Try one without treasures and VP. Let the WW decide the server.

  • I don't know how the servers beyond com2 are working out, but in my opinion, treasures and VP have had a negative impact on fighting and on team building. This seems counter-intuitive to me still, but also seems to be the way it is going. My suggestion here for the devs is to restart TEST after it ends, run it without treasures or VP, open registration, and see how it goes. I guess I am suggesting a hybrid, a mixture of TK and older Travian versions.


    Since it is 5x, let everything run at 5x. But instead of releasing WWs in 22 days, make it 45 days (111 days at 1x is far too slow or far too short, maybe both) to more closely match a full length server from older versions. Have WW plans as the only artifacts, released a short time before WWs and held in treasuries which must be destroyed to steal the plans. Sell gold on the server. Keep the robbers, even, although either without stolen goods or with items similar to those won in adventures.


    Let the alliance which first completes a WW be declared the winner. You could include other team oriented features as you see fit, but keep the kingdom/Duke/Governor deal. Let influence be decided strictly by the size of villages owned by kings and dukes.


    I think it is well worth a try, and doubt you would have too much work to do to adapt what you already have.

  • I still feel that at the very least you'll need to soften the restrictions on catapult-waves and remove the loyalty bonus on cities before anything has a chance of changing. VP/treasures or not.


    Preferably (it has been a while since I said it) also make influence dependant on fighting correctly so that everybody's logically working towards expanding their influence by fighting. If you have that kind of incentive and the aforementioned restrictions are lifted I guarantee you'll see fighting. Once you see fighting, teamwork necessarily comes back too, as well as a more competetive playerbase instead of the 90% casual playerbase you have right now.

  • More fighting = less chance for the less active players to make something of their account = fewer people playing travian = fewer people using gold = less money


    Travian Kingdoms is business-wise the most logical way to go compared to the classic Travian.
    I honestly don't see any major changes (notably ones that encourage more fighting) happening to TK.

  • More fighting = more people actually finding the game interesting = more people playing travian. If you have a casual playerbase that doesn't fight, the game will be boring, the players will leave. All the experienced ones already have. How is that the most logical way to go from any perspective? Also, from a historical perspective this game is supposed to be a war game. It isn't, right now.


    The less active players seem to have a better chance of surviving, but if the game isn't competetive at all anyway like it is right now, they will survive no matter what. The argument that keeping less active people safe = more people playing Travian is flawed and has been for years. It didn't work for T3 when they made trappers and easier crannies compared to T2, it didn't work for T4 when all early fighting was taken away from the game, and it won't work for TK either. It's time TG saw it too.

  • The term "less active players" is getting old. An individual player does not have to be overly active to make something of an account, the account does have to be active. That's why there are sitters and duals. In "the old days" no decent alliance would tolerate inactivity. Inactivity is the most common reason people were booted, and not just by me but by any serious alliance. To anyone who wants to play the game and "make something of an account" all I can say is find duals and/or sitters to cover those times you won't be online. An inactive account, and even a "less active" account is a potential farm and always will be, so get help on the account or don't bother to play.


    Travian used to have a very large, very dedicated player base. In many threads here, I have referred to teamwork, team spirit. That was the backbone of the game, and unless a way is found to bring it back to the game in place of ego players (which T4 encouraged, and which TK with oasis influence also encouraged) then there will never again be a player base to compare with that before T4.


    I think my idea for taking VP and treasures out of play would result in more fighting, not less. Of course, entering the Alpha, I thought treasures and VP would make for more teamwork and more fighting, but it appears the opposite was the result.

  • The term "less active players" is getting old. An individual player does not have to be overly active to make something of an account,


    I strongly disagree.
    A dual can mean you don't have to be active, but then it would mean the dual is the active part of the account.
    But a sitter, except in very rare circumstances, will not make a low-activity account into something good. Most sitters will, at best, keep things going as status quo, and make sure to keep the warehouse from overflowing. If you're going away for a few days or a week, a sitter can do more. If you expect a long-term sitter to work your account as if he was a dual, you would be finding the diamond sitter in the rough.



    Quote

    I think my idea for taking VP and treasures out of play would result in more fighting, not less. Of course, entering the Alpha, I thought treasures and VP would make for more teamwork and more fighting, but it appears the opposite was the result.


    I think the way to make more fighting is to get rid of kingdoms.
    When all of your neighbors are automatically your friends because your king expands, it makes for lousy fighting.

