• At the start of the server, the ratio is king: governor 1: 8

    Why are so many kings? They need experience, greed for power?

    Just for confusion or cheating.

    Playing the king for 5-10 days, picking up tribute and treasures, then abdicating and moving with treasure to another king-friend. Menhir invites.10kings do that for one ??? Sure!

    That's why I say, once King is always the king.

  • Unsaginated players take the c15 and do not use it maximally.
    Why not if they succeed?
    but it can be a condition:
    at a certain time it must develop to a certain stage of development 100,200,300 pop.or more if they fail to lose it, the c15 becomes free.
    Cant go to vacance who have c15.
    If be inactive c15 be frre first day. (A moment ago).

  • Well, there are people who want to chance it and make a name for themselves, so many kings start in the beginning of server, but the harsh reality of the game make them revert back to governors. Can't blame them for trying anyway.

    And yes, some players might be king for strategical reasons but that amount is usually very low to make any significant difference to the the ratio. But by making it impossible to abdicate as king, you'll be harsh on those players who wanted to try their ability as a king and failed , they will have no place in game after failing, which is wrong.

    Travian already have a system in place where not everyone can start as king without some prestige, if I'm not wrong.

  • an excessive number of kings who are pre-densely populated and have too few governors at the beginning is the main cause that only then 2 or 3 dominant kingdoms are formed. They begin to cling together and then remain together in the beginning. There is no room for others to develop because no one wants to be with them .

  • There should be time limit restriction, like for Union.

    In first month you can have Kingdom members over 15.
    2nd month 30 members.
    3rd month 60 members.

    And Union comes after 3rd month of game, not 30 days. Thats way to short, 90 percent of Kingdoms do not have 10k treasure until like.... never. Joking, but still. Only 4, 5, 6 top Kingdom can Uniite after 30-40 days, other need more time but when other Unite they just fall out of game and delete accounts in meanwhile and in the end we have 200 players online.

    So, maybe from me. Good idea, but needs parameters. I play 16-18h a day, managing 100 players is not a problem to me. If you restrict that option for me, I might loose will to play good as now due to lower competition, easier. That means less gold usage cause you got less ress to spent.


    You make Union for not 2 Kingdoms but UP TO 6. Why not. Whats wrong with that? Matter of birocracy. We confed later anyway anyhow. META is future, not past. NWO(new world order) is good idea and will eventually come to life.

    Dont restrict our potential!!

  • Well the feature of union did more bad than good in some aspects of the game. Also I doubt that anyone manage more than 50 players anyway, either half of the players manages themselves and other half don't give a damn about things, we all manage the players in between these 2 fractions.

  • Be2-e4 Exactly, you should allow for all playstyles instead of - essentially - only allowing meta playstyles as is currently the case with the existing game incentives. The current situation doesn't allow for more than one playstyle, and a "hard limit", that isn't actually very hard since you would just create wings,, does. At least slightly better, since it still allows for meta gameplay while making life very slightly better for other playstyles. It's obviously not enough though.

    How are we not on the same page here? I think you're saying, at the same time, that a player limit is a hard limit and those shouldn't exist because they stop decisions and ban the meta playstyle, but also that a player limit would never work and therefore wouldn't stop decisins or ban the meta playstyle. Which one is it? Also - what do you think of the incentives I proposed that would/should rebalance the game?

    It's both. It's a bad solution, and additionally, it does not work. You're even saying it yourself. One can just create a wing. Nothing would change. But since one could try to hard-limit or enforce a max limit otherwise (for instance forbidding wings, that donate treasures via gamerules), I also mentioned, that you take away decisions this way, which is bad.

    Please read my posts carefully. I never said, that I like the current state of metas. I always said, that this is a problem (and even worked out, why exactly metas are so strong right now). But agreeing on a problem doesn't mean agreeing on the solution. You got it completely right, the current situation makes it almost infeasable hard to play without a meta. And you're right, that this sucks imo for similiar reasons, because you don't really have the option to decide. But chaning a sucking state into another sucking state is no solution, it's no better, it's even worse, because your proposal wants to stop one from making the decision to form a meta and try to win with it at all. Currently, one can at least try to win with a smaller group of skilled players versus the metas. Doomed to fail, most likely, but one can at least try, which is at least slightly better, than taking away the decision completely.

    So yes, one needs a solution. But this solution, which is proposed here, isn't close to a good one. Which is why I'm against it.


    Short & clear points:

    1) It won't change anything.

    2) If it would change anything, it would be a bad change, because you take away decisions.

  • Deacon

    Short & clear points:

    1) It won't change anything.

    2) If it would change anything, it would be a bad change, because you take away decisions.

    I'm the only one who thinks that's not an argument? I do understand that's your opinion, but we still need an argument on your opinion.

  • Let's make a little resumee here.

