Kingdom unions: Rebalancing changes discussion

  • Ofc i know that there is no VP merge... But if the merge was implement on time my team wich was ready to use the merge as soon as the option would be available would make our kingdom propably the biggest on the server. That means more prestige to atract more players in the area etc etc. Diplomacy is a big factor in the game(at least for my kind of play/I was first on server with city to expand my kingdom as soon as possible etc,etc). Never the less the Travian company promised a server with the merge option available and that not happent.


    This:


    Anyway i fed up with this. Do as you like, you just lost me as a hardcore travian fan.

  • Hi Wizzball - It's good to see an honest reaction from the devs to this. That should happen more often and on more areas of gameplay. Anyway, although I believe you immediately when you say the dev team is passionate but without much in the way of resources, I think there are things you could be doing better. Certainly from a game design perspective there are things that imo you're not seeing clearly. I'll disregard the other issues since I think they're less important and because I expect they will be solved in some way.


    Yeah, treasure-swapping is a thing that this part doesn't touch at all. We've discussed that among the team many times too, but as of yet the "freedom" of the players was considered to be more important than stopping that thing dead by imposing certain restrictions on gameplay.


    I can meet you halfway there - the freedom of players IS more important. The way the game should work imho, is that creating metas is possible, but only well organised metas can survive. In other words, put incentives in the game that metas will dislike, such as penalties on e.g. troop strength if your kingdom is larger. To stop treasure sharing from friendly wings, why not incorporate something that counts "damage done from ally x to ally y" over time, which for a major part determines the amount of treasures/VP that can be stolen. Then, wings will have to be attacked and damaged for real before any useful amount of treasures can be taken. Can you see how that would change the game? Wings wouldn't want to be wings to metas anymore. And this way, there are disadvantages as well as advantages to being a meta, the same way there are advantages and disadvantages to playing as smaller teams. You might still have a problem with multiaccount wings, but that's a different issue to which different solutions exist.


    I think I've said that earlier, but it's impossible to stop players from cooperating unless you make it impossible for them to interact, and cooperation between kingdoms is actually meant to be an essential part of the game.
    Even in a pure 'team-vs-team'-game like DotA or LoL a gamedesigner can't stop both teams from cooperating and meeting peacefully in the middle of the map and just having a chat. They also couldn't stop two teams to partake in a tournament and the one deliberately losing to the other to push their buddies to the finals. They can maybe punish it afterwards if they have the resources to detect and prove (!) it happening, but they can't stop it from being possible.


    But that is flat out wrong. In Dota or LoL, if competitive players only meet peacefully in the middle of the map, and use this as a consistent strategy, their individual rankings will drop over time. If it happens in a team vs team setting the same thing happens. If they are professional teams, they will undoubtedly be penalized, suffer reputation damage, etc. Do you really think it's hard to see when two professional teams don't play in the usual manner? If two teams partake in a tournament and one of them decides to play only until they meet the other team and then lose to it, well you're right that's always possible. Technically. But the thing is - these are edge cases. How often have you seen teams do the things you're talking about? How often do they play normally?


    The incentives in those games are such that this behavior almost never happens. It's better and simpler to play normally because of how the ingame (or out-of-game) incentives work. Also, two teams doing what you say outside of competitive play will have virtually no direct impact on any other players. Compare that situation to the meta situation here and you'll see the difference - the incentives encourage metas, which impacts everybody, and playing differently is almost impossible because of how the incentives work. And I say that as someone who usually plays as offense coordinator of small teams that love to crush metas (Hi Walhberg, if you're the same Wahlberg that the Colony¿ fought, you were a massive pita as a forward base of a Russian alliance once iirc :D).


