Foundational Concepts (My Thoughts)
I want to begin by stating that my intent is not to criticize any particular viewpoint or stance on the recently introduced "game changer." I recognize that strong emotions and pride are involved, and I truly believe that these reactions come from a place of passion—we all care deeply about this game. Many of us hold onto a sense of nostalgia, and we want to see this game revitalized and made sustainable for the future.
The thoughts I present here come from a general player's perspective—not as a coder or developer. This may come across as naive in some ways, but I hope you'll hear me out. I ask that responses to this post remain respectful, and that we avoid directing blame at any individual player or developer. Moderators, please feel free to remove this post if I’ve overstepped. My goal is to foster productive discussion and mutual understanding, not conflict. I believe every perspective offers something valuable. Let’s focus on finding balance and practicing empathy in our discourse.
Framework for Discussion
When responding or proposing changes, I encourage using the following structure:
“I” Perspective – Share your own experience or viewpoint.
Describe the Issue – What is the problem you're seeing?
Suggest a Solution – Offer a potential path forward.
Example:
I believe Monopoly has an issue with “Kingmaking.” This occurs when a losing player intentionally helps another player win, out of spite or loyalty. This undermines competitive integrity. A solution could be implementing a bidding or auction system for acquiring properties, removing the subjective element of trades.
Applying This to Thardferr
Analogy: Thardferr as a Board Game
Thardferr, like a complex board game, allows for multiple styles of play and win conditions. Some games emphasize solo optimization, while others thrive on social strategy, alliances, or betrayal. Thardferr’s appeal lies in its layers: resource management, social deduction, and long-term relationship-building.
At its core, each game session invites us to reflect: Was that fun? Would I play again? What would I do differently next time? In this way, both wins and losses can lead to growth and experimentation.
Fundamental Issue: Playing Style Disparity
I believe one core source of disagreement stems from the different play styles people bring to the game—especially passive vs. aggressive and individual vs. team-based play.
Players who log in frequently and have strong social alliances will naturally experience a different game than those who log in more casually or play more independently. These differences create friction, especially when balance changes disproportionately favor one style over another.
Related Issue: It's disheartening when solo players face repeated setbacks or are targeted by larger alliances. Constant losses, especially without time to rebuild, can lead to burnout.
Castle Loss Immunity (CLI)
I don’t believe CLI is inherently bad. It was introduced with the goal of reducing "pre-retaliation" and "castle-passing." However, it significantly alters the core incentives and risk-reward balance of the game.
Game Theory Perspective:
Castle-passing exists to minimize enemy gains, acting as a rational sacrifice. With pre-retaliation and retaliation in place, players are forced to make strategic choices. CLI disrupts this by giving attackers a buffer period, removing the immediate consequences of aggression.
Key Problem:
If a stronger kingdom attacks a weaker one, CLI shields them from retaliation. Over time, this enables the strong to grow stronger while weaker kingdoms fall further behind—especially if they don’t have allies to support them.
CLI’s Intended Effect:
Encourage more active gameplay and reduce exploitative castle-swapping.
CLI’s Unintended Consequence:
Reinforces a power imbalance where large kingdoms attack freely with little downside, while smaller kingdoms cannot effectively fight back—even in groups.
Balanced Proposal: Coexistence of Pre-Retaliation and CLI
Let’s assume three kingdoms:
Kingdom A: Strength 1000
Kingdom B: Strength 500
Kingdom C: Strength 400–800
Base Protection Time: 18 hours (adjusted for the “Transport” tech)
CLI Duration: 9 hours (half of protection)
Example Sequence:
Kingdom A attacks Kingdom B.
Kingdom B receives 18-hour protection.
Kingdom A gets 9-hour CLI.
During this time:
Kingdom A can choose to train, not train, or pass the castle (at hour 10).
- Kingdom A might have lots of defense or none
Kingdoms B and C (etc) must decide when (or whether) to retaliate.
- Assumption that B/C working together might have more production than A alone
This model reintroduces counterplay. The shorter CLI makes retaliation timing critical, enabling teamwork and strategy from smaller groups. It doesn’t completely neutralize large players, but it gives others a fighting chance.
Additional Suggestions / Concepts
Sliding CLI Based on Power Differential
The stronger the attacker relative to the defender, the shorter their CLI.
Example: If attacker is 2x the size, CLI is only 6 hours. If attacker is smaller, CLI might be 12 hours.
Promotes fairer risk management.
Remaining Issues:
Even with a more balanced system:
Power consolidation will still occur (strong players will often remain strong).
Larger teams naturally have advantages in coordination and support.
Gate makes timing much more difficulty and less predictable
But those dynamics are part of any social strategy game. The goal is not to eliminate them entirely—but to create a framework where underdogs have real options and skillful play can turn the tide.
Conclusion:
Thardferr is at a pivotal moment. To evolve while retaining its spirit, we need systems that allow for both individual progression and dynamic group interaction. CLI was a bold step, but now we need to fine-tune the balance so that all play styles can thrive. Let’s continue the discussion respectfully, creatively, and collaboratively.
