Kingdom Types

Do you agree with this rule setup?

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, I can think of a better idea to the problem as I have mentioned below.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4

Legionite

Making TAC Corp
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
2,268
Likes
3,613
Points
575
Location
[TAC HQ R&D]
Website
forum.terratechgame.com
#1
I know lately that there has been a whole lot of controversy about kingdom balancing.

The Lemon Kingdom was structured to be a fun place to share Techs with each other.
Same thing with the Kiwis, except the kingdom's main focus was Kiwi Memes and fun Memes.
They both had one goal in mind, fun for all in simplicity.

TAC was founded on a different focus than its predecessors, to establish Kingdom RP and to make it more interesting, interactive, and innovative (and maybe even a bit more combative).
TAC was the opposite to the two listed above. It aimed to be complex and interesting in contrast to fun and simplicity.

Some of the Kingdoms that were created after TAC had RP motives, some others were made just for fun like the Lemon Kingdom.

I know for sure that the Kebab Kingdom, Duck Republic, UESO, and SFS used some parts of the TAC RP in its making and combat, and enjoyed the usage in the Kiwi Wars.

Other kingdoms were against the TAC RP setup, leading to issues regarding balancing, fun factor, and fairness.
(Honestly I should have thought of the TAC RP rules and restrictions before creating Legion Region/TAC.)

Learning from all this, I think that there should be two types of kingdoms that exist in different categories.

Type #1 Original Kingdom Format:
A kingdom built around fun that follows the rules linked [>Here<].
This type of kingdom has whatever resources they like, but cannot give unlimited resources to type #2 kingdoms.

This kind of kingdom has restrictions on its action frame, but pretty much any turn-based combat done in type #1 kingdoms will eventually have ugly side effects due to a lack of combat restrictions.

Any kingdom without any "type #2" tag at the top of the kingdom thread, or "type #1" tag at the top of the kingdom thread will automatically be assumed a kingdom "type #1".
Pretty much all of the kingdoms are kingdom type #1's (except TAC) at the current moment.

Type #2 TAC's Restricted RP Layout:
TAC was the first kingdom to introduce unnecessary complexity to the Kingdoms.
It also introduced:
+ RP Terra Tech turn-based combat
+ RP resource management
+ kingdom relationships with the Terra Tech Corporations
+ hostile events like enemy attacks
+ having to actually build Techs for them to be in service
+ Techs with actual roles in a RP army
+ Advanced combat maneuvers
+ The "HQ system"

This type of kingdom cannot acquire a ton of resources in a short amount of time unless the kingdom's resources haven't been updated in awhile.
It also has to have begun from scratch with some sort of boost at the beginning (Big space mothership/3 factories/etc) that cannot be too over-powered.
It has to gain trust with the corporations that provide the kingdom its parts in order to be able to speed up production of Techs with those parts.
Any kingdoms that had their main HQ(can only have one) destroyed can be "re-spawned" the day after defeat with all their buildings and citizens intact.
Citizens destroyed in combat aren't "dead", but sidelined for the rest of the battle that they fought in.

A kingdom type #2 thread owner cannot create another kingdom. (EFF made the outcome clear)
Rules for combat in kingdom type #2's will be specified later in another thread.


All type #2 kingdoms must have the "type #2" tag or be assumed a "type #1".

Rules setup:
Kingdoms of type #1 cannot interact with Kingdoms of type #2 in combat, resources, and/or Build Bucks, but can trade Tech Blueprints with each other.
Kingdom citizens of a
kingdom type #1 can also be a citizen of a kingdom of type #2 and vice versa regardless of policy, since the kingdom type #1s and type #2s are separate kinds of kingdoms and the only thing really shared between is the Tech Blueprints.

Edit: made things more clear.

Edit: Abandoned concept due to powerful feedback...
 
Last edited:

BenBacon

Founder Of Bacon, Inc
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
1,548
Likes
2,214
Points
525
Location
Gulag
#2
This whole kingdom thing is going downhill

We cannot agree on anything:
Rules
Ways of combat
How we function

What we NEED are GENERAL rules
Not specific types of kingdoms
I think kingdoms should be able to function however the want
If you want peace, go ahead. You'll save resources
If you want to have semi-peace and attack once in a while, that should be fine'
If you want total war, okay. You'll waste resources

When you get destroyed, you should get ONE HQ back and nothing else
That should be a punishment for not preparing enough

I absolutely cannot stress that we need standard rules
I don't think the Kiwis liked us ransacking them and then saying bye
EFF did not work
Long story short, the kingdoms right now are a big mess and we cannot agree on anything
 

Legionite

Making TAC Corp
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
2,268
Likes
3,613
Points
575
Location
[TAC HQ R&D]
Website
forum.terratechgame.com
#3
Long story short, the kingdoms right now are a big mess and we cannot agree on anything
That was a side effect of the kingdoms following TAC's experimental footsteps, and now some of the other kingdoms that pretty much followed TAC in RP logic are now disagreeing with TAC's RP logic because they took some of the concepts, but not all of them, leading to combat instability.

