Kingdom member limitation

Scorox wrote:

I think the development just over the last 6 months to a year are more and more indicating that a "territory" limit will not do the job. On COM6 where Phoenix and Nemesis merged (temporarily for the COM6 server) we had no problem fitting all 143 members easily .. and even with smaller boarders that would not be an issue either. The problem, in my opinion, lies in the accessibility (and even optimallity) of massing a server "raid party" of a Game Winning size before launch.

I disagree, limiting the territories helped massively, so much so that a 50 player premade is now very often compared to a meta, just because they have the strength to beat them

Restricting borders to maybe 250-300 fields max (expanded over time with treasuries as it is now) would not stop any Kingdom recruiting as many players as they wished, but it would mean there was less to be gained from it (so less reason for it) managing a smaller team is lot easier & a lot more interesting overall and stops Govs just being tribute mules for their kingdoms

Jak wrote:

I disagree, limiting the territories helped massively, so much so that a 50 player premade is now very often compared to a meta, just because they have the strength to beat them

Restricting borders to maybe 250-300 fields max (expanded over time with treasuries as it is now) would not stop any Kingdom recruiting as many players as they wished, but it would mean there was less to be gained from it (so less reason for it) managing a smaller team is lot easier & a lot more interesting overall and stops Govs just being tribute mules for their kingdoms

I agree that it did help. The situation before they decreased boarders size was crazy. I'm just not sure that it will help to the same extent if another Territory Size decrease would be implemented. If anything it will make it harder for the in-game constructed Kingdoms to compete with the pre-made out of game constructed Kingdoms.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is to take away the benefits from having so many members and maybe the need to try and achieve this will be less appealing

if a "small kingdom" could be as rich as a "big kingdom" in terms of treasures available and wealth from selling stolen goods etc, then they would stand a much greater chance of being viable in a "David v Goliath" senario

If you are an ordinary or newby player and you are in meta you are playing an INDIVIDUAL game most of the time. You build smth, kill robbers and send your def for request. Nobody attacks you because its dangerous. You know nothing about plan and strategy of your kingdom because everybody afraid of spies. Nobody cares about your problems because you are only one from 200.

If you are in a small kingdom you need to play a TEAM game for surviving.

This dispute about kingdom member limit is a dispute between individual and team game lovers.

The solving of this problem could be in making some (not every) worlds with this limit and see how many players will like it.

Tell me, how will chances of unwanted newbie player improve with lesser amount of teammates? Nobody will want him in top teams where he could learn from the best. And in worse kingdom, he might learn some basics, but more likely will quit because of getting his ass kicked hard even before he learnt something. Just my opinion

In current situation it's all about communication, if any newbie player is trying to be active, talkative, loyal, etc then you shouldn't be worried about him being a spy. If he wants to play a teamgame, he sure will. Majority of us started as no one, without experience and yet we worked our asses of to the higher places, which means it's possible for every single newbie too.

The only problem of kindom member limitation I see is the problem of newbies.

But

1. I do not beleive that playing in meta is good for them. I was playing in meta when I was newbie and all advices that I remember - buiid a def and send it to the king and send the crop. Once time I was a king of meta and I dont remeber all my governors because of its quantity. In contrast, being a king of 40 players I know the level and problems each of them.

2. I do not know how to solve the problem of unwanted newbies in mechanics of TK. But it could be solved for example by volunteers. I thought about making (by myself, just dont sure I will have time for this) special Kingdom for everybody who unwanted. With Menhirs its very easy to do. The purpose of this kingdom will be not to win but to teach people who wants to learn).

Snorri wrote:

Tell me, how will chances of unwanted newbie player improve with lesser amount of teammates? Nobody will want him in top teams where he could learn from the best. And in worse kingdom, he might learn some basics, but more likely will quit because of getting his ass kicked hard even before he learnt something. Just my opinion

In current situation it's all about communication, if any newbie player is trying to be active, talkative, loyal, etc then you shouldn't be worried about him being a spy. If he wants to play a teamgame, he sure will. Majority of us started as no one, without experience and yet we worked our asses of to the higher places, which means it's possible for every single newbie too.

From what I've noticed most kingdoms with more than 100 members do nothing for their bottom 50 players other than tell them when to send def.

They are a resource/tributary.

