Can they be stopped? [SOLUTIONS for Toxic Players - Rise of Kingdoms]
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 07. 2024
- Can a toxic player or rogue whale be stopped from harming innocent players? Here's a breakdown of solutions, along with a few ideas. NOTE: we are defining a toxic player in this instance as someone not following generally accepted kingdom rules.
We are an official member of the ROK Community Program, and are sponsored by Lilith Games!
- Chapters -
0:00 Can you stop a toxic player?
3:23 Constrain the toxic player
4:13 Minimize Damage
5:20 Mightiest Governor
6:55 Build a Hive
7:52 Ideas for in-game solutions
9:36 Our best ideas
► Subscribe Today: bit.ly/SubToChisgule
► Join our discord: / discord
► Become a Member: CZcams.com/chisgulegaming/join
► Get Chisgule Gaming Merchandise: teespring.com/stores/chisgule...
► Tier Lists + ROK Toolkit: bit.ly/ROKToolkit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most Popular Playlists and Videos:
► Ultimate Guides from Start to T5: • Ultimate Rise of Kingd... ← VERY POPULAR
► Commander Guides: • Commander Guides | Ris...
► Beginner Guides: • Beginner Guides: Rise ...
► Pick the BEST CIVILIZATION for you: • TOP CIVILIZATIONS: Pic...
► Restarting: • Rise of Kingdoms Resta...
► Jumper Accounts: • Ultimate Jumper/Starte...
► Kingdom Versus Kingdom: • KvK S4: Light and Dark...
► Farm thousands of gems a day: • How to gather 2,000+ g...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
► Gear I use to create content: kit.co/Chisgule/content-creation
► My NEW FAVORITE tea brand (seriously next-level): amzn.to/3dII6MV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this video was helpful, please do like and subscribe - it means a lot to me as a new content creator!
Cheers,
-Chisgule
Download TODAY for iOS:
bit.ly/2To9A0AiOSChisgule
Download TODAY for Android:
bit.ly/2FsRh7FAndroidChisgule
#RiseofKingdoms
#StrategyLivesHere
CREDIT: Subscribe Button by MrNumber112 • Free Download: Subscri... - Hry
![The BEST STAT TO BOOST in Rise of Kingdoms [Simple trick to reduce troop deaths]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ru-agAk3-iU/mqdefault.jpg)
![The BEST STAT TO BOOST in Rise of Kingdoms [Simple trick to reduce troop deaths]](/img/tr.png)
![How to organize (or find) a great kingdom [#1 priority in ROK]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XPd6wPd2J6U/mqdefault.jpg)
![Top 7 Reasons People Rage Quit [Rise of Kingdoms]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ebNIwsQdzSM/mqdefault.jpg)
![12 Hacks for Rise of Kingdoms that wont get you banned! [Sponsored]](/img/n.gif)
Wish I had caught this in editing: 11:15 The proposed negative title would make it so that you can only attack players that are NOT on alliance territory
Very good idea I support that negative title being added
i would love to see this added to the game.
thats good idea if king can force teleport people to specific location but must be done in fair way something like people vote
Maybe if they add a feature that allows the king to ban a player in one zone and doesnt allow him to teleport for a whole week but the king will only be able to use this feature through a kingdom vote mail and 200 people at least have to vote yes to the king mail.
A great idea chiz
It would be great if you can see the exact location of a person tagged with a negative title. This will be also be useful to easily find the person causing problems in the kingdom
Definitely a good idea with the negative title! What if there was a title that just gave War Frenzy? So whoever has it keeps war frenzy forever, and thus could never peace shield. They could still teleport, but they’ll have to sleep eventually 😂
Omniarch have you ever met player who can unlock all t5 in 2 days and solo destroyed new kingdom??🤣
Thats a bosss idea man NICE
What if the king itself goes on a rampage?!
@@dhanushprabha2966 you migrate negociate join him or good riddance
I believe that once the first season of KvK is over, the same territory protection should also exist in your kingdom as in the lost kingdom. The people that are still playing have put down a looooot of time and effort into their cities and maybe potentially money. Someone that has more power and is going on a rampage should not be able to just zero cities for no reason just because he/she is quitting the game and want to have some fun before doing so. Maybe that person don't care about the time and money he has spent but the zeroed people might actually get really sad that they has been zeroed. For some people, the social part of the game would be ruined because they can't rebuild their power and therefore can't stay in their alliance and will also lose friends by getting kicked? I´ve never been zeroed... yet... but it must suck so hard to have to rebuild their troops.