This is the best way that I know of that will help the kingdoms that pretty much copied TAC's RP logic come up with their mind, the type #1 kingdoms will be determined by the kingdom general rules thread, and the TAC RP copycat kingdoms can follow both these rules, and the general kingdom rules.
 
Last edited:

BenBacon

Founder Of Bacon, Inc
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
1,548
Likes
2,214
Points
525
Location
Gulag
#4
That was a side effect of the kingdoms following TAC's experimental footsteps, and now some of the other kingdoms that pretty much followed TAC in RP logic are now disagreeing with TAC's RP logic because they took some of the concepts, but not all of them, leading to combat instability.

This is the best way that I know of that will help the kingdoms that pretty much copied TAC's RP logic come up with their mind, the type #1 kingdoms will be determined by the kingdom general rules thread, and the TAC RP copycat kingdoms can follow both these rules, and the general kingdom rules.
Nobody can agree on any rules
All the member from all the kingdoms need to come to the thread
So far, not everyone has come
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2017
Messages
3,527
Likes
2,649
Points
670
Location
Stalk me not
#5
That was a side effect of the kingdoms following TAC's experimental footsteps, and now some of the other kingdoms that pretty much followed TAC in RP logic are now disagreeing with TAC's RP logic because they took some of the concepts, but not all of them, leading to combat instability.

This is the best way that I know of that will help the kingdoms that pretty much copied TAC's RP logic come up with their mind, the type #1 kingdoms will be determined by the kingdom general rules thread, and the TAC RP copycat kingdoms can follow both these rules, and the general kingdom rules.
Are you pretty much saying that TAC came up with all of this RP kingdom nonsense and that we're all copycats?
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2017
Messages
3,527
Likes
2,649
Points
670
Location
Stalk me not
#6
I don't agree with this. This is too strict, and we never even agreed on the rules listed above. Also, no one is going to put a "type #" next to the kingdom name. This took me like 15 minutes to write and it's super late at night for me. What am I doing with my life?
 

Potato

Tinkerer of Titäns
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
1,258
Likes
2,679
Points
525
#7
@Legionite, I appreciate that you're doing all these things, to give some organization to all the Kingdoms is a noble thing to do.

But I gotta level with you here for a second - real talk. No one's gonna follow this format. What I can suggest for you and for the TAC is to just do your own thing and enjoy yourselves. You don't need rules and formats to enjoy what Terratech brings to the table. :)

I'm not stopping you from making the TAC to be this overly-complex, incomprehensible Kingdom/Faction, that is after-all one of its traits - that can haul in members who love to power-build (Like I do, I love me some complex builds).
 

Legionite

Making TAC Corp
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
2,268
Likes
3,613
Points
575
Location
[TAC HQ R&D]
Website
forum.terratechgame.com
#8
Are you pretty much saying that TAC came up with all of this RP kingdom nonsense and that we're all copycats?
You know that Terra Tech is a game for everyone right?
This means some young kids/sensitive people may eventually appear on these forums (multiplayer) and be easily offended by losing their army in one post from the enemy.
A very simple way of putting it, I don't want meltdowns on one of the sides of a battle just because the attacker decided to play out the defending kingdom's side on his own (and makes the defender lose) to prevent the worst case scenarios (warnings, thread locks, and bans).

(If I was years younger, and not a veteran that was bullied head on before, I would have probably "snapped" hard on the destruction of the EFF lore stuff (BTW, the 15+ hours of master planning I was complaining about wasting was actually upcoming parts of the EFF lore.))

This post was definitely just a desperate attempt at correcting the RP that I have inspired others to follow. New forum users have already lost interest in this messy "combat formula" and the kingdoms associated with it. I accept all responsibility for starting all of this RP mischief because I just wanted to "simulate" a Terra Tech battle on the forums...:(
 
Last edited: