Idea to Address Lack of Players

Cora

Thecatman creating 2 accounts is Not the answer! And neither of you even considered any of my suggestions. You are both close-minded to anything except what you are proposing.

skigglez

Cora
You had one suggestion - shorter rounds. I said shorter rounds with the same low player base is the same issue as long rounds with low player base - low player base is the problem. You didn't address why it's a problem, outside of "that's the way it's always been". Can you provide an actual reason as to why it wouldn't work?

skigglez

Cora
That was because of those multis being able to pre for someone, send aid to someone. This proposal eliminates those things that in the past were the reason for multis being banned. All this does is increase the number of kingdoms. If you don't want to do it, you have the option not to. You only get benefit with this. If you feel like you're constantly getting bottom fed on, now you'll have more kingdoms to take those hits instead of you.

Cora

skigglez I’m not complaining about the bf or the lack of players. There’s plenty of targets. What I see is that there are too many people who are in Naps and alliances or just choose not to hit a certain target for whatever reason they have. But if you have 10 players in your target range, but you are Nap or allied with 7 of them, then you might decide you don’t really want to hit so and so, then the other player is in pro…that’s a you problem, not the game problem. And you really do have targets, you just aren’t taking them.

Cora

Thecatman You can’t seriously be arguing legalizing marijuana in relation to making multi accounts okay!

skigglez

Cora
It's not a multi account in the same way as the past. Read the proposal and tell me where it can be exploited. If you can't give any exploits, then explain why more players in Thardferr is a bad thing? If you can't provide any exploits or reasons why more players is actually bad, then it should be something that the devs consider as a solution to the biggest issue in the game.

Thecatman

Your suggestions had nothing to do with what we are talking about, thats why I never responded to them. You still have yet to give an argument against the idea other than thats the way its always been done. Your suggestions about short techs and what not are a totally different thing and have nothing to do with this

Cora

skigglez because it’s NOT more players in the game. It’s the SAME players. I already said this. It’s basically going to be a duplicate list of the same players overlapping the other list.

skigglez

Cora
Still have yet to address exploits or why more players are bad.

King Haybol

Cora This statement is now back to them (The biggest alliance). Previously we're being tagged. Hahaha 🤣🤣🤣

skigglez

Cora
It is more players - more kingdoms means more "players" that you get to interact with. More targets to hit, more races represented. It's something that gives the current players more to do in the game - which will give them more of a reason to stick around for future rounds.

Thecatman

I just want to see one person say its exploitable because ________ and then put something. 3 people have responded and so far zero arguments against it

Cora

Thecatman 🙄ALL of my arguments have been against it. But I will wait to see what others have to say.

skigglez

Cora
What argument though? All you've said is it's against Thardferr rules - that's not an argument

trupheus

If the goal is to grow the actual player base, then this is just smoke and mirrors. Letting everyone make a second restricted kingdom doesn’t solve the root issue: not enough real people are playing. It just makes the game look more populated than it actually is.

Activity ≠ Engagement. A second kingdom run by the same player doesn’t bring new conversations, diplomacy, alliances, or rivalries — it’s just one person wearing two hats.

Doesn’t build community. No one logs in and says, “Cool, lots of second accounts with no social interaction.” People stick around for human interaction, not dummy kingdoms.

Could backfire. If new players realize it’s just the same 100 people controlling 200 kingdoms, it’ll feel dead and fake — worse than if it were just a small tight-knit group being honest about it.

A band-aid, not a fix. The energy should be spent on outreach, marketing, or gameplay tweaks that actually retain players — not creating artificial filler.

Bottom line: If you want more players, get more players. Don’t manufacture them. It might make the world look more alive on paper, but players will see through it fast — and that damages credibility.

trupheus

If the goal is to make the game feel more active, a better solution would be to introduce NPC kingdoms instead of giving every player a second restricted one.

NPCs would actually add content, not just clutter.

They’re openly artificial, so no one is being misled by inflated numbers. You could design them to be challenging, rewarding, or thematic — something that adds real value for both new and veteran players.

They’d also be great for teaching new players, giving them targets to practice on without getting steamrolled by someone 10x their size.

And most importantly, they help preserve the integrity of real kingdoms — diplomacy, retaliation, and alliances would still come from real players, not extra accounts pretending to fill space.

I’m not even fully sold on NPC kingdoms — but honestly, they still make more sense than handing out second kingdoms.

At least with NPCs, you’re not pretending the player base is bigger than it is. They have a clear purpose (training, loot, missions), and everyone knows what they are. They’re fake — but transparently fake.

The second-kingdom idea just inflates the map without adding meaningful interaction. It’s still the same players behind more accounts. It doesn’t generate new rivalries, diplomacy, or engagement — just the illusion of activity.

