Kingdom member limitation

  • 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

    Ah now I get what you mean Snorri. Then I just think you misunderstand me slightly. So assume (as an example) that out of 2000 players on a server, say 100 of them will be using Multi accounts owning between 1-3 extra accounts each to cheat. That equals 100 cheaters with 200 multi accounts owned by the cheaters. Under the current rules the 100 cheaters and their 200 Multi-accounts can be either in the main kingdom making it a 300 player kingdom, or have them spread out in wings. Under a system of a max player count of 60 members per kingdom these 300 cheater account would be forced to spread out into 5 separate kingdoms. Why do you feel this is a benefit to the cheaters to be forced to be spread out in this way?

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

  • I think because kingdoms are quite big these days, cheaters have less motivation to make multi-accounts to help their team (not only themselves) because they don't necessarily need it to keep the kingdom strong. But if the limit was set to 60, then you can't outnumber your opponent so every other account in wing kingdom counts (to reduce enemy deff, produce treasures, whatever). Hope you know what I mean. Simply each extra account working for your team would have bigger value than it has now.

  • I really don't think that we should be factoring in multi accounts for any good ideas, players who want to cheat, will cheat, no matter what and even in a game with no limit, they will find ways to utilize multi accounts, we all have seen that happening in past.

    I'm not saying that it's the best idea ever but you know that 1 sided server are no fun either and it does not provides a healthy balance between different teams, if one team is 150 players, other team can try to be 150 players too, but it's highly unlikely that rest of the teams can match that numbers and hence having no shot at winning.

  • I think because kingdoms are quite big these days, cheaters have less motivation to make multi-accounts to help their team (not only themselves) because they don't necessarily need it to keep the kingdom strong. But if the limit was set to 60, then you can't outnumber your opponent so every other account in wing kingdom counts (to reduce enemy deff, produce treasures, whatever). Hope you know what I mean. Simply each extra account working for your team would have bigger value than it has now.

    Ok now I totally get your point. In contrast I actually think the max limit would in fact discourage players from using multi accounts. For example, assume that you yourself and a few friends are trying to make a team to make a strong 60 man kingdom. Since there is a max number of members each member will have a much larger significance. Essentially, you can less afford one of your key members to cheat, because if he gets deleted before the WW phase then all his troops are gone with him. Sure, Multi account cheaters can have a strong impact early game, but I have seen a very positive trend of cheaters getting caught at least before the mid game. And if I would be running a team of 60 man only, and say 5 of my top 10 guys gets deleted, that would be it for my teams chances of pulling off some end game strategy. It might be 100k DEF or a WW rammer/hammer deleted per each of these 5 cheaters. Sure, cheaters can screw up the early game just as now, but the chances of a kingdom of cheaters to be the winner of a server will be MUCH lower when only 60 man can win as compared to when 300 can win as in the current system. Having a 60 man team consisting of a large group of cheaters surviving intact till the end game with sufficient diplomatic relations I predict very low.

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

  • If the cheaters really get spotted, banned and deleted, then I can see that working. But atm theres still too many cheaters around imo :/ Anyway it doesnt sound like a stupid idea and it was not my point. Was only concerned about abusing the rules again. I'm up to running a test server with these implementations. One more question tho: Aren't you afraid that the game will lose even more players as all the players who just sim around and not get involved will just stop playing since they will be refused everywhere?

  • Scorox , as ever you have come with a very long, but very well thought out suggestion, and I agree with all your comments.

    @Starx, I also agree we shouldn't factor in the multi's, cheaters will find a way to cheat the system. Admins are mostly powerless to do anything about it, so players need to squash these wherever they are found, regardless of what team or kingdom you're in.


    Love the suggestion of a Special Event, I'd join that in a heartbeat.

  • If the cheaters really get spotted, banned and deleted, then I can see that working. But atm theres still too many cheaters around imo :/ Anyway it doesnt sound like a stupid idea and it was not my point. Was only concerned about abusing the rules again. I'm up to running a test server with these implementations. One more question tho: Aren't you afraid that the game will lose even more players as all the players who just sim around and not get involved will just stop playing since they will be refused everywhere?


    This may not ring well with you guys whom suffered from Multi Account cheaters, but I came to Travian Kingdoms from a few other games where these cheaters never got caught at all. So in a way I hold the Travian Team's ability to catch cheaters as one of the hopes for this game.. a bit unpopular standpoint I know, but just based on my own experience from other games the situation with cheaters can be waaay worse! But yes, we can absolutely hope for even faster cheater detection etc.


