Truce and Warscores

  • Hey! Have you ever played in a server where you got in a fight with another kingdom and you lost, then that kingdom simply farm you till you quit? I experienced this alot, even though you have this to protect your self from attacks, but since the game its self called kingdoms, I found it a little lacking when it comes to the games politics.


    First: Truce.
    If you just got in to a war, you and your enemy suffered heavy losses, both of you of course would want a cease fire, this option should be in the kingdom politics. giving a restriction to the villages of the kingdom you are in truce with. and not bullying into quitting the players that you defeated.


    Second: Warscores.
    For simplicity. You just sum up all the damage done to the enemy and the damage you take, adding them up to see who's winning and to see who's losing.


    reply to this thread if you want to clarify things, and i do wish this is a part of the game.

  • Hey! Have you ever played in a server where you got in a fight with another kingdom and you lost, then that kingdom simply farm you till you quit?

    Do it unto them before they do it unto thee.


    You can already call a Truce, it's called a NAP.


    As to the scores, what's the point? It's not hard to work out of you're winning or losing - either they have no troops or you have no troops. :)

  • Second: Warscores.


    For simplicity. You just sum up all the damage done to the enemy and the damage you take, adding them up to see who's winning and to see who's losing.

    This idea isnt new (and I like it) but how should "damage" be weighted? Chiefing a hammer or anvil village is more damage than a random support village. Destroying a capital field is more damage than a support field. Killing some troops from a hammer village is more damage than killing some chief escort from a support village. Destroying the account of an very active (maybe leading) player does more (moral) damage than destroying some semi active account.
    I would really like the idea of such a point system but I dont think it is possible to do.

  • @'Thorsson, Not all players, especially the new ones are aggressive, some just like to build up and survive. Thats why i want this to be imposed, so that new players will likely finish one server, rather than quit and wait for the next one.


    A NAP is different from the truce that I imagine, A truce is a like a function within the game that restricts you from attacking the kingdom you are in truce with. (like from players being banned). This will last for maybe 3 days.


    @Ariakus Scores will be weight on the damage dealt to the initial value of troops, reso, defenses, buildings or building lvls, numbers of villages of the kingdom and so on, for example, your kingdom has a 100 def troops, (only a troops, still not counting the residence, and others). And the enemy destroyed 90 of the troops, it will mean that the enemy is 90% in warscore. and your kingdoms is -90% in warscore.

  • @Ariakus Scores will be weight on the damage dealt to the initial value of troops, reso, defenses, buildings or building lvls, numbers of villages of the kingdom and so on, for example, your kingdom has a 100 def troops, (only a troops, still not counting the residence, and others). And the enemy destroyed 90 of the troops, it will mean that the enemy is 90% in warscore. and your kingdoms is -90% in warscore.

    Doesnt make sense. Lets say they have 1000 troops and attack with 200. You loose 90% which means the attack didnt go through and they lost 20% of their troops. So they get 90% and you get 20%. But what if their attack was successful even when the whole hammer died? Maybe they destroyed the treasury, the treasures got switched to another empty one where someone else stole them.How doe you count that?
    Also its must easier to get a high score for large kingdoms. Lets say we have two kingdoms. One has 20 members, the other has 100. 100k hammer vs. 100k, both sides loose everything (not realistic I know). So both sides loose the same amount of troops but for the large kingdom these losses are maybe 1% of their troops while for the small kindom these 100k def are 20% of their troops. Large kingdom gets much more points although their losses were equal.

  • A NAP is different from the truce that I imagine, A truce is a like a function within the game that restricts you from attacking the kingdom you are in truce with. (like from players being banned). This will last for maybe 3 days.

    Are you saying that you want one side to be able to call the truce single-handedly, or that you want the truce to be a bit like beginner's protection, where they are unable to attack each other? I don't think the former is fair and I can't see the latter working - why would the stronger side agree to it?

  • 1st: You already have the option to make diplo. I don't see a reason to make forced peace by making accounts invulnerable/unattackable. Simply if you are losing, try to make peace. I have many examples from experience that actually talking to enemies can lead to friendship in the long run. If you're losing bcs you were weaker, the stronger player/kingdom might ignore your request. This is Travian for you. Since the dawn of days


    2nd: There could be a more detailed report option, like some report analyzers that give you resos lost and xp gained. This is available externally now already. The chaining of reports could actually be nice but in order to share you still need accept from both parties to se any details from their report. This is a good feature and rule imo since you don't want your army details floating around out there more than it already does.

  • Wow, Veterans are replying to my ideas for the game, lets just make it simple.
    Yes, @Thorsson, the stronger will never agree to it. I mean, who would? even i wounldn't especially if im winning. but the truce is for the losing side not to the strongest side, This will make the more weaker or newer kingdoms survive rather than be wiped out in a day or two. (truce will only work if two kingdoms are at war.)


    @Ariakus yeah, It still doesent make sense, but if you grasp the concept, jsut the concept like the warscore will not just be calculated from troops or the number of it, it will be calculated from the nnumber of damages dealt to the kingdom, a point system if you must. the treasures cost points, the reso cost point, and the building levels cost points, this is just a concept and it need more improvement, like the truce, concept and needs more improvement.


