Kingdom member limitation

  • There really needs to be a way for "noobs" to learn how to play or else it'll just be the same little clique of players whose numbers will eventually dwindle through attrition until they alone can't support the game. Rewards beat punishments when the rewards are meaningful or desirable. When the rewards are meaningless, they aren't much better than punishments and either one leads to people losing interest and dropping out. Mega-Kingdoms are really a buzz-kill for newcomers and first-timers; they serve as a Wall of Death that essentially kills your chances of building anything for yourself and really force new players to just go find some big group to join and be treated as another resource, another contributor...another thing to be used by the older, established, early-adopters and experts. The Mega-Kingdoms have a place, certainly...but there's no legitimate alternative path available for anyone new to build anything remotely as powerful or effective, not really. Give players, no matter how new or how accomplished they may be an opportunity to compete against anyone no matter their affiliation or use of special tools or devotion to a particular group and you'll have made the game a good deal more fresh and interesting again.

  • So your way to fight with fire is fire? "Noobs" term is used for a rookie, nothing offensive about it. Why you so afraid to be left aside, just prove yourself useful and active enough, that all what any kingdom would ask for a any governor, but now it seems you feel threatened to be kicked out..

    If you're inactive, you will get kicked and farmed from any kingdom, even without any limits, since it gives more profit, nothing personal about that.

    This game is old, very old, so most of people come there to remember the good old travian days already knows everything about this game, there are no extra tribes added like there are in legends - those rookies playing more active then old dushes if you manage to enrol them.

    I'm not saying just make those limitations happen without any questions or extra suggestions, thats just an idea that most of us would like to try on a TEST server! Try it, only then come there and tell how bad it is, what a terrible idea that is. Please give it a chance, maybe you would like that little tension in a server, where you have more options then 2: join meta or go against meta and look how members around you will start deletion process eventually.

  • I support a Max Player per Kingdom to 100%. In fact, in my humble opinion this is the most important change that needs to be done to Travian Kingdoms.

    "Remember upon the conduct of each depends the fate of all." ― Alexander the Great

  • I think is a good idea. Would be nice to see a limit up to 60 players and 120 after two kingdoms get united.


    Another option can be that if the top kingdoms offset by a set limit the ones fallowing them in ranking they can not take their treasures anymore. The only thing here is that the game will be more intense for those in the middle because they will be attacked from both sides, the bigger and smaller ones if the difference between them is not that big.


    If a limit is set (and I think is the best) to make it harder for the wings to play together, when they reinforce each other the foreign troops to take extra crop (2x or 3x) same when reinforcing the WW with foreign troops. Also the wings leaders should be prevented from jumping the boat just before WW, this way if there is a limit they can't just kick out somebody in the last part of the game to make space for somebody else.

  • 1) maybe more players in kingdom - more penalities, like less res from fields, etc.. So that ppl won't make big kingdoms.


    2) Can reinforce only members from your kingdom (can't change kingdom very often, for example, you can leave or join only once in a few days)


    3) other changes that will make wing kingdoms useless.


    4) + of course, limitations, so that others won't join at the end, that will make them think about their own VP and WW.

  • I agree having smaller kingdoms would improve gameplay and the chance that 7 kingdoms fight for the win in the end.


    I agree that the way forward is not a limitation on kingdom members, but as Fishkiller and others imply, rather incentives to keep kingdoms smaller.

  • If you keep start dates a bit more spread out instead of 3 starting in the same month, you will have more kingdoms fighting over the win.

    Instead of starting (seemingly) random servers, start a com server at regular intervals. It does not have to be a fixed date, but restart the server maybe 30 days after it has finished. That way, bigger kingdoms can prepare and fight each other. Players in such kingdoms want a challenge. So give us the time to prepare and servers will be more of a challenge.

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

  • This discussion again? :D


    If you want to mostly stop metas and have several kingdoms fighting over the WWs during the endgame, make the game competitive enough so that the added organisation issues stop most bigger groups from being effective. The old size limitations made sure you needed extra alliances, more people/accounts to trust in organisatory positions. If you want to send out an announcement, you have to do it in two places. Alliance-chat? Better have Discord/Skype, or you'll be talking in different alliance-chats. Keep adding incentives to make the meta-life less attractive, and you'll run them out of business if that's what you want to achieve. You could extend the morale bonus idea, but for treasure production/VP stealing. Of course - the devs want the opposite, so it'll never happen. Until they finally change their views and see that this game is functionally dead in the water and can't retain players at all, there's no point talking about all this.