Another suggestion is to make a peace/war function for the alliances.
at the start all alliances will have that setting set to "at war" with all the other alliances, and as time goes and peace treaties are signed, the leaders can change their friendly alliances to "peace", and that would mean that no members can attack the members of the alliances that you are at peace with.
This would prevent people from going rogue after KvK because presumably most alliances will have the "peace" setting ON with all the other alliances.
If you want to battle another alliance then you will have to switch to "at war" and the other alliance will be notified, but then its all out war and everything is allowed, just like in the start.
Or maybe for you to be able to attack a city, your alliance must be "at war" with that persons alliance. :)
cities without alliances are a free for all to attack, probably an inactive or a troublemaker.
please tell me what you think :)
I like the idea! We have the same problem in our kd and he is a t5 player, he keeps on zeroing smaller players without valid reason. Now many players are upset and saying they are quitting the game. Sad but there is no solution. I hope lilith will listen to this suggestion and put a work on it. Thanks for that idea man, it will help us a lot low spender and f2p players.
In my kingdom (1621) the higher-ups zero the rouge player or whale relentlessly, forcing them to leave the server for good
But due to that, it's too peaceful to the point where it's boring ( somewhat ), I guess I'll have to for kvk2
Your gonna want that peace when your in kvk and your running out of speedups to heal
1. “Vulnerability” : A negative title that limits a player’s shield duration to “approximately” 3hr increments (timer like with camps) - this would force the rouge player to be on near constant vigilance for days on end
AND/OR
2. “Lockdown” : A negative title that restricts teleporting to active alliance territories regardless of type of teleport used. If player has no alliance, (s)he will be unable to teleport anywhere until joining an alliance with active territory.
Neither can be applied to any player below t5 and both titles have an 18 hour cool down before reassignment
These two titles don’t materially change game mechanics or overly restrict alliance v alliance conflict, but they do allow for methods to either corral high power players or organize rallies against them. As long as we have both shields and unrestricted tps, any t5 over 70 million basically can act with impunity in ROK until (s)he forgets to shield or does something stupid.
Every negative title has to be considered through the eyes of how it might be abused by the ruling alliance/king. That’s why there shouldn’t ever be a title restricting a player from actually rallying or attacking another player.
Your “lockdown” skill was actually put into the game
We just dealt with a toxic player and alliance in 1903, we got the entire kingdom to attack and fight them, our alliance 0'd the whale after 2 days of fighting.
Oh hi near neighbour I'm 1910
i like that idea about giving negative title so the toxic player can only wage war with someone in the alliance territory. but for that to happen then the king has to be someone that everyone approve. like in my kd its the king and his alliance that toxic and they attacked everyone that opposing them and already forced the number 1 alliance to migrate out. so generally i agree with giving the negative title, but lilith has to make a counter measure for when the king himself that is toxic or gone rogue. thanks Chisgule for making a content like this. Sorry for a long comment
Man this is great idea. I am really glad that you did this video. It really needs to be voiced out and this strategy is great. Cant wait to see what comes of it
Excelente idea 💪🏻 sigue así chisgule!!
Great idea on inventing such title, we had 2 such toxic players killing many innocents player down yesterday in the name of kill event! Great idea Chis..... go for it! :D
I migrated to another kingdom because of the toxicity of my past kingdom, the whale was toxic, he insulted players and wanted to dominate everything and not care about how other alliances think
Was it MV ?
Maybe if they add a feature that allows the king to teleport a player in one zone and makes him not able to teleport for a whole week but the king will only be able to use this feature through a kingdom vote mail and 200 people at least have to vote yes to the king mail.
great idea
hmm good idea but the toxic player will still be able to hit other players in the zone he is in
That would be overpowered imagine if the toxic player became king it will be abused
@@cattile1085 you need to read the whole thing mate. when the king wants to ban someone a kingdom vote mail gets sent and people have to vote yes or no jusz like the alliance check mail and then a certain amount of people in the kingdom have to vote yes (for example 200) so the player gets banned
Your last idea makes the most sense for all involved.
