Restore Discussion

[Kaz]

I'd like it if people posted their opinions on the Restore feature, periodically throughout the age, as and when they are faced with the option of using it. Or based on conversations with friends who've faced the need.

One thing I've noticed - at the point of writing this - is that the first war to happen with restore in place, was described as brutal. In kingdom based war games, brutal wars traditionally incite whining and complaints, but this first war has not seemed to do that.

If restore succeeds in changing the general attitude to losing a war from a highly negative scenario, to a scenario somewhere between slightly annoying and positive, then we may have stumbled onto something that'll make Monarchy stand out again. Until someone copies it and does it better of course

I'd really like to see the following questions answered as the age goes on.

• Have you needed a restore? If so, did you manage to restore in time?
• Do you feel that the restore window needs to be extended from 72 hours?
• When restoring a living kingdom, is 24 hours of not attacking too long?
• When restoring a living kingdom, is 24 hours of turns too much of a price to pay?
• Are tweaks to the interface needed? (Tweaks could include letting you know how much longer the restore you're seeing is available, how long till you've reached 24 hours of not attacking etc).
• Is restore protection too short, too long or just right?
• Should you restore with 'some' turns?
• Can you think of ways to abuse the restore system?
• If so, do you consider these abuses to be severe enough to change the system? Or just new tactical options to get used to?
• Any other thoughts or comments that I've neglected to ask?

[Aeyliea]

This is a generalized first impression, I may come back here at a later date and amend some things stated.

This will cover all games as I see it, in its use and practice, the strengths I see, the weaknesses, and suggestions to modify it that may or may not be well received

• Yes. I have used it in Bloodbath and in Guilds. In bloodbath, it is very easy to hit the window as there is no pressing need to stay unrestored; in guilds it is a difficult decision to make on when and where to use it.
• The restore window is fine for non guilded games. However, in a guilded game, it either needs to remain the same, or else extended by TWICE the current length. That gives guilds a solid 48 hours to exchange blows before having to hunker down for that fabled restore. Personally, I think the restore window needs to be different based on game - guilds needs longer or shorter, to encourage wars that last longer than a single day, or two days.
• Yes, but only in a guilded game. The simple fact that you must have 24 hours worth of turns in a guilded game is enough without adding in 24 hours of not attacking anyone; it allows realms that have been badly damaged to use some turns and contribute the the war effort before restoring to a more usable state that can then rejoin the effort 48 hours later. If anything, the required time should be reduced to 6 or to 8 hours, preventing abuse (such as attacking, grabbing a boatload of land, then restoring to protect yourself from retalliation)
• Seeing your remaining time on a given restore would be beneficial, as well as any other information that would let you know when you must do it by.
• For a guilded game, the restore protectionj (I think of it as more of a penalty) is perfect - removing a realm from a war for 48 hours. Though it must al;so be stated that they will come out of protection with full turns, which means bad news for enemies that are not expecting it. In Bloodbath, 48 hours is too long - way too long. 24 hours would be sufficient there.
• It would be benevolent of you to allow someone to restore with 2 turns, so that they can immediately ID and have enough cash to at least build.
• lol Oh, absolutely. In order to prevent being decimated by an enemy, a target guild could voluntarily take the penalty and go into restore protection at the onset of a war, and come out of protection having turned the tables on their foes. It is also possible for players to willingly use the restore feature to avoid being hit in a war. The 24 hour of no attacking prevents someone from grabbing land then hiding in protection so no problem there.

I would add that the feature has changed the game in many ways, especially tactics. In particular, it is now a far more profitable deal for a guild to simply grab as much land as possible, with nary a concern for scum or sorc defense - if you take enough land, even being killed will still leave you with an overall net gain, at least at lower land totals.

I would like to see - in guilds - that sorc and scum kills occuring during an active guild war declaration put the killed into a permanent state of restore protection until the war is ended. The purpose of sorc kill in the long run is to completely remove a target from the fray, not to simply diminish it and have to deal with it again 48 hours later. Additionally, the reduction in the effectiveness of scum and sorc kill (not Plotting) means that maybe -maybe- people will stop bothering with protecting themselves from sorc kills and scumkills, especially in an offensive war where they have reaped a great bounty in land. Even adding in the bounties gain fro ma sorc kill, I still have doubts as to the merits of sorfc or scumkill just for a portion of the land a kingdom had, simply because it is so costly in turns to do such for a paltry reward of a few acres, and a target that will come back in 48 hours to wreak havoc some more (in an extended fight).