    • Helpful

    I have now read all post here and the main objections to having a player limit per kingdom seem to be:

    1) People will create wings anyway to extend their member count.

    2) A hard limit of players per kingdoms will "push out" players of lesser skills


    I personally think that this is the conclusion one will come to if you just judge it for the first evolution to a system with a hard max limit (everything else being equal). But certainly there can be further changes coming along to compliment such a radical change to the game. I think a one needs to consider a max player limit as a philosophy to be further designed around rather than a change to be inserted into the current rule set without further changes.


    My motivation for why the game needs to be designed around such a core philosophy of a max number of members per kingdom goes something like this.


    a) Wings (or allied kingdoms) will exist regardless of a max limit or not. Without a max limit Wings exist to maximize boarders, member´count and treasury generation. With a max limit wings will exist for the same reason. The difference is only that wings under the current system are often working under a temporary basis with a promise of absorption into the main kingdom in order to share the win. With a max limit the option of wings to work under a temporary basis for the purpose of later moving to the main kingdom and sharing the win will get removed. And I personally do value this seemingly minor change to have a great impact on the game as such an arrangement will in general be more difficult achieve diplomatically. Trying to be more clear; It will be harder to have 120 members selflessly working for the win of another 60 members in the main kingdom without any chances of sharing the victory, as compared to having 120 members temporarily being in wings with the promise of later joining up into a 180 man kingdom to share the win. I sincerely think a max limit will lead to more kingdoms will strive to act independently and working to optimize their own game and chances when the option of absorption is removed. This will not happen over night and it will demand further rule changes to stimulate such a change in dynamic. But I think the key is that the game introduces more and more rules that pushes players towards independent team building.


    b) At this stage the game is pretty much solved. And I think many of the core/leadership groups of established organisations may agree with me that the META strategy of the current state of the game hold much more to be desired. The solved META strategy evolves around maximizing member count as to reach a sufficient passive treasury generation speed and to reach that critical level of DEF in a WW where a trail of 15 incoming sieges cannot damage your WW. The problem here arises from that a achievable OFF army size is bounded, while the DEF in the WW is a function of your member count. So one can practically reach "Checkmate state" due to the OFF army size being bounded by game "laws of physics" and WW DEF size being bounded by member count. A similar case also exist with the treasury generation. Treasury generation is a linear function of your member count. However, since VP is an accumulative additive function of your treasury count, VP becomes an exponential function of your member count! THIS is why the member coutn discussion is different and FAR more important in Travian Kingdoms than in Legends. And this is why there need to be a philosophy change (accompanied with several rule changed) when it comes to member count in Travian Kingdoms. As the META strategy stands right now, and everyone in the leadership groups knows it, member count is key for the 2 aforementioned reasons. And many leadership groups are constantly battling the contradiction of wanting to have a smaller tighter team with stronger community, against the by design necessity of having a huge member count to adjust to the non-linear impact member count will have on VP generation and DEF vs. OFF strength in the WW stage of the game.


    c) By a max limit winning a server and receiving the Victory Medal for a server will be something far more rare. When only 60 players out of say 2000 can stand victorious on a server it will mean a great deal more than if 300 players our of 2000 wins a server... whether or not you have been organizing "pre-made" wings or if you have simply been skillful to been able to gain necessary allies via diplomatic means.


    d) Finally, regarding objection 2 above. Yes it is true that players of lesser experience and connections will not have a very good chance of stumbling into a membership of the winning kingdom on a server. And I think this is a good thing. There will be other kingdoms to join, whom due to the necessity for alliances will not automatically all be destroyed to pieces. In reality all that will change for such players are that they will end up in kingdoms with lower chances of winning until they display the skill sought for by the more ambitious teams, and then subsequently being recruited by one of them. I would strongly argue that the experience for the players of lesser seriousness level or experience will not worsen. In fact, I think it will even increase as the community in ALL kingdoms will benefit from a stronger in-kingdom community as each individual in that kingdom now counts for more.


    Best,

    Scorox

    "Remember upon the conduct of each depends the fate of all." ― Alexander the Great

    The post was edited 4 times, last by Scorox ().

  • Good Analyses Scorox .


