Travian: Kingdoms - Your feedback is needed!


  • I'm in favor of restaing #3 so that if both parties have declared war, then both parties gain a 20% attack bonus. Although it is a fair bonus, the balance will be shifted in favor of destroying each other. Both parties will have more to gain by going on the offensive and attacking each other rather than by forting up and playing the defensive game. If it ends in a stalemate, it is only because both parties have run out of offensive troops.


    I also like 50 Calibre's idea that king who feels like he is losing can initiate either a "surrender", or a "coming to terms" that will end the war between them, at the cost of victory points to the losing king. This is an important component to this whole proposition. If neither king surrenders, they are in a perpetual state of war...


    An interesting twist could involve confederates... when my king goes to war, would it drag our confederates into the war also? If you didn't want to go this route, it might be better to just do away with confederacies altogether, honestly...

  • I see your point about 3). It shouldn't be possible to accept a war and then not fight it. I did like the tradeoff between 2) and 3) though. So making it as you said, giving the bonus to both parties with the possibility of taking VP seems nice.


    Of course, yes, it should be possible to surrender to stop the declared/accepted war. I think there should be a time period (of a week?) before you're able to cancel any war, and then the one who cancels should lose lots of VP. Unless they agree to cancel (come to terms), then neither side loses VP. I like it. But then there is a problem with when are you allowed to declare war on them again? Are they just immune from war declarations for a time or something?


    I think involving confeds is meaningless as it stands right now. People will just meta up without using the official confed. Tying confeds together with being able to reinforce others only when they're in your alliance or confed might work, but then again you do sometimes want to be able to reinforce others not in your alliance and not in your confeds...

  • Basically a NAP isn't worth the paper it's (not) written on. The only benefit is that some lazy git, who doesn't follow Alliance chat, might actually notice the warning message before launching a raid/attack. But being a lazy git, he probably won't.


    Is there a role for Secret Societies her somewhere? They desperately need one.

  • Yup. A NAP is just a first step towards confeds or a way to end fighting and making sure everybody knows it. But nothing more. Secret societies are basically the same lazy thing, to make up for the weird way report visibilty is implemented in this game. If you trust your alliance you could throw everybody in a secret society and see almost everything you used to, + some things you weren't able to see before. I don't think they should exist at all honestly. Visibility of anything ingame should be done through tailored permissions, group chats through...Group chats. In the chat thing.


  • Of course, yes, it should be possible to surrender to stop the declared/accepted war. I think there should be a time period (of a week?) before you're able to cancel any war, and then the one who cancels should lose lots of VP. Unless they agree to cancel (come to terms), then neither side loses VP. I like it. But then there is a problem with when are you allowed to declare war on them again? Are they just immune from war declarations for a time or something?


    I refer back to what 50 Calibre suggested earlier on this.


    I think he suggested that the king who initiates "coming to terms" loses a small amount of VP (30% to 50%) if the other king accepts. If losing king "surrenders" then he loses more victory points (I think 50 Calibre suggested 100%).


    Functionally, most wars would probably end in "coming to terms".


    It seems like you might need some sort of game mechanic that forces people to wait for some set time duration before declaring war again on the same alliance.


    I also like the idea of linking the ability to reinforce people with your diplomatic stance towards them. Yes, there will be some times when its a hassle, but I do think it would add some depth to the gameplay.

  • My only worry is that Diplomacy is increased greatly, which mainly involves Kings (and one or two others), while War becomes a bit regimented. Kings will like this; Governors not so much.

  • I'm not sure I'm seeing that. Why would diplomacy increase greatly compared to the current situation where there is nothing except diplomacy? Why would war become regimented? You can still attack while there is no war, you just can't take VP and don't get the bonus while not in a war.

  • After thinking about it some more, I think being able to take VP through population drops is stilll preferable. Having it become dependant on declaring war would mean constant managing of war declarations, time-out periods...Wouldn't it be much better if ALL pop drops caused by another alliance always influenced VP immediately?

  • After thinking about it some more, I think being able to take VP through population drops is stilll preferable. Having it become dependant on declaring war would mean constant managing of war declarations, time-out periods...Wouldn't it be much better if ALL pop drops caused by another alliance always influenced VP immediately?


    This may be true, but the idea of taking VP through population drops is an idea that runs on a track parallel to the idea of taking VP under conditions of a declared war. The two are not mutually exclusive, and the two ideas address two separate parts of the game that are broken.


