Realm Blessings Rework

[Yorla]

I don't know... leaving such an important structure like an idol out in the open without village protection doesn't sound like a smart idea. Of course those structures will be attacked, destroyed and rebuilt quite often. For citizens that would mean buffs constantly switching on and off - and it almost like not having them at all. Then what's the point in kingdoms at all?

[Necroliter]

Well, right now we have extremely fortified citadel capitals and sieges (if any) twice a year. The change to idol range will introduce more dynamic, good or bad depends on perspective.
If you want permanent buff - you can settle under capital idol influence, but be more exposed for the same reason.
Or you live as hermit and get buff if kingdom decides to put idol in your vicinity. (maybe you can negotiate, you will be responsible for protection of idol, that is placed inside your claim)

Right now idols are extremely non-interactive from perspective of most players. They are built once and just exist, stable and immovable, from that point, going away only with total destruction of Kingdom, if ever.

When kingdoms were introduced it looked like they will provide benefit and depend on amount of active players (exp) on their territory, incentivizing player grouping and meaningful settlement location. As many things do, they degenerated into what we have now.

[Yorla]

Right now idols are extremely non-interactive from perspective of most players.

Where did you get it from? I can state the opposite with the same level of assurance: most people are farmers and they want blessings without wild pvpers rolling over their places. Peoples in the game that is, not on the forum.

[Necroliter]

You did not contradict my statement that they are non-interactive. They are useful - yes. People want them - yes. Can you influence them ? No.

The sheer fact that something is desirable doesn`t mean it should be easily accessible If you want blessing - defend idol, or participate in some other way.

That just my opinion though, i would like to be involved with this business more, but last time i played, well, i got buff, cool.

[abt79]

I don't know... leaving such an important structure like an idol out in the open without village protection doesn't sound like a smart idea. Of course those structures will be attacked, destroyed and rebuilt quite often. For citizens that would mean buffs constantly switching on and off - and it almost like not having them at all. Then what's the point in kingdoms at all?

Low iq comment. Obviously this idea will lead to kingdoms creating many satellite villages to encompass the more spread out buff locations, and probably having their capital citys encompass 2+ natural wonders which happen to be closeby

IMO transforming useful natural wonders is a bad idea because their loot is pretty useful already, maybe some new natural wonder (some ancient ruin, ancient rock, holy ground, idk) for the specific purpose of being the required build site of idols and menhirs, rather than having to render a geyser or rock crystal useless. I agree in concept that it would make kingdom interaction more interesting if these buffing items were more evenly spread among a kingdom's many affiliated satellite villages.

[SaltyCrate]

Here are my thoughts on this:

First are the envisioned problems:

Current state: Point 1.

Sure. Though, I think getting enough resources to get all buffs is not as trivial as you make it sound.

Current state: Point 2.

Is that really so? What are those ways to bot unlimited exp you imply? Also, I remind you that botting exp for kingdom authority is a bannable offence, as precedent is there.

Current state: Point 3.

I believe it is so way more because of convenience reasons, and not because of security. Having a number of spread out 5x5 claimed palisades with single idol inside is actually more secure even right now. So even if there is incentive to spread infrastructur it will not functionally change anything.

Current state: Point 4.

Kinda not exactly true, especially in the beginning of the world, but in general sense - sure.

Current state: Point 5.

Sure.


Now to the proposed solutions:

Ideas: Idea 1.

Yes, it would be nice to have some mutually exclusive choices in the blessings list. However, not for the reason provided. It won't make anyone, as a general rule, move their prebuilt base just to get somewhat different buffs. Also most of hermits do or plan to do most of the activities anyway. Hardly anyone would go "Hmm, I plan to grow beetroots the entire worldspan and do nothing else. Better find the proper realm!".

Ideas: Idea 2.

I will assume that you meant correlation between the territory and the bonuses as implication of options you listed, and that you implied no additional ties of, say, kingdom total area to buffs number formula. In that case, there are actually even less of said correlation, compared to current version. Building single isolated cairns near some natural wonders requires even less effort, kingdom area coverage and player interaction, compared to current idea of kingdoms wanting to claim both random settlements and wilderness area with traffic in hopes of generating additional XP points to help sustaining kingdom's authority.
So this

This would create strong incentive to fight over localized resources as well as protect them on your territory. Decentralization of kingdom infrastructure will also increase the amount of in-game relations between people.

is wrong on both points.
Also, why would anyone bother cover hermitages or other villages in such system?

Ideas: Idea 3.

I suggest upkeep be tied to localized resources. Raising its value will have positive impact on trade between kingdoms and hermits.

No, it will not. Any reasonable amounts of required items kingdoms would obtain themselves. It is easier and more reliable. It will also lead to increase of walled natural wonders, which I have no problems with, but there is a certain crowd of people who would be crying rivers in this case.
I find that the current idea of upkeep through XP events does incentivise strategical expanding, cost-benefit analysis and player interaction way more than these ideas do. Provided, of course, that numbers of XP drain and XP rewards are balanced enough.

And another thing:

Essentially convert idols from kingdom-global buff to range-limited buff (generously so).

Will also lead to kingdoms covering only their main village and nothing else. And what would be the point of kingdoms then?

[Yorla]

or participate in some other way.

I did and I'm going to. But as a farmer/miner I can only provide resources but not defend anything actively. Well, not if this thing stands far away from my village.

[Necroliter]

Will also lead to kingdoms covering only their main village and nothing else. And what would be the point of kingdoms then?

Well, as i noted - i`d make it more-or less generous area, but not unlimited. That would imply tighter grouping of settlements near the capital (Unless said kingdom is violent and kills any other settlements in it`s buff range). If nothing else it will create more diversity in more-or-less uniform distribution of settlements.

As stated before - this is just one simple idea that probably require discussion, if anything, but not destructive criticism (saying it`s just bad, because it`s bad).

P.S.

not if this thing stands far away from my village.

That was the point of this idea. Idols will become (or will be placed in) centers of villages, but not only large central fortress. If it is away in the open - well, people who placed it made a mistake, so it will (eventually) be vandalized.

[Yorla]

That was the point of this idea. Idols will become (or will be placed in) centers of villages, but not only large central fortress. If it is away in the open - well, people who placed it made a mistake, so it will (eventually) be vandalized.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but right now idols and menhirs can be build in villages whos lawspeakers are sworn members of the kingdom, can they? If so, what's the difference then?

[abt79]

That was the point of this idea. Idols will become (or will be placed in) centers of villages, but not only large central fortress. If it is away in the open - well, people who placed it made a mistake, so it will (eventually) be vandalized.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but right now idols and menhirs can be build in villages whos lawspeakers are sworn members of the kingdom, can they? If so, what's the difference then?

Sieging a village that isn't the capital city of a realm will have a more pronounced effect on the entire realm and, more importantly in my opinion, non-affiliated villages who choose for whatever reason to claim whatever natural wonder is required to build a menhir/idol will become more interesting, for better or for worse, to nearby realms