treasury and influence

  • i am playing travian after a year. a year before it was easy to build treasuries for a king. now you can have treasuries until 10k. can have another treasury and have only two dukes until 30 days if you will merge with other kingdom or vice versa. so you will have 4 dukes. to hard to get governors if you have only one treasury until 10k.
    please make the 10k rule half or let us have more dukes if we can't get more treasury and influence

  • It SHOULD be hard to get governors. This kingdom member stacking idea is killing the game. I had hoped these changes would force kingdoms to be smaller. Well they haven't lived up to my expectations at all.


    Instead they made the game worse. Adding the idea of unlimited numbers of treasury's in one village. WHY?! It makes it too easy to just stack the treasures and defend all of them at the same time. That's a huge nerf to the offensive party, making it very easy to defend ones treasures. In turn the incentive to attack is diminished. Just stack members and passively generate treasures until the round is over.


    My opinion on the dwindling numbers of players is simply the reason the game gets to easy. Sure i can understand why developers wants to make it more friendly to newer players. But this instead makes experienced players bored which in turn makes them quit. Travian is not supposed to be easy. Lesser players will start play but instead lesser players will leave (After just a very few rounds). Which would also most likely increase the amount of gold sold by the owners. Let's face it, the guy playing his first round probably barely buy any gold while the guy playing his 10th round see the worth of gold and would be willing to spend more gold to get an edge.
    Sure i've no data supporting my claim more than a few rounds of kingdom where the "skill level" of players i meet have been extremely low compared to what they used to be. Which seems to be because of a lack of experience both from the player themselves and their leaders.


    Anyways this might have been a bit off topic.
    I would like to agree on the game going very slow the first 30 days. Not because of a lower number of governors tho.

  • Hello @bharatpur#US


    thank you for sharing your thoughts. Yes, Travian Kingdoms changed quite a bit compared to 1 year ago. Like @Stekarn_DK already mentioned, the intention of getting a next treasury harder now is to expand a kingdom. The territorial progress has slowed down with that high amount of treasures needed. We explained it in the blog post here: Kingdom Unions: Unlocking Duke and Treasury Slots | Travian Kingdoms Blog



    Adding the idea of unlimited numbers of treasury's in one village. WHY?! It makes it too easy to just stack the treasures and defend all of them at the same time.

    There are less treasury villages within a kingdom now and with the ability to build more than one treasury within the same village makes them stand out even further. A treasury has to be leveled up to 20 to reach the 10k limit. If a kingdom decides a tight or a loose control over the treasuries, is a strategic decision. Both ways have advantage and disadvantage as @drgenius#EN(1) explained here: Strategic treasures allocation


    Which strategy did your kingdom choose to follow?

    Community Communications Manager

  • As almost every kingdom we did choose a tight control over the treasuries.
    Another problem with multiple treasuries in one village is the inability to destroy all treasuries and take all treasures currently in the village. When one treasury is at level 20 you could theoretically build a lvl 1 treasury on every spot inside the village. As long as 1 of them stand after attacks the offender can only take 1/3 of the treasures per successful attack. I liked it way more with a maximum of 4k active treasures per village. There is more options for the offender and not as easy for the defender. This goes both way's of course. As the next week the defender might be the offender.


    You badly need to create incentive for offensive actions. The balance between defense and offence used to be decently balanced. Now its heavily favoring the defense party. This is obvious on most of the kingdom servers. Why attack others when you can just generate treasures from NPC villages and grow your account? Why pick a fight if you don't have to?! This stacking of treasures is only slowing the game down even more. Sure you could argue "But you put all your eggs in one basket". Yes you do but even if a kingdom decides to stack all their offensive power towards that village and successfully gets through and steal some treasures. Then what? The offensive party just lost a majority of their power (If its equal sized kingdoms vs each others). They have to regain troops again which will take them 10-20 days at least. That's 10-20 days of no action, just generate treasures.


    There is so much in favor for defensive players nowadays. For example:
    Limit on catapult waves.
    200 loyalty in city villages + 2 CP slot needed.
    Ditch (Siege is not as useful as the ditch).
    Spy-glass make it expensive to make good fakes.


    All this just makes it harder for an offender to create lasting damage. Which turns kingdoms into focusing on treasure hits. Yes treasures is a big part of the game, but when majority of the kingdom don't even think about doing damage with catapults/chiefs something is wrong. Now with stacking also the treasure focused kingdoms gets a hard time.


    Travian is supposed to be played as a "war game". When people have gotten tired of building the same buildings in a new village every 7-10 days. What do they stay for? The social aspect and the "war part". The war part feeds the social aspect as people have to work together. So why dumb down the war part and just put up obstacles for those players? Instead find ways to give an incentive for action. Make players WANT to fight and take treasures from each others. Don't give them the opportunity to just choose the easy way through the server. It's clear given the option most leaders choose the easy way.

