Realm Gems Being "locked" due to population (concerns)

[DemonMonger]

Originally Posted by bois

I want to give this a chance. Why? because there is quite a lot we just do not know.

For example, how severe a difference in populations will trigger the gem lock? I would like to think that the gem lock comes when the situation is so severe that even boosting AI to help the human base does absolutely nothing. For this let us pretend that the AI works as intended.

What is the polling interval to gather this information? I don't know . How long will be the gem lock? Unknown. Maybe they could lock one gem depending on the situation. Maybe they could make the gem heavier depending on the situation so it then becomes more difficult to ferry out. They could lock one of the gems (of losing sides) for an hour when a portal is opened.

I do think that it is worth a try . If it fails miserably then revert it.
I don't see this as a loss of freedom. For all we know, the population imbalance may not tip enough to trigger it.

On the flip side, NGD could use this same information they get on underpopulated realm time slots and shape incentives to boost populations there over time. Time slot incentives.

The changing of the quest to once per week is a good thing to my mind.

The forts are good, however, unless I am missing something, Forts less than level 4 will be even easier to capture by solo camo hunters. Reveal will probably not work well in the spiral staircase and there are more places to hide. The flag is unprotected and depends solely on human protection. Maybe NGD determined that this is a good gold sink and this is the way to go.
However, I still think that "capture the flag" concept should be taken even further. That is, you take the flag, run it down to a holder in the GC chamber and place it to complete capture. When you hold the flag you lose camo and powers and depend on your allies to cover you. If you run out of the fort with the flag, it simply returns to its holder at the top.

I am not ready to write this idea of NGD off yet. I think it can work but NGD needs to get the balance just right.

As for war, even if the gems are locked, you can still invade. The possibility exists that not everyone will need the general in the same day. The duty will be to try and stop the opponent getting warmaster coins at that point.

Did you ever want forts to be immune? (there are worse things than save camping, imagine all three forts camped and gems immune - you cant use any of your save points in WZ) TBC

Think about the long run.

Think about what 1 hour of locked gem would mean.

Now think about 5+ hours of locked gems.

Anything that limits options limits fun limits players playing = more limitation with gem lock.

You lose choices at given times.

Enough has been said about this now.

There is no need to repeat ourselves.

In the end I won't say I told you so, but I will smile and wink.

[-Logan-]

Obviously it isn't perfect, but it's a step up from the current system, and it can and will be tweaked from there. Bring it on NGD

Originally Posted by DemonMonger

In the end I won't say I told you so, but I will smile and wink.

k.

Suggestion NGD: Change the amount of Warmaster coins that are rewarded (from the wish) based on factors like past invasions or underpopulation. I had an idea some time ago but couldn't find a variable for the reward, but this new wish would fit in really well imho. This could give more incentive for underpopulated realms and for invasions as a whole. This could also balance the flow of coins from invasions.

Lets say Ignis successfully invaded 5 times, well then the next time Alsius or Syrtis would invade they would be able to receive a few more WM coins if they chose the wish. Or it could just be based on the population bonuses like RLM.

[Znurre]

First of all, I voted "I am from alsius and I want gem lock feature", but if there had been an "I don't care" option, I would probably have chosen that one instead.

To me this feature, while not positive, is at least not negative at all.
I see the argument about "no fights" etc. being brought up in this thread, but I cannot really agree with that.
As I am playing on RA, I have my fair share of experience playing on off times too, and I know what kind of wars one can expect.
They are usually one sided to the point where I use to leave them and go hunt or whatever.

So if, by any chance, these fights would die as a result of this change I cannot see anything negative in that at all.
Maybe NGD should remove the immunity rule with this update though, as to not let populated realms slack during that time just because they have no gems.

[PT_DaAr_PT]

This poll is not accurate enough since it's not multi-realmer compatible.

Originally Posted by Znurre

Maybe NGD should remove the immunity rule with this update though, as to not let populated realms slack during that time just because they have no gems.

Me agree with this.

[Gabburtjuh]

What a suprise, ignis prefers to keep their easy invading....

[Gabburtjuh]

Originally Posted by DemonMonger

But this still puts limits and strains more stress on us as players to try to play when populations are not low. We cannot just change our lives around, and to be limited because of how the cards have fallen is not right. Please leave it as is. I am basically begging you.

lolol, pathetic, alsius and syrtis can say thesame for how easy ignis can invade during US times now, like ignis said then, stop whining and live with it.

[PT_DaAr_PT]

I wonder what's the visual feedback. Will it show the position of the gems on the map when they're not locked now? And when locked, the gem's positions just won't show on the map?

Knowing the place where the gem is inside the realm would be a nice addition.

[Topogigio_BR]

It will be good if gems lock consider total server population and not just one realm.

And also as i told in another topic it would be fair to consider only population at lvl 30+ so the lower population realms at this times has some "space" to grow.

I wish NGD consider, instead of making nobles quest once a week, to make the nobles also unvulnerable during low population periods, but preserving daily nobles quest.

[Isemon]

Well, if this effect only gems i agree with it, i mean you can still invade for the noble quest... or it prevent that too?

[Anpu]

Voted "I want" but in fact, i d vote for option "do not care".