Realms Critique 3

[Ysh]

Of course you can disagree with my point. But I say some thing like ''this is some thing that can happen'' and your reply is ''this does not happen to me.'' This statement has no thing to do with my own.

So, you're saying that me saying that "there were no precedents" for your "this might happen" is treating you like you're attacking me? Oo

This is just misunderstanding and is not useful. Do note that I do not talk about you or any specific event that happen in game when I am talk generally like this one. I hope we can drop this now.

This is a possible solution. Why is it better than solution I propose?

What was your solution? I think I've missed it.

Making control of lands more efficient with multiple kingdom than with one giant kingdom. In other word, nonlinear upkeep cost for kingdom.

If the biggest group is only allow to compete, there will never be competition.

As I've told you, if you got 1/3 of the population of the opposing kingdom, you can compete if you want to.

Right now this is the case:

• Large kingdom has more benefit for member than small kingdom
• Large kingdom is more powerful than small kingdom
• Large kingdom is equally as efficient as small kingdom

How can a small kingdom compete? On what axis does small kingdom have advantage? The current system allow for a ''rich get richer'' type of snowballing. Small kingdom must have some axis of advantage to be viable (e.g. in efficiency). What happens if a single kingdom control more than 75% of all? Then it is not possible to beat them if you must have 33% of their amount to compete. What incentive is there for player of this large kingdom to defect? What prevents them from control 75% in first place?

But, why? Put it in other way: competition over what? You want some competition, but what for is it? What is the in-game mechanics to enhance the competition?

Competition over land. Holding land should be valuable for the kingdom. If this is not currently true, it should be made true. Land has some property for making it a good choice for contested item in game:

• High granularity - land can be subdivided easily and it make sense to do it. Compare this to some ''artifact'' or ''point'' control system. Say you have 10 points/artifacts, now only 10 people can have some. With land, every body who want to compete can at least have a little bit and they feel they are engaged in this part of game.
• Frequent transfer - because of high granularity, player can lose or win a little bit at a time. Now a loss does not make player want to quit, and player can feel that they are progressing to win a little bit. Does not feel like an ''all or nothing'' type system (compare to how siege of village work currently)
• Zero sum system - one player must lose for another to gain. Obviously needed for competition of it.
• Intuitive - land is very valuable in real live and many people want to own it. People have compete for land throughout history. Player already control land in game and compete to control high value land, it is familiar system.
• Transparent - You can see claim on ground and know who owns it. You can easy compare size and visual see who is ''winning.''

Right now the world is too big for the current playercount. Any kingdom can have its own place and grow gradually, look after their lands and etc. My faction won't lose anything bc some other kingdoms are existing somewhere. There would be competition if there would be regional super-objects or the smaller map with higher playercount.

I am looking at how this system scales into future, not just how it work now. I agree that now there is not much competing needed. Though eventually all land will be owned by kingdom and all new acquisitions must be conquest, even with a large map/low player count.

Let's say you've nerfed the kingdom buffs. So what? Does it compensate the new players being unable to hunt, craft and etc. sooner? Does it compensate the trades and source of income for the people that travel a lot?

Taking away a privilege does not require compensation. But I do not know if nerf the kingdom buff is proper approach. I lean toward controlling land should have nonlinear upkeep currently.

Would it actually help other kingdoms to attract more players?

Indirectly, yes. It would make it more difficult for a single kingdom to monopolize players.

[zebratul]

I sure am getting mentioned a lot here, and i dont particulary like it - this is not the right place for it.

So trading directly with Dis is receiving nothing from you? lol

I barely trade with the Dis themselves - they are basically my direct competition in the statues building business, and have no incentive to help me or sell me materials. The trade conference holds a hungred and a half potentional traders, and a lot of them have guano/silver/fouls that they decided to hold for later when Freya has cut the prices down (:

I've had about 80 guano sold to me at dirt cheap prices by the people from the conference, and around 25 fouls were provided by a fine gentelman who goes by the name of Spin - so it's all in cooperation and getting your message spread.

However, kaios, these usual derailings of freya threads are getting quite Dis-appointing - we're here in Critique & Ideas, not the Inn nor the Moot.
We're here to discuss and help Jorbtar with our feedback on the fact that kingdoms are dull and grindy atm, and you're are once again here devolve to simple bickering.

I personally agree with a lot of ideas that were stated before - seeying things like unique kingdom bonuses (random or choose-able), kingdom spawning point visible from chargen room, artifact searches and relic wars, or even a basic ability to drain enemy's coffers, robbing them of their influence - all of those could breath in live into kingdoms and make them more viable and interesting (and possibly bring doom upon lesser kingdoms, but such is life.)

[Kaios]

and around 25 fouls were provided by a fine gentelman who goes by the name of Spin.

However, these usual derailings of Freya threads are getting quite Dis-appointing - we're here in Critique & Ideas, no the Inn or the Moot.
We're here to discuss and help Jorbtar with our feedback on the fact that kingdoms are dull and grindy atm.