You are 100% correct when you say its the innocents that get smacked so with that in mind.the possibility of a power cap on the rogue would be good.Maybe making it so he cant attack anyone under a certain level.If hes a 75mill player then cutting his attack options to those within say 10% of his power would be good.So if hes 7mill then the 10% would mean he can only attack down to 67.5mill players effectively starving his options
I just wanted to say thank you for the content that you release. You’ve really increased my experience playing this game. 572 days straight :/
Chisgule i zerod a player yesterday because of the same thing here wow
I did it well even there leader and members helped me
I'll pause the video and give me onion on that section at a time before i hear the rest of your thoughts! keeps it unbiased, and filtered so you can give lilith some good stuff.
1:18 the main problem is these rogue players, are usually the king or his lackey's. so they would never receive titles to negative affect them, and there will only be a slap on the wrist for that alliance member. the only buff that is good for them, is sluggard, and zero them. this stops them from affordably(not really... runes...) re-upping their troops.
5:32 feeding kills is already a thing. I don't participate in every MGE, but i do help some people go really hard for their event for their top 3. I'll feed them my whole hospital. send out a low commander with no secondary and leave em. ill heal my troops for no speedup cost, and he's got like 30 other friends helping out. it really makes a difference, when you go and duel the top people to say lets compete for top 3 etc
8:09 this. it's a war game. I prefer keeping my troops to kill for KvK, but if some people want to squabble with people in their kingdom. that's their deal. the squabbling is what makes dead kingdoms. after the rules are set, and the kingdom is made. before kvk1 there can be relative peace, or continued civil wars which can negatively harm the longevity of the kingdom and also benefit the kingdom by removing a toxic alliance.
9:17 no. bad idea unless it's once per 6 month period(OR it costs the king a significant value to do this as to make sure he doesn't abuse it! for ex. first use = 5000 gems, second use is 250,000 gems for the next week. so they can use it about 52x a year). per ID.
10:08, this is interesting I like this idea, KVK no city hitting until alliance territory is captured is so good. BUT caveat here, is the cost. outside of kvk, alliance flag building can be quite a difficult matter, running out of gold is a significant problem. it would elongate wars considerably, to the point making pop alliances(farm enough gold with the alliance to always pop a center fortress and RUSH their fortress with the 10 alliance token flags. knocking it down, zeroing everybody.) and change the whole dynamics of controlling PASSES. it would change MGE forever(in a good way imo). I don't think it's bad. just saying it'll be different.
11:34 a title that makes them only attack alliance territory people hmm. I like it. they can still rally passes with their alliance, although it does hinder the "strongest" player in an alliance that is trying to deal with the king or fight a war against an alliance the king favors, making the king in a position where he cannot be attacked, like at all. he can just keep abusing this to make sure a specific player cannot help their alliance deal with him or his title givers. i think it would be almost impossible to deal with a king that has good title givers that can abuse this one title. I think maybe your title. should be a kingdom buff. this is a decision that isn't made lightly. you would need to withhold kingdom buffs during KE to be able to use this on a rogue. and even if you wanted to use this on a player, you are really paying for that decision to punish this player. not just with your gems, but with the two days without kingdom buff, if you trust your kingdom, this is not a problem as it will not be used, and you can use your buffs as you wish, but if there is a trust problem, you can take the concession, and deal with the player when it happens, instead of afterwards.
overall I think the KVK mechanic should be implemented throughout the game, from day 1 it will give the game a more homogenous strategy, the strategies you developed in your home kingdom, can be applicable in KVK and REALLY can help more players stay in the game longer, because the looming threat of being zero'd in the night isn't a problem, you need to be at war, and they need to be taking your flags for you to need to be concerned.
10/10 this is the content I want. by the way. I would love to see more innovation in alliance structures. I think they can spice up the WAR portion of the game with the implementation of a few different alliance buildings. if they go down the road this KVK homogenous style, i would love to see things like "alliance storehouse" building, that can be pillaged by enemy alliances. so much more potential.
Wonderful idea , dealing with this now
Chis, can you cover the golden kingdom event before it comes back? I struggled the first time I tried it, and there wasn't much out there to help. Thanks!
There was a player in my kd but all of our allinces started following him and after some time we left him he thought we will not do anything now and instead of popping 24 hrs day shield he used 8 hrs shild and then we zeroed him that was very fun.