    It definitely is possible to come up with ways to create a fair environment where metas are possible, but any other playstyle is usable too. But you do need to first accept that incentives determine for a large part how a game is played before you can start coming up with ways of directing gameplay in the way you want. You could see it this way: You can work to find incentives stop the unwanted cooperation for any (for instance 99%) percentage you want. The remaining 1% of unwanted cooperation you can probably not do much about without hardcoded restrictions which would indeed suck the fun out of the game. But that's okay! Anyway if you're just going to assume that nothing you do can possibly have any effect, well...Why are you even a game designer then? :D


    When I'm analyzing the ends of recents worlds (which I've done before this change, so my memory should be relatively recent.), the endgame highscore always looked something like an exponential curve (first has twice the VP's than second, second has twice the VP's than third...), and the first kingdom always had twice (or more) as many players than the second.
    That, right now, as per my analysis, is the essence of the game - someone who's ahead already often starts snowballing, and the more players are within a kingdom the better, period.
    I guess way more fundamental changes to the game would be necessary to fix that than what we can do right now or in the near future.

    Yes.


    And people must be sware that policing is ridiculously expensive (see the problems Blizzard has with Overwatch or Riot has with League of Legends, both must spend ridiculous resources to police their communities.)

    Depends on how you want to do it and on what exactly. Creating some stuff like the automated anti-pushing restrictions isn't that expensive. Having people manually ban players, yeah that could be expensive. It's probably better to have an automated system, but I agree this will be hard and probably expensive anyway. A really good policing system is probably too expensive to have. I really don't have a solution here, the only thing I can think of is to have some kind automated system + a tribunal system based on volunteers/players that determine whether or not players have crossed any rules. Which itself would indeed be difficult and expensive to create. Shouldn't be your first priority at the moment anyway :)



    And if a MMO's community wants to police itself, at least duke it out in-game. If there's a majority in the community of a server who loathe a certain behavior, they can still feel free to team up on the offender and punish them with numerical superiority.

    But now you're disregarding the way metas work. It's not like everybody who hates metas are (in some weird paradox) all organised in the same team and can gang up on 'everybody else'. This is just not how it works. Most players on a server don't have, can't have and don't want to have, any kind of influence on what their team does. So how could they punish the players that do have influence, when they themselves have none? Sorry, but this is again the incentive issue that only the devs can solve.

  • It doesn't matter what you claim or try to dismiss as unimportant,you tried to sell a product that just did not deliver the game you advertised end of story no matter how you dress it up.Various players have demo'd how their plans were ruined and therefore your failure to deliver has had a huge effect on the server outcome.Pure example of mis-selling,re-fund must be forthcoming.Future of this game depends on your response.

  • It doesn't matter what you claim or try to dismiss as unimportant,you tried to sell a product that just did not deliver the game you advertised end of story no matter how you dress it up.Various players have demo'd how their plans were ruined and therefore your failure to deliver has had a huge effect on the server outcome.Pure example of mis-selling,re-fund must be forthcoming.Future of this game depends on your response.

    I do agree. Thank you for the support too sir/maam.

    ❱❱❱Shōgun | FOUNDER

  • The problem of the appearance of schemes with meta kingdoms is:
    1) in the system of calculating victory points, a large kingdom even with a small activity for one period of time generates more treasures and, respectively, victory points
    2) WW protection by a big kingdom is easier


    all attempts to complicate the players' transition to this scheme are doomed to failure, since the very essence of the problem is not solved at the root

  • Right now there are a whoppin' two programmers and QA's sweatin' their asses off to get this feature live the next weeks, and that's pretty much all the resources this small team can afford

    we dont need to hear what your dev team is suffering with... Frankly speaking, we dont care. We have paid for a product which was not delivered. Now, now, Dont say this

    It's really annoying that the button ain't done by now, but it's absence should not ruin the gameplay or annihilate strategies?

    REALLY? As a game designer, that has to be the worst line you can come up with. Don't try to hide behind generic statements like that. Yes, without the merge , we never had access to attacks on our mates in the other kingdom which we could have responded well with otherwise. Usually, the 2 kings who are friends go to 2 kingdoms to merge later. One collects VP while the other makes big armies to destroy enemies. Now, with this whole delay due to unfinished product , the strategies have been ineffective aside from the fact that the 2 kingdoms have been existed as separate entities even if they were supposed to be one. Don't You think that the whole gameplay , the feeling of being in the same kingdom is lost in this whole drama of merger.?