[Gili]

Have you needed a restore? If so, did you manage to restore in time?
Pre-hit. Both my realms were around 20k. Fortunately FEL declared on EMPIRE so we didn't catch the brunt of the assault. I got knocked to 12k and 14k. The 14k realm got knocked to 2k, then i restored to 15k(during war).

Do you feel that the restore window needs to be extended from 72 hours?
Not sure yet. Probably best answered at the end of the age. I guess its going to be something that needs tweaking for a while.

When restoring a living kingdom, is 24 hours of not attacking too long?
No. Personally i feel this is right.

When restoring a living kingdom, is 24 hours of turns too much of a price to pay?
Having zero turns when i restored was a little disappointing (but i did Inspire down to 72 and passed money on before hand - so likley my fault ).
Are tweaks to the interface needed? (Tweaks could include letting you know how much longer the restore you're seeing is available, how long till you've reached 24 hours of not attacking etc).
I'd like to be able to see the Restore screen when i can't do it, so i can know whether its worth waiting for turns/not attacking...depending on what criteria removes the button.

Is restore protection too short, too long or just right?
This didn't really come into it for me, the war was over during this period. I guess we need to be careful that a guild that is hit, don't just all Restore....then hit back in X days, after some building and such.

Should you restore with 'some' turns?
I think its right that restoring doesn't set you up to fight back straight away - it should be a recover from war - not a new war tool.

Can you think of ways to abuse the restore system?
Perhaps to much EveOnline but it got me thinking to coordinated efforts between different faiths feeding each other masses of land. Yes losing 25% of your stuff is fairly big, but if your going to gain 100k acres for it...maybe its worth it. And you also have bits like i knew i was going to restore, so i could ask a friend on opposing faith to take what they want from my lands cos it doesn't matter.

If so, do you consider these abuses to be severe enough to change the system? Or just new tactical options to get used to?
I don't think its police-able.

Any other thoughts or comments that I've neglected to ask?
Overall i liked the restore feature, not only did it add an entirely new dimension of tactics to the game its saved me from buliding up from 2k....and also meant that after the first strike we could sue for peace and get 75% to where we were


( post might have some issues - slightly tipsy from afternoon in the sun )

[Darnivan]

I like the restore option, it has a ton of positive influences for the game and helps encourage war without having the pain of starting all over discouraging people.

The main concern I have is how restore can make a war unending the way it works now. Luckily the war we were having ending when it did because a bunch of restored kingdoms were going to be coming out of protection in the next day or so resetting the war and more kingdoms would die on both sides to restore again and again.

I'm not sure of a sure-fire way to solve the problem...the problem is 2 part that I can think of.

First the 72 hours encourages people to restore quickly mid war if their kingdom takes severe damage rather than fighting the war normally. Thus broken kingdoms will just use their turns to sorce/scum for a day or so and then save turns and reset. This changes resetting from a end of war kingdom recovery tool to a high pressure mid war choice.

The second part is the protection period mid war, since the war is still going on as soon as the kingdom is out of the protection it is back into the war. I think of the recovery tool as intended for a post war recovery but it really just costs 24 hours of turns to give to restore a kingdom back into fighting shape to continue a war while at the same time shielding them from attacks. In effect the restoring kingdoms retaliates, waits a day, restores, then retaliates again as protection ends with max turns before anything can be done to them actually making it a tactical war tool.

This could lead to wars with both sides endlessly restoring and destroying each other...which probably isn't as fun as it sounds since there isn't much satisfaction when you are only killing them so they will be 25% smaller when they hit you back in a few days...not a lot accomplished, just an endless war of futility. Neither side can really win such a war giving little motivation to starting a war that can't be won.

I'm not sure how, but I think it could use some tweaks to encourage post-war restoration rather than mid war restoration. Maybe an increase time before having to restore or possibly some other way for it to work for the guilds game. For an example, maybe once we can declare on all guilds involved in a war make it so the restore option will restore you back based on either your best kingdom during the war, or maybe just the initial kingdom at the time the war was declared (or maybe best kingdom within 24 hours before the war began in case initial actions was before war was declared) within 48 hours of guild peace being declared, making the option no longer disrupt the war but still fulfilling the kingdom restore purpose. That was the war can be fought to a conclusion before having to worry about the restore option and it will be possible for one side to win while still bringing the losing side back into fighting shape afterward.

That is my thoughts on it so far.

