Well, based on the transfer of cp from one alliance to another that I proposed, there would be little point in attacking the small guys unless they were in an alliance with a lot of VP. If they wanted to just sim without becoming a target, they could join an alliance that has no VP. Then nobody could gain anything by attacking them.
We definitely - still, 6 months after my original post - need a way to transfer VP between alliances other than by treasure stealing. I hope the devs are seriously considering this.
If I understand it correctly, even treasure stealing has no ability to actually transfer VP from one alliance to another; you just accrue additional bonus victory points for your own alliance if you manage to take treasures from a top-ranked alliance.
We really need a mechanic that actually accomplishes a transfer of VP; not just another way to accrue VP.
Otherwise, the only real way to win is to sim and defend better than the next guys.
1. Let fighting directly influence VP
In order to help people be more involved from the very start in both the game itself and the endgame in particular, we suggest to implement a system in which at least half the VP are no longer produced using treasures, but are in stead produced when a waris being won. The VP should also be able to decrease if the war turns sour. So, for instance, make it so that if alliance A1 damages or destroys a village of alliance A2, A1 earns a few VP and A2 loses some. Same for conquering. Perhaps attack points/defense points could factor in too.
2. Make it harder for metas
In order to make it harder for metas to simply exist, we suggest an alliance morale bonus for troops, as well as making VP stealing dependent on size of alliance. In this new situation, if a meta still wants to exist they will need to be organized if theydo not want their size to hold them back.
I really like these two ideas and would like to revisit this.
1. I like the notion of having fighting influence VP, but don't necessarily think you need to take away treasures altogether. I think it would make sense to keep treasures as the main way of generating new VP, but then introduce some mechanics that would allow fighting to determine how VP are transferred from one alliance to another. I would like to brainstorm here some specific mechanics that could be used for shifting victory points around.
1.A) Damaging Population through Catapult Attacks
Action: Red Alliance damages villages resulting in population dropping in Blue Alliance.
Effect: Red alliance gains the amount of VP transferred, Blue alliance loses the same amount.
Calculation: amount of VP transfer = (population destroyed by Red Alliance / total population of blue alliance)*(total VP of blue alliance).
Action: Red alliance conquers villages from Blue alliance resulting in population gain to Red Alliance.
Effect: Red alliance gains the amount of VP transferred, Blue alliance loses the same amount.
Calculation: amount of VP transfer = (%change in population of the bigger of the two alliances)*(total VP of the blue alliance)
2. One problem for the alliance morale boost is this: Suppose a player is in a big alliance, and then that alliance gets shredded and he's fighting to survive. At first, we wanted the morale bonus to work against him because he was part of a big alliance earlier in the server. But now that he's fighting to barely survive and is now the underdog, I would hope that the morale bonus would start to work in his favor again. This is one problem for trying to figure out how to set up a moral bonus based on size of the alliance.
I can't think of a great way to give a morale bonus to the smaller alliance that wouldn't be easy to abuse or else backfire in another way. However, if you consider that bigger metas might be easier to conquer from (assuming they have more inactive governors), then the VP shift due to pop reduction or conquerings would penalize alliances that hold more inactives if they fail to protect their inactive governors.
3. What about giving a bonus on simultaneous attacks? If 3 armies attack a single target at the same second, they should get some sort of bonus and all attack at the same time. It just makes sense when you think about how attacks would work.
This would be interesting. So, rather than having same-second attacks land one-by-one, all the attacks that land in that second are grouped together for one epic battle with multiple attacking accounts v. multiple defending accounts. This would really change the game in a big way.
People would be rewarded for landing their attacks all in the same second, and it would become much, much, easier to knock down a world wonder. I think we would see a lot more shredded and tattered accounts throughout the server.
I like it.
I really like the proposed changes. Reducing the bonus from a WW ought to help a lot in encouraging people to fight for treasures more. I like the implied tradeoff between grouping tightly together and expanding to cover lots of territory.
I really like the idea that when you steal treasures from another alliance, it causes them to lose victory points.
It seems a bit bizarre that on the same test server, at the same time, we would see what appears to be inconsistencies in the way tax rates are being applied.
- - - Updated - - -
The tax you pay will be determined by whoever is your king.
