Allianz Switching for Wonder player in the Endgame

  • Don't trust your sources, they are wrong. You do need CP for new villages just like in Kingdoms. I know there is a similar game to Travian that did not need culture points, and its a horrible game for new players. I think Kingdoms was the developers attemt at keeping the unexperianced players around by a more interactive start.

    Here is the sources: http://answers.travian.com/?vi…=answer&aid=101#go2answer
    CP doesn´t exist in Travian Legend, you conquere village when ever you want as long you have Chiefs avaibly.


    Well I haven´t played legend for years but I do believe that linked I shared is upto date and tell you how to conguere a village now, as it is presentated at a Travian Legend site.


    So you are wrong Imperial. Kingdom and Travian legend does not have the same system of settling villages or conquere villages.



    //Elaka

  • Oh Ya? Maybe I'm reading this wrong?


    Hint: You can only conquer a village when the residence or palace is destroyed, you have enough culture points, the village you are attacking is not the capital and not the player's only village.


    That sure is a funny way of saying you dont need culture points.

  • Oh Ya? Maybe I'm reading this wrong?


    Hint: You can only conquer a village when the residence or palace is destroyed, you have enough culture points, the village you are attacking is not the capital and not the player's only village.


    That sure is a funny way of saying you dont need culture points.

    true, but you still Travian Legend do not have the CP system as it is in Kingdom.


    Resourse from Travian Legend:


    Culture points (CP) are a restriction that limits the number villages you can found or conquer. You gain them by building and upgrading buildings in your village. Furthermore every account gets 500 culture points at the beginning.


    Sorry for not being enough clear in my respond to you.


    My point is...it is a differens between this 2 game regarding CP.



    Elaka

  • Alright, fair enough.


    But what is your point in bringing up the diffrence of culture points between kingdoms and Legends? Was it just to defend Chip? Apparently I need this spelled out

  • Mhh...I read now the whole treat´s here and need to come back to the start point.


    From my opinion it was not the problem about META or big alliances - I would only suggest that it should be earlier done to make it visible to all player on the server that others can react if Wonder switch the alliances.


    That was my only opinion on this item. and therefore I have suggested to do it like - if Wonder switch to other alliance after level 30-50 (as example) it should be handled like a chiefed Wonder Village (for chiefing you have to destroy the wonder in first).


    Or second suggestion was - you can only get the additional percentage to victory points from the highest Wonder which your alliance own.


    I never spoke about Meta or what ever confederacy ;-)


    Regards
    Testosteron

  • Or second suggestion was - you can only get the additional percentage to victory points from the highest Wonder which your alliance own.

    I think that would make sense. Or you don't allow alliances changes after WW appears - at least not with WW holder - so the WW would need to be conquered by someone else to "transfer" it which would be quite risky. It would certainly help prevent last minute changes.

  • I was going to post something along the lines of "for the love of all that is good and holy, let this thread die", but it was actually a couple of reasonable posts for a change. Pity, though, it robs me of a chance to yet again climb on my high horse and carry on like a good sort.


    Yeah, it does need to be changed. I think that switching alliances changes to 0 would be the best solution. And if that had been in place, we would have done the merge as WW came out.


    We still would have been a meta though, as far as the forum warriors are concerned...

  • Hey, guys. We've been following this and other threads on the topic and would like to do something about this in the near future.


    Therefore we'd like to collect your thoughts on two concrete alternatives we could do, which I think have both been brought up before.


    a) Disallow World Wonder owners from switiching alliances


    b) Making only the highest World Wonder bonus count per alliance



    I think option a) is an exception you wouldn't necessarily expect, but it doesn't affect the rest of the game much. Option b) has some more implications for the general gameplay (which might not be a bad thing though).


    What do you think?

  • Sorry but... 13 months (since first official TK COM server ended) to finally act on this matter? This, once again, almost completely useless thread of meta hate/WW switch was necessary to wake you up (not you FabianF in particular but the whole dev team)? Well better late than never but again if the changes in test server go live on real servers in 3/4 months these changes are useless now since the other proposed changes on test should already avoid situations like the one in this thread to happen again.