  • what is interesting to me is that for some reason all of you think it is the developers job to make it so you have to fight. You want to fight GO FIGHT. I dont get it guys. And you dont have to be a gov in a kingdom. Refuse them and fight them all. Play the game the way you want to and that the mechanics allow. Want to fight go fight... but for gods sake stop acting like its anyone job but your own to play the game the way you want to play it.


    @Wonka's first point. I completely agree. There is only 1 thing in this game really money cant buy.... TIME.... if you're account does not have face time forget it. You will not have a good account. Sitters are completely unreliable... if they are active they have their own account to run and if they dont do a good job on their account what kind of sitter are they really?

  • It's the developers job to make fighting possible Marius, not do our fighting for us. But more importantly it's not just allowing fighting to be possible, but incentivizing it so that more people are doing it. It's a wargame after all. This game will fail if there's never any fighting on the server, as it is on COM2. Uncompetetiveness leads to inactivity (in the same way that playing only as big metas leads to inactivity for too many people), inactivity leads to boredom, boredom leads to players permanently leaving the game. Those who aren't fighting (on any server) should be doing so as a conscious strategic choice, not out of a random inactive happenstance in the way almost everybody in COM2 is currently doing it. (People happened to be a part of the major metas and went inactive as a result). It might be hard for you to see this - you're on a high profile and no doubt hard-fighting account- but most people in both samurai and xtools hardly do anything at all. I think that's part of the reason why you felt the extra resources could be better used by you than by others in your kingdom. Just try to do a headcount: How many of the 300+ people in your meta actually contribute/respond in any way? I'd be surprised of it's more than 30%. Really surprised. Which exactly underlines both my points: incentivize fighting and stop metas from existing (or at least shrink them).


    Btw, trying to fight without being in a kingdom means you have no treasury income so you'd be rediculously behind. Or did they change that? In a way that's equal to being in a regular kingdom?

  • what is interesting to me is that for some reason all of you think it is the developers job to make it so you have to fight. You want to fight GO FIGHT. I dont get it guys. And you dont have to be a gov in a kingdom. Refuse them and fight them all. Play the game the way you want to and that the mechanics allow. Want to fight go fight... but for gods sake stop acting like its anyone job but your own to play the game the way you want to play it.


    but then again, you can win the server without any fight, and if you can win it without fighting, why fight?
    i'm playing from T2 and at that time, it's literally a war game, everyone teuton, everyone raiding everything, destroying everything that's not part of the alliance or family,
    i don't say that TK must follow T2 or revert back to old gameplay, i like TK system, but at least, IMO there is something wrong with the war game, when you can win it without any fight

  • Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't remember ever saying it was the devs' place to make it so you have to fight. It is a war game, however, and fighting will always be a part of it. Those who win battles reap rewards from them, while those who lose - well, lose. Those who don't fight don't win battles. But here again, it is supposed to be a team game, not one in which you strive for individual wins (or stats, medals, glory, etc).


    As to sitters, if they are part of the team and if everyone plays for the team, they will take care of each other's accounts as well as they take care of their own. Duals share an account, and so obviously take care of it. No one should be without coverage on an account. That is just plain sense. You can argue with that as much as you like, but you can't change the sense of it.

  • As to sitters, if they are part of the team and if everyone plays for the team, they will take care of each other's accounts as well as they take care of their own.


    What fantasy world to you live in?


    I mean, you say you were part of a team that played together for awhile, so you probably had several players who you could trust to watch your account.
    But do you really think that's something which is easily or commonly found?


    Most sitters are good for a few days when you have a specific set of things you need done while you're out of reach of your computer. Very few will leave your account open for hours at a time to keep raids going all the time, while also building your account. Usually it is the bare minimum.


    Geez, 1/2 the server barely does more than that for their own accounts, why do you think they would do it for someone else's?


  • No fantasy at all WM. Duals are, of course, the better way to go, but in the past I have played solo with a sitter or two from the same alliance and done just fine. Logging in every little bit and spending resources on troops, sending raids, taking care of any incomings, whatever needs doing, doesn't really take a lot of time - and certainly, a sitter has to be someone you can trust. While that is not as easy to find nowadays as it was then, it s not completely gone from the game - and if we could figure out how to refocus players on team play again, it would again be common. But it is better to have a dual or two, even so. I would not have a sitter I could not trust with spending my gold and handling my account as if it were his or her own.


    The main difference between the old standard approach to the game and the most common approach now is that in the past, every account and everything in every account was fully dedicated to the team - now, it seems most everyone is for him or herself over and above the team.