Unrelated question. If I migrate to an older kingdom and it specifies that someone from an older kingdom needs to wait until a younger kingdom becomes developed, do I need to wait to go back to my home kingdom when it is developed or can I go right away
Hey chis imma big fan and you teach me a lot about rok so I just wanna say thanks
the last idea is really cool
I think the migration idea is perfect but when activated it should send a ready check type mail to everyone in the kingdom if it gets so many up votes then it goes through this why the king cant just do it on his own or with one or 2 alliances
I think the idea of this specific negative title is very good but i also think, that it would be ok that the king can move a player out of zone 3. When you are a active player but the main alliance is rude and dosn´t care about others, its anyway not the right kingdom for you
A very solid idea imo with the negative title. Hard to see how it could be abused. I really don't mind the idea of not being able to be attacked ful stop on alliance territory, would change ke dynamic and make it easier to deal with people who tp. Around for kills, cause hitting City would be an option as very few cities could be hit
Like the idea of that but I think you could also have a timeout feature where they could not send an attack march out for like 8 hours or until it is removed then you are only punishing the person misbehaving. Also for each of those you could have say three of them in very large kingdoms it could need more than one. A list of previous names in player info would stop people from changing names and getting into a new alliance to terrorize a zone.
What about a power penalty of say 3% that stacks each time you attack a city that is less than say 50% your power. Limits the damage a whale can do to normal players to a few attacks. Eventually if they continue causing trouble they would get into the range of being zeroable.
Sounds like a good idea. Im still a pretty new player and very low spender but from what I've seen in the past two months in two kingdoms, what you propose makes sense.
Great idea 👍
Chisgule,do you think migrating to dead kingdoms to farm MGE and ranked events is a good idea to grow?
This may be a little late, but if you haven’t already said it to Lilith, hopefully this will be the straw that breaks the camels back. A title that prevents people from attacking cities that are on territory would be awesome. Would completely change the game for people who wanna go rouge. I don’t think the king has enough power to defend people in his kingdom. This would be an easy fix
I like the idea of the new neg title.
How about this
Once the kingdom has a KING.
1)The game will make the king choose a spot on the map(maybe the size of a flag or larger). this spot will act like a prison with restriction such as unable to teleport out when this the title below is active , troops are confine in this spot wont be able to move out of it
2)Create a new special sinner title(maybe with all current sinner debuffs into this title but -30% each)
Then the governor with this new sinner title will be auto teleported into the spot that the king chose.
The king will only be able to use this feature through a kingdom vote mail and 200 people at least have to vote yes to the king mail.
I know this is not the quite the same thing but I remember that I just started Alliance and we're pretty much building up and a much larger Alliance try to take us out either forcing us to quit to join another one or leave the server how are you supposed to handle that situation when something like that happens?
excellent idea 👍
that negative buff idea is crazy smart. yes, yes, yes
If you have a farmer killer stuck in Z3, how can you get them out if they have no pass access?
Yes I like it!!! Love it!!👍
I love the idea!
I think it’s just easier what you said before, after kvk 1 you shouldn’t be able to attack city in alliance territory, in the end if an alliance wants to battle another alliance and zero people attacking alliance can destroy a flag and then hit the players. It not much of a difference than what you said about the negative title, only it would stop multiple players that are going rogue.
We had a whale go rouge when the kingdom was only 40ish days old and there was little anyone could do to stop it due to his T5. We tried locking him in a zone but power hungry alliances let him out. Sadly we had quite a few people get zero'd. I personally would like technology locks in early kingdoms to prevent players access to T5 before lost temple and first KvK. This would allow players a fighting chance against rogue whales.
YES on the title idea!!!
Yes, the title you proposed is great
My opinion, is you have the King = Judge (12) top alliance = jury where you need a vote 10/12 for guilty and if guilty YES king can migrate player out or pause ALL attks from the player and or disable the player for redemption from stronger players meaning disable the toxic players shielding or porting
I really like the idea of mimicking the LK in that only players off alliance territory could be attacked. After kvk1, or even after the first LT capture, would be good. I think that would deter 90% of the destructive shenanigans that people pull in home kingdoms and force them to work together as a kingdom in between kvks.
The keys to dealing with rogue players are to present a united effort in the kingdom to block/counter the rogue, and to be vigilant. You need multiple alliances on board with eliminating the rogue in order to do multiple rallies the second the shield drops. And the second that shield drops, those rallies need to go. Every time. Someone needs to be constantly watching the rogue, and when he ports find him again quickly so that he can be dealt with.
