Printable View
I've noticed a chain defense strategy that involves switching the monarch to the chain target, as a new target is made apparent switch monarchs again.
While this requires an impressive amount of coordination I feel like it's an abuse of game mechanics, pulling this off multiple times in war doesn't seem to make sense in the context of the game.
I believe the monarch bonuses, specifically the 10% defense in war, should slide over time in to full effect just like other effects of war.
I'd rather it was removed entirely.
I agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Bishop it's been on the list too long, time to move it to the top for next age!
Sounds good.
The Monarch bonus can be abused by top kingdoms. Top kingdoms are only a small minority of the player base though. The ghettos are far more relevant to the health of Utopia, so game mechanics should mostly be decided on how they affect ghettos, not top kingdoms. In ghetto wars, the Monarch bonuses do serve a purpose. A common strategy in ghetto wars is to chain the monarch, to make him surrender. For most (non-top-)kingdoms, being the monarch makes you more likely to be targeted, the defence bonus is a nice way to counter this. I don't think we want a situation where being elected monarch actually is a disadvantage.
I would like to suggest changing it to a DME bonus instead of a simple defence bonus, to make it show up in intel. Making it slide in over time also seems like a good idea, that would make most methods to "abuse" this game mechanic impossible.
At first I thought it should be removed entirely, but Couperus raises a valid point. The bonus is legit for ghettos. The current system isn't bad, it's just abused. The text messages that Anri posted prove that. They changed monarchs at least 10 times and that was just 1 of the kingdoms at war.
It should slide in over 24 hrs and keep the bonuses.
We've been in a war where we moved moved monarchy around and each time that person ended up being the next chain. It didn't stop us from moving it around and it didn't stop the other kingdom from chaining the prov with monarchy.
The point I'm trying to make is that the monarchy bonus will not stop a determined kingdom from chaining a province.
The +10% income bonus is very strong too. Let's say you spend 80% of your income on drafting, wages and sci. If you have monarchy then your net income would rise from 20% to 30%. That's a 50% increase.
If you're a monarch and can't handle getting owned in war, you shouldn't be a monarch. Personally, I would welcome such a terrible strategy against me in a war, because surely there is someone else they should be targeting.
Obviously, it is a stupid strategy. The point I was trying to make is that you shouldn't just (or even mainly) consider good players in good kingdoms, when deciding on game mechanics. Mediocre players form the majority of the player base, so they should be the main consideration for development. For mediocre players in ghettos, the monarch bonuses serve a legitimate purpose.
Of course, the top should be considered when there is clear abuse of a game mechanic going on. However, as far as that is the case here, a very simple fix to this abuse has already been suggested. A fix that doesn't require removing a mechanic for everyone, because 5% of the players abuse it.
DHaran, that is not a valid argument for removing the bonus.
First let us ask why there is a monarch bonus to begin with.
All of the complaints about monarchy are focused on the "switching" aspect. Landro's post is the first I've seen describing how the bonus could be overpowered.
Besides, the monarch bonus makes sense in the context of the game. It would be pretty silly to have my noble leader, my king or queen, to be without their royal guards (def bonus) or expert economists (income bonus).
Maybe just make it so you can only vote once per Utopian Year or something more regulated..
1) In most KD there is lack of people who want to be a monarch, so I suggest to switch on monarch bonuses at non-War too.
2) MojoCrojo, you say that use defence bonuse is "against spirit of the rules".
But attack only chain target is not AGAINST spirit of the rules??
Could chain target win against whole KD????? Is this spirit of rules?
Let's forbid many ops against one target!!! (I'm joking)
Actually, I think the monarch bonuses should not only be removed, but the public face of the monarch should be optional. There should be no red line to represent monarch, let the red line represent YOU and remove the bold (so that we can see our own work on a theme and how pretty it looks).
Instead, if you want to message a kingdoms monarch, you go to that kingdom and you select "Monarch" as the person to send the msg to. The game sends it to the monarch on its own.
The monarch then should have the option to reply anonymously
Signed, Monarch of Kingdom (xx:xx)
Or present themselves optionally (anonymous by default).
Posting in forums would remain exactly as-is.
We are members of a team, the leader is someone who accepted responsibility to help advance the team on top of their own normal responsibilities as a part of the team.
As an additional benefit of removing the face of the monarch, it would not be publicly obvious that a ghetto does not actually have a monarch. You'd have to want to send their monarch a msg before you could know xP
That's a pretty good idea Ezzerland.
Vit - I don't understand your post. Is that satire?
I think the bonuses add a nice depth to play, and make for a reason to have increased interaction/coordination amongst provs. I also think both of those things are good for the game.
edit: this might be a little Earth: 2025, but what if instead of only having the option of having your KD be a monarchy, there were other political schemes to choose from, each one with different bonuses and different controls(like who showed up as what, who could right in throne page/declare/ect.). Could even have it where different political schemes open up based on the amount of votes people can give to diffeerent people(aka making that honor feature relavent).
I wrote that using king bonus as a defense against massive attacks is as "against spirit of rules and abuse game mechanics" as these massive attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoCrojo
Actually, I cannot take credit for this suggestion. It was originally made by DrAlex of Gods Army approximately 6 years ago. I just still think it's true, but gave up trying to convince anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoCrojo
Considering there are mechanics (GBP) in place to prevent massive onslaughts from being overpowered I would disagree that chain waves are against the spirit of the rules.
A chain attack is a great display of teamwork and way to disable threatening provinces.
That's not entirely true. During war GBP is capped at -20% losses. I agree with the restQuote:
Originally Posted by MojoCrojo
I like the monarchy bonus for the same reason I always loved soldier bouncing. There is nothing more rewarding then having 15 people idling and swapping that monarch bonus over in anticipation of an attack. Then loling at the paper :D
Soldier bouncing was probably one of my favorite features of the game back in the days of soldier pools and dragons