Tweak population requirement for challenging kings

[Fawkes 1,567]

Kingdoms with low populations need good leadership in order to rebuild, and part of that leadership involves having a proper king. But sometimes, due to the really lax king selection algorithm, an enemy alt or a newbie will snatch up the king position and sit on it until they get forced out.

 

But thanks to the 10 person minimum to challenge the king, you can't always do this, even if you were to use the entire Ele and home server populations. So dead kingdoms stay dead, and kings who merely use their position as a source of free titles for their friends without contributing anything to the kingdom are untouchable.

 

My suggestion is to make the minimum challenger requirement proportional to the active kingdom population on that server (logged in within past week), excluding non-prems and village-less players (to reduce the effect of f2p alts and enemies' priest alts, respectively).

[Propheteer 7,139]

should also reduce the time it takes to actually challenge, it's a bit ###### that it can just keep getting pushed back for 30 days.

 

its even harder to challenge people because you spend all this time motivating people, get people to convert and join your kingdom. Once these people get settled in, and if they find they don't like the king and want to overthrow him, even if they are 98% of the population, most of them will not be motivated to do so by the time they can actually force the king to abdicate making the entire point of challenging them null if you have nobody to actually challenge them with.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Propheteer

[SmeJack 5,798]

I agree that the situation is pretty bad but instead of making it scale in general I think perhaps making it scale for <10 with 10 being the max or it could end up being a bigger problem at the opposite end.

[Slickshot 1,195]

Slickshot for King 2016

[MrGARY 12,421]

Yeah the time situation itself needs looking at.  I may not have my memory 100% at this but it's something like

 

First get 10 people to challenge at a close enough time (server restarts seemed to wipe the count of who challenged, maybe it drops by time too)

Then up to a week for the challenge to be postponed until it auto declines

Then a week cooldown to repeat step 1

Then another week max until auto decline

Then a week cooldown to repeat step 1

Then another week max until auto decline

Then another week cooldown to repeat step 1 and force abdicate the king

 

I can't really recall if it's the 3rd or 4th challenge that abdicates, but if it's the 4th, that's a max of 6+ weeks just to get rid of a terrible rng choice...

 

For the op I give a +1 if it's possible.  Can't really say "lol just recruit more people".  Who's going to want to join a kingdom with a terrible king that doesn't even have enough people to challenge it?

[Aflacduck 2,174]

+1 ayyyFawkes

[Alexgopen 2,376]

On 2/15/2016 at 3:05 AM, Fawkes said:

Kingdoms with low populations need good leadership in order to rebuild, and part of that leadership involves having a proper king. But sometimes, due to the really lax king selection algorithm, an enemy alt or a newbie will snatch up the king position and sit on it until they get forced out.

 

But thanks to the 10 person minimum to challenge the king, you can't always do this, even if you were to use the entire Ele and home server populations. So dead kingdoms stay dead, and kings who merely use their position as a source of free titles for their friends without contributing anything to the kingdom are untouchable.

 

My suggestion is to make the minimum challenger requirement proportional to the active kingdom population on that server (logged in within past week), excluding non-prems and village-less players (to reduce the effect of f2p alts and enemies' priest alts, respectively).

 

Fawkes idk if you heard or not, but we brought 10 people to challenge and the mechanic doesn't work.  Also as I've been told, Rolf has instructed the GMs to take no action because he claims a mechanic is in place, despite the fact that the mechanic does not actually work.