    Regarding your question Snorri. I honestly do not think there will be a lack of kingdoms to join and that they will get refused everywhere. I think there will just as now be an abundance of kingdoms to join. But actually kingdoms of better quality to join than now. As it stands in the current system there is basically only 2 or 3 kingdoms per server you really want to be a part of. And once you are invited there then is where you truely only can expect to sim since the leadership of these top 3 kingdoms will be furiously worried about spies. This means that approx. 3 x 6 players per server will be involved in true leadership tasks .. and the majority of the server will be siming in preparation for getting their attack plan uploaded into GetterTools. In contrast, with a max member count there can easily be 10 kingdoms that are all worthy to join. And even your non-premade kingdom you make out of random new friends on a server could actually play a role in the grand diplomatic arena as others will need to seek your allegiance now that the top dogs cannot gain supremacy by inviting +250 members. I think that the large number of kingdoms will instead let more players get involved in leadership roles and feel more engaged than they are currently asked to be in the current large kingdoms we see.

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

  • Snorri Yes I completely agree with your point of loosing players who just sim through and that's my only worry and it hurts travian as a business in some ways to.

    But Travian is not the only game around, and also players who make less efforts should be prepared to get less out of it, i.e. finishing in wings or 5th 6th ranked kingdoms. With the limit only players who made a real efforts will win instead of a having lot of players logging once every 2 days or even less.

  • Scorox


    a) point is pretty interesting and at least I didn't think of it that way. It does certainly seem like it would apply pressure for the "on the fence" guys to not join a bigger team if their position would be in a wing and instead seek a competitor. That being said the effect might not be as big as you think since lot of folks are fine in playing not to win and sticking around in 3rd party kingdoms and pseudo wings till the end.


    b) is only really half right regarding the offense/defense balance. Big kingdoms in of itself don't really tip the balance more towards defense for instance 1x200k vs 1M isn't that much worse than 2x200k vs 2M (a quick sim on the matter gives me 99->63 vs 99->88->73). The prime cause of the balance shift is that the "extra" players are usually not capable of building the required WW hammers in proportion to their numbers be it because they are recruited from defeated kingdoms or because they are usually weaker than the "core" players. This means that the first lets say 50 players unlock you 4x200k hammers and 2M defense but the next 50 players only get you 1x200k hammer and 1.5M defense as the players tend to be both smaller and less offense oriented.

    The VP point is very much right and incredibly snowbally mechanic.


    c) is pretty good point



    Regarding the point c2 (or d I suppose) is that while it's true that ideally that's exactly what would happen the reality is that in a game like this if a new player get smashed once or twice they won't come back and even more determined players won't play if their expectation is to "well just first play a round in a pseudo wing ally kingdom and then another round in a proper wing and then you have a chance of joining one of the "main" kingdoms to have a shot at really mattering". When round represents 6 months of commitment you gotta be really careful with how you make the new player experience and to ensure as many as possible have an enjoyable round. Then again the danger of such progression from ally to wing to main over several servers can be mitigated by changing the alliance size. 20 players would certainly mean there would be several rounds minimum to even enter while a 100 player limit wouldn't really limit the size much at all.

    At least personally one of the bigger selling points of kingdoms was that as a noob I could just start and instantly belong to a team where I spawn and then have a real shot at mattering without having to know the right people or belong to a specific group beforehand. Menhir does kinda solve the "you spawned in the wrong neighborhood kid" problem though which is nice.



    Also regarding the cheating while it's nasty I think Snorri had a fair point, size limit (especially strict one) does increase the potential benefit gained from cheating as perfectly loyal out of kingdom accounts become that much bigger part of your teams power budget when it's 30 vs 30(+5) instead of 60 vs 65 or something like that but I don't think any feature should be really dismissed purely on the grounds of empowering cheaters either.

  • this is how I think a server could be interesting


    1. it should cost 100$ to join.

    ( people would be more active)

    2. all starts with 7000 gold and can not buy anymore.

    ( this would make it a more fair game and depend on skill)

    3. if you delete you will not get they gold with you.

    ( this will make it more risky to have multi account and get caught)

  • I'd play it but probably not enough will join.

    Professional Irritant & Memer [BM]TM

  • Let's keep this Thread on the topic fellas :) In reality we certainly would have nothing to loose and a lot to win working hard towards a state where we can formalize a petition for a Event Server with limited Kingdom size. No one knows for sure how it will turn out. But most long term players for Travian Kingdoms knows that the player base have been shrinking, and the community feels smaller and smaller for every year that passes. Since we really care for this game our efforts are well invested in trying to direct the attention on what type of Event Servers that are launched by the Travian Dev Team. Certainly we have picked up on a few things while playing this game over the years that may hold more or less potential for increasing the popularity of our beloved game. In my mind I see no other rule set for an Event Server that hold higher probability of really revitalizing this game.


