Second Age vs Firefly's Vision

This World 5 forum has been closed following the world closure.
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:29 am

Second Age vs Firefly's Vision

Post by cyckuan » Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:46 am

This post is directed at Firefly.


There are many causes of strife in this game world. Most revolve around limited resources such as, capital positions, stewardships, flags etc. Sometimes ego is involved. Sometimes people fight over resource stashes and AI (shock and disbelief but I have seen it).

Eventually, Houses and factions, blessed with the good fortune of having a healthy leadership, will rise and unite the warring factions. The strong will naturally cherry-pick the strong. Forces of natural selection in this game will push out those who lack in political guile, military prowess or simply willpower. Ultimately, One House, will triumph over others. This is inevitable because the odds begin to stack more and more against those already behind in the military and political race.

We end up with World 5 in its current state today.


Second Age magnifies the military aspect of the game because it enables completion of timed attacks within a shorter time frame. Attacks completed whilst a player is offline ... will nearly always succeed. In other words, it gives those with less political restraint and awareness, a bigger shovel to dig their own grave or a longer rope to hang oneself.

Allowing more factions in the same House will most certainly accelerate this political and military arms race. It will allow one House to dominate the world faster than ever before.

Resetting capitals and political positions is only a temporary measure. Because most of the political structure of a House or faction, is already well-established and meta-gamed. We use Teamspeak, Mumble, Ventrillo and Raidcall to name a few, to stay in touch with one another, and sometimes this can span more games than just Stronghold Kingdoms. Over more than 365 days, many of us already have established reputations.

Bottom-line, unless there are deep divides and busting tension within the ruling House (beyond the means of the current Leadership to hold together), the same House is likely to rise like a Phoenix immediately after Second Age resets.


It feels like, Firefly wants the game world to "end". They are essentially giving us the means to kill off one another faster. Why speed things up?

Instead of more cards that are essentially tweaks of existing ones, why not extend the life of the game by enriching it e.g.:
1. Expanding the game world so massively (e.g. include all of Europe), that one House cannot truly dominate an entire World because of logistical constraints (It does not have to be one persistent world as long as there is some way of traversing the different realms, regions or continents e.g. border gates, checkpoints ... essentially portals.)
2. Adding more content ... more variety in the range of castle blocks and unit types
3. Allowing interception of units on the move, armies, monks, merchants etc.
4. Adding in counters to interception, armed guards protecting merchants and monks and use of stealth etc.
5. Adding in village view-range bubbles. Why should a player all the way out in a remote corner of Ireland be able to see what is going on in Scotland? Limited view range adds in a whole new dimension to the gameplay. It forces us to maintain and harden our borders.
6. Adding in AI that is so tough and aggressive that entire counties can become AI-controlled, forcing players to work closely together to push the AI back

Also, putting myself in the shoes of a new player, why would I choose World 5 over say a younger world, like World 7? Is there no self-sustaining design-driven mechanism to grow the population of a world instead of just allowing it to dwindle and die?

Stronghold Kingdoms is a great game. Like many of us, I just want to have a feel of Firefly's vision and where it is heading with the future development of this game.

(Also, before one of my previous threads was locked, this was the discussion I was wanting the thread to lead to. Just my opinion. I can see Firefly wanting more to rise up against a dominant House using the Glory Round Victory Announcements. Continuous strife keeps the game world alive. But it would do itself greater service to expand the game world significantly and enrich in-game content.)

Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:15 pm

Re: Second Age vs Firefly's Vision

Post by Rexile » Mon Apr 15, 2013 12:58 pm

The game cannot last forever when there is an end goal like the one established. FireFly doomed the worlds by creating the elimination of houses during glory rounds. If they simply reset houses, parishes, and factions every x glory wins and awarded card points/packs for the wins then the game has a continuous ebb and flow. Eliminated houses have no real purpose in the end game other than holding village slots.