    @Lothar#EN(4) You are right, travian players are like that farm till the enemy quits, but what happens to the new players ? will there be no more new players to join, or new people to try this genre of games, when the other players are bullying them to death. Thats why i came up with the idea to help those newbie get on their feet. Just remember the days when you are still the runt of the little, you got bullied often, no player in travian never got bullied in attacks.

  • but the truce is for the losing side not to the strongest side, This will make the more weaker or newer kingdoms survive rather than be wiped out in a day or two. (truce will only work if two kingdoms are at war.)

    Next problem: If truce only works when two kingdoms are at war then the stronger side can just attack without declaring war. No war -> no truce.

    @Ariakus yeah, It still doesent make sense, but if you grasp the concept, jsut the concept like the warscore will not just be calculated from troops or the number of it, it will be calculated from the nnumber of damages dealt to the kingdom, a point system if you must. the treasures cost points, the reso cost point, and the building levels cost points, this is just a concept and it need more improvement, like the truce, concept and needs more improvement.

    I got the concept. But as I said its really hard to define "damage" and I dont think that its possible to du that automated.

  • Simple question, why'd i go to war with someone, and than let them rebuild after i defeat them, just so they can hit me back or they help another kingdom hit me after they rebuild and maybe my kingdom gets some new loses ? + If my kingdom defeats other kingdom, i want free resources from other kingdom, to rebuild army !


    Stop with this silly ideas to make this game total simcity please, those grey(inactive) villages doing enough damage to the game already !

  • Simple question, why'd i go to war with someone, and than let them rebuild after i defeat them, just so they can hit me back or they help another kingdom hit me after they rebuild and maybe my kingdom gets some new loses ? + If my kingdom defeats other kingdom, i want free resources from other kingdom, to rebuild army !


    Stop with this silly ideas to make this game total simcity please, those grey(inactive) villages doing enough damage to the game already !

    There is a point in this. Perhaps there could be some kind of vasal deal. You could give tribute for peace to kingdom or a seperate pool. This would encourage the stronger players to stop attacking and get resos. Again this is a bit wierd for veterans but it would leave a window open for new players who get ganked like mentioned by thread creator.

  • Warscore idea could be neat but truce already exist in the game, simply have the kings arrange it.


    I would also like to say that very rarely (at least the good people) actually exterminate noobs just because they can.
    At least I never take fights personally and only attack you because I can gain something out of it and as two time king of relatively good kingdom I have extended the same policy to my kingdom at large.


    If we discount excessively rude people most of the time I am willing to give a chance for the players of the defeated kingdom to either join or help me in other ways in exchange of peace. Well at least anyone active enough to contact me in the first place.
    Same can be said of some very active farmers I know, they would be glad to remove you from their lists if you just give them a message instead of burning troops fighting a small account for no reason


    In kingdoms almost every account is valuable and you would either have to be nearly grey levels of inactive or actively hurting your kingdom for your account to be more valuable as a farm than as a member. Basically every good king knows this and messaging them and being reasonable is pretty easy way to get a truce as it is.
    Usually the people who end up being destroyed fall into 3 categories
    1) Rude people
    2) People who can't let go of their pride and would rather get farmed and catapulted than submitting (respect to these people)
    3) People who quit because they got attacked


    Forced peace would be really weird in game like this

  • Just remember the days when you are still the runt of the little, you got bullied often, no player in travian never got bullied in attacks.

    Nope. Never happened. I read the forums, read a couple of guides, knew I needed to join a good Alliance, so I asked nicely. Showed I was active and wanted to learn and listened to the more experienced players.


    @Curtain I have no respect for those who get farmed rather than join a Kingdom. If you're a good King then by all means set up a Kingdom and fight, but if it's just about your ego then you deserve everything you get.

  • There is a point in this. Perhaps there could be some kind of vasal deal. You could give tribute for peace to kingdom or a seperate pool. This would encourage the stronger players to stop attacking and get resos. Again this is a bit wierd for veterans but it would leave a window open for new players who get ganked like mentioned by thread creator.

    Sounds like something that would be all too easy to game. You have a way out now; the weaker Kingdom can join the stronger, which funnily enough echoes what would have happened historically.

  • @Thorsson Perhaps I worded that poorly or you just have a different opinion. I personally think fighting it out with your mates and playing till the end even if you can't win is lot better than just going grey after the first splat, at least so long as the actions you take make sense.
    Well at least compared to the other 2 groups I mentioned being the quitters and the angry guys who take the game too personally.

  • @Thorsson Perhaps I worded that poorly or you just have a different opinion. I personally think fighting it out with your mates and playing till the end even if you can't win is lot better than just going grey after the first splat, at least so long as the actions you take make sense.
    Well at least compared to the other 2 groups I mentioned being the quitters and the angry guys who take the game too personally.

    Or perhaps my understanding was lacking. Certainly it's better to fight than go grey.