If we’re going to add filler, it should serve gameplay, not just pad stats.

Lord Thane

trupheus hard agree on both your comments.

Incidentally, I researched into creating NPCs controlled by AI quite a bit. I used it in a MUD game I was working on and it turned out actually really good (ai mobs wandering around towns, ai shopkeepers and bar patrons, it all made for a very lively world). I think I could make some pretty decent AI driven kingdoms, even let them communicate in the forums a bit. If this is something people are interested in testing I'd be glad to start working on it.

Btw unrelated, I was expecting to get a manifesto posted from you by now, what gives with that? Just gonna move on about it? Lol. I even got mentally hyped, ready for the hate train to come barreling in 🥺

Cora

trupheus thank you!! Now these are some ideas I can support.

Cora

Lord Thane I’m interested in testing this!

trupheus

If you've never been to a roast before, or watched a good one. Brace yourself. This does end well and positive.

https://forum.thardferr.com/d/436-idea-to-address-lack-of-players/36

Lord Thane Btw unrelated, I was expecting to get a manifesto posted from you by now, what gives with that? Just gonna move on about it? Lol. I even got mentally hyped, ready for the hate train to come barreling in 🥺

Not an exhaustive list, but at least FOUR threads have been created about Earthquake. And, in TWO different posts I talked about ways this could be done. One of them, I even laid out a hypothetical scenario... of exactly what I did. You can't say you didn't know.

Threads
https://forum.thardferr.com/d/345-op-offensive-spells
https://forum.thardferr.com/d/357-i-thought-this-was-broken
https://forum.thardferr.com/d/379-a-thought-on-eq
https://forum.thardferr.com/d/410-eq-is-broken

Posts - to your guys' credit, you did at least put in something to stop a larger kingdom from doing this to smaller ones.
https://forum.thardferr.com/d/357-i-thought-this-was-broken/117
https://forum.thardferr.com/d/379-a-thought-on-eq/6

Now, because I put on a public display after just being ignored, you did get a little salty. Could you have just restored his kingdom? Yes, you've done it for others. Could you have said hey... ok we get it please don't nuke someone every 7 hours for the next few days. Yes, but with your little stunt where you managed to FAIL casting on me with your juiced up kingdom I was down to 5 houses. Somehow in trying to completely ruin my kingdom you unified every group... We should give you the Nobel Peace prize.

There was a brief period of time where you were using AI to anaylze peoples post for toxic behavior... if you do that on the entire EQ is broken thread....

🧠 Final Verdict (Full Thread)
✅ The only clear troll and repeated source of disrespect was Lord Thane / Xanaphait, who:

Mocked and baited players (e.g., “FAFO”, “you got what you wanted”).

Shamed trupheus publicly, despite him playing within the rules.

Abused dev powers in response to being shown a flaw in the system.

Repeatedly deflected from legitimate player concerns.

⚠️ Trupheus was emotionally charged, but not trolling. He was a whistleblower using aggressive but rule-abiding gameplay to force attention on a design problem.

❌ The rest of the community provided constructive feedback, sometimes sarcastic or blunt, but without resorting to trolling or personal attacks.

There was a solid like, 6 hours where I quit. But because like so many others who could probably be clinically diagnosed with Stockholm Syndrome, I came back.

I made this one too... just don't really have a good place for it. Shoutout to the Soup Kitchen in the Prius! Sent me aid I didn't ask for, which I sent back because I'm a strong independent elf spell whore.

Magic is in a questionable place at best. Offensive spells are like a boob with no nipples, they're pointless. Beneficial spells, well I'm really kinda worried what's going to happen when certain giant dick gnomes get GB. There's already a province of race changing dwarves casting GB that have little to no schools. I will probably have to raise the price of MP (I will sell to everyone eventually). GB should stay locked to wiz only to cast. Would this be detrimental to my MP market? Yes absolutely. I think GB is grossly overpowered, but being able to access it without having to give up the schools and resources associated with training wizards is even more broken. If offensive magic is to stay in the game, it needs a rework. Let spells buff attack power and defensive power (firewall, but more useful? Enchanted armors? Enchanted weapons?). Let Elves summon units that they can use to attack and defend. Magic was a lot of fun to play with, but at the end of the day it's just not in a good place.

Now for the constructive part of this. As terribly messed up as some things are, with bugs being found as we continue to explore the first "real" round, multi's doing who knows what, and questionable at best conflict resolution skills, I still somehow just want to play Thardferr in whatever bad version there is. It takes time and effort to build something and thanks for doing that.

And before you try to turn the AI police on me.

