Each game has its ideas and principles, all build the basis for a functioning game, which players like to play (and for the developer: also like to spend money on that game).
as far as I can see, we have too main principles
I. Bright vs. Dark
II. Survival of the Fittest
besides other principles like rewarding system, pvp ranked fights, socializing (chat, league, messenging system), tutorial, protection mode, and realtime construction.
I. Bright vs. Dark
This is the main setting of the storyline mission, which takes you through the game.
As far as i can see, this main principle isn’t fully developed.
a) you can’t build your cities in enemy territory (which would really be nice as a stronghold)
b) you can set goblins on the enemies’ castles
c) i am not sure, if you can attack castles there, but if you can, its useless, because the map is that huge, that it will take days to engage an enemy castles (which causual player has so much patience? troops attacking enemie castles/units should therefore pehaps should get a speed boost like double marching speed)
d) the event we are having now (i like it tbh and i am happy that the Bright side lost, because now i am hourly visited by troops which bring nice and useful stuff) is just an indirect warfare.
so if the game should really be about Bright vs. Dark it needs more direct confrontation between both sides.
II. Survival of the fittest.
Inmidst a faction – be it Bright or Dark – is a brutal selection taking place. Only the strong will prevail. Weaker Castles are swallowed by the mightier players (i know what i am talking about, since i seized more than 100 castles).
the good thing about it: inactive players, that just looked in, but dont play anymore, leave their castle as a ressource for the active players.
the bad thing about it is, that you also extinguish promising players of your own faction, that just stupidly early broke their protection or that just dont have so much time to play the game.
ok, you can say: their fault; but the question is: what do we want here?
or: what are the developers aiming at?
Question: Contradicting game principiles?
Up to now, the war in the faction itself is more itense and brutal than the war between the factions. Even more: the score of leagues is counted by seized cities in total, NOT: enemy cities. This way players are encouraged to harass their own side. Of course I think, that the property of inactive players should be seized, but I think that it might not be the purpose the developers were aiming at, if you seize promising but unaware players, too, because this way you lose potential players by disappointment. On the long hand this weakens the own faction (by losing casual players) and the attractivity of the game in total.
so, if this game is about harrassing your own side – why the Bright vs. Dark content? If this is the main principle, you dont need 2 factions, its like every other building up game that bases on the principle of the prevail of the fittest.
for I dont know, what the developers are aiming at, I wrote this long threat.
before i close, I would like to make a couple of suggestions, based on the assumption that principle I. – Bright vs. Dark – is the main principle:
- renewing protection for the own faction by login for every 7 days, to provide shelter against your own side, after 7 days castles are free to be seized by the own faction
- to be able to punish idiots of your own faction, introduce a feud/war system which allows attacks on your own faction by declaring feud (persons) and war (leagues) on each other, so there may be “legal” fighting
- more direct confrontation between the two rival factions:
+ ability to build castles or strongholds in enemy territory, maybe better league castles in enemy territory, in which everyone can garrison his troops and uses them to harrass the enemy castles
(league military base: league caste, that has to be equipped by troops from the league members (possibility A: everyone commands his own troops, B: league generals command combined troops) and build by ressources of the league members, that have to be transported in the place; passive defence: the leaguemembers can set their troops to defend the castle, but attack the enemy by their own, if A, not B (see above))
+ decrease marching times of troops by speed boost or portals, because the map is vast
+ events like this one we have. etc. there is lot of development possibility (but the thread is long enough, so i perhaps continue another time)
since I like being a stronger player that can seize castles of lvl 30 players, I still feel uncomfortable to kick promising players out of the game, but I am rewarded for exactely doing this (silver crowns). ok, they have a chance to come back and regain their castle, but I can retake it, so the stronger one wins.
this is one principle of the game, but which is the more important one?
I. Bright vs. Dark or II. Survival of the Fittest?
The last game I really enjoyed playing ( Galaktica / Genesis ) died out because too many players got frustrated and quit the game, because of the issue yeomen pointed out.
Stronger players killing weaker ones as it is the most effective way of gaining strenght on their own.
Basicially " BUMP "
Being sized is not so terrible.. after a few days you can reclaim your castle and meanwhile you can build stronger defences or troops to avoid further seizing
It would be enough to make it clear that being seized doesn’t mean being out of game: you just lost a battle but you can definitely get back.
I totally agree on making fight/event against the two faction more frequent
@agburnaar the troublesome part is, as long as you dont nearly get to the same size of the one seizing you…like permanently, you´ll never be able to muster anything close to a threat or defensive power in this matter compared to the one terrorizing you. So its indefinitely and few things you can change about it.
So in final result, if you didnt not start this game early and kept playing activly you are doomed on spot, maybe without knowing, if you are not incredibly lucky.
And knowing that there is not much hope for you to actually play the game, besides being a resource farm for those lucky enough to play since beta or something, there is 3 options really, each less likely to be chosen than the other:
1. Quit the game for good
2. Wait for another round to start and maybe rejoin
3. Rejoin under another name, and start the circle again.
-→back to initial discussion
4. Live with it, and be a farm and enjoy it.
So with rounds as longbreathing as they are now 2 is not an option…so guess what the majority might pick…
Sorrowly this kinda of reduces all the game to some sort of survival of the ones who joined/started first…wich is saddening…as the game is well-made in most spots.
“being siezed is not so terrible”
Sure it is. All your troops die. You do inflict some damage but then your occupier levies you and gets all the troops back.
I think its an ok game not great or terrible but I will wait for another server to open up before looking at it harder.