    So I don't think now going through with these changes would actually be a beneficial thing for the game, I like the new mechanics on test server so wait to see how those work in this matter and then proceed from there. These changes would have been helpful a year ago not now.

  • Once again, I disagree with Mayo on this one. I don't think the Test changes will stop metas, nor will it get rid of late game wonder switching. To give you an example, I was worried on the previous com4 that people would try and get me to switch late game while I was ahead to deny WAR the win. (Thankfully, Radagast, Paris and co were not interested in that sort of thing).


    Nor do I think a single wonder is a good idea. If an alliance is brave enough to try multiple wonders , and defend multiple wonders, let them.


    So either lock a wonder owner to one alliance, or 0 the wonder if changing alliance. Both have strengths and weaknesses, but either should limit late game shenanigans.

  • My point is that the new VP mechanics and the halved bonuses of WW will reduce the importance of WWs in the winning race and will put a lot more importance on fighting enemies. The problem with this is that there are a lot of ways of using the new VP mechanics between allied kingdoms.


    I think preventing WW owners to switch alliance would be the perfect solution when it comes down to WW, if they want to have multiple WWs they should take them right away when they spawn. Taking into account only the highest WW wouldn't be fair for the alliance who builds 2 or more WWs on his own.


    VVV is right meta won't stop with test changes probably, but it will greatly reduce their effectiveness with respect to now which is good enough.


    For the previous possibility of cheating maybe it would be nice, in order to prevent people stealing VPs from allied kingdoms (abusing the new VP system), that in order to help each other between alliances, they must be confederated, otherwise people can't send troops or resources to the other alliance and you could flag people that played within the abused alliance so that they can't join the alliance that attacked for the rest of the server.
    (just ideas, because right now I don't think there are any restrictions that would prevent this VP abuse between friendly alliances)


    PS: This is probably not relevant to the original topic and we should move somewhere else?

  • @Mayo_COM - you are right - only using the highest wonder would be not fair. Therefore I would prefer option a from @FabianF with one comment:


    Allow to switch but handle this switch like a chiefed Wonder- That mean Wall and Wonder went down to level 0 with an Alliance change in Wonder Owner Account.
    I think that would be fair enough. If an alliance need to have more wonder he can switch it at the time that WW came out without risk. Then all other player know - ok, this Alliance has three wonder and not only one and can coordinate the attackes a little bit better ;-)
    At the moment you can´t be sure how many wonders an alliance build.

  • I'd take a different approach. I'd say both A and B.


    There would still be a benefit to having multiple wonders. you could build up both and if one gets destroyed/damaged, you'd still have one that would give you a bonus. But being able to have two just promotes metas since it takes a large meta to handle two. Likely all it would mean is duke changes to add more people in later.


    Another thought that could help prevent metas would be to have dismissed dukes take a VP penalty just like kicking a king does in the current version. This way, removing a duke and adding others just to add more people to the alliance would have a negative impact later in the game.


    I think the thing to think about is how do the metas become so large and put in things to prevent that. Right now, kings can abdicate and there's no penalty, so new kings can be added. With a single king, that is no longer an option, but now dukes could do the same thing. So having the VP earned by a dukes treasury be removed if they we're removed to re-duke someone else would really stop this. And it may not need to be 100% of what was earned, but significant enough that it would be a deterrent. The only thing that needs to be taken into account is an inactive account.

  • Some people might not like what i am about to say


    BUT i dont think it is a good idea to discourage wonderbuilders to switch alliances by destroying their wonder or just disallow it (like FabianF proposed in option A)
    TK is a wargame but also a diplomatic game and convincing a (winning) wonderbuilder to join your team is part of the game (or can be if it happens).
    And what would you do if 2 alliances who were the major part of the server allied with each other and both have a wonder. Would you make them fight each other for the victory? i think merging is then the only reasonable/fair option :)


    and tbh i am not a big fan of option B of FabianF either, again this is imo a diplomatic game and when there is a alliance leader or King from a losing alliance with enough "diplomatic skills" to convince the other (not winning) wonderbuilders to join him against the winning alliance, he deserves the win. Even if that is a dirty move :)

  • @snappy_COM


    I understand your point but see it also from the other side.