  • The main difference between the old standard approach to the game and the most common approach now is that in the past, every account and everything in every account was fully dedicated to the team - now, it seems most everyone is for him or herself over and above the team.


    Maybe the .us servers are different, but in my experience there are always players in each alliance who are just out to collect lots of shiny medals to hang on their profile. Not saying they can't also be good teammates, but often the team is second to their own account.


    I find the bigger the account, the more likely they're concerned about themselves first, and the team second. Not all of them certainly, but it does tend to go that way.


    I've been guilty of medal collecting, just as I've also spent a couple of servers in leadership where I let my own account suffer a bit while helping others.

  • Not a single argument made has in any way swayed my view that if you want to fight it is your job to fight. The Devs do not need to add any incentive for fighting in any way in my opinion. There is plenty of incentive to fight, people simply dont do it. Go do it and others will have to fight back.


    @Wonka, show me a single small account capable of leading a team to victory? Thats right, big accounts make sure they are big because it takes several accounts of that size to win. You simply cant win without it. Whats funny to me is that its like you guys have never played on a T4 or T3 before or something.... how did we feed big hammers on those servers? EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the alliance was FORCED to ship resources to hammer towns to feed the big accounts. They have simply made it automatic (tributes) and made it so it doesnt hurt the shipper in any way.


    This argument is silly. there is plenty of reason to fight in TK, people just dont do it. Go do it.

  • "There is plenty of incentive to fight, people simply don't do it. " Do you not see the contradiction in that? :D


    I tried doing it. Everybody was in a meta and we were not, so we got destroyed. After that, since it's only meta vs meta fighting, nobody was actually fighting except for a small amount of people in the metas themselves. That will always be the case as long as metas are the go-to strategy. Smaller alliances don't try to fight the bigger ones, for obvious reasons. So they too, can't fight. The big ones don't fight much. The small ones don't fight. So nobody really fights. It's not that I or them didn't want to. It's that it was impossible. I couldn't. And nobody else can either.


    So I reiterate: Shrink metas, allow people to fight. Then make it possible to fight by reducing catapult wave restrictions a bit and removing the 200% loyalty from cities. See if that's enough. If not, make further changes as suggested by daniel or me earlier.

  • i dont see the contradiction.... People dont do it because they are lazy. Would you like the Devs to chew your food for you too? Why dont we completely dumb the game down so every noob can fight effectively. That will make the game lots of fun for people spending gold.


    That second part is simply not true. Me and my duals and all our Govs, and I mean completely alone as a kingdom with absolutely zero help from the rest of Horde took on several kings.... including one in xTools.... thats right we fought xTools before we joined them. Anyone can do that if they are super active and grow fast.


    I dont think those changes are going to spur fighting honestly. I think you make the game what you want. If you want to fight band together with some friends, be super active and fight.


    Or maybe they will... who knows. Whatever, Im willing to try anything once... If they made those changes I am sure I would give the server a go and see how it plays out.

  • Maybe the .us servers are different, but in my experience there are always players in each alliance who are just out to collect lots of shiny medals to hang on their profile. Not saying they can't also be good teammates, but often the team is second to their own account.


    I find the bigger the account, the more likely they're concerned about themselves first, and the team second. Not all of them certainly, but it does tend to go that way.


    I've been guilty of medal collecting, just as I've also spent a couple of servers in leadership where I let my own account suffer a bit while helping others.


    That does seem to be the way the game has gone since the start of T4. One of the biggest reasons so many of us have left the game. Some of you will remember playing on teams in which everyone put the team first. No one had to be "forced" to support hammers or anvils, no one needed to have an arm twisted to send defense or to participate in offensive ops. Everyone communicated constantly and when there was a need, it was filled. With the advent of T4, what we referred to as "ego players" took a larger role in the game, made alliances to serve the needs of their own accounts, and team play became rare.


    Sitting here now, I have to wonder whether this game will ever return to the old team spirit. I remember a few of us setting out to spoil the game of some of the early ego players. It can be done, but they just delete, leaving any who followed them on a server behind and move to a new server. Perhaps without artifacts and with a few more changes, TK stands a chance - make it so it does not favor the ego players so much and they will play T4 instead.

  • @Wonka, show me a single small account capable of leading a team to victory?


    Leading doesn't require a big account -- just lots of time and the ability to communicate and coordinate a team.



    Quote

    Whats funny to me is that its like you guys have never played on a T4 or T3 before or something.... how did we feed big hammers on those servers? EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the alliance was FORCED to ship resources to hammer towns to feed the big accounts.