[Aeyliea]

I dunno if I said that or not, but Darnivan hit on a point I wished to make in my first post, but overlooked it altogether, running off on tangents as I tend to do.

I think implementing it in a GUILDED game only, that the restore feature should save the best possible restore from the point a declaration of war is made, and that restore point be held until the peace declaration is made, and from peace the 48 hour timer begins to count down. This encourages solid wars, prevents abuse of the restore feature, and prevents much in the way of change for tactics.

Clearly, multi-guild wars would mean one guild would have the delayed restore point, and all others involved would operate as normal.

[Aeropagitica]

I utilized the restore option on one of my kingdoms. It was not my intent, but as the war was truced, my tactics of merely downsizing and swinging was nullified.
Myself, I used it, but I didn't like it. Granted, Kaz, it reduces the whining that ensues after a severe butt kicking, but it also removes the risk inherent to this game.
For a time, several of my friends and I tried the game Evony Online. This game is very similar to Monarchy, except it was graphically enhanced and had modified features to promote the owner of the game making money. My biggest issue with the game was: No matter how bad you got you butt kicked, they could never kill you, capture your last city. It was impossible to die. Ultimately, it was the bitterest cost of defeat, the realism entrenched in Monarchy, that brought me back.
I will be honest, I do not feel the excitement now. It feels like a modern cultural backlash, where everybody gets a trophy, and nobody is a loser. That's not the real world. And this restore feature destroys the reality of war for this game. You may be right. This may be what the game needs, what our player base demands. I just don't agree with it.

I realize, I do a lot of complaining about your changes. Please don't think me ungrateful. I love this game, and I very much appreciate the effort you put into it, and that you host it. I am not a big fan of change in general. Thanks for letting us play.

[Gili]

I think Seska hit on a good point there, i like that idea of being able to recover to the point of war. That also encourages you to fight on and not put you at a point where your out of the war for a few days.

I also see Aeros point and i think that the majority of people left aren't to fussed about having their kingdoms trashed, I've certainly never been that fussed about it....but time has proven that peple just love to explode on the forums with rage and being trashed. Whether its that or the world moving away from browser games i don't know.

[Justin]

Played this game back in the late 90's, (www.monarchy.net I believe) Great game, a lot of fun. Just recently found this game again, due to a random search one day out of curiosity on my Iphone and then I read the history on the main website, and said, ahh ha! I found it, and instantly made a couple kingdom's, plus got my brother and his friend on here to play, so added a few more chickens to the coup, I noticed you need all the members you can get now a day's. Anyhow that's me and my history on this game, now back to the point....

I was kinda excited about this restore option, until I used it... And said wow was that easy, no army, no money hummmm, so with 10 turns on inspire devotion, a few clicks in training, my whole account was back online, all in under 2 minutes, Kinda neat I thought, until I realized that there was no real penalty from getting killed, I mean I was right back in the top 7 at the point of restore, and that's with letting my kingdom sit idle for about 3-4 days... I found it kinda cheesy to be able to do that, I guess if there were a slew of members, it wouldn't be such an issue, but that fact that there were only a few guys playing
I noticed some other kingdom's who were at the Top, that had been killed, Restored and ended up Right back at the top?? with the same land mass.... So what was the reason for killing them in the first place? now they are right back at the top, and they know who killed them, so as soon as the fog clear's it's not going to end good for the little guy who took the kingdom out in the first place, and all the guy had to do was hit restore and Poof magically back in the top 5... I never thought I would ever say this, But actually I think this restore Option made thing's a little TOO easy for the dead kingdom.
now I never like to Rant without having a suggestion.

My suggestion is a - 30% land reduction upon restore along with the 0 forces and 0 cash
and as you can't take land without taking buildings if they were close to 100% occupied (land/buildings)
so just take from the BRT to keep it simple, you always have a ton of them by that time anyways.

That's my take on the whole restore option, I Do support it, just not in it's current form, need's a slight modification.

Justin

[Gili]

Presumably this was always going to be iterated on, and something so complicated and game changing is always going to need some fine tuning.

[Darnivan]

Justin, there already is a 25% reduction in land (and built land). The highest ranked restored kingdom atm is rank 10 at 29k acres that was ~38k acres before he was destroyed.

[Kaz]

I'm trying to combine answering all the points into a post that explains the original view behind choices, and suggesting issue that changes might create. I might be wrong though, this thread is about spending this first age making sure the system works in the best way possible.

