#KvK SYC-like every 1 or 2 months

17 messages Ā· Page 1 of 1 (latest)

deft gyro
#

The last 3-to-3 SYC seems to have messed up for Kingdom C šŸ™„šŸ˜. I think it would be nice to increase our ability to switch to another Kingdom, like every month or every 2 months during a KvK invasion.
We would have the ability, as usual, to:

  • stay in our home kingdom;
  • or go to the other kingdoms back and forth.

At the end of the event, our whole alliance would be placed where our T1 is, just like at the end of SYC.

The alliances that wouldn't have moved at all would just remain in their home kingdom.
In case of overpopulation, the last movements would be cancelled.

IMO it would make kingdoms more consistent, and funnier.

loud garden
#

Unfortunately, Iā€™m afraid that something like this would mean that people in a position of weakness in their current kingdom would move to a kingdom where they can be in a position of strength. It would undermine the efforts of teams to build a ladder in their home kingdom over a period of several weeks or months, when a bigger fish can just come in and take everything over permanently.

deft gyro
#

Kingdoms pairing is always paramount to mitigate this risk.
In our current case, I think that lots of players will feel very soon that a big fish swarm came to their "kingdom C" and took everything šŸ™ƒ

gentle raptor
#

How can you have a proper opening schedule of sops in 1 month?

loud garden
#

There are too many teams that want to avoid other teams for there to be a true kingdom for the Littles.

harsh kindle
#

The implementation of something like this is not trivial at all. Thereā€™s a reason why, every SyC, the old kingdoms get purged and we undergo a merge like process after it locks. Just ā€œmovingā€ some teams around Kingdoms while holding integrity of them sounds unfeasible. At least not profitable when the SyC mechanism already exists.

gentle raptor
#

Itā€™s a ridiculous suggestion šŸ¤£

deft gyro
# gentle raptor Itā€™s a ridiculous suggestion šŸ¤£

Maybe you are too narrow-minded.
There must be difficulties of course, as Asturic stated, but it's not ridiculous.
It would allow P2W such as you to face new strong players quicker, without sticking some others in your mud for months. SYC was designed to avoid this bias, but it failed for many people this time.

Anyway, I'm done here.
Devs will decide.

dense horizon
deft gyro
#

I'm still wondering why they did so, especially because it was clear to me that kingdom A would be the strongest one.
Some told me that bigs jumped to A at the very end. Well maybe šŸ¤”, but it ended as expected.
I am in 1583 as expected, but many others are in 1583 whereas they thought it would the weakest kingdom.
One thing is sure, 1583 is crowded with T8-10. You can barely find iron nodes 5, and even 4 sometimes šŸ˜…
And tbh the T11 that joined 1583 are 1 or 2 steps below MUTNY/TOAST.

dense horizon
#

The lowest number is traditionally the A kingdom, so this shouldnā€™t have been a surprise.

sterile verge
#

The game never officially states that any kingdom is the weakest, itā€™s just a commonality, additionally, it is crazy to expect that there will be a kingdom where f2p and small spenders would be left alone.

#

Whilst I see a zero chance of this happening, letā€™s hypothesize what would happen if you were able to change kingdoms that often. One team would dominate a kingdom, and the runner up teams would just move to the weaker kingdom and absolutely demolish the weak kingdom. Completely undermining the efforts of anyone in that second kingdom

dense horizon
sterile verge
dense horizon