That is not the same as what happens in kingdoms with 30-60 members.

I understand you wanting to protect at all costs your play-style that you think you require but this is closer to the reality than you might be willing to believe.

Metas have 5 greys in a week and nobody batters an eye lid.

The problem for me is that there are too many power trip/dictatorship Kings out there & the main victims of restricting players will be those new to the game, the ones that get thrown out of a kingdom for being the "little fish" just because some other "bigger fish" came along, if we don't take time to help the small fish develop then travian will die completely

in the end we all have options,

as Gov we can choose not to join a meta, everyone that has only ever played inside a meta should try this (mostly since they are just the most boring playstyle in the game)

and as King we can choose not to form a meta, if it's all you've ever done then you have nothing more to prove and you should set yourself some new challenges and try and win with a smaller team (you would probably earn far more respect for doing so)

If not embassy than also we can use town hall for that? Now not many people build it I think

Jak - We all have options, but 99% of the playerbase will follow the options prescribed by the default path of the game's incentives, which are killing the game. Do you really believe restricting to 60 players will make sure players won't help new players anymore? When in older versions 60 players was the default?

Ooops looks like someone is touchy today Ammanurt I'm not really deserving of your venting though being one of the few Kings in the game that truely understands what it is to lead a team & win without the need to recruit half the server, I am probably one of the most anti-meta's players in the game, but then have been very fortunate to see the other side of the pond & have been very successful at destroying & beating meta's (even on the old version you speak of)

But anyway Kingdoms is not the old version, that version still exists and so if players want that experience I guess they can always switch to playing Legends (where meta's still have a way of ruling anyway) with their multi-wing alliances. Personally I play Kingdoms over Legends because it is a different format.

I experienced things back in the day & saw how newbies would get the chop purely based on them not developing as fast as the power trippers above them wanted, or would never get recruited because the waiting list was already full, so the 60 player alliance never truely worked back then either.

I agree something needs to be done about enhancing the gameplay of the new-comers to the game though, but just don't think restricting kingdoms to 60 players will make any difference. it will just mean that those newbies are expected to support a kingdom and not even end a server earning any kind of prestige for themselves because they will never be present in the 60 players that won. How does that entice them back again?

The bigger picture in all of this is that the game needs new recruits, but they won't survive without the safety net that the meta provides, it is only through beating the meta that players will see that there is another way. So I stand by my words and say if you want change to happen, you have to be the ones to make it happen & not expect the developers to fix this problem for you.

I would love for those that have played that "meta King" to set yourself new challenges and play for a win without endlessly recruiting (and having players delete endlessly too) & for those that hate meta's "up your game" & maybe form your own "anti-meta kingdoms" instead of just also ending up being a part of them for the sake of some false victory.

p.s. I'm a firm believer in "actions speaking louder than words" don't you find it strange that according to Scorox 's stats the only servers played where meta's didn't come out on top are those where we (BM) played?

Jak wrote:

Ooops looks like someone is touchy today Ammanurt I'm not really deserving of your venting though being one of the few Kings in the game that truely understands what it is to lead a team & win without the need to recruit half the server, I am probably one of the most anti-meta's players in the game, but then have been very fortunate to see the other side of the pond & have been very successful at destroying & beating meta's (even on the old version you speak of)

But anyway Kingdoms is not the old version, that version still exists and so if players want that experience I guess they can always switch to playing Legends (where meta's still have a way of ruling anyway) with their multi-wing alliances. Personally I play Kingdoms over Legends because it is a different format.

I experienced things back in the day & saw how newbies would get the chop purely based on them not developing as fast as the power trippers above them wanted, or would never get recruited because the waiting list was already full, so the 60 player alliance never truely worked back then either.

I agree something needs to be done about enhancing the gameplay of the new-comers to the game though, but just don't think restricting kingdoms to 60 players will make any difference. it will just mean that those newbies are expected to support a kingdom and not even end a server earning any kind of prestige for themselves because they will never be present in the 60 players that won. How does that entice them back again?

The bigger picture in all of this is that the game needs new recruits, but they won't survive without the safety net that the meta provides, it is only through beating the meta that players will see that there is another way. So I stand by my words and say if you want change to happen, you have to be the ones to make it happen & not expect the developers to fix this problem for you.