  • My two cents on the issue:-


    I don't think there's anything THAT wrong with the current treasury system. I think it should be hard for kingdoms to steal treasures from each other and putting the balance in favour of the defenders works well enough because it rewards the kingdoms that work together as a team to attack as a group.


    But I think there should be an expansion of the opportunities available to steal Victory Points from other kingdoms (and ultimately it's VP that wins you the game). For example - you could assign a VP value to each building and resource field so that if one kingdom attacks another kingdoms non-treasury cities and knocks out a few building levels they still get some VP to show for the effort.


    This would (I think) provide an extra option for attacking kingdoms - they could either go for the big gain by attacking a treasury city or a series of smaller gains by attacking satellite cities. It would also add an extra challenge to the defenders and balance things out a bit, because the defender would have to try and figure out if the attacking kingdom was aiming for the treasuries or aiming for the smaller cities - instead of the current approach where they just stack most of their defence in their treasuries knowing they can just rebuild any damage done to their other cities.

  • Exactly @Batcountry#EN. My concern might not have as much with the treasury situation as it have to do with the lack of options for offensive actions. At the moment it feels underwhelming to aim for other kind of attacks than just treasuries. Therefore when also going for the approach of making treasures harder to steal you kind of kill even more options for an offensive player. But if you started to give VP or treasures for other villages, I can definitely see kingdoms using that option too. This in turn would create more action during the server.


    At the same time would it matter if treasures was easier to steal from each other? Making treasures just switch hands multiple time during the server is not bad. As this would give both sides the same opportunity. It would favor those willing to create a strong cooperative kingdom who thrives on action versus other kingdoms. As it is now the gain from taking a good prolonged fight is barely worth the effort. It's more every 2-3 week we fake all your treasuries and stack hammers on one, with the hope of coming back home with some treasures.


    Basically this is coming back to my first post in this thread. Just stacking members and generate passive treasures from NPC villages until late game. It's not a strategy which should put you in a good position to win the server in my opinion. A winning kingdom should have to fight through the server and show superiority in their cooperation (both offensively and defensively) rather than their ability to kill NPCs. With just a few big treasuries there is not much cooperation defense wise or offensive wise.


    I am all for smaller gains often than big gains only a handful of times during a server. This force kingdoms to create an environment where cooperation is the norm not the exception.

  • I think the main issue with such an approach would be that it has the potential to allow players to get VP from metas and/or multi accounts - not sure how the dev's would deal with that (I think that was part of the reason why they brought in the current system)


    Maybe putting a limit on players being able to send defence to a kingdom unless they are part of the kingdom or an allied kingdom and then not allowing players to get VP from allies?

  • I like where this discussion is heading.


    There are a couple of impediments when introducing smaller targets to the game like @Batcountry#EN is mentioning.


    you could assign a VP value to each building and resource field

    Can you explain this idea a bit more?


    For me, it is important to make the rules and exceptions as simple as possible so that they are transparent for every player. That is the basis for creating effective und new strategies.


    @Stekarn_DK can you for elaborating and sharing your thoughts here. You would like to have more variety in offensive targets.


    I am all for smaller gains often than big gains only a handful of times during a server. This force kingdoms to create an environment where cooperation is the norm not the exception.

    I like this statement! Even though it's part of the Travian experience that early decisions have a huge impact later in game, there still can be smaller gains on the way. What would you like too see the most besides the already mentioned suggestions?

    Community Communications Manager

  • Can you explain this idea a bit more?

    It was a bit of a spitball idea rather than something I've put a lot of thought into but I was thinking of maybe something along the lines of having a VP value similar to how there is a culture point value for each building.


    So if you completely knock out a level 20 building you get the VP value for all 20 levels, but if you only knock a building from level 20 to level 10 you get the VP value for each level you knock out. Same if you only hit a smaller level building, you only get the lower level VP values. Does that make (enough) sense?


    But like I said above, bringing in an approach like this could easily encourage abuse through multi accounts and/or metas - I'm not sure how you would restrict it to prevent this.

  • For me, it is important to make the rules and exceptions as simple as possible so that they are transparent for every player. That is the basis for creating effective und new strategies.

    The current set of rules are not stated anywhere and 90% of the new players are un-aware of lots of them. For example the reduced stolen VP per WW-level, and that the kingdoms get locked at lvl 50 WW. Only people who know about these rules either have read them from the changelogs or heard about them from other players, but sadly most are unaware of them.


    One change i would like to suggest for the current VP-mechanics is this: only allow vp to get stolen if the kingdoms are at war. (and make announcing a war have a cooldown or something so that it can't be cancelled instantly after the treasures swoop)

  • Now, there's some new ideas I like a lot.