I'm thinking mostly of Guilds at the moment, but am more than happy to consider changing the settings to work better in Domination or Bloodbath. I'll even change the settings mid-age if that's what's wanted by the people currently playing. I'd suggest opening a thread suggesting the 3x variable settings you want changed to.

As it currently stands these are the three variables that can be freely tweaked to change the way the restore process works.

1. Rolling age of restore (Currently set to 3 days)
2. Length of restore protection (Currently set to 48 hours)
3. Period where you cannot attack (Currently set to 24 hours)

Rolling age of restore
To extend the duration of wars, the rolling age could be increased. This would further reduce the 'danger element' and mean that there is less chance of missing the restore window. To a certain extent, I picked a 72 hour duration because I wanted the choice of restoring to have some weight. Force it to be a tactical choice whether you restore OR keep fighting.

An alternative might be to have 2 restore points, a 25% loss restore with a 72 hour duration and a 33% loss restore with twice that duration. Death would always give you the 25% loss option (as restore is timed from point of death rather than rolling from the time of restore).

Period where you cannot attack
The period of no attack only really serves a purpose to prevent a kingdom from attacking and then restoring. The idea is to at least give a defender 'some' chance of responding. It's set to 'you' attacking (rather than attacking or 'being' attacked) to prevent someone from hitting you once a day until your restore window is gone. Honestly, I don't see how reducing this requirement can really work without causing irritation to a defender.

Length of restore protection
Length of restore protection has two sides to it. From the point of view of guild, as it takes 2 days to get full turns, then it means that when protection drops you are not sitting vulnerable. However, you're also not at full turns because you've had to use some of them to inspire and train. This could be reduced to 1 day, but that would leave a restored player quite vulnerable. The other side to this is the duration that a kingdom has been taken out of the war. Reducing this value means that scum and sorc kills mean less. Now, this could quite easily be split into a short vulnerable duration for restores that were committed while alive, and a longer duration for restores that occurred following death.

Turns Needed to Restore
At the moment all games use 24 hours (or max turns if 24 hours equal more than max turns). This doesn't have to be set in stone though. Although, as you cant attack for 24 hours before restoring, and you're going to start with zero turns anyway, I can't really see a reason to reduce this. The only real advantage I could see would be allowing the kingdom to spend 24 hours of turns inspiring for cash, and then send that cash to an ally prior to the restore. They wont be able to receive the cash back until restore protection ends though.

Cash a restore starts with
I'm quite happy to give a restored kingdom the cash that a new kingdom gets. At least then they can spend the first turn building, rather than being forced to inspire.

Turns a restore starts with
The idea of starting with no turns was basically tied in to the duration of the restore. If it takes 2 days to get full turns, and you need to spend turns inspiring for cash to hire troops and spend more to train them, then starting with zero turns prevents a player leaving protection war ready with full turns, but also prevents them leaving with no turns. I'm quite happy to discuss this.

Tying Rolling Age to Guild declaration
While I can see where this idea is coming from, it's not something I'm considering (unless someone can come up with an ingenious way of doing it). It would put control on a defending kingdoms ability to restore in the hands of the attacking guild. For example, Guild A hits by Guild B. 24 hours later Guild A declares peace. Guild B suddenly have the war end on them and need to make a decision on restoring. If they declare back on Guild A, they lose the chance to restore because the side effect would be overwiriting the restore that's now timeing down due to Guild A declaring peace.

Loss of the 'Risk' Factor.
Unfortunatley this cannot be resolved. The restore feature is specifically 'designed' to reduce the risk factor. While I can understand the point of view that an element of excitement is lost by the ability to restore, However, I'm also very aware that players who 'enjoy' logging in, to find the kingdom they have been working on for weeks or months is now dead, and they have to start over are by far the minority. Computer games have changed over the years, saves are standard, and player attitudes are very different. Kingdom strategy games 'always' have an issue with the fact that wiping out a months work in one night causes negetive response from the playerbase. We've tried to rebuild the playerbase doing the same-old thing. Now it's time to try something else. Restore gives Monarchy something unique for this type of game.

[Nagash]

Have you needed a restore? If so, did you manage to restore in time?
No. I could have, but preferred to do damage. It's nice to have the choice though.

Do you feel that the restore window needs to be extended from 72 hours?
Let's experiment with it a bit more. My gut feeling says that four days might be better, as it removes a realm from a war for a long period of time. It would be like being killed, but then without the loss of an entire realm.

When restoring a living kingdom, is 24 hours of not attacking too long?
No. Maybe even too short.

