Kingdom differences

One of the problems of the previous game version was the problem of diversity of alliances from the point of view of the game system. If the alliances built everything, the differences between them were effectively zero, everyone had everything and could do everything. The obvious difference was beyond the game system – game style and members. This meant that the rivalry between alliances depended only on the humor of the players. It had its good sides (e.g. greater focus on the meta) but also bad ones (lack of motivation). We hope to improve that and we have some ideas.

The first is the diversification of kingdoms. If an alliance can have only one kingdom, naturally every difference between kingdoms becomes the difference between alliances. In addition, non-alliance players are motivated to potential migration. What is this diversity about? It is currently a random modifier for certain values / events per kingdom. This modifier changes every six months (time to think). Possible effects:

  • +/- 20% given resource production
  • +/- 20% potion production
  • +/- 20% power crystal drop chance (factor, not offset)

The values are not rigid, only drawn in a given range, so we can adjust them as needed. We think this will add external motivation to take over other alliances and to fight constantly. There are also potential problems:

  • Will the alliance with positive bonuses not be too strong and unbalanced?
  • On the other hand, won’t the alliance with negative bonuses be too weak for anything and disappeared?
  • Will alliances prefer to move to empty areas instead of fighting?
  • What if the members move and the king stays in the old kingdom?

The first two problems can be solved by choosing the appropriate bonus values. The last one, if it occurs, can be resolved by being in the same kingdom as the alliance chief to receive bonuses from its buildings. However, we have no idea about the problem of moving to empty areas. Like every time, say what you think about it – we take every idea into consideration.

Leave a Reply