    I provided some opinion-based arguments (new players' problems, some of Curtain's post). I provided some objective arguments based on the definition of a strategy game and trivial conclusions of this (bad game design, taking away decisions, won't even work). I also pointed out, that your pro-arguments are mostly made up and too optimistic and why. I analyzed the single point, which makes metas such op, in detail (only six relevant targets, because target count doesn't grow with member count). I gave some ideas for a better direction of changes and explained in detail why and how they would likely change a game round (changing vp generation per treasury to non-linear dependency, for instance). I also made some predictions with reasonable assumptions on how your proposal would affect a regular game world and why exactly every likely outcome would be everything but what you (presumably) want to achieve with this thread (either wings will be created or all the good players are in one kingdom and bash the other nine effortlessly, either way no thrilling x vs x vs x vs ... game). And I went to great effort to elaborate everything I say, and tell some reasons, arguments and thoughts on it.

    And by now I didn't read any reason at all, why any of my conclusions would be wrong or why this proposal should be implemented despite them, apart from "you're wrong, I'm right, but I won't provide arguments"-posts. But yeah, I truly didn't expect any better, I even predicted your behaviour concerning counter-arguments a few pages ago correctly. You keep ignoring everything speaking against you, blindly fighting for your proposal and closing your eyes and ears if somebody says something reasonable against it. Feel free to quote some posts (of anyone), in which one provides wellfounded reasons on why my conclusions are wrong, or some posts (of you, op), in which you accepted and agreed, that your proposal isn't that good, as you thought initially, to show me otherwise..

    But since I don't need you to think openmindedly about what I say, I actually don't really care. Game design reads my posts (or a summary by some staff member) for sure and they will definitely think about them. And since they are the ones implementing the changes, and not you, I'm fine with that.

    Best regards,


  • Current Pros/Cons:

    Pros :

    • Unbiased game due to size restrictions.
    • More competitive. ( Don't be afraid of it)
    • More kingdoms fighting for top spot.
    • More players in leaderships .
    • Easier to manage kingdoms.
    • More room for diplomacy and strategies.
    • More players involved in managements.
    • Players from other versions would actually try this version too, since now it's uninteresting, only graphics looks a bit better.

    Cons :

    • New players will take some time to get recruited in top kingdoms. (True, but large scale of those "New Players" ain't new Travian. So worry about yourself)
    • Hard to find good leaders. ( but since it would be an easier management, due to size, more people would be involved in kingdom management, we could find even random people kingdoms to be good enough to compete @TOP10)
    • Wing Kingdoms helping Main Kingdoms (would still exist)

    I'm not going to quote more posts on this topic, since I find it worthless after two threads being bullied by the same two guys, who has no arguments on their opinion, defending their opinion with " New players will get hurt" definitions. Plus there was no response from Travian team Georgi ... So we can create topics how this game could be improved, that more players could be involved not only for the first few weeks of any server, but for the whole round, sadly nothing going to happen if Travian developers doesn't take too much time on this version, plus there are limited communication with them.
    I think last message was for me, I'm asking only for a test server, but you're so freaking against it, that personally I find it quite strange. Is there any personal motives on that? Sometimes to evolve things have to step back a bit. Plus you had no hard arguments, as you call them, or at least haven't pointed them out, it's more like "I don't like it, so everyone write that its a bullshit! "

    Wheres your harsh opinion and hard arguments? o.O Haven't replied yet, but you still following this thread

    even so, I can gladly say this version community has some nice ideas how this game could be improved! =) With a pack of those ideas that new upcoming test server could be pretty interesting

  • You can add another disadvantage:

    Organized groups will be able to duel against the other kingdoms with disconcerting ease, since the latter will not be able to compensate for their lack of efficiency by a greater number.

    Organized groups will only have to be more strict and farmer each player who does not have the strength to play with them, without any more diplomacy. I am not sure that this is one of the objectives.

  • I agree with that and that's why it's in cons, it's not a very new player friendly approach and I stated that in my very initial posts on the main discussion too but it's a trade to have a balanced game.

    • New players are more or less fucked. You euphemize this by saying "it'll take them some time to get recruited by a top kingdom", but they just won't get recruited at all, get bashed, and get farmed. Either this, or they land in the 17th wing of some random meta.

    Deacon here's your con which should definitely be included, hope you are happy now and will finally stop summoning me in this thread, I have no joy reading your comments. About the quote above - I got sick of that one and it's a reason why I stopped scrolling through the thread to give you more cons, because it basically says that if StarX doesn't agree with the point, it will not be included in the list. Honestly, when Scorox proposed this idea I talked to him about that and was opened to testing it, but then you joined the discussion and just your attitude made me change my mind - how simple :) I wish either you or StarX make it into development team or community management team, buecause last couple of weeks it seems to be your goal :D

    Lastly, if you wish to hear my opinion again, then please read what Be2-e4 is writing in this thread, I agree with everything he says. Hope it's good enough reason not write my name here again, I would really appreciate that, because you became pathetic :)