When restoring a living kingdom, is 24 hours of turns too much of a price to pay?
No. You get to keep a fair share of what you had, so it's a small sacrifice to make.

Are tweaks to the interface needed? (Tweaks could include letting you know how much longer the restore you're seeing is available, how long till you've reached 24 hours of not attacking etc).
Don't know, haven't used the feat yet.

Is restore protection too short, too long or just right?
Undecided.

Should you restore with 'some' turns?
No, that would undo the removal from the battlefield.

Can you think of ways to abuse the restore system?
I can. Giving away land and/or money to friends in another faith. Coordinated restoring (all realms in a guild at once) when being declared on. That enables you to hit back coordinatedly on a time which the enemy does not (necessarily) know.

If so, do you consider these abuses to be severe enough to change the system? Or just new tactical options to get used to?
Not sure. We'd have to see how things roll.

Any other thoughts or comments that I've neglected to ask?
No. So far I think the feat works.

[Kaz]

Something else to discuss.

Choice of Restore
I took a load of land in the SW vs G war. Then I was burned a bit and sorced some. Then I took some more land.

The way restore works is it selects the 'best' kingdom but it does that by adding up land + buildings. My current kingdom has a higher land+buildings score, but that's to do with land. My available restore is a version with more land but my temples are burnt and I've been top spell sorced a bit. Within the current restore period a version of my kingdom exists with less land, but more buildings. However it's not the version the system picks, so I can't restore back to it.

Should I develop the restore system to allow a choice of restore points? Basically this would mean you get the power to pick the kingdom, rather than hoping the system picks the right backup for you?

This choice could work a number of ways. Either you could chose between any previous version of your kingdom during the period. Or there could be a few choices e.g. One that prioritises land, one that prioritises all buildings, others that prioritise specific buildings

[Darnivan]

Length of restore protection
Length of restore protection has two sides to it. From the point of view of guild, as it takes 2 days to get full turns, then it means that when protection drops you are not sitting vulnerable. However, you're also not at full turns because you've had to use some of them to inspire and train.

I don't think the few turns it takes to inspire and train are enough to even be worth considering. Specially if they can log out for turns...I haven't had to restore so I don't know if you can do that but if you can not you can come out ready to war with an army, cash, and like 120 turns...which was almost max turns in the old days of guilds. If you can log out you come out with an army, cash and around 140 turns. Maybe a few less turns left if your economy or your train rate was bad (depending on whether you need to train a bunch of theives or low tier troops that take a lot of turns but have low upkeep or just some t4 that don't take many turns but have high upkeep) before the restore but still more than enough to instantly attack with.

This protection period alone could make it worth it to restore in order to have the protection.

But really more than that I don't think a restored kingdom should be allowed back into the same war they are restoring from. It makes the whole war pointless.

Edit - Kaz posted the choice of restore post while I was typing this. IMO built acres are all that matter to me. I could tithe my way to 70-80k acres tomorrow if I wanted to...but that would only hurt my build rate and I can't support an army that large for very long and it would take extra turns to train so I don't. Only the built acres matter. I even downsized down to 50k acres as that is the point build rates change. The purpose of war in this game isn't so much to capture acres as to destroy the competition before they destroy you.

[Kaz]

But really more than that I don't think a restored kingdom should be allowed back into the same war they are restoring from. It makes the whole war pointless.

Now that's a very different point from one where the rolling age of the restore is tied to the guild 'war' declare. Even the suggestion to tie the restore point to the war declaration wouldn't force kingdoms to not restore during the war, and thus come out of protection 'during' the war.

The only way I could theoretically see a way of 'preventing' the kingdom rejoining the war would be to tie the duration of restore protection to the guild (or quad) 'peace' declare. I'd not tie it to kingdom wars though, because there are multiple instances of players not returning to the game ever again, and those war decs often remain open until the reset. That would create too much trouble and ability to abuse.

Instead of having control over which restore a defending kingdom could use, the control would switch to be over 'when' they could attack again. 1 guild vs 1 guild any restored kingdom would be locked out until peace, however in a multi-guild war it would be tactically different. Then, in order to switch the guild war onto a different guild, you'd have to consider releasing the restores.

Obviously the release period would continue until the hour anniversary of the clicking of the 'restore' button, otherwise the guild would be able to un-protect on their own timetable.

Not entirely sure exactly 'how' I'd code the back-end for bits of that, but it's an interesting thought. Well worth discussing.

