Lord Thane it's not the same effect as the chancify from 1-10 though, because there aren't any players under 1 hoping to attack the players over 1.
I agree with this part. I've made a suggestion on how to fix that previously because the fact that a person with 2 castles loses 50% of their kingdom when anyone who passes the 10 castle mark only loses 10% at most, bothers me.
I suggested that up until 10 castles you can only lose 10% of your land with a castle loss. This makes it in line with the harshest land loss beyond 10 castles.
Lord Thane huge safety net to players jumping to 20 castles and a detriment to anyone under 20 castles that wanted to hit-up
Yes it would be a bit of a safety net, but not as much as you might think. We can put it in terms of probability and Expected Value, which shows that the lower players who hit up, still end up with more castles on average, and that the players hitting downwards still end up with less castles on average. Sure sometimes people get the bad luck, you lose 2 castles at 21 when there was only a 10% chance to lose that second castle, but that's the beauty. There's never a chance that a player at 15 can lose 2, only ever 1. But they can win 2 from hitting up.
So I don't see the detrimental part. It incentivizes players to keep attacking up, while also incentivizing players to build their 20th and so on castles.
If there was less chance to lose 2, Keeper would have built his 20th. But as it stands, it makes no sense for him to build or even attack since if he does he will lose 2 for gaining 1. But with the lower probability he'd be risking that 2nd castle but not completely.
We want people to guild more castles, we want people to attack more. By doing this it makes it so that players with 19 castles will build 1 more, and that players with 20 castles will attack more. They will still lose more castles on average though, and that's the good part for the lower player!