This was all intentional as they want worlds to end. Basically, each world that ends means a creation of a new world where people have reasons to use cards and spend more money. The amount of cards used in new worlds compared to old ones is quite substantial. At the end of the day, we have to remember, FireFly is a business. They have to measure cards spent and crowns purchased on each world versus the costs of hosting the server for that world.

Worlds ending is bad for a lot of people, I do agree with this. All the time and money spent working on our villages and ranks is completely wasted in the end. This is what we signed up for though, they may do what they wish and close worlds at any time for no reason.

I guess I am just a realist though.

King Zach IV
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:43 am

Re: Second Age vs Firefly's Vision

Post by King Zach IV » Mon Apr 15, 2013 1:04 pm

I would love to see all of these ideas in Stronghold Kingdoms. The AI thing would make players be more aware of inactive players if AI can take it over. The borders is a very good idea. Their should be a way that somebody can send you a report of the area that they are in ( by the ways of a informational scout coming to your village not instant deliver like sending reports ).

I would also love to see the worlds enlarged or connected to other servers, like the different language servers.

You are a genius.

With the AI part Maybe when one of those advanced enemies spawn in your base and take over villages they can vote for themselves and take over parishes, once they do they can move to different parishes just like other players would.

This would make me and more members of my faction a reason to play more. I would be so excited if firefly adds this.

Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:36 pm

Re: Second Age vs Firefly's Vision

Post by Adawulf » Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:04 pm

That was a good analysis. Thanks Cyckuan I enjoyed reading it. But your section on "Firefly's Vision" sounded like your own vision and suggestions. They were good suggestions and I agree with them, but I'm interested to hear what you think Firefly's vision is and I have my own theory on the subject.

I think the firefly vision was crafted by the accounting department. Once they figured out that new worlds generate more income than old ones, some guy said "hey let's figure out how to phase out old worlds and force players to move to new ones, so we can make more money" And the result is the 2nd age.

The most obvious statement by firefly that really showed their true colors was when they said they would be locking entry into the old worlds for new players. Part of the 2nd age announcement included a "feature" that prohibited new players from joining 2nd age worlds at a certain point, thus insuring the slow death and decay of those worlds. Then they said that once a world population drops to a certain point it would be permanently shut-down. That, to me was a dead give-away of their intentions. Like a very obvious tell in a poker game. From that point on I became convinced that this whole thing is a marketing scam designed to milk us poor gamers for as much cash as possible. I wouldn't mind if the new features were interesting, fun and didn't destroy previous investments in the game. I'm all about capitalism when it comes to games, but this is different.

User avatar
Master Merlin
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:12 pm

Re: Second Age vs Firefly's Vision

Post by Master Merlin » Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:43 pm

Seems that the life and blood players here all have the same input for FF. I just hope they get it. Killing off my world and making me start from scratch is not appealing at all. Figuring out how to make the world live on and bring new broader game play does. I would keep playing this game in this world for as long as it is there. Starting from scratch would put me back at a point where it would be easy to find it going bad and just walk away. As long as I have the base that I've spend months building I have a reason to fight to keep it together. Speaking as one of many who have done this same thing to protect all the time and effort spent so far. I don't mind you resetting the world, or houses or factions or any aspect of the game OTHER THAN MY PERSONAL HOLDINGS! MY VILLAGES AND MY CASTLES. If it didn't take months to build them it would be different, but the current system of build a good Castle and a productive village just takes to long. And to complicate it with the efforts to defend against now "extremely difficult AI wolf Castles" and the new wars that resets would present, seems game enough without have to start from scratch. But just has I have seen in the past all these words seem to fall on deft ears. It's a real shame. I think FF is missing a trick to win in the long run by finding some way to accommodating us long time players. Those who want to start over for the reasons they may have can elect to move to a new world. Those who want to stay put and deal with the resetting of the base should be just as able to choose that route also. Please review all the posts and make some effort to address us and response SOMEONE who is in a slot of knowledge and who can actually do something about this.