Nothing I've said has been an attempt to derail albeit personal things are thrown in but the points are still made (and ignored) so I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about what I'm saying regarding the cave organs.

Let me try translating to Ysh:

THING COME BACK FAST, MAN GRAB MANY THING, MANY OF THIS THING NOT EXIST IN WORLD, MONOPOLY

Like I'm going to join a trade conference run by the worst person this game has to offer lol

[LadyGoo]

Making control of lands more efficient with multiple kingdom than with one giant kingdom. In other word, nonlinear upkeep cost for kingdom.

I dislike this idea and it leads directly to what I have been writing about in the OP-post: people making two or more badly-maintained kingdoms. Right now, the trend is set so that having no or small number of statues and covering as many people as possible benefits most.

[*]Large kingdom has more benefit for member than small kingdom
[*]Large kingdom is more powerful than small kingdom
[*]Large kingdom is equally as efficient as small kingdom

You are confusing factions with kingdoms there, imho. Kingdom isn't a separate entity from a faction. If your faction is strong, ordinary villages cannot compete with it. Same goes with the kingdoms.
If you'd take the situation when 1 equally strong faction got smaller kingdom than the other equally strong faction, then the first faction can make it's way by challenging the enemy kingdom's cheirns, attracting more people in, trading and etc. with enough effort. At some point, there is no difference whether you've got 400k authority or 250k stacked up for land-fights.

The best way to make people to look after their kingdoms and keep them small is highering the cheirn upkeep (suggested that before, but the devs made a reversive change), not the statues. That way people will be overcrowding boosted kingdoms and move to other kingdoms with more lands but smaller buff.

I am looking at how this system scales into future, not just how it work now. I agree that now there is not much competing needed.

Well, meanwhile I am predicting the future from how the players used the system from the start. Claim as much land as possible and etc., have no statues.

Indirectly, yes. It would make it more difficult for a single kingdom to monopolize players.

So, for the sake of some equity, the trades should go stale, the new players should develop slower? I think, that without proper compensational measures such fixes won't do any good.

[Kaios]

The best way to make people to look after their kingdoms and keep them small is highering the cheirn upkeep (suggested that before, but the devs made a reversive change), not the statues. That way people will be overcrowding boosted kingdoms and move to other kingdoms with more lands but smaller buff.

A kingdom of my size was losing more authority than it was gaining due to the cairns rather than the statues, you'd know that if you weren't botting your upkeep though.

[Ysh]

Making control of lands more efficient with multiple kingdom than with one giant kingdom. In other word, nonlinear upkeep cost for kingdom.

I dislike this idea and it leads directly to what I have been writing about in the OP-post: people making two or more badly-maintained kingdoms.

System should be improve such that owning multiple kingdom is not useful. E.g. character can benefit from only 1 kingdom at most.

[*]Large kingdom has more benefit for member than small kingdom
[*]Large kingdom is more powerful than small kingdom
[*]Large kingdom is equally as efficient as small kingdom

You are confusing factions with kingdoms there, imho.

I am not. Faction have no bearing on any thing I have say. If you think they do, there is some misunderstanding of my word.

The best way to make people to look after their kingdoms and keep them small is highering the cheirn upkeep (suggested that before, but the devs made a reversive change), not the statues. That way people will be overcrowding boosted kingdoms and move to other kingdoms with more lands but smaller buff.

This is what I am suggesting. Nonlinear upkeep as more land is claimed.

I am looking at how this system scales into future, not just how it work now. I agree that now there is not much competing needed.

Well, meanwhile I am predicting the future from how the players used the system from the start. Claim as much land as possible and etc., have no statues.

I do not understand what you try to say here.

Indirectly, yes. It would make it more difficult for a single kingdom to monopolize players.

So, for the sake of some equity, the trades should go stale, the new players should develop slower? I think, that without proper compensational measures such fixes won't do any good.

I do not see the relation between end game conflict of high end players and new players having +80 exploration.

[LadyGoo]

I am not though. Jorb and Lofter can check me at anytime. I'm clean like a baby.

[Ysh]

clean like a baby

This is common expression in Russian?

[Kaios]

I am not though. Jorb and Lofter can check me at anytime. I'm clean like a baby.

Right because now you have the players who came for the bonus in the first place and you have your kingdom for buffs and another just for the exp gain so really you're all set.

[Potjeh]

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. If there was a plethora of different buffs trying to get them all would water down your authority budget too much so you wouldn't be able to get much from them. The idea is to encourage kingdoms to specialize in just a couple of these buffs so they can be the best in the world at them. And I'm talking like really specialized buffs, stuff like increased barley yield or increased grape growth speed or increased sheep quality gain. The main reason that trade is fairly limited right now is because everybody can make almost everything so there's really no reason to trade besides high q gear and tools. But if different kingdoms had different buffs they'd have different competitive advantages, which is one of the big drivers of trade IRL and in the game would make trade of common items more worthwhile. Plus, it'd make a player's choice of which realm to settle in more meaningful depending on their intended playstyle, and so would be less oriented towards everyone just going for the biggest kingdom.