    Most respectfully, the topics of "Multi account cheaters", and "Pay to Enter Servers" are topics I think we ought to keep to threads separated from this one. Just for the sake of maximizing our odds of the Dev Team hearing our wishes for "Max Kingdom Size Servers".

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

  • a) point is pretty interesting and at least I didn't think of it that way. It does certainly seem like it would apply pressure for the "on the fence" guys to not join a bigger team if their position would be in a wing and instead seek a competitor. That being said the effect might not be as big as you think since lot of folks are fine in playing not to win and sticking around in 3rd party kingdoms and pseudo wings till the end.

    I honestly think that it will not have a huge impact the first time around. It is likely that for some time there will be groups of "loyalists" that forms "supporter kingdoms" and so on. However, by time I envision that the increasing amount of smaller organizations will pull hard in those not welcome into the "Main Kingdom" of a certain organization, leading to that it will over time be a gravitational pull away from pure "supporter" kingdoms to new and smaller organizations that seek to build a main kingdom of their own. I think that over time there are a great deal of players that will not accept to play as supporters for the main kingdom server after server. And the pull by smaller and hungry teams will contribute heavily towards the creation of more viable organizations.




    b) is only really half right regarding the offense/defense balance. Big kingdoms in of itself don't really tip the balance more towards defense for instance 1x200k vs 1M isn't that much worse than 2x200k vs 2M (a quick sim on the matter gives me 99->63 vs 99->88->73). The prime cause of the balance shift is that the "extra" players are usually not capable of building the required WW hammers in proportion to their numbers be it because they are recruited from defeated kingdoms or because they are usually weaker than the "core" players. This means that the first lets say 50 players unlock you 4x200k hammers and 2M defense but the next 50 players only get you 1x200k hammer and 1.5M defense as the players tend to be both smaller and less offense oriented.

    The VP point is very much right and incredibly snowbally mechanic.

    I think that if you look at it from the point of view of the absolute top of the organizations you are correct. When you study the effects of 200k hammers you get these results. However, on COM6 we had about 1.5 Million DEF in one Wonder, and 3 million in the other Wonder. The trail of about +25 enemy sieges by Stars and the rest of the Server of the did not hurt either of these WWs even 1 level. The same was the case on COM7 where ANTIMETAs trail of +15 sieges did not take down even 1 WW level. I'm not saying that the Kingdom size put DEF in favor of OFF really, but what I find to be the case is that with kingdoms of 300 players owning 4.5 million DEF, then you need that enemy organization to hold 4-6 players capable of producing +200k hammers, and these players do not grow on trees. So in many cases and on many Servers the current Huge kingdoms can and have in the past been able to put the Enemies in a checkmate state by the amount of DEF they are able to rally. So the problem of OFF size being bounded by game "laws of physics" and DEF being bounded by kingdoms size is a real thing.



    Curtain wrote:

    Regarding the point c2 (or d I suppose) is that while it's true that ideally that's exactly what would happen the reality is that in a game like this if a new player get smashed once or twice they won't come back and even more determined players won't play if their expectation is to "well just first play a round in a pseudo wing ally kingdom and then another round in a proper wing and then you have a chance of joining one of the "main" kingdoms to have a shot at really mattering". When round represents 6 months of commitment you gotta be really careful with how you make the new player experience and to ensure as many as possible have an enjoyable round. Then again the danger of such progression from ally to wing to main over several servers can be mitigated by changing the alliance size. 20 players would certainly mean there would be several rounds minimum to even enter while a 100 player limit wouldn't really limit the size much at all.

    At least personally one of the bigger selling points of kingdoms was that as a noob I could just start and instantly belong to a team where I spawn and then have a real shot at mattering without having to know the right people or belong to a specific group beforehand. Menhir does kinda solve the "you spawned in the wrong neighborhood kid" problem though which is nice.

    Under the current system its not only the "new" players that gravitate towards the massive organisations in order to avoid being smashed to pieces. In fact, almost everyone are.. and many are done so out of pure necessity. For example, as the rumor has it, on the COM that is being launched in Feb, Knight + Titan + GGG and many more are merging into a huge team. What drives such merge, and what does the faith hold for anyone in their approximate region? In fact, I judge these kind of developments as the prime killer of this game. The number of players that these mega kingdoms will discourage from continue the game is a hidden statistic. I'm not saying that a max kingdom size would eliminate new players from getting smashed, but I do not see it getting worse, and I do see certain other aspects of the game approving based on it.