    1) VP transfer through population drops addresses the problem that the current VP-bonus-for-treasures-stolen-from-top-10 is too weak and doesn't discourage people from gravitating to metas. The main benefit is that it introduces an important trade-off to the formation of metas. It encourages the players who are in it for the win to form smaller, tighter alliances, leaving the casual players to form their own casual alliances that exist, if not exactly to win, then just to survive.


    Maybe you could adjust this so that you only gain VP from demolishing the villages of dukes and kings. That way, if someone doesn't want people catting their villages, then they can just play as a governor.


    2) The VP transfer through wars waged addresses the issue that the whole diplomacy thing is totally meaningless right now. It also allows for transfer of huge chunks of VP at the same time in the event that one alliance successfully defeats another alliance. I think this would have to be tested in order to see how easily it is used and abused in order to accomplish the friendly transfer of victory points. Whether or not it is used for friendly VP transfer, this mechanic would certainly result in the polarization of accumulated victory points throughout the server. I'm not sure that it would be a bad thing though.




    Maybe a hybrid approach could be implemented where:


    If you declare war on someone else and they don't declare war back on you, then:
    You get the 20% attack bonus and they don't.
    You cannot directly steal VP through conquering or demolishing buildings.
    You can still steal treasures and get the regular VP bonus for stealing treasures from top-10 alliances, and so can they.


    If you declare war on someone else and they do declare war back on you, then:
    You get the 20% attack bonus and so do they.
    You can steal VP directly through conquering or demolishing buildings of dukes and kings, and so can they.
    You can steal treasures and get the regular VP bonus for treasure stealing from top-10 alliances, and so can they.
    Whoever wins the war steals a big chunk of VP from whoever loses the war.



    This might actually be an improvement... It allows alliance founders to choose whether or not the the enemy can steal their victory points by demolishing buildings. If you don't allow the enemy to steal VP through demolishing your own buildings, then you consign yourself to fighting an uphill battle, but at least you are also not risking the potential of losing a war, and with it, losing a massive amount of VP.


    Or, you can decide to risk more and fight on even footing, but under the conditions that the enemy can gain VP from catting your people's villages, and that you stand to lose a lot of accumulated VP if you lose the war.


    Modifying the idea so that its only possible to gain VP from damaging the victory points of dukes and kings might help to address the issue that KEEN had with the whole VP-for-demolishing-weak-players-villages thing.... Weak or semi-active players can play as governors (as they are already doing anyway) and notice no difference. This also might put a damper on the rampant enthusiasm for crowning oneself king.


    The attack bonus I have arbitrarily suggested as a 20% attack bonus. That could be totally OP. I have no idea what would actually be the most fitting bonus. It's possible that a 10% attack bonus would be more suitable.

    The post was edited 3 times, last by paulc ().

  • I think both address the problem that there are no wars in TK :D They aren't mutually exclusive necessarily but we have coupled them to eachother in the current idea. Since VP can only be taken during wars in the curent idea.


    You could just use a rule that says an alliance can only use the two surrender options if a certain amount of their population has been destroyed/chiefed. Maybe only a third option, ceasefire, which just stops the war is the only available option otherwise and needs to be agreed upon by both parties, costing neither any VP (or costing % VP for both?). And perhaps it stops being available after that amount of pop is destroyed?


    T


    Perhaps it would be enough to just have the "attack bonus while at war" thing, and the "war only ends when one king abdicates" thing to deepen the diplomatic gameplay, while sticking to a general rule of thumb wherein the outcome of battles in general, including population drops, results in a transfer of victory points from one side to another. It would probably require some actual in-game testing to determine whether or not it is a good thing for VP to be transferred as part of the outcome of a war.


    When I use the phrase "transfer of victory points," I want it to be clear that I mean that the losing entity loses a certain amount of their total accumulated victory points, while the winning side gains some.


    Yes! I think you've got it. I think this is perfect. Also, very hard to abuse through friendly fire. You can only kill so much population from friendly alliances. Unless you multiaccount the ouf of a server, but that's always going to be a problem in this game if the devs don't do anything to stop it, so that need not stop this particular idea :)

  • Some iPad issues that still remain:


    The layout means some of the icons in top right are not accessible (mainly the Wiki icon but also the forum icon is difficult to access)


    Often, after press+hold on an item in the build queue (to see progress time, etc) if you then let go and try scrolling the screen you will either get an error (if you have moved from the village where you investigated your build queue, or if the build queue item had completed) OR you will remove the item from the build queue. That last point is very frustrating as I have, before now, deleted a level 20 academy build when it was right near the end accidentally.


