Kingdom Territory Idea

[SnuggleSnail]

It's not much harder to stack a team with good players, than it is to stack a team with more players. Six-twelve months into a world are there even 10-20 competent PVPers playing with good stats/access to good gear/gildings? Who do the rewards from winning go to? Is it just everybody allied to the strongest 8, another incentive for giant alliances, and lack of spontaneous conflict? Should there be a massive incentive to play with people who are better, even if you don't like them? What catchup mechanics will there be, and how many tens of times will they need to be iterated upon for balance? How significant will the buffs be? Will realms without mountain tradition and marriage of the sea just be completely fucking worthless, with no way to ever compete nearby water, and a massive disadvantage in general because of industry? What stops people in the same group from controlling multiple realms and intentionally sabotashing them? What stops people from intentionally losing? What stops your 9-16th best fighters from sharing their accounts with the 1-8th best and fighting for a different realm used to benefit the same people? How are you going to stop people from fucking each other with time zones?

If you think a significant number of people could interact with that system, you're wrong
If you think it's a minor change that won't take up much dev time, you're wrong
If you think it would be anywhere near balanced, you're wrong

The only way to balance realms in a game like haven is to either make them irrelevant, or impossible to monopolize. Currently they are extremely relevant, and possible, but difficult to monopolize.

[MightySheep]

So to return to my previous question:

Let me ask you, what do you think kingdom size should reflect? Size of cloth farm / alt count or the most advanced kingdom in terms of players, industry, fighting power? That's really all it comes down to.

You would vote for the former? In that case you are probably a minority. I find it really hard to believe that this is what people want out of a kingdom system. The argument about PvP being only for the few and not the many kind of goes out the window when youre defending the present system which has less people who give a shit about than I can count on 1 hand.

As for the details, most of that stuff can be figured out. Not rocket science.

[SnuggleSnail]

Siege is the way it is
Credos are the way they are
Realms have been the way they are for years, and the moment the players tried to help the Devs balance it, it got way less balanced (seriously, think about how starting a realm will be next world - shit's fucked)
Flower menus exist
Knarrs/snekkjas exist
Sleds exist
Horses exist
Meteorites exist
murderous rage exists

If you think "it's not rocket science, the details can be balanced", then either you're a retard, or you just haven't been paying attention for like ten years in a row. You need to have realistic expectations of a 2 man dev team, that self reportedly aren't good at their game, that have other jobs, and that don't have a good playerbase to draw feedback from. Complicated systems will simply never be balanced in hafen.

A system that affects everybody being cared about by nearly nobody means it's a system that's not fucking 99% of the playerbase, like meteorites. Changing it from a system few people care about, to a system controlled by few people, but that everybody cares about would be a gigantic step backwards.

[MightySheep]

Even if they fucked up the details it would still be more fun that present system. Almost anything would be more fun than present system.

Changing it from a system few people care about, to a system controlled by few people, but that everybody cares about would be a gigantic step backwards.

Right now: Kingdoms have little effect on people. Very few people care about kingdoms.
This proposal: Kingdoms have little effect on people. Slightly more people would care about kingdoms.

Kingdoms have always just been a game for the tryhards. It only loosely affects the playerbase at large in the form of buffs and a chat. The only real kingdom-based interaction I've observed is usually PvP based. Proper kingdoms will go to defend people in their realm because its in their interest and recruit from people in their realm for zerg fights. Which is why it makes sense for PvP to be the main deciding factor in territory control. It's obvious they actually intended for PvP to have a big role in this thing but the way its implemented thats not the case because theres too many cairns, too many alts, too much time & autism involved. All your arguments against PvP make no sense because how else would you have a system like this if not through PvP? If you think PvP is elitist and gay make a thread about it but its not relevant here. Also its not even super elitist now with combat stats getting equalized and perma death off.

The simplest way to implement what I'm suggesting would be to make it 1 cairn per super grid. That's all youd need to do. Then a challenge would actually mean something, both sides would be forced to turn up. The stronger side gets the territory. Just as it was always intended to be. Except without all the autism. The issue you mentioned with sea territory isn't a new issue, you still have to fight in water when you challenge sea marks.

[stya]

Even if they fucked up the details it would still be more fun that present system. Almost anything would be more fun than present system.

Changing it from a system few people care about, to a system controlled by few people, but that everybody cares about would be a gigantic step backwards.

Right now: Kingdoms have little effect on people. Very few people care about kingdoms.
This proposal: Kingdoms have little effect on people. Slightly more people would care about kingdoms.

Kingdoms have always just been a game for the tryhards. It only loosely affects the playerbase at large in the form of buffs and a chat. The only real kingdom-based interaction I've observed is usually PvP based. Proper kingdoms will go to defend people in their realm because its in their interest and recruit from people in their realm for zerg fights. Which is why it makes sense for PvP to be the main deciding factor in territory control. It's obvious they actually intended for PvP to have a big role in this thing but the way its implemented thats not the case because theres too many cairns, too many alts, too much time & autism involved. All your arguments against PvP make no sense because how else would you have a system like this if not through PvP? If you think PvP is elitist and gay make a thread about it but its not relevant here. Also its not even super elitist now with combat stats getting equalized and perma death off.

The simplest way to implement what I'm suggesting would be to make it 1 cairn per super grid. That's all youd need to do. Then a challenge would actually mean something, both sides would be forced to turn up. The stronger side gets the territory. Just as it was always intended to be. Except without all the autism. The issue you mentioned with sea territory isn't a new issue, you still have to fight in water when you challenge sea marks.

It's really nice to see you play 3 big lies + one small truth in your thread
Really try a bit harder to make the game fit your needs, you need to see bigger:
- only 1 cairn per continent!
- natural, so no one has to build anything, it takes time and it's not pvp so useless

Then all you need is a few charters, ally everyone, fight here and then and call it a day.

[MightySheep]

Then all you need is a few charters, ally everyone, fight here and then and call it a day.

Isn't that why I suggested limiting team size?

Also why would allies fight for someone elses kingdom? also why is that somehow different from current system? everyone could ally and fight in 1 kingdom right now if they wanted to. The only thing stopping people from doing that is that no one gives a fuck about the kingdom mechanics because of all the tedium involved. My suggestion is current system minus tedium.

Can someone please make a good counter argument. I am losing brain cells even interacting with the retards on this forum like hoooooooooooooooooooooly fukkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk u guys are so dumb

[wonder-ass]

Then all you need is a few charters, ally everyone, fight here and then and call it a day.

Isn't that why I suggested limiting team size?

cant really force a limit in a sandbox game. but youve already said it yourself once "i only care about winning and will ally the entire world to do so" something along those lines. if i remember correctly in legacy people branched out and made their own group so people would have a chance to fight back which created a healhty fighting balance in w7. the past 3worlds have just been people wanting to "win" not fight and have fun.

[Vigilance]

Can someone please make a good counter argument. I am losing brain cells even interacting with the retards on this forum like hoooooooooooooooooooooly fukkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk u guys are so dumb

you being too fucking dim to read anything beyond three sentences of anyone's very valid rebuttal to your idiocy is not them being retards, it is quite literally the other way around.

i just read this entire thread and i feel like my brain shrunk because it was like watching parents try to convince their six year old that eating your vegetables is important-- he doesn't fuckin care he just wants the instant satisfaction of the sugary food.

then the various times people pull gotcha's on you and you're like, "duuuu that doesnt count"

yikes

fucking fat -1 to this thread, and frankly, any thread made by someone who isn't actively engaged in the videogame

[MightySheep]

feel free to quote the post you think made a good point because Ive read them all and its just peak haven retardation, including yours

its usually just "PVP IS BAD OMG WHY DO YOU WANT PVP IN THIS GAME PPL JUST ALLY ITS NOT FAIIRR?!!!" while failing to realize the current system is literally designed to be decided through PvP but is implemented in a way that it just doesnt work because its too tedious for anyone to care about

if you havent participated in any kingdom related content why are you even having an opinion here? have you ever built or bashed a single cairn in your entire time playing?

at least with the 5 or so balders bra posters in here I can understand why they are protesting, they arent interested in improving the system because spamming alts, having 3k+ cairns & biggest kingdom while having an uncompetitive village suits them just fine

its very easy to shit up a thread in this dead forum when you get your whole kingdom to post the same dumb thing

[Nightdawg]

After watching that recent 8v8 fight between AD and KOA I was reminded of the way Albion used to do GvG fights where you had a 5v5 arena and both guilds sends their best 5 fighters to do battle and the winning guild then controls the territory that was being fought over.

My proposal is to make realm challenges a challenge against an entire map supergrid and all the cairns/seamarks within. Whether or not cairns are still necessary is another matter but basically after the initial challenge the defender gets to choose the time of the fight and then each kingdom has to fight it out with their best fighters in a 10v10, 8v8 or 5v5, idk whats the best amount.

This would be a solution to so many things. Firstly it would satisfy the lack of motivation PvPers have to play when meteor is their only lategame event. Secondly it would correct the ridiculous present system of kingdom territory being about which nerd has bigger cloth farm and cairn building alt army and not even remotely reflecting which kingdom is strongest. Thirdly it everyone crying over "unfair" fights would be happy with a way to guarantee fair fights.

I think this would be very interesting content for ppl to both watch and play and give big villages a lot of motivation to tryhard.

Omg this is perfection and realms are so retarded right now.
Here are my main arguments, examples from real life:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_successful_armyless_kingdoms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_spaghetti_tentacle_ass_shaped_kingdoms


I mean look at this shit

More and more I'm having random hermits/small villages that live far deep in west cont, or the southern archipelagos asking to be covered by my realm. After doing some quik mafs, and a bunch of guesswork it has become apparent that the authority cost of expanding to them would take multiple years to pay for itself. As a result, I've basically ended up refusing to give a lot of people buffs.

While cairns being expensive to produce en mass is good for game balance at the top end, it seems bad for lesser groups if them being covered will never be a net positive for a realm. I personally don't really care either way about this, but realms actively not wanting to cover certain people seems like an unintended set of incentives the hermits won't be able to recognize/articulate, and therefore feel responsible for bringing it to your attention.

As usual the only solution I can rly come up with that doesn't create 30 more problems is either removing realms entirely, or the perks attached to them.

This is what we get, snugglesnail complaining he can't cover the entire world with 0 fighters and only flax farming/cairn building bots
Cause clearly history has shown us how kingdoms in the middle ages covered long random lines of territory from England all the way to Asia and Australia

Kingdom mechanics shall remain considered stupid as long as you can *CONQUER* the entire world with 0 soldiers lmao. I would suggest deleting cairns and simply splitting the map simply into regions from the very beginning, on which kingdoms could fight, but I don't know how hard that would be on loftar's end.

And yes, I despise pvp, but if someone beats the shit out of me in a game like this, I would consider myself conquered by their kingdom. That's how it worked in real life too.