I think we're trying to ask a more nuanced question here... in the event that my village is within the borders of an enemy king, can the enemy king set his tax rate to "high" and thereby help himself automatically to some of my resource production? Or is it true that, no matter what the enemy kings tax rate, the tributes that the enemy king collects from my village that's in his borders is determined by the tax rate of my own friendly king, who has no influence over that particular village?
Precisely. And I can't see any way around this, because it's fundamentally part of the gameplay. The fact that inactives disappear after a couple of weeks also limits the potential targets, so I think this is a good idea.
On the other hand... imagine this... Several dukes invade a kingdom by conquering cities in the enemy kingdom and activating treasuries. Yes, its risky, but their alliance can get behind them and defend the villages. Then you end up in the position of using influence as another tool for putting the pressure on another kingdom.
I personally wish inactives would disappear faster. I would prefer to see just player v. player conquerings if that were possible.
I imagine a lot of people do this thing all the time. One program that works fairly well for crunching the numbers quickly is Microsoft Excel.
One alternative would be to make the number of dukes unlimited, but just have it continue to scale with the number of treasures that are currently earning victory points in the kingdom.
A second, similar option would be to make the number of dukes limited, but allow dukes to build more treasuries depending purely on how many treasuries there are in the kingdom.
I.E. you still have 1 king and 7 dukes, but once a duke has a level 20 treasury full of treasures, then he may activate a second treasury. Once he has 2 treasuries full of treasures, then he may activate a third. If someone steals the treasures from his level 20 treasury so that it's not full anymore, then his treasuries with the fewest treasures get deactivated automatically, and he cannot re-activate them again until he's back up to full treasuries again.
This way, the fight over treasures would have a direct outcome on the kingdom borders and the overall landscape of the game. Kingdom borders would shift a lot more and need to be protected much better.
I like having the kingdom borders being more variable. Maybe another way to do this would be to make the radius of influence for a particular king be strictly based on treasures alone instead of population. If that was the case, we would see a lot more fights over treasures as kings strive to build their kingdoms. If you let someone steal treasures from a key village, then your kingdom's border suffer.
don't forget the impact of gold on the ability of an alliance to complete a WW. Trade routes make a huge difference.
Guys, I think the teuton class still has significant advantages that make it different from the other classes. For one thing, the ability to smash a small hammer and rebuild it a couple of weeks later is an incredible advantage - provided you have the resource flow to take advantage of the fast troop training times.
If a team was organized enough to have a Teuton rammer always be the one to clear (or at least knock down walls) in front of other catapulters, then they could really take advantage of the combined effects of fast training times, strong rams, brewery party, and siege mode. The firepower relative to the cost is incredible.
Furthermore, the cheap and quick to train clubbies make siege fakes a far more viable option for teutons than for any other player, period. They are expensive, but on a strategically important target, the 1000 clubs needed for a siege fake is easily worth it if indeed it fakes result in the alliance successfully zeropopping an enemy hammer or important capital.
I disagree that the troops are losing their distinction. I would argue rather that the distinctions are strong; it is merely the strategies for taking advantage of these distinctions that need to change.
Lastly, to add to the whole meta thing - again, I'll go with my comments from an earlier thread. There needs to be a significant morale boost/penalty based on pop of alliance (kingdom if no alliance), linked to max alliance size you've been in for the entirety of the server (because you know people will quit alliances/kingdoms to launch attacks, even a 7 day counter will be planned around, make it a max value for entirety of server history). Secondly, max 5 kings in an alliance, and no ability to rein anyone not in your kingdom or alliance.
Had a thought - the chat system is a bit messy. It would be great if it had a few tabs - the first for one to one player messaging, then a tab for kingdom, one for alliance, and then a tab for each secret society.
I like the idea of not being able to reinforce the people who are not in your alliance, but if the diplomacy does have a full on confederacy option, then I think you ought to be able to reinforce your confederates.
That said, I think the groups are still too big. I would like to see the kingdoms basically the same as now: 1 king, 7 dukes. Maybe do away with alliances altogether, and have the server be won by a single kingdom. My guess is that we will see various teams find ways to build kingdoms that have as many members as the a typical alliance on these servers.
I really like the idea of an alliance morale bonus. Something that generates a trade-off between safety in numbers v. stronger troops for the little guys.
Yes, I don't think you need two diplomatic entities. Kingdoms are pretty much the defining feature of the game. So we should focus on them, make them more stable, make the structure and teamplay within a kingdom more meaningful and interesting etc. And that might be way easier without alliances getting "in the way". That's basically the core idea this thread is about.
I can relate to this too. I'm pretty convinced that if we had worked on this from the outset, our alliance on Com1 could have easily fit the whole alliance into 1 kingdom with the strategic placement of dukes. In my opinion, this would be a positive thing.
So out of the 6 months of gameplay, 4 are boring, possibly 5. Please devs. Combine completely destroying, crushing players (alliances) in battle with VP for alliances. Your game would be so much more interesting and active since fighting would be meaningful from the 3rd month onward instead of only during the third and possibly fourth.
I agree with this.
I REALLY like the idea that 50 Calibre posted about making it possible to gain victory points only through fighting in a declared war.
Someone else (forget who and too lazy to check) suggested that the victory point bonus associated with your wonder's rank should be assigned as a daily bonus, and not at the end of the game. I think this is a great idea. It might make it worthwhile to fight over treasures throughout the whole game and allows for some interesting jockeying for position in the WW / VP accumulation race.
This would open up some interesting tactics for allowing an enemy to get ahead just enough to hit them hard and collect the big victory point bonus befor re-assuming the lead (and becoming #1 target yourself).
I think that it would be interesting to consider allowing troops to change home villages in some way or another.
In some ways it would be a good thing to allow faster amassing of troops given the now shorter game-play.
It makes me think of the game of RISK a bit, where you mass up a large army and then go conquer the entire game board, only to have another large army mass up, come in, and conquer behind.
Maybe you could have it set up so that if you conquered a new village, the entire army escorting the conquering chiefs would take on the conquered village as the home village.
Has this subject been raised before?
There have been many threads about this - all of which I've participated in I'm sure - and while I'm anxious to see what VVV will come up with, the fact of the matter is that:
1. Even if you put 20k people on a server, in TK everybody would still be in giant metas. It's just how the game works and the players can't change that, the devs need to.
2. The devs won't change it since they don't want to, they believe keeping every player safe will ensure they stay in the game. They want this game to be as casual as possible. So having everybody in metas works perfectly for them, or so they think. While I believe that since every player in a meta gets bored quickly and just deletes/never comes back, keeping them safe (within or outside of metas) isn't the way to go. So you can come up with all kinds of ideas to change metas, the devs will never implement any of it anyway.
I agree here that the fun of the game would actually be enhanced if the riskiness of simming increased. Its boring when you never get attacked. What's the point of training defense troops if you almost never need them? I remember when I first started playing that if you were trying to build an army, you had to send it off on a long march when you went to sleep, just to keep it secret and safe from being attacked. That kind of hair-raising risk is missing these days, and it's a lot of what made the game so fun when I first started playing it. Now I'm just hanging in there hoping it takes a turn for the better.
What if you made the warfare-based boost to VP contingent on a formal declaration of war between the two alliances?
I also like the notion of reducing an enemies victory points by stealing their treasures.
I agree that it would be nice to see a more sophisticated way to gain victory points. How about this:
Under alliance diplomacy, you have an option to declare war on another alliance.
How about if you get victory points for reducing the population of an alliance with whom you are formally at war?
I think it makes sense to get victory points based on your kill/loss ratio in combat also. Maybe the game could keep a running tally of an alliance's kill/loss ratio, and use that ratio to influence the rate at which their treasures generate victory points. So, for instance: if you are doing well and killing more troops compared to what you are losing, then your treasures generate more than 1 victory point per day. If your alliance has more losses than kills, the treasures generate less than 1 victory point per day.
Maybe the building demolition thing can play into this as well... the alliance's ratio of conqerings / being conquered could influence the rate at which victory points generate as well.
And for catapulting buildings: the ratio of population destroyed in an enemy alliance compared to the buildings our own alliance loses. Each of these three things could either enhance or diminish the rate at which treasures generate victory points for an alliance.
What do you think?
Following home is certainly a lot of fun but by itself it isn't war. We need more catapult and chief usage too
That's true. It would be nice to see the victory more closely tied to successfully demolishing the enemies' villages.
Control of territory has been suggested before, and I think that could work well with the kingdom system, perhaps. It is thrilling when a whole alliance works together to knock out strategic assets of another alliance.
- - - Updated - - -
.... like an epic game of RISK.