If this is done right, the rogue never really gets a chance to do much damage and is basically left watching his shields while he gets enough passports to leave. It can take a while, but it will eventually force him to leave as fast as he possibly can. I have dealt with several rogues in several kingdoms, and every time we did this, the damage was mitigated and the rogue forced to leave fairly quickly.
Very great idea chis i like it
I like the idea of restricting the rogue player of 75mil zeroing a less than 20mil player. These are mostly smaller F2P players or farms with not much yet invested in hospitals and military tech. They will get wiped out but one T5 army by this rogue.
1. Title - Pick on someone your own size - Restrict the player from hitting lower level cities.
2. Title - Thou shall not pass - Targeted rogue cannot teleport anymore.
The title is a great Idea!
Great idea bud. Would help a lot. Also psychologically so people dont go rogue so often when they know they could be stopped
A thought would be to allow the king to chose whether city attacks are allowed or not allowed in the kingdom, but it would have to be for a duration of a KVK cycle after kvk. This would align more aggresive kingdom against each other in kvks and more peaceful against each other. Toxic players need a place in the game to city attacks are part of the game and not everyone likes them, but this should be able to be handled by creating continents where it is allowed and others where it is not.
It happen in my server, that 100 million power dude and his alliance (was the 3rd biggest/strongest alliance) went rogue.
It took 48 hours to the 1st and 2nd biggest alliance to take him down 😂
You rogue guy wasn't King Talib.
No, i do not remember his name but he was in an alliance named Re_V
@@moutchie5842 in early game it was solymar for power and King Talib for kills. He has like 500million above kills
In 1854 there was a 50mil player on like day 2 and he single handily killed the entire kingdom.
Hi Chisgule,
I'm not sure if this has been floated as an option or not. Whilst I like your idea I would take it further. Maybe a title that doesn't allow the rogue player to attack cities that are more than 10% smaller in power might be a better deterrent, this would mean that whilst the individual can still attack larger players they are unlikely to do so.
Alternatively maybe there could be a quarantine title, that only allows the players marches out so far from their city and also stops them from teleporting.
The issue I have is rogue players before you have a king or title givers, having the quarantine title available for Alliance leaders that can be placed on a player within the same zones as your alliances that stops them from killing on alliance territory might also be good. Especially if 3 or 4 alliances used the title against the same player, this would effective curtail their ability to go rogue.
Anyway just my two cents
Shilo
Thanks so very much for this video!!! We are coming to your Kingdom in 7 days!!!👍👍👍
How many players?
Yeeee new friends are coming.
Two. Can't wait
Your last idea was good👍👍👍
since some patch 3 months or so ago you can random teleport through the pass without holding it
I had a good idea where players take shifts taking guard around the toxic player, so each time they send an army, the guards will take it down. I'm not sure if that would work as you would need people watching 24/7, but if you have 30min shifts, it could be possible.
Also a new title could be 'poisoned' where damage taken is increased by 500%, so they will struggle to attack farmers, and will instantly die against someone trying to stop them
Love the idea
Good idea Chis. I say go for it
hey bro! I'm a new player, I want to ask you if it's necessary to create multiple accounts for farm production?
I haven’t done that, but many do
An other idea would be... if KD counsil votes for punishment, then only top 5 leaders, can activate a special rally option, with same majority vote, like 4 out of 5, that multiple allies are allowed to Join that same rally.... And have a higher cap too 3000/4000 troops. So everyone that was hit, can join and bundle forces an feel good about the fact that small people unified can bring such a toxic player down too..
How about dealing with a toxic alliance? 🤔
some games have a rule that you only can atack player's with % of your power for exemple a 20% rule a 10M player only can atack 2M plus players, some times de rule is reversivel a 1M player can't atack a 10M player, but in this game i think that rule only can be aply in citys atack.
I think a hive a very very highly useful for me idk why I just feel safe seeing my city protected with so many alliance members🙂🙂🙂
I think maybe a title that doesn't allow them to teleport would be neat. They would still be allowed to peace shield but if they wanna zero people they are going to risk waiting out that timer and being zeroed.
Good idea 🙌🤙
I liked your idea of giving someone a tittle that only allows them to attack cities off territory. But again this will disadvantage kingdoms that are in internal war. Maybe I know it sounds difficult but alliances touching the temple the r5s have to click on the same player once they all have then it can go through perhaps ?