    GOLDEN RULES :
    If you are not ready to deliver, Do NOT PROMISE to deliver.
    If you want to experiment, Experiment as a TEST server, not a production server
    If you didnt deliver results , Apologize and take corrective measures to make it right (give the gold bought by players who played a TEST server instead of a real server)

    The Bolton sends his regards :evil:

  • Hi Wizzball,
    Maybe we all get angry not for lack of merge option but for your action or better to say lack of action.
    as I understand you lunch cardinal new game style system before testing and get back proper reviews
    so I'm personally angry for :

    • I'm used as experimental rabbit who payed himself for all experiments.
    • new system obviously don't work, I even don't think merge option, in this server there was so many bugs that in past test servers had less bugs.
    • 10k treasuries for next treasury slot also don't work, as i wrote metas use this as advantage to get more slots available, so they get more players in territory, more robber camps, etc with system when was 4k for next slot smaller kingdoms had biger change to grow and made some bigger damage to metas. if your intention is to support metas you did it well, good job!
    • now we have mini WW with 20-50k of treasuries and lot of stat. def in there. no-one is attacking those treasuries maybe I don't know, but would like to see reports there mini WW with 30k treasuries is destroyed i Think one has such report to share. So you plan with new change to get game more exiting but you get exact opposite effect.

    basically this is TEST SERVER. and i don't like play test server even if you give 300 gold each week, but in this test server i payed myself.


    Hey @Ignis_COM,


    first off, thanks for the cool and early feedback back on page 4. :)


    On bugs, I also can not comment, 'cos here I'm neither the one producing them nor the one to fix'em, unfortunately.


    On the 'experimental rabbit' metaphor:


    Question: When you've read the announcement of com2x3 and saw that it'd have changes to the game, why didn't you say
    "Oh, there's new stuff on this server, I don't know if the 10k-treasures thing will be fun for me, so I'll treat this as a TEST server for me first and not pay for the first worlds with these changes." - because you were just as smart back then as you are now?


    If this was an experiment , it'd be a miserable one. :P
    Why did we tell the rabbits beforehand about our changes we'd want to test?
    Why did the rabbits have the choice of joining the experiment instead of being caught in cages?
    Where's the control group that doesn't get the feature?


    The point to announce as much of our plans beforehand was because we didn't want to treat people as our experimental rabbits and told them early about our plans with these servers instead of surprising them after we've caught them.
    And there's no control group because we aren't experimenting but *still* firmly believe that this change is for the better of the game.


    -----------------


    Whether 10k treasuries "work" or not work is not measured by 'meta' or 'no meta'.
    Raising a value from 4k to 10k doesn't change anything about th growth ratio of the meta versus the single kingdom, it just changes the speed of growth for both. That much is clear - that a change of a limit can't influence relative growth.
    Metas can exploit limits in this game no matter to what height they're set to, and preventing this was never the goal of the feature.



    The 10k treasure limit does "work" and very measurably so at slowing down the growth of *all* kingdoms the same. There's still the meta, but with less than half of the area. There's still the non-metas too, with less than half of their previous area. All areas are much smaller, but their relative sizes have not changed. That is one thing I consider to be better for the game - no more excessive kingdom areas - but changing a simple value isn't that powerful that it'd also fix relative growth problems and everything else in one run. That was never the goal or somethjng this little change could realistically provide. :P



    ----------------


    About the "mini"-WW with static def: Yes, this was a predictable effect too. Of course we knew that by allowing multiple treasuries in one village, that a great strategy was to build treasury-villages. But this has to be well-planned by the king's as well and it's essentially one village devoted only to that. A new strategy to plan


    What people complained a lot about was that they couldn't properly defend against treasure-plundering. With a lot of treasuries in different places, an attacker is able to concentrate all his forces in one place, and the defender has to spread out their forces wide to bable to defend anything. Or have a spy in the other kingdom to know where the hammers are going to hit. Kingdoms definitely wasn't balanced for that number of treasuries.


    This has lead to frustration in both kingdoms, because the defender can only lose unless using player-spies or traitors, and the attacker could never really win - because if the hammer is unveiled, they're losing it all, and if the hammers hit, they could still steal only a tiny percentage of the other kingdom's treasures, because they're all spread out and successfully hitting a target and stealing 1k of treasures at a great risk of total loss of your hammers is a horrible risk/reward ratio when your enemy has 100k treasures in total. It just doesn't make much of a difference, risking all these armies for 1% maximum damage on the enemy.