I would love for those that have played that "meta King" to set yourself new challenges and play for a win without endlessly recruiting (and having players delete endlessly too) & for those that hate meta's "up your game" & maybe form your own "anti-meta kingdoms" instead of just also ending up being a part of them for the sake of some false victory.

p.s. I'm a firm believer in "actions speaking louder than words" don't you find it strange that according to Scorox 's stats the only servers played where meta's didn't come out on top are those where we (BM) played?

Display More

Jak actually as I see it the evidence from the 2 servers BM played in 2018 suggests even more that a Max Limit of 60 members per kingdom needed. These 2 Server were two of the very few where the meta was not structured as a +130 man kingdom. Instead the meta BM faced was formed by an alliance of 3 opposing 50 man Kingdoms. The effect of this was that BM was able to run ahead in VP based on superior skill. Had the 3 Kingdoms instead been formed as a 150 man kingdom BM would just barely been able to keep up with this meta in terms of VP despite superior skill. I was on that server myself, as I have been on with one or two dominant +130 man Kingdoms... And to me the servers with 4 Kingdoms of 50-60 members each was a way better experience.

Jak no harm to try once on a test server and see if it helps balance the game more don't you think?

You would have to make several test servers about it. One can give the wrong results.

To be honest, I'd prefer a normal game world , something like we had for Dry world. These limitations are easy to implement IT wise and the findings can be recorded after the end of normal server and evaluate how much players enjoyed the game world compared to the other game world.

This involves a lot of stuffs in planning strategies, diplomacy etc, throughout the length of server so a short test server might not suffice.

Not tried Dry world. Be fun with some change

Scorox wrote:

Jak actually as I see it the evidence from the 2 servers BM played in 2018 suggests even more that a Max Limit of 60 members per kingdom needed. These 2 Server were two of the very few where the meta was not structured as a +130 man kingdom. Instead the meta BM faced was formed by an alliance of 3 opposing 50 man Kingdoms. The effect of this was that BM was able to run ahead in VP based on superior skill. Had the 3 Kingdoms instead been formed as a 150 man kingdom BM would just barely been able to keep up with this meta in terms of VP despite superior skill. I was on that server myself, as I have been on with one or two dominant +130 man Kingdoms... And to me the servers with 4 Kingdoms of 50-60 members each was a way better experience.

Hmm I beg to differ, yes com8 was low on enemies I agree, but the amount of accounts that joined the server was still around the 4.5k mark, many messaged asking if they could join us & when we declined they decided it wasn't worth them playing & deleted, some were really good players too (I even begged a few to form their own kingdoms and fight us, or talk with the other kingdoms and attack us together, but sadly most just want to join the biggest kingdom on a server) for me the game is about more than just winning, but many don't see it this way.

As it goes even if it had been more competetive on com8 I doubt anyone would've stopped us winning the server. With the planning we'd done and the setup we had I am sure we could've beaten any team (sorry it comes across boastful, it's not meant to)

if you get a chance it would be great to see the results of your 2017 stats too I feel it's more than a coincidence that the 5 servers we've played we've managed to keep meta's to a minimum, whilst staying true to our core values & finished in 1st place each time

Renuo#EN wrote:

Jak no harm to try once on a test server and see if it helps balance the game more don't you think?

Renuo#EN if it happens ...... does that mean I can retire then?

As you can kinda tell from Jak s post, the problem is within the players and not the game. It's so much more convenient to just join an existing team rather than trying to create your own with a bunch of randoms. There might be more kingdoms on the round with a limitation, but 90% of them would still not be able to actually compete unless they get lucky and the good teams destroy each other while they sim in peace. Not to mention that proper leading takes way more time than most people have on hands, which is a big reason why people just take the governor role.

I know i wouldn't play anymore if i hadn't found a nice team to talk and spend time with, now travian is just a nice plus This limitation will just make good teams stay good but not accept any new players in as they are already full. (and i'm not even getting to the topic of wings and treasure boosting or such, that small teams won't get to enjoy whereas some big preformeds might)

Sure throw it on a test server or a special server but this just doesn't work kingdoms. If you want to make limited kingdoms i would much rather them then make the game purely based on legends instead of this kingdom/treasure/vp stuff. Most of the players play TK for the improved graphics anyway, not the hoarding vp stuff.