    Other user friendly requirements need to be made such as the instant finish on builds. If you press+hold on the build queue item you cannot then just tap the instant finish. I have managed to get it to work by quickly tapping the screen where the instant finish becomes available whilst also tapping the build queue item.


    If you bring a note pad up on the iPad you can forget about getting rid of it! I just cannot get rid of the notepad once I have opened it (I opened one accidentally)


    If you add a note on the map then the little cross to get rid of the message is not accessible to iPad users. If you tap on the message it just minimises it. If you want to delete it the option to delete (the cross) minimises with the message.

  • My post is in regards to new players spawning into an already existing server.....



    This may be a lengthy post so bear with me and apologies


    Recently on com1 our alliance experienced 2 bugs that spawned 800 million new players at the center of the map around the WW located at 0|0.
    It was so bad that one member called them (mushrooms..shout out to MANIAC) ;)


    Those who enjoy playing this game for medals and rankings would have enjoyed this fiasco but I can tell you it was nothing but a headache.
    Since we are a very large core pre-made team, all of these spawns disrupted our natural order of settling. Nothing can change what happened it seems but squares that we had intended for our members became new villages for those spawning. Many 7c squares were turned into 6c squares. Out of those 800 million spawns we may end up with 5 new members who actually want to play the game. Now we have to sit and wait first for those non players to first go gray and then even longer for them to be removed from map. Even then all those 7c will not regrow. They are lost never to return.


    All of this though as frustrating as it was has opened my eyes to a problem that will be hard to negate and alters game play for serious alliances.



    Pre-mades of course is a group of players who are playing for a team and stick together thru many servers. Just a definition for the very new players of Kingdoms and Legends altogether.
    During a server the pre-made alliance may evolve on the server from their spawn points or they will settle a stronghold area. The latter theory is then you have more control over who is in your alliance/kingdom.


    With new players being spawned randomly across the map and of course in your area then as an alliance you lose the ability to control your alliance growth. I have found over the years that keeping a team at 50 members or lower gives you a higher success rate in activity. The perfect number for me would be around 40. With this random spawn, players you do not even know are now in your kingdom.


    So naturally you alert the hitters and you cat them down but then you get labeled a bully and the curse of all new players. At least half of all new spawns will go inactive. some grow slow or just enough to keep from going inactive. A small percentage will become great team members and the rest will settle a second village in another alliance somewhere else.


    What makes this a problem?? Glad you asked.....


    I think it is a problem because the new players are automatically added to the alliance when they spawn. This action takes away the very power a leader needs to keep his alliance operationally trimmed.


    So I would like to ask if TG can take a look at this and maybe change it that even if you are spawned into an alliance, does not mean you are auto put in. Maybe give an option at start when you pick gov if you wish to start in a kingdom border or outside a border. The king(s)/alliance leader(s) though is the one who should decide if a player should be allowed in or not.


    Just my 2.5 cents and hope this can at least be looked into.

  • Here I go on another rant about adventures......


    Here is a list of my last 4 adventures


    - Nothing valuable found
    - Nothing valuable found
    - Nothing valuable found
    - Resources


    I will say it again that the hero should be able to find something anytime he goes on an adventure.
    The hero is your top troop and a HERO!!


    I can walk outside my own door and find at least a rock or a handful of dirt a chunk of grass and even some neighborhood cat..
    Since the way the game is going is to hand everyone everything then I think it is fair that :"Nothing valuable found" should be eliminated.

  • Please add below in the PLUS package for sending merchants multiple times, and if PLUS ends you can still buy repetitions like before without needing to have PLUS.


    pasted-from-clipboard.png


    I would really appreciate if you implement such changes to encourage people to take PLUS isn't a bad thing. Having so many buttons to spend gold on, is really discouraging if you're more familiar with just buying a package to have it all.

  • I agree, right now you have to spend close to 700 just to get the basic stuff and that should include repetitions for merchants. Between the increase to 5 gold to npc merchant and 2 gold to instant complete anything past 2 hours which is most upgrades long term.