And one other thing

  • Besides the increase in roles for members of a Kingdom and the restrictions to be put in place to stop VP giveaways, I would like to re-mention something that I suggested some while ago in yet another thread at the start of the Alliance change:


    Limit the size of Kingdoms. If you couldn't go over a certain number of people in a Kingdom, then some of the dodgy diplomacies would no longer happen. Limiting size would increase the number of Kingdoms, which would encourage aggression. The only possible downside I can see is that weaker players may be booted out to make way for stronger, but I would argue that this will push players to be more active (and spend gold, eh Travian?).


    Make it so.

  • The only possible downside I can see is that weaker players may be booted out to make way for stronger, but I would argue that this will push players to be more active

    i think that is a big downside and really bad news for the casual players of TK.


    when a kingdom reaches the max capacity of members, the smallest govenors will be kicked out and reduced to farms + his villages will be chieffed.


    IF you implement a membercap there should be a way to increase the number of members (for example: link it to active treasuries, number of treasures or number of lvl 20 active treasuries)

  • i think that is a big downside and really bad news for the casual players of TK.
    when a kingdom reaches the max capacity of members, the smallest govenors will be kicked out and reduced to farms + his villages will be chieffed.


    IF you implement a membercap there should be a way to increase the number of members (for example: link it to active treasuries, number of treasures or number of lvl 20 active treasuries)

    Except that you won't be able to declare War on him and therefore can't Farm him as noted above.


    Then you might get real battles between players instead of farming simmers and semi-actives; it seems Skywalker doesn't fancy that. :D