    Yes, this possibly made it easier for smaller kingdoms to take part in large coalition-actions because the bigger ones didn't really have much chance to defend against large amounts of fake-waves, but "having no chance either way" is not fun gameplay for a strategy game either. And the big ones still blew the small ones apart when they figured out their attack targets. Or afterwards.


    It's this risk/reward ratio which I guess caused attacks to be rare before the endgame all the time before these changes.


    When a big kingdom now creates a "mini-WW", that name really captures its importance - this puts a lot more treasures at risk for getting grabbed, and the reward for the victor far greater.
    If you grab these treasures, you'll steal a lotof VP's at once, and you'll generate a lot of VP's for the rest of the game. The reward for killing them is much bigger. Yes, it may take multiple hammers to manage it, but maybe these treasure-pinatas will earn you even more VP's than any world wonder could, and are now actually 'worth' the risk.


    Victory is decided by who has the most VP's. You'll have to judge when applying how many hammers grants you the most VP's. A world wonder will only give you VP once at the end of the game. The earlier you crack open a single "mini-WW", the more VP's the plundered treasures grant you for the rest of the round instead of the enemy. This means, that a "mini-WW" may be worth your three hamemrs now, and it'll be worth more the earlier you can attack it, because the earlier you grab those treasures the more VP's they will generate for the rest of the round.


    So there may be a "window of opportunity" there for using your hammers on them, which is especially not right before the end of the game (then, the risk/reward ratio gets worse and worse and the wonders still rule supreme), but which you may miss if you wait too long when you're afraid of losing your hammers.


    A foe having all his most important assets centralized in one place is much easier to take down than one who has them spread all over in countless small pockets. Maybe it's still not worth it though. but that's up to the players.
    For me, having player-built "mini-WW"'s as a mid-game goal to crack sounds like fun. Maybe it'll need more than one server for players to adjust their strategies especially to them. to me, the risk/reward-ratios for them look waaaay better than for the 55-treasuries-over-half-the-map situations we had near the endgame before. :P



    cheers,


    Wizz

  • If as a result of an error on the part of Travian Gimes had to change com2x3, why not solve the problem by some compensation to the players?
    It would be fair, and reduce the tension and discontent of the players.
    All the same:
    1). The server was not as it was stated. Yes, we are all people, somewhere it did not work out, we did not have time, but it is the administration's fault.
    2). Extension of the server for 11 days all the same causes the necessary additional costs for example gold, which no one planned. As well as time costs and other nuances.


    At least 11 extra days and the rest of the server players are allowed to play in a comfortable environment


    On the part of the administration, this will be the right step.
    This will reduce tension as I said, as well as compensate for the inconvenience and display of respect for the players. And just the display of respect from the players to the administration of the game

  • It doesn't matter what you claim or try to dismiss as unimportant,you tried to sell a product that just did not deliver the game you advertised end of story no matter how you dress it up.Various players have demo'd how their plans were ruined and therefore your failure to deliver has had a huge effect on the server outcome.Pure example of mis-selling,re-fund must be forthcoming.Future of this game depends on your response.


    Just saying, I'm just posting here as myself - I didn't sell you anything, nor did I craft any announcements. It also doesn't get you closer to your goals if you try to dismiss what I'm writing. ;) I know you're fighting an evil corporate entity in your mind, but the evil corporate entity of course had you sign a terms&conditions document that made it immune to all claims anyways and doesn't need to listen. In this thread, it's honestly just... me reading this.


    I'm just trying to understand, from gamer to gamer, what causes all the rage. If it doesn't matter what I say, so be it, end of communication. I'm doingt his voluntarily, I'm not gettin' paid to be a community manager you know?
    And you will know that many people on the internet issued threats on game companies that the future of game X depended on them doing this and that, and that most of the time doesn't matter as well, because game companies rely on more reliable sources than their forum population to tell them about the future of their games.