    I have never asked my alliance to ship me resources to feed my hammer. I have asked for resources for the WW (of course) and for defending key towns -- capitals, hammers, key artifacts and plan villages. I've never asked for a push to "build the alliance embassy" or anything of that nature. I have asked for small pushes to help out an ally who just splatted a hammer or a big chunk of anvil or the like, but I firmly believe a hammer should feed itself. If you can't feed it by raiding and through having a big 15c cap, then feed it with gold. I've run 2 hammers over 100k with 5k+ cats each, and never asked for wheat to feed them.


    In TK, that may have to change due to the absurd amounts of defense the top kings are keeping in town to defend big treasuries, but prior versions had only a few artifacts to defend and usually required much less static defense.



    edit:
    Also, I think TK has done away with the possibility of a small account being relevant in leadership. All leaders must be kings, and in order to compete, kings must gobble up territory and players as quickly as possible. So all leaders will be fairly big -- at least for the leading alliances.

  • i dont see the contradiction.... People dont do it because they are lazy. Would you like the Devs to chew your food for you too? Why dont we completely dumb the game down so every noob can fight effectively. That will make the game lots of fun for people spending gold.


    You do know that the dumbing down part has, since the changes to T3 and onward, always been on making it easier to survive by making fighting harder/less possible, right? It's the opposite of what you are saying. By making it easier (= still harder than in T2/T3) to fight, you're making the game harder, especially for noobs.



    That second part is simply not true. Me and my duals and all our Govs, and I mean completely alone as a kingdom with absolutely zero help from the rest of Horde took on several kings.... including one in xTools.... thats right we fought xTools before we joined them. Anyone can do that if they are super active and grow fast.


    The key here is on "before we joined them". What would've happened if you hadn't joined them? Sure you can attack a couple times and call it fighting -we were fighting xtools and samurai at the same time too-, then when you're about to lose (i.e. they start taking you seriously and are about to start attacking you for realsies) you just join them. We could've done that too. If you were able to fight them, they were just not taking you seriously yet, or they overestimated Horde's capabilities. If you're a part of a meta (Horde was a meta in it's own right), that's quite a different scenario from being in a smaller, non-meta alliance and then fighting a meta. So my point still stands.



    I dont think those changes are going to spur fighting honestly. I think you make the game what you want. If you want to fight band together with some friends, be super active and fight.


    Or maybe they will... who knows. Whatever, Im willing to try anything once... If they made those changes I am sure I would give the server a go and see how it plays out.


    Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Either way, as it currently stands the game is boring for most since not enough people fight, so something must change. It's not just about how I want the game, it's about what's best for the game. If nothing changes, the game won't become very popular and it will just die out in a few years in my opinion.

  • You do know that the dumbing down part has, since the changes to T3 and onward, always been on making it easier to survive by making fighting harder/less possible, right? It's the opposite of what you are saying. By making it easier (= still harder than in T2/T3) to fight, you're making the game harder, especially for noobs.


    Exactly. ^this was by design, I'm sure. If you have it the cutthroat way, then the small players get destroyed and rarely come back. If you make it so I can survive, I may keep playing long enough to get addicted and then come back for a fresh server.



    Quote

    The key here is on "before we joined them". What would've happened if you hadn't joined them?


    Horde was still active at the time they fought xtools. Creeck just came in and over-powered one of the xtools kings -- blew him up, and caused him to delete.
    It wasn't until a good bit later that Horde's founder left and didn't give anyone control of the alliance. That forced the rest to find a new home.



    Quote

    Sure you can attack a couple times and call it fighting -we were fighting xtools and samurai at the same time too-, then when you're about to lose (i.e. they start taking you seriously and are about to start attacking you for realsies) you just join them


    Yeah...but that's not what happened.
    xtools was a mess outside of the first wing -- too many people all over the place and very little communication.



    Quote

    If you're a part of a meta (Horde was a meta in it's own right), that's quite a different scenario from being in a smaller, non-meta alliance and then fighting a meta.


    Horde was never a meta -- they had one of the biggest kings, but that was about it. xtools and SAM both had at least 5-6 wings. I believe Horde had 1 affiliated wing, and that was it.



    Quote

    Either way, as it currently stands the game is boring for most since not enough people fight, so something must change. It's not just about how I want the game, it's about what's best for the game. If nothing changes, the game won't become very popular and it will just die out in a few years in my opinion.


    Agreed.