Kingdom unions: Rebalancing changes discussion

  • Will we have a NO server with those changes?

    Yes, but the nordic domain didn't get a new world this time. The last few nordic rounds didn't have enough players in them, so I'm afraid you guys have to wait a bit more until the next one. We'll announce the next .NO round as soon as we have a date for it. Hopefully it will fare better than the past two: let your friends know about it so more players start there too!


    In the meantime, feel free to join the international round starting on the 12th.

  • Is the "mid-game" set date or is there some other trigger that allows the merge?

    Most likely both kingdoms will have to have existed for a certain amount of time. Currently we're thinking like 30 days. After that time your kingdom basically becomes "eligible to form a union" with another eligible one.

  • What sense does union have if the victory points of the smallest kingdom are lost?



    The small kingdom may also not play the first part of the server, it does not change anything

  • Maybe they should think about 2 merges. Say 20 days and 40 days.


    Another idea - a Kingdom over a certain "strength" can only merge with a Kingdom of "strength" less than X. Would have to work out a metric for "strength" that could not easily be gamed - maybe troops produced?

  • While that's true, tributes were previously becoming rather massive pretty quickly due to the size (and growth) of kingdoms. In general we wanted to push for more and smaller kingdoms on the map. While this means a cut in tributes (for everyone), it should also make the game more exciting with many smaller kingdoms fighting for positional advantages etc. The kingdom unions are then going to introduce a shift during the mid-game, which will bring a boost in terms of territory, players and treasures. This will be a big new decision for every kingdom that will influence how the whole round plays out. Of course kingdoms will be significantly bigger again once the unions happened, but growth will still be way slower than before the rebalancing. So you better make the most out of your limited influence and find a good partner kingdom to join forces with! :)

    To have smaller kingdoms and more fighting it was not better to put a limit on the number of players?
    In my opinion after the merger the kingdoms will become even bigger than usual...

  • What sense does union have if the victory points of the smallest kingdom are lost?



    The small kingdom may also not play the first part of the server, it does not change anything

    I don't think that's true. There are other factors than just VP that could make a kingdom an interesting candidate for a union. Position, number of players, activity, offensive or defensive strength etc.



    To have smaller kingdoms and more fighting it was not better to put a limit on the number of players?

    We're generally careful with putting hard limits on things as the sandbox-y openness is also part of the core Travian experience. That said, we'll of course observe how things play out in the live environment and adjust the design if necessary.

  • Less dukes and higher treasuries cap for new slots = smaller kigndoms.That will lead to more wars and hopefully more fun.


    I can't wait to see how this plays out.Harder for the zerg metas to control entire quadrants with no planning nor effort at all.

  • 35 Days bevore midgame starts would be cool to get a notification that midgame is starting soon. <--- is this possible?

    As said above we're currently not planning to have an exact "date" when the midgame starts for everyone. Instead both of the uniting kingdoms have to have existed for at least 30 days. Both of them will individually be informed in time via a major notification that kingdom unions "will be available soon" etc.

  • Hi,
    this is a summary from italian forum. Thanks to all players for having taking part to this discussion.


    Mizrach#IT: This feature could discourage big confederation made before game world start.
    What could change something in kingdom strategy is have 10.000 treasures for unlock treasury. Kingdoms will be more active because they will have defend more treasuries.
    Kingdom union could be much interesting. And kingdoms merge is fair, because both kings are equal and could make mid game more dynamic.


    Bertok#IT: I like it because more player could end the game.


    AlikeBrasi: it's positive have more treasuries, but the cons is reach 10.000 treasures for unlock treasury and victory points of 2 merged kingdoms aren't summed up.


    Zef#IT: Kingdom union could be an advantage for the bigger kingdom. In the other hand the smaller kingdom will loose victory points and treasures. But this grant to smallest kingdoms more defences from attacks and be part into a big kingdom and have more chances to win.
    The unlock the treasury at 10.000 treasures means work hard to expand kingdom influence. And good have more treasuries in the sam village, much easier to defend.


    Babbi#IT: Kingdom union change strategy game, and players have to work for having a big kingdom.
    But his new feature doesn't solve the problem of big alliance between many kingdoms and a boring game.


    Iangen#IT: This feature could be a great idea for players and have more useful collaboration between players

  • Thanks for adding me to the summary from the Italian forum.
    Congratulations to community managers for the work they do with passion and voluntary commitment,
    travian would not be a nice game without them.
    :)

  • And this is what the Spanish-speaking community has discussed about the topic:


    In general, players are uncertain if Kingdom Unions are going to be a good thing or not, but they're willing to give them a chance and try them out for themselves to get a better idea of what these unions will mean. In any case, some appreciate the measures against metas and are hopeful this will work against them. Thanks to @Lenerius, @Luzhan#ES, @BACHMAN and @Tanis for being part of the discussion. :thumbsup:


    Regards,
    JJ

  • Weird since as far as i'm concerned everyone wants to be part of a meta when it's winning. Now suddenly "most" are against it. I hope that developers don't get carried away with the "anti-meta" revolution, since staying in the community is a huge factor which keeps players playing the game for years. Maybe instead of trying to tear metas apart you implement changes that will bring equality between big and small groups of players. Unions doesn't, we can get everyone in the kingdom with just 1 village and still have 100 active players working for victory. An idea would be to implement same rules of +/- % attack power which is used currently for big population players attacking smaller players. So If a huge Meta kingdom player would attack a smaller kingdom governor they would be affected with -x% attack power for his army and same if small kingdom players attacks bigger. etc. Obviously the effect shouldn't be too overpowered but it would make it more reasonable for small kingdoms to defend themselves against bigger ones.