----

On the built land front, I agree, but I didn't foresee the situation I'm currently in when building the code to prioritise. I think it's definitely worth implementing a land vs building choice. Maybe other iterations. But not this age or that would be unfair to anyone that got a restore they'd not have picked.

[Aeropagitica]

What about some sort of incentive NOT to restore, or an award for forcing someone to restore?
Ultimately, the decision to restore comes when you've gotten your butt kicked in some form or fashion. Granted, if it was an invasion, the person who took your land has his reward. But in the instance of Sorcery or Scum destruction, the attackers have burned a whole boat-load of turns removing you from the fight, and have forced you to capitulate and "restore". But they get nothing, and for a small penalty in land that is now already unbuilt, you get your stuff back.
What if we rewarded the player who forced the restore with a 'kill' or a bounty? Whether it be the last person to hit, or the person who gave the most turns aborbed to your count, either way, we could reward someone for forcing you to capitulate.
I only suggest this because at present, for my own circumstance, the people who used more than 400 turns in ravaging my kingdom ended up wasting their turns, in as they got nothing for all their hard scum/sorc work. I don't really see a way to differentiate scum/sorc from war, but either way, some form of reward for forcing a kingdom to surrender would make 'restore' a tactical concern for your allies could hold merit.

[Sideon]

I really like the restore option. It gave us an option not to 'rage quit' this game after being hit.

Heres my suggestion:
What if there's increment penalty in every restore.
Lets say
1st restore - 25% penalty; 2nd restore - 35% penalty; 3rd restore - 45% penalty
There should also be a limitation on the number of restore a kingdom can have.. maybe 3-5 times
In this case restore cant be abused..

[Nagash]

Something else to discuss.

Choice of Restore
I took a load of land in the SW vs G war. Then I was burned a bit and sorced some. Then I took some more land.

The way restore works is it selects the 'best' kingdom but it does that by adding up land + buildings. My current kingdom has a higher land+buildings score, but that's to do with land. My available restore is a version with more land but my temples are burnt and I've been top spell sorced a bit. Within the current restore period a version of my kingdom exists with less land, but more buildings. However it's not the version the system picks, so I can't restore back to it.

Should I develop the restore system to allow a choice of restore points? Basically this would mean you get the power to pick the kingdom, rather than hoping the system picks the right backup for you?

This choice could work a number of ways. Either you could chose between any previous version of your kingdom during the period. Or there could be a few choices e.g. One that prioritises land, one that prioritises all buildings, others that prioritise specific buildings

No. The way I see it restore is a feature which enables a realm which got battered not to lose everything. If that happens, one should be glad with whatever you are allowed to keep. Allowing for choices in restoring, I think the damage done in wars would be mitigated too strongly.

[Kaz]

Aero,

It would be hard to award some kind of restore based bounty. The only way it could be implimented would be based on the last kingdom to attack. That doesn't seem overly fair, but I guess that would be no different to kills.

I don't like the idea of making restore dependant on bounties being active though. I'd rather that scum/sorc didn't 'seem' pointless regardless of other modes being available.

Saying that, scum and sorc are not totally pointless. Destruction of buildings essentially means that if the kingdom takes land after the fact, they could end up with an inferior restore. To an extent scum and sorc can prevent the kingdom keeping the land, unless they chose to not restore and rebuild them.

----------

Sideon,

I thought about reduced restores the more they get used, but realised that all it would do is start heading back in the rage-quit direction. After all, Kingdoms that are restoring over and over are already the kingdoms being targetted a lot.

There's a particular way of exploiting restore to cause grief to other players. It was pointed out early on my Aeyliea but can't really be avoided. Essentially you can keep killing a kingdom after they leave RPP. Each time the kingdom restore gets smaller and smaller. Your suggestion would strengthen that strategy.

----------

These are the current tweaks that I'm thinking of:

• One emergency restore per age (doubles length of restore window)
• Only one choice of restore (based on total buildings)
• Ability to see what the 'next' restore will look like (without having to let the window expire)
• restore while alive = 2 days protection (+1 day prior no attack +1 days turns)
• restore after death = 3 days protection
• restore = 80% land, 75% buildings (ensure there's 'something' to do during RPP)
• BRT and TRT during restore is reduced by half during RPP
• effectiveness of Inspire Devotion is reduced during RPP
• Start with 10,000 gold (avoid forcing an immediate inspire)
• Can't declare kingdom war for 24 hours after end of restore (prevent bouncing back to war immediately)

[Reylan Talonspyre]

I like your suggested changes.