The way to play Kingdoms?

  • Good afternoon Everyone,


    Snappy are you Clubz?


    BUT what happend after the wonders spawned last comx3 was really a joke.

    I disagree but respect your opinion. Me being new at Kingdoms I just played with Game current rules, I did nothing that I feel wrong or that I shouldn`t.
    If the rules were different I would had choosen a deferent path but they weren`t.


    right before the first wonder hitted lvl 50 a kingdom that was rank 8 in VP became the first rank in VP, because they stole all VP from several other FRIENDLY top 10 kingdoms;
    i assume, they did that by gathering alot of treasures in 1 village of a govenor who denied tributes and then appoint that player a duke right before the attack landed, wich ment that they could steal all treasures in 1 go (because that player didnt had an active treasury)


    and after that happend that kingdom letted their govenors (who denied tributes) steal treasures out of their treasuries so they had barely treasures in their treasuries so other kingdoms couldnt steal VP from them. And when there was a chance to steal VP (becasue one of the dukes had been sloppy) they just deduked that person right before the attack.


    and there was even another kingdom who switched from kings when the king was under attack


    My Victory Thread will tell Round history, About the deduked and also the deKing, If it`s allowed in current rules is not Wrong. Also Vandals dismissed all Dukes too.

  • you can share it here too, no need to do be secret about your "tactics"


    and ofcourse he is "unsatisfied" with the outcome, ToughTek was a stronger kingdom then thewall the only problem they had was that their king couldnt think for himself
    and that king gave all their VP to thewall

    Well if I share it here or not, is my Call Snappy.
    The move was planed as last resource plan, The Wall planed to win alone, and we would not had ToughTef VP`s if they were not needed.
    Vandals also boosted their VP`s in the end and keep relly running there to catch us.
    Impetus joined me in Victory, he won with me as Well as all Toughtek (Winner Round 7- TTekWall)

    Dont you think other people comitted (to much) time in this game?

    I was saying that, I was talking only abbout me. That was just let cleat if game did extended the winner would be the same (TTekWall) but we would for sure VP the other way in order for WW bonus and allowed me to pass Victory responsability

  • and ofcourse he is "unsatisfied" with the outcome, ToughTek was a stronger kingdom then thewall the only problem they had was that their king couldnt think for himself
    and that king gave all their VP to thewall

    If he is unsatisfied he shouldn`t, he won unlike you


    "ToughTek was a stronger kingdom then thewall" This is just gossip and Trash Talk. I totally see us as equals. (Us being Stronger in VP and def)


    The Wall received the Biggest round offensive, ToughTek received one offensive too (at Wonder) stil had pretty much the same def almost in end and my WW wans`t eaven a city no more.
    Wall produced more Def (much more players and some allys), actually Wall stil had some Hammers left, I tough server was gonna extend until Vandals were victory capable

  • No-one is denying what happened is within the rules. What is being said, if I may borrow the words of Charles Dickens, is that "The Rules are an Ass", i.e. that the game should not be capable of being won in this way. Travian have been too slow in closing this exploit and now need to do something as a matter of urgency.


    I think I speak for most players when I say I don't want to play a game that is capable of being won in this way. Indeed I, and many others in ToughTek, feel cheated out of the gameplay experience we expected. All the effort put into defending our WW felt wasted. I understand that the plan was to pass the VPs back; I worked that out myself. I'm actually glad that didn't happen as I would have received a medal that wasn't earned. I have as strong a desire to win as the next person, but the means is important.

  • I like the idea of delaying the effect of a duke abdicating from a treasures stolen perspective, but the need to stop being a duke instantly.


    I would say the once the WW come out VP points should not be able to be stolen, but instead they can be lost at 2x the normal rate. So the kingdom that steals the treasures no longer gets the points , but the kingdom that loses the treasures still losses points. The reason for doubling the rate is it would have the same net effect, but not allow the free transfer of points.

  • So, to prevent the instant king/duke/governor rotation to dodge victory point stealing, we're thinking about adding an abdication timer based on the number of treasures the respective player currently has. So players with no or very few treasures wouldn't be too affected by this change as their abdication timer would be very short. Players who own lots of treasures, and are thus relevant in regards to this dodging exploit, would take way longer and in most cases not be able to dodge an already incoming attack.


    We're also thinking of getting rid of the "top 10" rule for victory point stealing to prevent metas from shifting all their points to their main wing in the endgame ("VP boosting").

  • So, to prevent the instant king/duke/governor rotation to dodge victory point stealing, we're thinking about adding an abdication timer based on the number of treasures the respective player currently has. So players with no or very few treasures wouldn't be too affected by this change as their abdication timer would be very short. Players who own lots of treasures, and are thus relevant in regards to this dodging exploit, would take way longer and in most cases not be able to dodge an already incoming attack.