    The most successful strategy is always convincing other humans that wrong has been done, and waging a ragewar on a forum antagonizing those who you're asking to get you something ain't gonna give you squat. :P




    Thanks @7ᵗʰ ,


    yeah I read from you in the other thread and knew that you're Omega on the server. and yes, my remark was aimed at your kingdoms, because by now it's clearly visible that you two are screwed big time, and that must be a helluva frustration. Thanks for clearing things up / participating! Much helpful!


    Let's say you've planned this to a certain point in time (yes, the one kingdom creating armies and the other collecting VP's is a sound strategy with this.) - there must have been a point in time for you where the merger would have *had* to happen or else the strategy would fall apart as you've described. Why did you not free one of the duke-slots of the VP-kingdom, invited the dukes of the other kingdom in turn, to then invite all the governors in their (temporary) space, and continue to do this until the 'manual' merger was complete? Duke-hopping I've called it in my last posts?


    Yes, you would not have gotten the 'big area' thing in that instant, but you'd have kept the armies and VP's all the same. That's my question - why didn't you follow the strategy - which is a strategy metas use, just with more than two kingdoms - despite the button for it missing? This should have been done a few weeks back, when you were in the right position, anstead of playing on seperately, of course, so this ain't no solution for you anymore. Didn't you know that could be done?


    As for the 'big area' thing - why would anyone be intimidated if *everyone* on the server would have done it all the same? It's not like noone else would have merged - if everyone grows twice as large, the relative size among each other doesn't change and cannot impress?

  • game companies rely on more reliable sources than their forum population to tell them about the future of their games.

    yea. this thought is what screwed travian anyway. Look at the number of players in the new servers. A lot of very good players ( people who spend a lot of money too) i know have left the game due to this attitude of the company. If you were talking about a "Hit" mobile game doing awesome on play-store, this line would have made sense. In Travian kingdoms ofc, you have only the Serious players and gold whales contributing most at the gold-store. And most of the serious players are forum users. (If you were a serious Travian player, you would have known this fact and would not have said this line) .... When a company does not take its community seriously, it is bound to lose in the long run. but i am sure travian is probably not looking for long-term hehe


    I have been following the forum for a year now. I have seen great ideas floated by the community, they had invested lot of thought proposing changes to Game mechanics. and every time , there was an update, the issue was further deepened and made no sense. ( Top 10 VP stealing rule , etc ) . The sad part is , there was not even a single comment by any of the dev/commnity manager regarding the ideas. I get it, its your game and you make the rules and you release servers with new ideas but why not , introduce the idea to community first, take feedback, then, go back to implementing the ideas. Since the community is smaller than most of the other MMO based games , surely, you would want to retain the player-base you have. But that's just my thoughts.. sorry for the big rant

    The Bolton sends his regards :evil:

    The post was edited 2 times, last by LordBolton ().

  • Dear @Wizzball,


    Thank you for the response.


    Let's say you've planned this to a certain point in time (yes, the one kingdom creating armies and the other collecting VP's is a sound strategy with this.) - there must have been a point in time for you where the merger would have *had* to happen or else the strategy would fall apart as you've described. Why did you not free one of the duke-slots of the VP-kingdom, invited the dukes of the other kingdom in turn, to then invite all the governors in their (temporary) space, and continue to do this until the 'manual' merger was complete? Duke-hopping I've called it in my last posts?


    The thing is we settled on the far WW. Which means that connecting from spawn to WW would take a lot of connected Treasury village, which in my opinion can only be done thru the early merging. Not all of us spawned at the right place. Some adjusted as we are not that part of a big kingdom. Most of our dukes were just met on the actual server. As you can see right now on our area. Our villages are connected thru my duke, then his duke, then my duke. Which means even if we are already connected, with the late merging, still our area is not connected.
    With the delay we had to suffer on villages not connected which in return didn't grant tributes for us.



    Yes, you would not have gotten the 'big area' thing in that instant, but you'd have kept the armies and VP's all the same. That's my question - why didn't you follow the strategy - which is a strategy metas use, just with more than two kingdoms - despite the button for it missing? This should have been done a few weeks back, when you were in the right position, anstead of playing on seperately, of course, so this ain't no solution for you anymore. Didn't you know that could be done?




