Posts by dail2794#GB

Quote from JP Capone

Do something about the clause 'player currently banned'. Set a time limit of 1 or 2 weeks and remove the villages afterwards or make farming/chiefing possible again. Now good spots remain unusable for the duration of the server for the active players because the villages are abandoned. You punish not only the spoiler, but also those who play fair.

I think keeping them banned is better - Otherwise, the main account or other multi's from that team could just chief the village. Sucks we lose a lot of croppers by crop rushing multi's but at least they stay out of the hands of cheats. Maybe allowing the village to be zeroed could be better?

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.

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'

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.

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) ?

Fealy system makes an interesting extra mechanic. Excited to learn and see it in action!

Also, guys, stop complaining about multi's and start reporting. If they don't get a ban after you've given the multi-humter a heads up, they're not multi's, they're just good players.

(Although, devs, please add p2p verify like text codes or something, it would really save a lot of the multi-hunters time and clear out a lot of multi-accts)