Foundational Concepts (My Thoughts)

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.

skigglez
I hear you, and I don’t disagree—your perspective is valid and appreciated. That’s why I included the discussion on play styles and their inherent limitations. You're right: delaying the pre-retal/retal window doesn’t eliminate castle-passing entirely. It just reduces the frequency and immediate impact, which was my intent with the proposed compromise—not to erase the mechanic, but to blunt its sharpest edge.

That said, I absolutely agree that pre-retal/retal is fundamental to the team-based nature of the game. It’s a defining feature of how coordination and risk/reward dynamics play out in Thardferr.

What concerns me with CLI as it currently exists is that it shifts the game away from that team-oriented model toward a more solo-centric experience. Once a power imbalance is established, CLI makes it extremely difficult—if not impossible—for smaller or less connected kingdoms to meaningfully push back. It’s the classic issue of scale: how does a neighborhood lemonade stand compete with a corporate giant like Walmart? Especially if these lemonade stands are prevented from working together?

Attacking comes with inherent risks

• A) Potential net -1 castle when attacking (non-CLI with pretal/retal))
• B) Potential net zero castle when attacking (with-CLI)
  -- Likely +1 castle, because the defending kingdom cannot fight back.

So I think the bigger question we need to keep asking is:
What kind of game do we want Thardferr to be?
Should it reward tight-knit alliances and team strategy? Or lean into individual power scaling and protection? The answer might lie somewhere in between—but we should be intentional about finding that balance.

Thecatman skigglez
I really appreciate what you're saying—and I think you're speaking to something a lot of solo or small-group players have felt for a long time. You're right: large groups already enjoy major built-in advantages—resource sharing, backup, TS on demand, coordinated defense—and those things aren’t necessarily unfair in themselves. They're part of team-based play.

But when the game also gives them immunity through mechanics like CLI, it starts to feel like solo players aren’t just underdogs—they're completely shut out. And like you said, it's not even that these smaller players are a real threat—it’s just that they dared to act, and that alone draws overwhelming retaliation.

This brings me back to the question I keep circling around:
What kind of game are we playing here? Is it Monopoly? Chess? Solitaire?

• In Monopoly, alliances shift, resources trade hands, and sometimes kingmaking happens—but everyone’s in it together until the bitter end.
• In Chess, it's head-to-head strategy with equal starting positions, where a single smart move can change the tide.
• In Solitaire, it’s just you, trying to optimize your decisions and survive as long as possible.

Thardferr has always had a mix of these elements. But mechanics like CLI push it closer to Solitaire—for some players—and reinforce a monopoly-style power block for others.

And that’s really the heart of the discussion:
Should Thardferr reward only the strongest groups, or should it also leave space for creative underdogs, strategic plays, and small victories that feel meaningful?

If we don’t have that balance, the game stops being strategic and starts becoming scripted. And that’s when people start leaving—not because they can’t win, but because their choices stop mattering.

skigglez

I get where you're coming from. You're not wrong—getting pre-retaled for more than you gain feels brutal, and it punishes any attempt at being proactive. When the guaranteed outcome of attacking is losing twice, that kills the incentive to engage.

At the same time, I want to clarify that I’m not defending castle-passing either. Castle-passing is super annoying, especially when it's used to keep attackers in protection and avoid any consequences. But unlike CLI, castle-passing still comes with some risks—especially if it's mistimed or if attackers anticipate the move. Castle-Passing is also a way that they kingdoms have essentially pre-retaliate themselves.

In the blended model I proposed earlier, those risks would increase:

• Shorter CLI means more vulnerability to retaliation.
• Delayed but still active pre-retal windows introduce strategic decision points.
• Castle-passing isn’t eliminated, but it becomes less of a get-out-of-jail-free card.
  -- Passed kingdom still has to overcome basic defenses built or kept (eg. 9 hour duration)

Using AI to clarify in some of my responses to make thoughts more concise. My thoughts are sometimes just scattered. And I want to present in a clear with less emotion. Trying to state situation from my perspective.

Lord Thane

I respect your thoughts and dedication to the game, and that CLI is a solution. Hence I said that the plan was poorly executed. I believe (and I can be wrong), the idea was to show that the cycle can be worse with CLI (not that it had to be, I think the group was trying to prove a point). Nevertheless, I will adapt and play to the current rules/environment. Like I said, I am just posting my thoughts from what I am perceiving. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing...