Printable View
Not everyone has the luxury of owning all the accounts in their kingdom, catty.
We want move-codes, because they bring in the player instantly, and we won't have to bother with inactives who abandon their accounts, explorers who refuse to answer messages, or idiots who ditch into vacation-mode, and never return.
OMAC didn't realize that only really organized kingdoms can effectively 'trade' on anything but a very small scale, and it shows.
Give us move-codes, and give catty all our trade-codes.
So you're saying that you want the game to compensate you for your lack of skill and authority? I understand that it's frustrating not being able to boot players who don't respect you, but doesn't that mean you have a problem in your kingdom? I managed fine without trading, why are you having such a hard time? I don't think any rules change will turn bad leaders into good ones, sorry to break it to you.
The current system benefits the top kingdoms too much. Why should I have to struggle for a year while the top kingdoms can sit and trade, move whatever they want without any effort.
Why compare the current system with the old? Of course we're better off with the new system. Everyone is better off. Taking into account that you cheated earlier and comparing it with the current system, claiming that you're worse off - No, you're not worse off. You can do it without any risks now. You get plenty of trades just for being in the top 50.
You can't compare the old system vs the new system. You have to analyse how the new system works, it's efficiency and the balance.
I could do it without risks before as well. We lost one province in 5 rounds, and that was due to a former player being extremely careless. Yes, we're worse off if we abide by the new rules. But not that much, and it's a reasonable limitation.
Allowing for more trades might be reasonable, if there turns out to be a real need for it and the current rules aren't abused. The abuse we see right now seems to be related mainly to moves, which is why liberalizing those doesn't seem wise at this time.
It was better earlier when you paid for proxies and traded; giving you unlimited moves and trades. Now it's only 3 moves and 8 trades for being in top 50. Being an established kingdom, you can use all your trades unlike a ghetto. It's not good enough for you? What do you do with your players?
As I said, it's reasonable limitations and top kingdoms ought to be able to function fully within them. But get your terminology straight, you can't just move provinces into your kingdom because you use proxies. Unless you're referring to scripting, which was employed by very few kingdoms.
Yes, they are "able to function fully within them"! Now make changes so that the bottom can build something without having to waste a year. Do you fail to see the system that benefit the top too much?
Who are the observers? What are they looking at?Quote:
The abuse we see right now seems to be related mainly to moves, which is why liberalizing those doesn't seem wise at this time.
But it's perfectly possible to build something from scratch in 2-3 rounds with these rules. Do you want all kingdoms to magically be good? Kingdoms with potential will advance, kingdoms without potential will linger at bottom 50%. Recruitment isn't a wonder tool to improve your kingdom, it helps you protect the integrity of your kingdom against people quitting. If your kingdom is weak, recruiting isn't the way out. And it shouldn't become one imo.
all kingdoms should have equal opportunity for improvement, I see no reason why top kingdoms deserve more moves/trades than rest of the world. Official reason " ...to promote competition ... " doesn't look right, as you would have way more competition if all have equal opportunity.
Current rules allow top kingdoms stay at top way too easy by recruiting.
Recruiting helped my kingdom slightly. We were at about 20 to start the age since we lost two in the age changeover for various reasons. We were able to bring in a player's gf, and two people that said they'd be active. Only one was good; the other went inactive when we were at war. So now we need to get a hold of this guy to give up his account so we can trade him out, but he's inactive. I couldn't ask many of my current players (some of which are only so-so) to give their accounts up so I can trade them to a lesser kingdom for a player I don't know about. I accept responsibility for wasting a move code on an inactive, but in all honesty, the trade codes are worthless to me. I'd be happier if every 4 weeks I got a move code instead of a trade code, but the extra codes for being in the top 50 would be trades. I think that levels the playing field for everyone.
With all the hardship you present my kingdom managed to convince random people to make all the trades. We now have 16 accounts of active players in the kingdom - some good randoms, some from last age and some trades and moves. We kill the inactives and the ones that don't respond and build using the old fashion way (by waiting for good randoms or next age for more moves and trades).Quote:
Originally Posted by Maedhros
More moves will surely speed up things for my kingdom, but adding moves will just hurt the ones that come back to play the game and random around. They won't be able to random into decent kingdoms if we'll just fill up with more moves. Eventually the community will shrink and might even die out.
You may not believe me, but I really don't mind weak kingdoms improving and reaching for the top. I think that's very good for the game. I think very few top kingdoms wish to keep new competition from emerging, far from it. It would be a blast if it was a struggle to stay among the best 100 kingdoms. For that reason, among others, I consider the new rules a boon to the game. Mid level kingdoms will more readily be able to climb up the ladder. Most importantly, the ability to retain provinces when players quit allow less stable kingdoms a lot more continuity throughout a round.
I see considerable negative downsides to allowing for more moves. As Mourhelm pointed out already, going random will be uninteresting if any half-decent kingdom can not only retain provinces but also fill all holes in no time. And they won't really have a choice, being short a province is a big liability so you want it filled right away. Moreover, if you have far more access to moves you can care far less about players you don't want at all levels of the game. Kingdoms will be less welcoming overall because anyone is easily replaced, whether you kill them or they leave willingly. I'm not keen on opening up for that level of cynicism at all levels of the game, especially in situations where it doesn't even help the kingdom but merely satisfies the monarch's ago.
I would actually like to see a completely different model that allows for far more freedom for everybody. Place all new players on Genesis, allowing them to create a province on Legends after having played on Genesis for 3 weeks. All have a large amount of trades each round (limited only to limit unintentional use such as switching in players for hits) and 2 moves each round. I think this model has a lot of potential for creating a more welcoming environment for new players in addition to matching players with kingdoms better. It would also give way better recruitment opportunities for mid and bottom level kingdoms without a large network of contacts to draw upon. Simply have a handful of players recruit actively on Genesis, making an effort to welcome new players and suck them into the game. Best way to recruit a player is to make a good personal impression. And that's done best by playing together.
I love this place so much.
Catty, go die.
Guess I'm stuck with three useless trades, and OMAC won't give me more of the actually useful moves, because the top doesn't want me to have them.
I'm still amused that you're incapable of getting leaving players to hand over their provinces. Why do you keep spamming this over two threads?
Why, because there are two threads around, of course.