I dont know how to create a poll. But I am interested in knowing the communities answer to the following question and I think it would be almost unanimous.

If cli is implemented, should it only be implemented when an attacking kingdom hits someone their same size and if they hit under say 80% (percentage TBD) then they open themselves up to a pretal.

This seems like a necessary mechanic for this sort of change to possibly be an improvement.

We've talked about it, and I'm onboard capping CLI for >70% KS. When bottom feeding in the dishonorable zone, it should carry more risk, while simultaneously giving the defender additional opportunity to fight back.

I think that sets mechanics at a level that can be meaningfully tested. 70% seems low though as presumably defending kingdom would be half the size of attacker afterwards.

Cli for attacking within 95% or above
No CLI no pretal from 94%-80%
Pre tal for any hit 79% or below

Slight adjustments probably needed but that seems like a closer depiction to fully realize the benefit of cli as I understand it

    Strider I would prefer to err on the conservative side to start and then see how the results play out, so we don't create a situation that imbalances or is too restrictive on play - especially with the low player count where the available pool of kingdoms to target is already small.

    We have other mechanics at play such as the KS penalty as well, so hitting 50-99% of your KS will reduce your attack power and cause more casualties (and no hitting under 50%). As we pile on penalties and rules to punish BFing, we need to be careful to not create a situation where the only possible option is to up-hit, or we'll have a new set of issues to deal with.

    Interested to hear more pro/cons from more players as well, so we can see what the support for the idea looks like now that we have a week of play experience under our belts.

        Lord Thane Ive seen some input on this being a real round and not a beta. Some of the dissatisfaction looks to be coming from a competitive landscape.

        Have you considered just naming this a full round length beta and ditching the tech so that everyone can feel like they are testing without risking their future lore as a player?

        Having everyone playing with the same mechanics should probably be enabled to get real feedback, and lebeling this a test round might soothe some of the frustrations.

        Both would lead to clarity in a shorter time frame.

            Strider we're committed to the round staying as-is and letting it play out. Everyone has had the same access to CLI at this point, so the field is still fair as long as no further changes are made such as removing the tech which many have already invested in.

            Current focus is on building new features that will help onboard new players - such as the new player advisor, built-in translations, modern themes, and an updated tech system that will include some novelty features. This round will proceed as-is, and as we learn more about CLI and how players use it then we can make better decisions about the next round, whether it should stay as a tech, or stay on all the time for everyone automatically, or be replaced by something else.

            Personally I was against it becoming a tech at first, but now I'm kind of liking it (though I do still have some negative opinions about it). It does add yet more interesting decisions to the grand strategy, that's for sure 😵‍💫

              Lord Thane

              The current system to prevent bottom feeding isn't really doing anything. I just got hit for by a 20k KS kingdom, at 13.5k KS, and wiped out most of my work since protection ended. And I had 1:1 ratio GH pretty much full.... at a 65% BF.

              You want to grow the game, you have to make it so that people can actually grow past 2 castles. The castle jump is damn near impossible with a huge alliance beating everyone down, so my options are to sit and wait until everyone else is over 60k and maybe be able to do something, or just do nothing for a couple weeks to get techs then get bored and quit. This was an issue with this game 25 years ago, and it still seems to be here.

              Now that my bitching is done, here's a couple ideas (that are, I admit, probably terrible) that couple help out new kingdoms:

              1) Make castles less important. You want to have a war game, yes, but if you lose half your kingdom every time you go to make the jump at the start, then attracting/retaining players will be difficult. Could do this by getting rid of the build limit per castle. You'd probably want to have castles give some other bonus to make them worth it though... Either way, I'm of the strong opinion that castles definitely need to be re-balanced.

              2) If we don't want to change how castles work, then maybe make them easier to build (a new building pop assignment maybe, like 1500 pop to build a castle in a day, i dunno, just spitballing numbers).

              3) One idea that could kick two birds with one stone is have a certain percentage chance that the castle is destroyed upon capturing it, as a casualty of war. Like 10% at equal kingdom strength or up hitting, increasing to a 50% chance (or 100) at a 50% bottom feed. Would add some uncertainty to the castle pass strat, and make it so that if you want to go for someone lower than 75% of your size you are really rolling the dice.

              Anyways, /rant and F you Cyber you bottom feeding twat.

                  This is not going to be popular because people love to BF, but the answer is super simple.

                  The easiest solution to that is that you can't gain a castle when you hit someone below you in ks. This would damn near eliminate all bottom feeding. The person in first would not be able to make giant leaps forward because the only way they could move up in castles is by building them.

                    FriendsInSpace Anyways, /rant and F you Cyber you bottom feeding twat.

                    I forgot everything in the post the first time I read it because I laughed when I read this part.

                    Crazier idea. What if attacking didn’t take a castle from the defender and just did a +1 for the attacker if the hit is successful and the army finds a variable amount of land?

                      Something's gotta change, it's such bad game design to have half your kingdom at risk so early into the game. This is a massive issue that needs solving. You either just spin your tires for weeks while you feed the big groups or stay at 1 castle forever. Neither of these things are going to retain players. I'm already reminded of why I stopped wasting my time with this game long ago

                        Thecatman

                        This is exactly why I thought to 10x what a kingdom starts with. Days worth of progress can be wiped out in one attack.