Login

Players that refuse to pay tributes must take +10% Taken damage

    By using our site, you accept the use of cookies to make your visit more pleasant, to offer you advertisements and contents tailored to your interests, to allow you to share content on social networks, and to create visit statistics for website optimization. More information.

    • As the other people have said, it's up the king and the kingdom to get him to fall back in line. You can try diplomacy, you can subjugate them with your armies or you can simply kick them out from the protection your kingdom offers and let the ravenous hunters of the server have their fill.

      This feature is only really a problem in the early game where the survival of the king is often tied to the amount of tributes they can collect. The problem really only occurs if you happen to be a very bad reputation king that everyone refuses to play with (don't think we have very many of those) or more likely you spawned in as a king but most of the governors belong to a already established group that you either refuse to join or even worse you might be part of a rival group.
      This later one sucks the most as there's practically nothing a king can do. Later in the game a strangler governor denying tributes can usually be dealt with pretty reasonably.
    • Ok we all agree that the punishment is for the King to decide, but what happens when it's a fresh server? Refusing tributes that early is a game breaker for the king since he cant abdicate until the BP ends.

      A lot of players deny the tributes because they want to join another kingdom, they save the treasures and res for another king and pass them safetly with out repercussions. As an idea govs shouldnt be able to deny tributes until their BP ends. That way you force early skirmishes for treasures, and allows all kings to have equal opportunity for growth, if they are active at least.
    • Lenerius wrote:

      Refusing tributes that early is a game breaker for the king since he cant abdicate until the BP ends.

      A lot of players deny the tributes because they want to join another kingdom, they save the treasures and res for another king and pass them safetly with out repercussions. As an idea govs shouldnt be able to deny tributes until their BP ends. That way you force early skirmishes for treasures, and allows all kings to have equal opportunity for growth, if they are active at least.
      Really good point.
    • Lenerius wrote:

      Ok we all agree that the punishment is for the King to decide, but what happens when it's a fresh server? Refusing tributes that early is a game breaker for the king since he cant abdicate until the BP ends.

      A lot of players deny the tributes because they want to join another kingdom, they save the treasures and res for another king and pass them safetly with out repercussions. As an idea govs shouldnt be able to deny tributes until their BP ends. That way you force early skirmishes for treasures, and allows all kings to have equal opportunity for growth, if they are active at least.
      THIS x 100

      If a King, during BP cannot use force to persuade a rebellious governor to pay tribute, then there is no point in having Kings during BP anyway.
    • Lenerius wrote:

      ........an idea govs shouldnt be able to deny tributes until their BP ends.
      What a terrible injustice that would be.
      No taxation without representation I say.
      Suppose you spawn as governor in an area that you're in general happy with, however the king in your immediate locale is an individual, or part of a group, that you've previously come across and have no desire to join forces with or perhaps you don't know them and yet within a few days it becomes clear that there is little that you agree on. In such circumstances should you really be forced through a game mechanic to assist their growth? It may be small beer but that's a critical early stage when denying your enemy (or perhaps future enemy) even a small amount of resources to establish themselves more strongly could be disproportionately valuable to you over the following weeks.
      Any king worthy of the name should be prepared to use his diplomatic skills to attempt overcome your reticence to join him while bp persists and it wouldn't be long before bp ends and if you continue to prove intractable any king worth his salt can then marshall the forces of those who he has managed rally to his cause to subjugate you.
    • iAmEbola#EN wrote:

      ...... then there is no point in having Kings during BP anyway.

      Maybe not at the very beginning of a server.
      How about, everyone spawns as governor and at the end of two weeks if you've grown to say (for example) 150% of the median account size on the server you get the right (but not the obligation) to bid to be king by offering silver or resources to those around you. Every governor then chooses to accept the highest bid from those bidding in his area (or not - maybe he's been offered a dukedom or some other role of influence that he values more) and kingdoms are established at that point.
      Just a thought.
    • Shardrox wrote:

      If you can't kill the gov that refuses tributes.
      You shouldn't play king
      I think we have identified that the issue is in the period of beginner protection, so that is not an option.

      I believe the point is that a King with recalcitrant subjects is at a huge disadvantage during this crucial phase.

      I'm still not convinced that this is a game issue. Firstly this is surely what diplomacy, a key skill for Kings, is all about. Secondly, they could just abdicate.
    • Its the mechanic itself that is the issue.

      Paying tribute costs the player exactly zero during the entirety of the game. There is zero reason for tribute denial during BP.

      Then again, when you think about it; there is no real reason for a King to "grant protection" for members in his/her territory during BP either.

      What would be better is the tribute system doesn't come into effect until after players come out of BP (BP is cut short once you hit 200 pop...I forgot about that and only stayed in BP for less than 3 days, and I already had a second village).

      So a King is left to themselves and their skills to develop their own "Castle" as well as trust/cooperation among his potential future governors/dukes with diplomacy and bribes...if needed...lol. Now this is pretty much for Kings coming into a server new. Players that already know they will be part of a kingdom on next round have a significant advantage.

      Perhaps make it also that stolen goods cannot be sold to the most influential King unless you are paying tribute...after BP ends? Not sure about that one though.
    • Tom#EN(102) wrote:

      iAmEbola#EN wrote:

      ...... then there is no point in having Kings during BP anyway.

      Maybe not at the very beginning of a server.How about, everyone spawns as governor and at the end of two weeks if you've grown to say (for example) 150% of the median account size on the server you get the right (but not the obligation) to bid to be king by offering silver or resources to those around you. Every governor then chooses to accept the highest bid from those bidding in his area (or not - maybe he's been offered a dukedom or some other role of influence that he values more) and kingdoms are established at that point.
      Just a thought.
      No...Acquiring governors via Silver Bids would only give those that pay real money a massive advantage. This shouldn't be a pay to win game.

      Now resources, on the other hand...that might be be decent. But it kinds makes the whole "tribute" thing stupid. You pay massive resources to acquire governors/dukes who in turn agree to give you resources back.

      Honestly, it should default to whomever has the higher influence within the kingdom borders. Don't like the King that influences you? Then tell your king to get on the ball and break his influence!