    I agree with all the points , I still have my doubts about deciding the fate of these "less active", "less experiences" players, but then again there are numerous other games to play and if they have less activity/ experience , they need to accept the positions in 2nd-3rd tier kingdoms too and it's fair enough.


    However, I don't see travian admins to be opening up to such ideas, so I wonder, if we as players community soft enforce this on next server we play and see the results and submit our experiences/ findings to Travian. I'd be up for it and I'm sure I can help convincing few other kingdoms for the same.


    Thoughts everyone ?

  • a) Wings (or allied kingdoms) will exist regardless of a max limit or not. Without a max limit Wings exist to maximize boarders, member´count and treasury generation. With a max limit wings will exist for the same reason. The difference is only that wings under the current system are often working under a temporary basis with a promise of absorption into the main kingdom in order to share the win. With a max limit the option of wings to work under a temporary basis for the purpose of later moving to the main kingdom and sharing the win will get removed. And I personally do value this seemingly minor change to have a great impact on the game as such an arrangement will in general be more difficult achieve diplomatically. Trying to be more clear; It will be harder to have 120 members selflessly working for the win of another 60 members in the main kingdom without any chances of sharing the victory, as compared to having 120 members temporarily being in wings with the promise of later joining up into a 180 man kingdom to share the win. I sincerely think a max limit will lead to more kingdoms will strive to act independently and working to optimize their own game and chances when the option of absorption is removed. This will not happen over night and it will demand further rule changes to stimulate such a change in dynamic. But I think the key is that the game introduces more and more rules that pushes players towards independent team building.

    These wings will just be full of multi-accounts who dont care if they end up 2nd or 15th as long as their main account wins.

  • Thank you @Starx#EN(1) .


    I personally think that the Travian Development Team do not have much to loose by at least running an official "special even" server with such modification as a test. They have experimented with changes that had much less likelihood of reverting the downwards trend in the number of players in Travian Kingdoms (e.g. Dry Season server). So why not experiment with a special rule-set that Actually have the potential to "shake the ground" so to speak. I'm worrying that the development team will fear that too many players will feel their odds of winning are too small. On the contrary however, I know that myself will greatly respect and honor whom ever manage to come out on top on such server, regardless how I will fare personally. Winning such server will be a great accomplishment and any winner there deserves respect.


    I think that our path forward needs to be to keep discussing this topic here. And if enough of us can agree to the philosophy having some merit, then we need to start a petition for a special event server of this type. We could aim at sharing this post with our friends and contacts, trying to reach 10 pages of comments. Then based on the comments and analyses together work out the details for a petition for a special event server.

    "Remember upon the conduct of each depends the fate of all." ― Alexander the Great

  • Multi accounts are a different issue all-together, they can have all multi accounts in the main kingdoms to start with if we don't have limitations, so don't see that as a decider here.


    Scorox I have no doubts about the idea but about the business.

    As I wrote before that rule will start eliminating weaker players from the game and that indirectly, or even directly hurt Travian as a business. Weaker players servers a lot of purpose , for eg, filling the server enabling the raiding feature, without weaker players it'll be impossible to raid as conveniently as now.

    They also make stronger players look stronger, which is again an indirect ego boost.

    Also, I'm not sure how much money Travian make from less active players but I'm assuming that every drop counts for a business and they might be against the idea of letting it go.


    With 60 players limit implemented, we'll see around 10 kingdoms contending for 7 Wonder until end game. Which is around 660 players. It should also reduce WW count for kingdoms, as it's super hard to manage 2 Wonders with 60 off players, hence making sure that all WW are taken by different kingdoms.

  • These wings will just be full of multi-accounts who dont care if they end up 2nd or 15th as long as their main account wins.


    Snorri, you know just as I know that the topic of multi accounting works negatively on any system. Multi-accounting is a different beast for another topic.. it's not an exclusive problem to the issue of an upper bound to the member count.

    "Remember upon the conduct of each depends the fate of all." ― Alexander the Great

  • I think multiaccounting would be much bigger issue in this system than in the current system.. If you have 120 people META, you dont need much other help from outside. If you have 60 players META, then every single other helping account counts twice more so I think it would enforce such people to use it even more.

  • I really don't understand how Multi accounts will counted twice if outside main kingdom, they technically will be making less VP for main kingdom and will be getting less from stolen goods as assuming Main kingdom will always keep the most of the treasures.