  • @Thorsson Well then, i say that you are a good player and you wouldn't understand why I stated this idea for the game, when I played this game, and others like it. I always got attacked. even if i follow the guides, the best guides, and the experienced leaders. I always got attacked, and some of those made me a farm. 2k plus players atmost join one server, then only about 500 or so remain till the end. what happens to the 1.5k ? they became farms, if there are no farms, there would be no other source of reso, other than trade, economy or quests.



    Stop with this silly ideas to make this game total simcity please, those grey(inactive) villages doing enough damage to the game already !

    @PoLo no need for you to be angry, this is the forums for Ideas and suggestion, if you dont want to see ideas like this, dont click on it. there is a reason why you are here, its either you're interested or you just want to bully someone.



    @Curtain Yeah, it might be a too far fetch since you would let your enemy build up after you defeat them. But it is meant for the majority of the none finishers of one server, rather than the few players who do.

  • You are making a mistake in assuming people don't finish servers because they get attacked, some might but I'm fairly certain that's not the case for majority.


    The first and foremost reason is that the game is simply very demanding and honestly quite boring for what it is, at least for the casual majority.
    Lot of people LOVE the idea of Travian, start a game and quit because ultimately they don't end up enjoying the core gameplay or simply their interests change over time and that's ok. It's really difficult to get people to commit 6 months of their lives to anything let alone a niche video game. A good example of this is people starting in summer vacations enjoying the game on the holidays but then quitting when school or work starts in the autumn which is quite typical.


    As for the people who are experienced there are of course the same problems of committing into large time investment but also things like bad starts, experimenting with things, playing casually to kill time between more tryhard servers, having bad spawn or losing their troops (truce doesn't actually help with this as much as you might think for the hard core players)


    For example I consider myself a very hardcore player, just from my prestige alone I would estimate i'm in the top 10% of kingdom players based on experience and yet I have only ever completed 3 servers on kingdoms and quit probably twice that many. Mind you I have played travian before so I have actually never been farmed in kingdoms before and yet I still quit often since I like to try things out in servers or play some casual rounds I have have no intention of finishing. Additionally even though I have "only" completed 3 rounds that still represents 2 years of playing the game which is actually insane amount of real time if you think it like that.


    The idea that truce would stop new players from quitting imo is just wrong, people who do that probably don't have what it takes to complete a round anyways. Of course it might help few players here and there but that's not something outweighs the drawbacks in my opinion


    Maybe that's just not true and I'm talking out of my ass though

  • The idea that truce would stop new players from quitting imo is just wrong, people who do that probably don't have what it takes to complete a round anyways. Of course it might help few players here and there but that's not something outweighs the drawbacks in my opinion



    Maybe that's just not true and I'm talking out of my ass though

    Maybe, but I agree, it's certainly not the most common cause. I do believe it is one cause, but will these people (those who get farmed and give up) ever become Travian players? It's a tough game and other people are actively trying to spoil your day.


    I've played 5 servers to the end now (2 on my Australian account - it's a long story) and also quit a couple. One was because I got busy and had no time and the other I decided I didn't like the people running my Kingdom. I've come near to quitting a couple of times for game reasons, but I always knuckle down and give it a go.

  • I think that's exactly right. Players leave not because they get farmed or catapulted to death, but because the game is either too demanding or not engaging enough for them. Travian has, since T3.6, always been trying to fix the former problem by making the game easier and less time-intensive to play. The idea was always that this would help retain players during servers and attract casual players from the enormous casual gamer population, so the total amount of players would grow too. What happened instead was that the entire playerbase was replaced with mostly casual gamers. But not many more gamers in total than before. And they weren't retained on servers any more than their ancestors either :) In fact, not that much changed - with a 5k server in the old days, you used to remain with maybe 500 after a year. Now, with the same number of players, you still remain with 500 after one gameround - half a year. So, the dev team's actions caused the player population to change in type of players. That's all that was accomplished, but that wasn't the goal!


    Clearly then, the dev team's solution to the playerbase problem just doesn't work. Yet they're so fixated on making this game as casual as possible that they're unwilling to see it, while it's blindingly obvious to any veteran. Even the most casual players livened up in the Colony because the rest of the group was fighting hard and was highly active, with high morale. Moreover, everyone had fun. We didn't leak that many players throughout the servers even though we had many new players, including pickups from the server. That should prove the point in its own right if it wasn't already self-evident that an interesting game tends to retain more players than an uninteresting one.


    The dev team currently has no clue how to make the game more interesting. Nor do they want to have a clue. They have simply not thought about or tried anything to make the game more interesting for each part of their playerbase - the casual, semi-hardcore and hardcore players. If they really want to retain and attract more players, that's what they should be focused on but the probability of this happening is 0. Their mindset is fixated on having this game be the casual player attractor, even though T4 already attracts mostly casual players and is therefore their casual game and a direct competitor of TK, lol. Proof of their mindset can be seen in the night truce - at least I think that's the most recent proof of it -, they still haven't figured out that an even less time-intensive game is still not going to solve their problems. For the above reason.