    With the late merging, we had to deal with the other kingdoms reaching our territories. If the merge happened already, and we attacked them. Then the VP produced would already be part of the Merged VP. Instead the VP distributed with my kingdom and the other kingdom.
    Our VP right now compared to before was a huge diff. Right now our VP is 489,224, imagine if this was added to our merged kingdom. Then it is not wasted. Their VP is 473,701, let's say the merge happened earlier, then atleast I can say that our VP shouldve been atleast 600k in total and not as 489k (if we merge today or in the future) since if we merge theirs will be useless.




    As for the 'big area' thing - why would anyone be intimidated if *everyone* on the server would have done it all the same? It's not like noone else would have merged - if everyone grows twice as large, the relative size among each other doesn't change and cannot impress?




    We occupied the area earlier than them, but due to the face that we don't want to waste our troops that early, we waited for the merge to happen and attack so that the VP will be added on the merged kingdom. Instead we waited, then waited, then waited, till all of them are settled already too... and the rest is messed up.

    ❱❱❱Shōgun | FOUNDER

    The post was edited 1 time, last by 7ᵗʰ ().

  • yeah I read from you in the other thread and knew that you're Omega on the server. and yes, my remark was aimed at your kingdoms, because by now it's clearly visible that you two are screwed big time, and that must be a helluva frustration. Thanks for clearing things up / participating! Much helpful!

    So planning and playing by the rules is worth nothing... I guess we should have used the exploits...


    I lost my time, i lost my money and most important you made me lost my love for travian...


    Thank you very much Travian team!


    Next time you need someone to fund your test servers dont forget to send me a message! I would love to be the sucker again!!!


    PS: Nothing personal with you as a person Wizzball.

  • Since you made it personal and made out as if I have a hatred of " evil corporate entities" and out for some other motive rather than just wanting to have been able to play the game I signed up for,I'll just say that your long winded arguments smack of a desperate gamer trying hard to cover his/her own ass for your own short-comings.Also I rarely take to the forums,but do follow them.To announce to everyone that opinions presented here are meaningless to your employers smacks of naivety beyond all words to describe.Also to promote the idea I was engaging in "ragewar" is insulting to me and others expressing the fact that your Idea of a server was not delivered as advertised.

  • The TG team is rather disrespectful towards its fans :huh:
    Gentlemen, you have quite a narrow target audience for such approaches


    We had clearly voiced steps for the exhaustion of the conflict
    Although this does not fill the costs of our time, but could smooth out the overall impression of the work of the TG

  • The least courtesy to be given is to accomodate for the extra 11 days of the server atleast .... those 11 days extension were because of the Travian team not delivering results on time. Now, we have to pay for that extra time as well? ||?(

    The Bolton sends his regards :evil:

  • OMG!


    Here sooo many text. I'll be very short and sorry for my english:


    1) Thank you @Wizzball for coming here. Did you roll the dice and lost? Joking :D


    2) You announce a new feature, release version and release date. The feature you announced is NOT in the game = fuckup. That may happen, we all human.
    But you kept silent for 40 days! 40!!!! Could have an announcemnt something like "blah-blah found bugs blah-blah cant release that blah-blah we are sorry".
    You didn't. As you are the designer of this feature - this means you fed lies to all trying to fix that in silent.


    3) I don't care who and how develop. I am end-user. I get product. I play. This is your internal stuff


    4) I guess you came here wining because your manager came to you and asked "WTF?!" and you try to calm down the community.
    This will be hard for you as you f*** the gameplay on the fly for the SECOND time. First one was when you cut VP steal system right before WWs.
    YES this ruins strategy! We settled 2 kingdoms and had two days for rellocation to form TWO kingdoms! Not one! 2! Thinking of union.
    Now we have 2 kingdoms and no union! Could have announced but you fooled us


    5) The vote is a try to shift shift responsibility. "We can't decide, so you decide". Some can't drop something they started, some don't want spend more time&money for additional 11 day.


    6) I hope you understand that by extending game round for 11 days you promiced the kingdom union. Do you realise that? Hope you do.


    Hey devs, WTF!? 8o

    Порой бывает так паршиво, что даже чай не лезет в глотку, а лезет в глотку только пиво, которым запиваешь водку.