    Currently wars are focused heavily on treasuries and one can create few big treasuries per kingdom which are defended heavily and which are very hard to attack successfully. Further, treasuries are opened slower, yet the growth of kingdoms is still exponential and a bigger kingdom has a more than linear advantage over a smaller kingdom - which leads to and favors concentration of power - which in turn leads often to two or three large metas dominating the server. So pretty please: make victory point generation less than linear in kingdom size and treasure amount. I'm optimistic it would help to level balance and reduce the need for big metas.



    The current set of rules are not stated anywhere and 90% of the new players are un-aware of lots of them. For example the reduced stolen VP per WW-level, and that the kingdoms get locked at lvl 50 WW. Only people who know about these rules either have read them from the changelogs or heard about them from other players, but sadly most are unaware of them.
    One change i would like to suggest for the current VP-mechanics is this: only allow vp to get stolen if the kingdoms are at war. (and make announcing a war have a cooldown or something so that it can't be cancelled instantly after the treasures swoop)

    Agreed, tThis is one or another of the problems. There is no place anymore where the game rules are explained. The wiki is so old that it's 95% useless. And all other information are sprinkled around in various places, in different forum threads and blog posts and guides on 3rd-party sites. That's very unwelcoming to new players.


    As to making the declaration of war something useful and with a cooldown instead of just a nice way of saying "you are bad": I like the idea!



    It was a bit of a spitball idea rather than something I've put a lot of thought into but I was thinking of maybe something along the lines of having a VP value similar to how there is a culture point value for each building.
    So if you completely knock out a level 20 building you get the VP value for all 20 levels, but if you only knock a building from level 20 to level 10 you get the VP value for each level you knock out. Same if you only hit a smaller level building, you only get the lower level VP values. Does that make (enough) sense?


    But like I said above, bringing in an approach like this could easily encourage abuse through multi accounts and/or metas - I'm not sure how you would restrict it to prevent this.

    This is an interesting new concept, too. This would involve more all players. Currently, as "small governor" you have good chances of being rather safe from attacks, unless you prove to be an easy and good farm. Generating victory points from successful attacks would certainly spike the interest in attacking "normal" players. Combined with the need to declare war for that to be effective, this could give nice gameplay dynamics, but possibly slow abuse by multi accounts.

  • Instead they made the game worse. Adding the idea of unlimited numbers of treasury's in one village. WHY?! It makes it too easy to just stack the treasures and defend all of them at the same time. That's a huge nerf to the offensive party, making it very easy to defend ones treasures. In turn the incentive to attack is diminished. Just stack members and passively generate treasures until the round is over.

    Theres imho no problem with this tight control. Just (convincingly) fake that one village and gut every other treasury/off village/ basicly whatever you desire. Sure, it wont yield much VP in the beginning but once the kingdom is crippled it shouldnt be much of a problem.

    This is an interesting new concept, too. This would involve more all players. Currently, as "small governor" you have good chances of being rather safe from attacks, unless you prove to be an easy and good farm. Generating victory points from successful attacks would certainly spike the interest in attacking "normal" players. Combined with the need to declare war for that to be effective, this could give nice gameplay dynamics, but possibly slow abuse by multi accounts.


    I doubt that anything involving cataing smaller players would do good to the game in the long run. Its the worst and most discouraging you can do to them and will scare them away. I mean, we all witnesed someone quit over losing a village overnight, didnt we? Now imagine if its your first world and you just want to test the waters and out of the blue your hard invested hours of clicking and clacking getting void and you dont even understand why. Id suggest this 'steal via destruction' thing to work only on kings and dukes, similar to how stealing VP via treasures was changed from all to kings/dukes (kudos to who made this happen :D) to prevent abuse from the getgo.

  • @Marshmallowman - I think you raise a valid point but I wouldn't discount the idea straight away. Like I said above though it's just a spitball idea from me at the moment to give the developers something to think about. But it would have to be restricted somehow both to prevent big players "bullying" smaller players to get the VP and to make sure it actually results in a gain in the amount of "fun" for the players. Maybe restrict the VP gain to certain buildings (e.g. Town hall, Residence, etc) so that there's no need to completely zero a village or restrict it to being able to steal VP from players within a certain % close to you population wise (i.e. big players can only steal VP from other big players, smaller players can target other smaller players).


    Another alternative that I think is worth putting out there is to make the Natar's more active - increase the number of Natar cities (e.g. have a small percentage inactive players randomly convert to Natar cities) and have them randomly attack nearby cities


    I don't even necessarily think that the idea of "steal via destruction" needs to be the only idea - just that something should be done to provide more options for ALL players to participate in actions. Getting cata'd can be demoralising, but just as many players simply lose interest because by mid-game they have been too far overtaken by the larger players to really do much except sim and then send defence/resources to the WW. I think finding a way to provide more options for smaller/less active players would both encourage more people to stick around and encourage those that do stick around to become more active.