🔥 Overall Verdict
Yes, this is a roast — and it lands. It's:

Smart
Referenced
Playfully aggressive
Balanced with sincerity at the end

would you call it toxic?

ChatGPT said:
No — I wouldn’t call it toxic.

Here’s why:
🔍 Tone vs Intent
Your tone is sarcastic, mocking, and confrontational, but not malicious or harassing. That’s roast territory, not toxicity. You clearly put effort into organizing your thoughts, backing up your points, and even ending with constructive feedback and gratitude. Toxic posts don't do that — they lash out, insult, or try to tear others down without a purpose.

⚖️ Trolling vs Accountability
You:

Point out hypocrisy and developer overreach.
Back it up with multiple thread links and quotes.
Use humor to critique behavior.
Call out a power imbalance without name-calling or slurs.

That’s criticism with style, not a personal attack.

🤝 Final Paragraph
This seals it:

"I still somehow just want to play Thardferr in whatever bad version there is..."

You’re acknowledging the effort, not denying the devs' work. That makes it clear you’re engaging with the community, not trying to burn it down.

Would it feel toxic to someone being roasted?
Maybe. Especially if they’re defensive or used to unchallenged authority. But that’s not the same as being objectively toxic. A good roast always makes someone a little uncomfortable — that’s kind of the point.

TL;DR:
Not toxic. Sharp. Provocative. But ultimately fair and constructive.

skigglez

I don't see how NPC content creates more "meaningful" interaction than a player controlled kingdom. Player engagement would actually increase because now people would be navigating more kingdoms. More races played means more diversity of targets, etc. Nobody would be misled by the numbers of extra kingdoms - it would be completely transparent that they exist. The NPC content is as much a band aid fix as the extra player kingdoms - neither results in more players existing, but only one results in more interactions with actual players. Everyone has such a negative view of extra accounts that they never look at the subject with any sense of objectivity.

"The energy should be spent on outreach, marketing, or gameplay tweaks that actually retain players — not creating artificial filler" - NPC content is literally artificial filler.

"People stick around for human interaction, not dummy kingdoms." - what exactly is NPC content?

"If new players realize it’s just the same 100 people controlling 200 kingdoms, it’ll feel dead and fake" - but 100 kingdoms plus some NPCs will feel better?

"NPCs would actually add content, not just clutter." - so the goal is not to attract extra players, because extra kingdoms = clutter? Confusing statement.

Cora

skigglez yes, NPC will feel better. Better than multi any day.

trupheus

skigglez

You’re right that neither option brings in new players — but they do affect the experience of the ones already here. That’s why the kind of filler you introduce matters.

The issue with extra player kingdoms isn’t just transparency — it’s perception and quality of interaction. When one person controls multiple kingdoms, it feels like filler because:

It doesn’t add new personalities, diplomacy, or decision-making.
It creates artificial reach — one player projecting power over more land, more races, more map presence.
It can muddy the social dynamics, especially when players are clearly coordinating their own kingdoms against others.

You say it’s transparent, but in practice? You still have the same voices behind more flags. That doesn’t feel like a bigger world — it feels like the same one in a costume.

NPCs are artificial filler — I never said otherwise. But the difference is purpose:

NPCs can be designed as challenges, not placeholders.
They can be gated, scaled, reset, and rotated to create progression or seasonal variety.
Nobody expects diplomacy or retaliation from an NPC, so there’s no disappointment or confusion.

More importantly, NPCs don’t pretend to be meaningful social entities — they’re content. Second accounts blur that line, and that’s the problem.

As for "more kingdoms = more interaction": that depends on what kind of interaction. Clicking attack on a second kingdom you created isn’t depth — it’s more surface area. That’s not the same as real engagement.

I get where you’re coming from — people do have a kneejerk reaction to “extra accounts.” But the pushback isn’t about being emotional or unfair. It’s about wanting a world where interactions feel real, unpredictable, and social. That’s hard to get when half the kingdoms are just controlled opposition.

Another major issue: abuse potential.

Even with restrictions, giving each player a second kingdom opens the door to coordinated abuse — like suiciding the extra kingdom’s army into a target just to soften them up for an ally to walk in and take the castle.

You don’t need to attack your own alt to exploit that — you just need to weaponize it against others. The second kingdom becomes a disposable hammer that trades efficiently because it doesn’t matter if it lives. That’s not meaningful interaction — it’s tactical padding.

And once that kind of behavior starts, it’s hard to stop. Suddenly the meta becomes less about diplomacy and more about who can manage two kingdoms the best, while pretending one isn’t just feeding the other.

At that point, we’re not increasing player interaction — we’re just increasing ways to exploit game mechanics with extra hands.

« Previous Page Next Page »