Posts by Maytrix_COM

    What I'd like to see is a significant change from the typical game play - but, this is kingdoms so it should be different.

    Why is an army able to pass right by dozens (or more) allied villages to hit a village in the center of a kingdom? Surely as an ally sees an army of thousands marching by, they could send scouts to alert allies and or attack with their own troops? Or better yet, if a kingdom has a contiguous border, you can get through it without hitting the villages on the edge of the border. Basically the kingdom forms as a wall. How effective that "wall" is would be determined by the village - a new village wouldn't put up much of a fight and perhaps should have a negative defense bonus.. but if all border villages we're strong, that would change things.

    Maybe there could just be an option to build a kingdom wall that circles the kingdom.. the larger the kingdom, the weaker the wall might be because its a large area to cover, but the smaller it is, the stronger it is - in essence this would help smaller kingdoms survive against those much larger..

    I realize this goes off topic from the rally point, but I was originally going to talk about the rally point and had this though.. specifically speaking of the rally point, I think at least the more allies an attacker has to pass, the more info the defender should get - maybe if a scout is in an allied village that an attacking army goes past, the defender will get info in the amount of time it takes a scout to reach them.

    Maybe instead of coming up with ideas from within since I doubt anyone who is employed and works on this full time actually plays it like the real players do, why not for a focus group of sorts? And you know.. get some ideas from the players who spend countless hours a day playing it?

    Not that you can't get feedback here, but it seems the approach is that ideas are thought up internally when perhaps you should look externally for the ideas in the first place.

    Want to promote team work? Give the team leaders (kings/dukes now) the ability to encourage team work. Say, allow players to contribute to a rewards fund with resources or something like that. Or even contribute hero items or card items that they aren't using or want to donate. Then let the leaders promote team work with contests and other stuff and reward players with resources or these items. THIS would promote a lot more teamwork then the above. It would also give players goals they can try to reach for fun - right now, there's no daily goals or anything to achieve - just keep building, attacking, waiting for the WW to arrive. With some sort of rewards system the leaders could manage, there would be lots of ways for team work and daily goals and rewards and the like.

    I'd take a different approach. I'd say both A and B.

    There would still be a benefit to having multiple wonders. you could build up both and if one gets destroyed/damaged, you'd still have one that would give you a bonus. But being able to have two just promotes metas since it takes a large meta to handle two. Likely all it would mean is duke changes to add more people in later.

    Another thought that could help prevent metas would be to have dismissed dukes take a VP penalty just like kicking a king does in the current version. This way, removing a duke and adding others just to add more people to the alliance would have a negative impact later in the game.

    I think the thing to think about is how do the metas become so large and put in things to prevent that. Right now, kings can abdicate and there's no penalty, so new kings can be added. With a single king, that is no longer an option, but now dukes could do the same thing. So having the VP earned by a dukes treasury be removed if they we're removed to re-duke someone else would really stop this. And it may not need to be 100% of what was earned, but significant enough that it would be a deterrent. The only thing that needs to be taken into account is an inactive account.

    I think you could be a king without a pre-made team, and be successful. And it doesn't always require getting other kings to abdicate, more importantly you need the surrounding govs to join you. If you get all the govs in the area to join you, you can over take another king. Last Comx3, I started 8 days late and played as king only because there were no others with influence around me. Ended up 2nd largest kingdom by area and had an impact in the end game.

    Or second suggestion was - you can only get the additional percentage to victory points from the highest Wonder which your alliance own.

    I think that would make sense. Or you don't allow alliances changes after WW appears - at least not with WW holder - so the WW would need to be conquered by someone else to "transfer" it which would be quite risky. It would certainly help prevent last minute changes.

    I think there are a few ways to promote more combat.

    1. Do not allow WW holders to change alliances. This would stop late game mergers just to get a win by having multiple WW's. Any transfer of WW would have to be done by conquering it, which would leave it vulnerable and be more difficult. Another option is to simply lock alliances once the WW's appear. It also may turn friends against each other since both may want the top spot and not be happy with 2nd.

    2. VP is increased by daily increase and stealing treasures. Why not look at other options to increase/decrease it. Say a treasury has the max 4k treasures. The daily bonus could be based off of a percentage of influence tiles you have. So maybe pop 500 influence is the standard - have all those tiles of influence as part of your kingdom (45 spaces) and you get 100% of the daily bonus - 4k points. For each tile under 45 or each tile over (if pop is 1000) the bonus could be impacted by say 5% or something like that? So if another king is pushing into your influence and taking up 10 spaces, they are taking away 50% of your bonus. So this would give great reason for one king to attack another nearby. Basically, it is ensuring you have strong kingdom borders. How 2 treasuries of the same king influence each other can be looked at - perhaps there's no reason to change it and it only changes if it is a king outside the alliance.. this way you can get full bonus as log as treasures are secure. It also can give you a bigger bonus if you have a city and cover more area you can get over 4k points for 1 treasury.

    3. Change attack notifications. I'm not sure it makes sense that as soon as someone on the opposite end of the map launches an attack, I become aware of it. Maybe each village should be able to build a tower and that tower impacts how far away an attack can be seen. But say a village in the middle of a kingdom gets the benefit of towers on the edges.. This again promotes the kingdom concept and villages towards the center of a kingdom are more secure. Those on the edges, less secure. It promotes attacking since you'd want to keep villages away from your borders.

    That's not really how I'd measure being a king. To be a king, you have to be able to expand as it is all about the treasures and influence of your kingdom. That will in turn allow you to build lots of troops.

    I do think enabling it or disabling it on demand would be the best solution. Why not actually have the ability to do this for any player? There could be a trusted player who is not a duke. It also helps with alliance management.

    Speaking of alliance management, it would be nice if certain players could be given the ability to see key stats for defense..etc. Wall level, incoming attacker.. etc. Would certainly help defend players who choose to sleep at some point.

    In that case though, shouldn't it be weighted as well so that a large player can't simply attack a newer player and take all they have? In that same regard if you hit a treasury with 4k treasures now, you'd take 1333 of them. If it was like you suggest 1 per 250 infantry, you'd need 250k troops to just get 1k treasures.. I think it makes sense that it is weighted. Personally, I've never bothered to attack a king over and over because they had 8 treasures.


    You've never had to organise for your own player to attack a king or duke to move treasures out of the way in front of an incoming attack that you know you can't get the def in place in time?

    If you have a traitor in your midst, don't chief, just 0 pop.

    Personally, I find that to be a cheap tactic. It's not much better then two alliances attacking each other back and forth to raise VP.

    But as I said, there could be stipulations in place that prevent it from being allowed under certain circumstances. If you are just attacking to move treasures, you aren't sending cats or rams and aren't sending your whole army either.

    0 pop is fine, but It think a better revenge is to conquer it and it is more beneficial.

    Problem #3 isn't really a problem. You can do very well without a cropper. Difficult without plus, but easy enough if you have plus. And even late game I've always found croppers. But I often only have 1. And it isn't a capital. So having 2 more villages is about as good, perhaps better if the crop bonus on each of those is good.

    For starters, when the treasury is destroyed all treasures are moved.

    Second, it would greatly unbalance things. One server, my dual and I had 20k treasures in 2 villages, in addition to a lot in others.. if someone was able to take all 20k, with us being in 1st place, they get 1,000,000 Victory Points. That is just too much. It would be even worse now since you can see how many treasures are in a village.