    Hopefully it would also do something to limit the advantage currently being gained by certain kingdoms who are stacking their kingdoms with as many passive players as possible (and let's be honest, probably quite a few multi accounts) to simply sim away knowing that most of these accounts will never be actively targeted.

  • There are a lot of interesting ideas here, which could improve the game for all of us.


    I would like to comment on the criticism of the possibilities for having many treasuries in one village. It makes it easier to defend treasures initially, but actually makes it worse later in the game (which I do like!).
    Coming from com6 and as part of the Phoenix group, we ended up having coordinated attacks from 3 kingdoms on WW and our main treasury villages.
    With the amount of treasures we had in these villages, 30-60k, it actually became necessary to treat them as a WW village. You simply cannot afford to loose one of them.
    We lost the server, mainly because we failed on defending one of the treasuries and lost 50k treasures and a huuuuuge amount of VP as we were rank 1.


    We had 8-15 sieges on WW + 4 treasury villages (not 100% sure about the number) in addition to a huge number of normal attacks on the same + a few other villages.
    If you believe that it is easy to defend 4 villages against this, then you should take a look at the reports posted elsewhere on the forum. We had quite a few 110k defense in all villages in addition to 1-1.5 million in WW, but lost one battle and then the server.


    Even if we lost, I am still a fan of the idea of having many treasuries in one village. It gives attackers more important villages to coordinate on and thus an easier game than just defending WW.


    I also do not see that this favors the big metas more than before. We were big enough, but against well coordinated attacks, we did not manage.
    This is a major improvement of the game and encouraged quite much new thinking on strategy. Well done developers!


    I have been playing travian for 12 years roughly and one thing has not changed: End Game is boooooooring! Too many players quit in mid and end game.


    Speed servers is requiring too much 24/7 activity and I like the pace of normal servers better, but they are too long.


    • I think Tier 1 phase is well defined and works perfectly according to the intention. Building up villages, troops and relationships.


    • I think Tier 2 phase is too long. A lot of strategic decisions and important work to be done, but mostly for leaders. Please consider cutting it down by 2-3 weeks at least.


    • I think Tier 3 (End Game) is meaningless long and totally uninteresting for most players.

    The idea would be to cut down building of all infrastructure in the WW village down to 50% (wall, granary, warehouse, GG, GW). Keep the Wonder building times as they are.
    This will reduce the time when, for all but the WW team, players see more or less nothing happening. Seeing on com2 now that players has been quitting for some time already.


    I would also like to try and include the kingdom members more in the WW part, in addition to the "crop-calls" and "def calls".


    Why don't you develop a counter, visible only for kingdom members, how many minutes left until empty granary in WW. This would give players that never had or seen a WW, some hint about the crop challenge, WITHOUT indicating anything on the def troop count!


    This could be supplemented by some alarm-indication, similar to attack-indication, on the urgency of crop supply.


    I would also like to see more ideas for involving the members that are not in the WW team. I generally do not believe too much in the importance of spies. they have always been there, will always be there, and I do not really care.
    Please let us make the game even more interesting for the majority instead of adapting it to the few negative elements

  • I agree with Yangus that the information received by governors in the WW could be improved, some short of alarm system for crop for example would be great!
    If you are a small governor in a kingdom, you usually have no clue f what is going on on the WW...

    Average player proud to be part of BM

  • Why don't you develop a counter, visible only for kingdom members, how many minutes left until empty granary in WW. This would give players that never had or seen a WW, some hint about the crop challenge, WITHOUT indicating anything on the def troop count!
    This could be supplemented by some alarm-indication, similar to attack-indication, on the urgency of crop supply.


    I would also like to see more ideas for involving the members that are not in the WW team. I generally do not believe too much in the importance of spies. they have always been there, will always be there, and I do not really care.
    Please let us make the game even more interesting for the majority instead of adapting it to the few negative elements

    I doubt that this indicator would do any good. with troopcounts revolving around several 100k in the wonders, generally as little grannaries as possible and shipments comming in basicly all the time they would either have to include that too (and im not sure if it wouldnt screw the server) or it would be outdated by the time the window loaded (or is just not accurate to begin with)


    I honestly like that its the kings/managements job to or not to involve their subordinates. Sucks if you are gov in a kingdom with weaker management but feels even more rewarding if they DO involve you. Because its not just something thats there but they actually took the time and made the hourly status report or whatever.


    This highly depends on the quality of the enemies kingdom but spies are actually a pretty strong tool (hence almost everyone tries to use them). Sure if your kingdom is good and wont leak that many infos/picks their trusted members carefully they can only do so much harm (besides being sleeper and attack someone from the inside like once) but on less carefull KDs they work embarrasingly well imo.