Respectfully Master Merlin

Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:36 pm

Re: Second Age vs Firefly's Vision

Post by Adawulf » Mon Apr 15, 2013 6:09 pm

I agree Master Merlin. In my opinion the solution is a boycott. It's more $$ they hope to earn with the new rules, and the only thing that will ever make them change their minds is less $$. I admire the folks who quit in protest, or at least promised not to buy another crown. I'm proud to say I joined the H9 crusade, and since the 2nd age announcement I have not spent a single crown nor played nearly as often.

As players our best means of influencing things is wallet power. We can complain here on the forums but money talks and its doubtful if the folks in charge even read these forums. If you want to get their attention, refuse to buy crowns.

User avatar
Posts: 7163
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:08 am
Location: WI, USA

Re: Second Age vs Firefly's Vision

Post by DavidSpy » Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:15 pm

Ok, let me start off by saying I'm not a big fan of the second age either, I believe it could have been better implemented and in the past I was adamant in my hate of the proposed Second Age, so much in fact, that I signed a petition against it.

But if one looks at World One after the start of the Second Age they would see a new breath of life in it. Granted House 18 didn't control the entire world 1 like House 1 in World five but it was merely a matter of time before this happened.

In World One, after the second age started, the House 18 superpower alliance split and H18 was only able to grab one more star before Scotland house 14 topped them in the second round. Only a month or so later it's now the predominantly Irish H17 out in front taking stars.

I'm don't look forward to the closure of a world I put over a year's worth of work into either. But with an "unofficial" third age in the works ( ... =third+age) I think we all can look forward to at least another year of glory races in world 5 before there is even a possibility of it being closed.

I do find the mechanics of the Second Age less attractive than those of the first age and also acknowledge it's intended to end that Age faster than the previous. But in the end the fate of the world is truly in the hands of us players. Firefly may discourage the prolongation of the First Age but look at world 2, they got together, last I heard, to keep their world in the first age. Even then, we could see a very long second age in World Five if all the fighting factions don't dog-pile into one super house.

I know I speak from the prospective of a farmer/mod but I have been a member of World 5 from day one, I was a fighter and have fought in houses, 16, 1, and 14. I have lost villages and long time allies/friends, at the same time I have conquered more villages and gained new allies. I have been with you all from the start and I have written this post as a fellow player.
Questions? You should join my Discord group
Helpful SHK Sites: SHK Advanced Guide | SHK Strategy
Check out my Stronghold Kingdoms tutorials on YouTube | RazingHell


King Zach IV
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:43 am

Re: Second Age vs Firefly's Vision

Post by King Zach IV » Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:56 pm

DavidSpy wrote:Ok, let me start off by saying I'm not a big fan of the second age either, I believe it could have been better implemented and in the past I was adamant in my hate of the proposed Second Age, so much in fact, that I signed a petition against it.
I was the 6th person to sign :)

Bernhard Bernfried
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 3:22 pm

Re: Second Age vs Firefly's Vision

Post by Bernhard Bernfried » Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:37 am

It is quite obvious that a player who invested, say, a year of his time and a ton of money into the game and just looses that all because firefly shuts down the world, won't just start over again. I saw complete Houses quit and move onto the next game.

If Firefly would manage to keep worlds alive by adding new drives, then these players would keep spending money and playing the game. There were proposals how to achieve that, and its actually not that hard.

World 5 is running for over a year now, and my faction just brought a new wave of recruits in.
The guy with 60 alts called "bernd something"

Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:36 pm

Re: Second Age vs Firefly's Vision

Post by Adawulf » Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:25 pm

I plan to stick around just for curiosity sake. This game is hard enough already for a casual player like me, the 2nd age will make it nearly unplayable. Just the super-charged AI castles alone will be enough to keep me in rubble.


Return to “World 5 Lounge (Closed)”