Realms Critique 3

[LadyGoo]

I like it in a way, but how would it help the situation when having an empty kingdom that claims everything and gives no buff is far more profitable?

[Potjeh]

I think that territorial expansion just needs to be made harder somehow. Especially those super long lines that are a single cheirn wide. For the second one I guess there could be some sort of an aspect ratio limit for claim protrusions. For the first one maybe make authority drain per cheirn grow with the number of cheirns.

[LadyGoo]

I think that territorial expansion just needs to be made harder somehow. Especially those super long lines that are a single cheirn wide.

Making harder =/= being less profitable than bonused kingdoms though.

[Potjeh]

If kingdom area is more limited population density becomes more important, and kingdoms with better buffs should attract more settlers. That is, if they make it possible to spawn in specific kingdoms and you get a preview of buffs when picking spawn location. And everything is explained by the tutorial. Also maybe sorting available spawns by any specific buff.

[LadyGoo]

Well, then how limited the kingdoms expansion should be? How to make it so that it would be more profitable to fight for the territory (cheirns) than target the noobs and harass the enemy kingdom?
Is it possible to interlink the statues and the expansion? Like, you cannot expand if you do not have enough statues.

[ven]

Straight stat buffs are bad because there's a fairly limited set of stats and one type of statue buffs multiple stats, so in the end it's pretty easy for one kingdom to get all the different buffs to a respectable level, which means all kingdoms are more or less the same.

I was thinking about that. Imagine an hypothetical w10 where there are four major kingdoms: Emerald City, Dis, Vidharrheim and AD. In practice they represent four different kinds of player, but under the current system they would be almost exactly the same. Why even bother, then? People like making their stuff unique, and the game mechanics should allow them to do so.

[Patchouli_Knowledge]

I think some people are wanting for limited max potential for buffs so that the kingdom needs to decide which buffs to emphasize over the expense of other. The results, I think is implied, is that each kingdom will have a particular strength that will appeal to a particular way of life and will it will not make Kingdoms itself monotonous and cookie cutter.

[LadyGoo]

I like a more subtle way of limiting anything. Let's say your kingdom has chosen a trade-like pathways, so the buffs under this category cost much less than the ones from others.
For instance, if you've got a trading policy active, then trade-policy statues drain 100 exp, while industry-policy statues would drain 250 exp.

[Patchouli_Knowledge]

I know those numbers are just examples and not fleshed out on equations yet but from what I can tell with those numbers, it sounds as if , with enough effort and roster size, the penalty can still be negated. It brings back to others point that a kingdom that is significantly larger than others is going to have an advantage over the others. Just my thoughts on it.

[Jacobian123]

Straight stat buffs are bad because there's a fairly limited set of stats and one type of statue buffs multiple stats, so in the end it's pretty easy for one kingdom to get all the different buffs to a respectable level, which means all kingdoms are more or less the same.

I was thinking about that. Imagine an hypothetical w10 where there are four major kingdoms: Emerald City, Dis, Vidharrheim and AD. In practice they represent four different kinds of player, but under the current system they would be almost exactly the same. Why even bother, then? People like making their stuff unique, and the game mechanics should allow them to do so.

Look, ma, we got mentioned!