    It´s a diplomatic change with knowing from all member - could be - but in real it only depend on two players - the Wonder player and the main king of the other alliance.


    I know from older servers that it was planned from the beginning of the server to have two alliances to help to build some wonders. But it was planned between two people - the others had no clue about this. And than the Duke changed two hours before end of game and nobody - also not the old Alliance could react anymore. They had round about 60 gamer which help to build and defend the wonder and two hours before end of game all the work was for nothing. Question is - is this diplomatic or is this egoistic? What do you think?


    Therefore my suggestion was - make it earlier clear to all on the server (also to the old Alliance member) what is planned that anyone can have more influence on this.


    A Wonder owner can´t build a wonder alone - why he should be able to switch in last second of server the Alliance without consequences?

  • @Testosteron_DE


    i completely understand both sides


    But before you support a wonderbuilder you need to make sure you can trust him 100%.
    if a wonderbuilder betrays you like that you have given your trust to lightly.



    Therefore my suggestion was - make it earlier clear to all on the server (also to the old Alliance member) what is planned that anyone can have more influence on this.


    how would you arrange that? if that is a deal between 2 people who keep it secret it is impossible to make it clear to all the server.
    again this is diplomacy; if the "spy-duke" that is building the wonder can arrange he can build the wonder with the support of the alliance he was planning to betray from the start he did a "good" job

  • I know everyone is on the edge of their seat to hear my opinion on this. First multiple wonders are great . as VVV stated it brings an extra challenge to try and take 2 or 3 wonders and hold them. it opens up a whole new range of different strategies to use. I think the best fix is as has been said many times. for a wonder to switch alliances the WW building itself must reset to 0. not sure the best way to make that heppen as far as game mechanics happen .
    Since its the endgame it makes sense that any mergers should have already happened by the start of the endgame. Its more fair for all teams to know who the team are, going into the endgame. I slipped in the last minute merge on purpose for effect. l wish i could have seen some of the looks from the other alliances when they say midway through lvl 99 that the merge happened. No one really wanted to prolong the server in question..


    The only thing that would have been different is the merge would have happened sooner but that would have changed the way the endgame was played by everyone.

  • Guess I will throw my 8.4 cents into this too......


    When you create an alliance in Kingdoms from scratch each round it means each time you must entrust someone with holding and being the builder of your alliance World Wonder. There has to be a lot of trust for all those involved so you don't have holders switching at endgame. For pre-made teams this is not so much of an issue because you have played together for several servers and have built a team by putting in the time on the servers.


    I am not a big fan on putting restraints on those who hold an build a WW because that takes a lot of your personal time to be that player.
    I can see the need though that maybe if a WW drops from an alliance after a certain day then maybe there should be a penalty.
    The best one posted so far to me is the WW levels itself being reset to 0.


    However keep in mind that even this action if it became a rule would still not stop human nature from happening.
    This would just become another avenue for those players with no loyalty to create havoc as well.
    If you are in an alliance with just 1 WW and your builder decided to leave, then you end up with the same results now you have with no restrictions. No WW and the one you did have is now at zero.


    This game is supposed to be about team work and if you put together a team and use those members for your more important roles then you will eliminate the whole idea of treachery.
    Each round as you add new members you give them time to grow and become part of the team before handing over the keys to something so important to the alliance.


    So overall I would say no rule regarding the WW holder during endgame but if developers are thinking of adding then WW to 0 I would vote for.

  • @Titan Chip_COM


    a merge between 2 big alliances is imo a nightmare, you need to go and collect every treasure of former active treasuries who are outside of your area of influence
    OR risk that someones steals alot of VP by attacking a former treasury and steals alot of VP. You will say now that you always have that chance and you are 100% right but the only difference is that if that village is outside your area you can not see the attack. so you cant react very fast on it :)


    thats why such merges are postphoned as long as possible.


    When you want to see who you are fighting against i would vote for something completely different:
    as far as i can recall correctly the diplomacy used to be shown on the profile page of the alliance when i took a break from travian a few years ago.
    perhaps it is then better to add that again so diplomancy can be seen by everyone, that way you can see against who you are fighting