Interesting thoughts
It's something like in kvk,yea it will be pretty useful when I think abt it,agreed
I think that’s a pretty good idea!
Like the idea of the title where you could only attack if not on territory in home kingdom
I agree, this could increase teamwork meaning
I think perhaps some game balancing of troops between T5 and T4 and other tiers is better. We had a rogue mega whale in our young kingdom and he was going around destroying everyone and even with full T4 marches no one can stop his troops at all.
Absolutely a great idea! Please talk to Lilith about it!
do you have any information about an alliance that switches leaders often????? i am not even sure if i want to continue on this phone game bc it is way too demanding. it doesnt have to be though. some ppl have mental issues that keep them from being on everyday and that is a real thing.. . its just a phone game and im tired of the toxic ppl trying to tell me my mental health isnt more important than a game on my phone.. . atleast with pc i can unplug and just not worry about that. jeeze.. .
How much power does you alliance have and what kingdom are you from?
I agree with cities not be hit when on alliance territory.....i didnt even tried to check my farm if it is zeroed by talib or feanor...i just want them to go...
I really would back that Teleport on CD, or at least the teleport item itself having a 3 hour cool down.
Bro...while king in 1048 we had this issue with one player threatening to zero everyone he could once kvk was over. During kvk he was attacking allied kingdoms and causing so many diplomatic issues. This negative buff would have fixed it instantly. Great idea
You should do a video on kingdom flag building strategies
I love your proposal, Chisgule. My alliance and I are being harassed by high-powered bullies, who feel they can do anything they want. We are not yet strong enough to retaliate, so this proposal is the next best defense against them.
What about a peace shield for alliance territory? 🤔
Nice Idea! That could work against the toxic players. Maybe a title named " PRISONER " a suggestion only :) Thank you chisgule
What did King Talib do?
Wouldn't you think that somehow discouraging open pvp aggression would somehow diminish this power struggle survival element of the game? Like not leaving gathering troops outside when going offline and stuff. It's tactical perspective and in essence, you would have to deal with the mistreatment. Rise of Kingdoms is like that, real life tactic. You just need to know when to be wary and use your diplomacy for your advantage.
I had a guy (Pabin) zero me 3 times for no reason i almost quit. I had to change alliances, and change my name to get peace. And as it is i have had very little progress. The king did nothing and I had no help from my alliance.
I changed kingdoms and it sucks... frustrating and angering. Whats a boy to do?
I love your idea. I am a f2p player and I have been a victim too many times. Also, what if these toxic players aren't allowed to attack players who have troops or power under certain limit. Or it could be a combination of both.
hey chisgule in the live stream last night i was saying that there should be a rank in an alliance that make its so that bad players can tp
A title like that would give the King too much power during civil wars. You would be able to remove the rally leader of the enemy and have enough time to rotate the title around to prevent any cities from being hit.
A better idea would be a title that prevents plundering. If you take that away you remove their main reason for zeroing cities and it's not something you could abuse to win civil wars.
Other than that you need to pressure toxic people constantly. Don't give them an inch. Kill any march that exits their city and over time they will decide to migrate themselves.
Great idea
That’s a great idear for the title
This is a great idea. We have a toxic player in 1874 and this would be great if we had this capability. WE NEED THIS LILLITH!!!!!!
This is one of the greatest idea , yes i definately support a title that stops that player hit cities on allience territory
I like the negative title idea. Maybe add, so they can't peaceshield themselves for atleast a certain amount of time on top of that. We literally just had someone yesterday, going over the limit in KE, bubbling and then migrating. We messaged the new kingdom and informed them about that player. A badge or something would be interesting, which shows what people did to deserve the title. Kinda like comment section for the player itself, which can't be removed by the player itself
I strongly pro the idea that a city is immune to any atk from hostile players when it's on alliance turf. The reason is only too obvious: every kingdom is trying to focus on KvK and bring civil fights to a relatively low level. Hence, there should be every reason for the game to have a mechanism to protect cities.
Love the idea of that negative title. You should defiantly pitch it!
Yes I would love Lilith to add a negative title for those to not attack cities in a alliance territory . We have had 3 players go crazy on players farming and low players for MGE. Also 5 migrators come and attack low players alliances until they left . That would be amazing .
How are you bro iam from India 🇮🇳
I like your videos 👍👍👍👍