  • Weird since as far as i'm concerned everyone wants to be part of a meta when it's winning.


    Not exactly. The leaderships of those metas want to be part of the metas. Based on my experience in dealing with metas, the rest of the players in metas think they're boring but don't know/don't care about how to change it.



    Now suddenly "most" are against it. I hope that developers don't get carried away with the "anti-meta" revolution, since staying in the community is a huge factor which keeps players playing the game for years. Maybe instead of trying to tear metas apart you implement changes that will bring equality between big and small groups of players. Unions doesn't, we can get everyone in the kingdom with just 1 village and still have 100 active players working for victory. An idea would be to implement same rules of +/- % attack power which is used currently for big population players attacking smaller players. So If a huge Meta kingdom player would attack a smaller kingdom governor they would be affected with -x% attack power for his army and same if small kingdom players attacks bigger. etc. Obviously the effect shouldn't be too overpowered but it would make it more reasonable for small kingdoms to defend themselves against bigger ones.


    I agree with your point that it would be good to bring equality between big and small groups of players e.g. by means of a kingdom-wide morale-bonus. I think it's quite obvious that this game hasn't managed to attract or retain many players. One (out of many) major factors at the core of that problem is that the game mechanics encourage metas. So making it harder to be a meta, slower to grow, without taking away the potential for a meta (it still needs to be possible to be one), can only be good for the game. Why not do both?

  • I hope Kingdom's Unions will be a success, having played both as part of a meta and within small kingdoms I feel that the smaller team keeps it's members more involved as every player counts. Also means they are more likely to stick around on a server as they feel more involved in it.


    For those that play in leadership in a meta ask yourself when did you last hear from all your members? does it even matter if they interact or not? would you miss your smallest player if they deleted?
    If they don't participate in your kingdom, then why are they there or what can you do to get them all involved?
    From my experience most don't even get noticed, Like Ammanurt said, just being a Gov in a meta is really lackluster and boring, you have no clue what is happening most of the time, because all the real chat/planning happens somewhere the little guys don't get to see.


    In a smaller kingdom everyone is more likely to get active in the chat & players get to know each other, help and support each other more, because every player counts and is made to feel like more than just a number. Meaning they are more likely to stay for the whole game (Unless some meta style of bullies come n plough through their villages just because they can)


    The current system as it stands you have 2 choices (3 if you're lucky) you join a server and play happily until some much bigger kingdom decides you are in their way and gives you an ultimatum either you join them (meta up) or get trashed (delete and start another server) the 3rd is you manage to hit on a kingdom that has enough force to stand up against the meta, but these are a minority


    If you can only merge with one other kingdom once, then those aggressors are going to have to put a lot more thought into finding the right kingdom to merge with, allowing the other kingdoms a little more time to get established to maybe have a chance of fighting and thus staying on a server. Meaning fuller servers with smaller more active teams and end games with 1000+ actives still buying some gold, helping make travian a more successful business and allowing them to keep developing & improving the game for all.

  • Ok, Here's the deal for our ES server.


    1- It seems the idea was not a big hype for our community since very few people singed up for the ES4 with the Kingdom's Union playstyle.
    2- Most of the people already play with the metas and friends so they jump togther from server to server. We have zones of the map where there very few villages and the west is full with people from the big meta.
    3- That leave us with very small kingdoms with no govs, so the 10k treasure mark for the next treasury it's going to be a challenge to reach it. To give an example the rank #1 Kingdom has 31 Villages inside their borders (plus all the people that was invited via duke spot and are outside of it) and the rank #10 has 5 Villages inside their borders.
    4- Small Kingdoms cant get new govs easily. So you have to choose you dukes wisely wich is a good thing, but it's hard when the villages around you are all inactives or people that are not neutral.
    5- The Big Meta from the ES community started the game with 4 kingdoms around the W and S side of the map. It's still a Meta but with a smaller territory with lots of people outside of it.


    And for now that's it. I get lots of fun raiding the villages of the Meta but eventually they will overpower us with numbers :P


    Have a nice day and good Travian to all :D:thumbup:

  • As said above we're currently not planning to have an exact "date" when the midgame starts for everyone. Instead both of the uniting kingdoms have to have existed for at least 30 days. Both of them will individually be informed in time via a major notification that kingdom unions "will be available soon" etc.

    I like this idea of a more fluid game experience when comparing to the old Legends mechs. The halving of dukes is radical and could be a double edged sword. Because there are fewer dukes, kingdoms are smaller but also the chaos of start up will really be desperate with the 10k expansion min. It usually takes quite long to amass that nr in the first place. Perhaps somewhere inbetween is more balanced for less experienced kings. These will have real difficulties under the new mechs. For veteran kings it will be a fun challenge, How this will play out shall determine if its balanced. Also wrt the merging of kingdoms mid game.