe you should think about that king could grant 2nd and 3rd treasury slot to duke. I think that duke from one treasury area will get less then governors from stolen goods.
    And that about crop if you are planing to create 2-3 times more dukes as it is now and take away Robber hideout then I think that there will be crop deficit. Because players will promote most active players who are more willingly to cooperate and trade with resource then less active players.
    I didn't read all discussion so I apologize that you are already answer to this question, but how will king will get those 5% from dukes tributes. It will be only possible when duke collects his tributes or it will be automatically produced in dukes city and king can take this 5% when it's suitable for king?
    Just my thoughts


    - - - Updated - - -


    and one more if duke is leaving to another king then governors in dukes area will leave automatically or will stay to old king?

  • I think the duke should take the treasures with him to the new kingdom. A penalty for leaving or maybe an incentive to stay in the kingdom might be worth thinking about. That's why we will test the version soon on a special test server. And of course also to take a close look at the potential balancing issues you mention in your second post.


    Regarding the tributes: Dukes collect tributes from governors around them. A share goes to their own tribute fund for the king. The king then collects tributes from all dukes.


    In our current implementation governors stay in their old kingdom and can then decide for themselves if they want to switch together with their duke.

  • So if you are making game mode 1 king +dukes maybe some dukes can have extra abilities. Then king can some dukes grant general status. This is war-strategic game, so for instance- off general(duke) and in this dukes area off units cost less or construction time reduce, and other can be def general. Merchants general could merchants travel faster. and stuff like this.