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

  • I think that if you look at it from the point of view of the absolute top of the organizations you are correct. When you study the effects of 200k hammers you get these results. However, on COM6 we had about 1.5 Million DEF in one Wonder, and 3 million in the other Wonder. The trail of about +25 enemy sieges by Stars and the rest of the Server of the did not hurt either of these WWs even 1 level.

    You played in phoenix right? While 5M defense total is indeed quite a lot, that one is more of a failure in stars than you guys blobbing up to be way bigger than the rest. Quoting the number of "hammers" in this case is bit disingenuous since as far as I saw they had like 1 actual hammer in there (170k from ja sam ja if I'm not wrong was the biggest). As in this case their biggest hammer was about half the actual power of what a hammer could theoretically be based on the law of hammers and rest weren't even worth mentioning and they didn't even have a rammer which is basically trivial to have. I won't bother speculating why that is since my info on the server might be bit biased (coming from Vheim). Also I don't know about the com7 situation.

    The offense limit really starts to bite when you start to go above 3M per wonder though as that's about the point where 200k hammers start to struggle. 300k is theoretically possible (and like 400k on teutons). Regarding the rammer side wall is blown away by a reasonably sized teuton rammer in one hit at 2M and top tier ones could do it at 4M while record breaking ones can still do it at 7M, so rammers are bit easier in that regard.


    But ye it is true that the offense players don't indeed grow on trees which is what I kinda mean by my comment. It's not that bigger kingdoms inherently favor defense too much but rather that each additional member is less likely to be a WW hammer player. Speaking of wonders they sorta server as soft reset on kingdom power as well as you gain more ground you would ideally take more wonders which splits your defense into more manageable chunks. One danger configuration to a server would be where a mega kingdom only has one wonder while their best competitor also has one wonder. That would be a position where the 5M defense barrier could really be reached.

    Your point about gameovering the other guy with massive blob is true I suppose but I think the realistic limit between 2 reasonably skilled and equally sized kingdoms in same conditions is still bit higher than what you guys had in last round. That being said it does make things more difficult and lower size would still be optimal of course


    For example, as the rumor has it, on the COM that is being launched in Feb, Knight + Titan + GGG and many more are merging into a huge team.

    Well I certainly hope you are wrong about that one, sounds pretty stupid. I think each of them is full sized kingdom on their own and they don't have huge overlap in players but I guess that's up to them.

    And ye I do agree about your point I'm just saying that you have to be very careful with changes to not hamper new players. Like I mentioned in the post itself the balance on where you would put the limit has tremendous impact on the effect, too tight and it makes stuff bad, too loose and it doesn't have effect. Would certainly need at least few test rounds before going to live just to see what would be good.


    As for what motivates people to do that, the VP mechanics is one. The game really needs more anti snowballing mechanics. Find my previous post on the thread if you want to read my opinion on those though. Personally I think hard kingdom member limit is quite stupid way of limiting kingdom size (though it might be easy to implement and relatively fast solution) and there exist design space for much more elegant solutions as well.

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

  • Curtain wrote:

    Quoting the number of "hammers" in this case is bit disingenuous since as far as I saw they had like 1 actual hammer in there (170k from ja sam ja if I'm not wrong was the biggest). As in this case their biggest hammer was about half the actual power of what a hammer could theoretically be based on the law of hammers and rest weren't even worth mentioning and they didn't even have a rammer which is basically trivial to have.

    I certainly did not mean to be disingenuous. I just compared to what I have seen in practice on the last 2-3 servers I have played. On both COM7 ending in Nov(?) and COM6 ending in Dec, there was not even 1 hammer above 200k. But really, I think we went far too much in the Details here. The point I made was just that "DEF is bounded by member size (which is unbounded), while OFF army size is bounded by a theoretical max". It may not be that critical yet possibly (even if we reached that Game Over state now 2 servers in a row). But the incentive in the game design to push the Member Count up for the sake of DEF is there too (its not only for the Treasury and VP generation). For each extra 500k def you can rally, more and more hammers on the enemy team are unable to touch the WWs. I don't mean to say it is drastically unbalanced at this current day. But I just wanted to point to the incentive structure the game has.

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

  • For example, as the rumor has it, on the COM that is being launched in Feb, Knight + Titan + GGG and many more are merging into a huge team.

    Let me fix that.

    New Order (or how we will be named) is trully composed of Knights, Titans, and some Bohemia players, along with few players from originally other groups. But it is not complete, and not all join - so it will be same size as usual.

    Not many people from Titans and Bohemia is coming, maybe little more from Knights, but most of people dont have their premade groups for long time - so basically, this is their first or second when they go with premade group.