    We're also thinking of getting rid of the "top 10" rule for victory point stealing to prevent metas from shifting all their points to their main wing in the endgame ("VP boosting").

    With regard to the timer just leave in something in so you can quickly bring someone in and drop them for adding players who are outside your kingdom's area. Something like if there is no active treasury they can still be dropped immediately.


    Which part of the top 10 rule are you thinking of getting rid of? The 10x/25x or that you can only steal from a kingdoms with less points if they are in the top 10?


    Are you considering anything like this? No stealing of VP after a certain time (ex. WW come out), but you the loser still loses the points (or double points to keep the effect the same)


    One more thing, I think 12 hours to activate a treasury is a long time for a server that lasts only 60 days.

  • Yes, for a player who has 0 treasures we'd probably keep the timer at 0 as well.


    Although I'm not sure "adding players who are outside your kingdom's area" is that great anyways. We theoretically want players in a kingdom to be connected geographically as well...


    By the "top 10 rule" I mean that you can steal VP from any kingdom in the top 10, no matter your position. With that change you'd only be able to steal from higher-ranked kingdoms again.


    We might consider limiting VP stealing later in the game as we're currently observing some unintended behaviors during that stage (such as "hiding" treasures in other kingdoms or in your world wonder). It's not a trivial decision though as it's not clear that this is the optimal (or necessary) strategy and when the correct point of switching from "VP production" to "VP protection" has come. Potentially the 25x stealing from the #1 kingdom is simply too harsh.

  • Although I'm not sure "adding players who are outside your kingdom's area" is that great anyways. We theoretically want players in a kingdom to be connected geographically as well...

    That would be an interesting change, just limit Duke promotions to people in the Kingdom already.



    By the "top 10 rule" I mean that you can steal VP from any kingdom in the top 10, no matter your position. With that change you'd only be able to steal from higher-ranked kingdoms again.

    I think you still need to add a VP loss to the team that losses the treasures, otherwise the lower ranked team has no worries when attacked by a higher ranked team

  • That would be an interesting change, just limit Duke promotions to people in the Kingdom already.

    That's what I was thinking. Does anyone else think this could be benefitial to the game? Or on the other hand, any counter-arguments except "wanting to add all players from my meta as soon as possible"?

  • By the "top 10 rule" I mean that you can steal VP from any kingdom in the top 10, no matter your position. With that change you'd only be able to steal from higher-ranked kingdoms again.

    I know the rule x) No this is a terrible change, like really bad.
    Finally right now you are rewarded for fighting during server and to build up an advantage and you want to remove this possibility? Right now on COM1 the top1 kingdom has 2 million VP advantage on the second spot because we fought everyone since day1 and the work showed the results. Removing this means going back to simming and the top1 will be attacked by everyone until all VPs are similar once again..

  • That's what I was thinking. Does anyone else think this could be benefitial to the game? Or on the other hand, any counter-arguments except "wanting to add all players from my meta as soon as possible"?

    I like this part not the top 10 part

  • To make some changes as soon as possible (and to be able to patch already running servers, where the world wonders are not active yet), we'd like to propose a couple smaller changes for now:

    • Remove the "top 10 rule" from victory point stealing (i.e. VP can only be stolen from higher-ranked kingdoms)

      • Reasoning: Stop metas from "friendly VP stealing", i.e. boosting their main kingdom
    • When a king/duke abdicates or a duke is dismissed, immediately empty their tribute fund

      • Reasoning: There should be a drawback to abdicating when under attack, dodging VP stealing is simply too attractive if it's also possible to take away the treasures as tributes instantly
    • Disallow building a hidden treasury in a world wonder village

      • Reasoning: It's currently too easy to "hide" treasures in WW villages to just have one single target to protect

    What do you think?

  • It s not a solution, it will be like before, its like you have a crack on a wheel and you keep putting new tape on it instead of fixing it or changing it. The best change you did with last patch was allowing people to fight at any time and steal VPs and now you want to remove it because you don't know how to fix it fast enough. So basically you go back to where we were, more boring but less likely to have abuse of VPs (even then its not true at all as I have told you already) limiting the stealing to higher ranked doesnt avoid metas to do friendly VP stealing and abusing from it. It just fucks up evrn more people doing it the right way.

  • @FabianF Try to check on a recent thread I posted. Maybe some ideas there can interest you.


    I highly recommend my Rank Rules there which I calculated and thought of for many times before sharing, it is a brand new scaling of VP between higher ranked kingdoms and lower ranked.
    With it the new WAR declaration system + VP Decaying rule. I think those 3 are the best set of rules imo to make the game active without relying too much on VP and hindering the exploit of VP Abuses.


    Would be best if most of the ideas can be tested since its a whole package and some ideas won't work without the other.

    "You can do a hundreds of good deeds but everyone will remember the 1 mistake you will do."

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Archer ().