VOTE FOR SMALLER KINGDOMS / MEMBER LIMITATION

StarX I think it would be worth to map the details and supportive features such restriction would optimally demand. If the details are not mapped out fully and described in detail everyone will judge such proposal in the light of their own individual assumptions of how such restriction will be implemented and what affects it will have.

Background:

In essence this proposal is a change in game philosophy. The current system evolves around a kingdoms who's "life" span over one server only. Membership in a kingdom is temporary, and there is no restriction in regards to how many such temporary members a kingdom can have. By the increasing ease of organisation and communication using 3rd party software, such as discord, the playing field is getting increasingly unfair as the power difference between pre-made kingdoms and in-game-constructed kingdoms widens. Especially new-comers to the game are more likely to suffer at the hands of more experienced players whom joins a server in a pre-made kingdom. This proposal intends to level the playing feel by adding pre-made kingdoms (with restrictions) as an core mechanics of the game, thereby facilitating for new-comers and experienced players alike to find an group of players to bond with, learn from, fight for survival together with.

Proposed Details:

A) Official Support for "Permanent Kingdom Organisations" on the official Travian Kingdoms web-site. Such a support if implemented correctly could serve as way for new and inexperienced players to find a "home" in this game, where they can get help and guidance from more experienced players. Such official support for "Permanent Kingdom Organisations" may involve:

- Kingdom Information Page describing the Kingdoms Culture and Status in terms of recruitment.

- Display of Kingdom Achievements

- List of Kingdom Members

- Statistics over Kingdoms Past Results

- A Kingdom lobby chat for members.

- Kingdom customization (Kingdom Banner/Flag/etc.)

B) A "Kingdom Member Limit" of 50-60 Members, and a restriction of only being allowed to assume membership in one Kingdom at the time. These restrictions are aimed to stimulate the create of a larger number of "Permanent Kingdom Organisations", with a more distinct and varying culture and goals.

C) Only 1 kingdom can "WIN" a Server. Winning a server will be something very rare and truly astounding, since only 50-60 members can win. Also a loss will be something less dramatic as compared to now.. were approximately half the server wins, and half looses. Such a change also holds the potential of reducing the problems of huge Wing-METAs as players will not accept playing in "helper wings" and helping their main Kingdom Win server after server. By time, more and more players will seek out a home where they can act more independently, and maybe even get a win of there own.

In closing ...

Following through on such a fundamental shift in philosophy the hope is that it will encourage team building and bonding players tighter together. Every kingdom will need to make the best use of the members they have. Train, motivate and encourage. More and a larger variation of organisation cultures will appear. With that comes an increasing chance of that every player will have a good chance of finding a team he or she feels at home at in. More players will be engaged in and develop expertise in leadership tasks. A more vibrant diplomatic and political landscape on each server.

So basically, back to the old alliance sizes then from earlier versions.

6 pros vs 2 cons...

Easy to vote "No".

As a new ish player, along with my partner, i was very active as i am friends with starx and was invited by someone in our Kingdom whom i play another game with, so expectations i set myself are high.

In contrast, my partner happily simmed in our kingdom, produced a decent amount of defense but nothing to run home about.

For new players that precedent is unfortunately not showing the game for its true colours.

A player on their own will probably get raided to hell. The same player in a massive kingdom kingdom can quite often sim to end earning vp points for the team by essentially sitting on their back sides, and I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with this approach, but increase the number by 30, compare that to a kingdom with 30 less players and the difference in vp is insane as you progress through the server.

If a player has to Fight for their spot it will generate a different approach to current and new players. I. E, bigger desire to learn both for current and new players

This could be something that is tested, a 60 member limit could be a good number to aim for.

I don't really know much about this as I'm fairly new, but to me it just seems logical to limit the amount members seeing as total members count directly towards vp income, more members, more vp, that doesn't seem a sustainable method of winning and for those who will twist this, i know there's more to it, defending said treasuries, you can attack etc but more members also makes this potentially dangerous /suicidal to your efforts of winning a server.

If a defiantly something the devs should think about and discuss with the community herd

Anyway adios lemon out

I'm voting "No" only because I think it should be tested first, not implemented straight forward.

Snorri i think 'maybe' is more applicable for that argument.

Personally i think travian have the intelligence to test such a big change rather than just immediately changing the rules.

🍋

One further consideration could be that this does not necessarily need to be something that excludes servers with 150 member in 2 dominant kingdoms each. There could be Limited Kingdom Servers and Unlimited Kingdom Servers, just as there are x1 and x3 speed servers. Personally I do however see more and more players preferring the Limited Servers for both fairness and challenge reasons. And with that thought in mind, if I had a new friend whom would be interested in Travian Kingdom, I would for sure recommend him to join a Limited Kingdom Server .. I reckon he would be better welcome by the community there. Just having the "new player"-friendliness objection in mind.

I dont think Travian would institute such a restriction....and if they did it would take years for them to do so. There are "simple" issues in this game that could and should be fixed, but Travian hasnt done so.....doing something like this would be a huge over haul to the game, as i believe there would have to be other changes made to kingdoms before you could institute this 60 member limitation.

Overall, I think this is a dying game...the devs seem to be putting in less and less time into this game.....and just apply bandaid fixes to issues as they come up.

Basically....dont expect Travian to do anything about this anytime soon.

Quote from SacredLegend

I dont think Travian would institute such a restriction....and if they did it would take years for them to do so. There are "simple" issues in this game that could and should be fixed, but Travian hasnt done so.....doing something like this would be a huge over haul to the game, as i believe there would have to be other changes made to kingdoms before you could institute this 60 member limitation.

Overall, I think this is a dying game...the devs seem to be putting in less and less time into this game.....and just apply bandaid fixes to issues as they come up.

Basically....dont expect Travian to do anything about this anytime soon.

I think the Kingdom Unions update, and the Menhir update were pretty significant in their technical differences to the past system. So one could argue that the Devs are still putting in effort. I agree that the game is on a downwards slope in terms of active players however, and this we much do everything we as players can to prevent. We must ask of the Devs to have one question in mind when designing coming updates of the Union and Menhir scale, namely "Why are players leaving the game, and why are they not recommending the game to others to a larger extent?". I personally feel like the Menhir update was very much a response to the answer such question may produce. So I'm not completely sure all is lost just yet.

The Menhir update was just a bandaid fix for the over whelming exploitation of the cropper relocation....otherwise it wasnt a bad update. The Kingdoms Union update sounds great on paper....but badly executed, as there are so many negatives involved now that i think it should be removed. Tell me how 60 member limitation would work with Kingdoms Union?

While i would agree that a kingdom limitation might work....Travian would also have to change other factors, like perhaps making changes to the game that allow for 2 official wings that would share in the Victory awards come end server......doing that might also defeat the player limitation that one was trying to accomplish.....there are definitely alot of unforeseen elements to making this change, so i dont think we will see any fixes for quite some time.....if ever

I think travian doesn't appeal to many new people because there is limited instant gratification you can receive from this game.

We all should understand these types of games are a dying bread and won't appeal to many young players as they are not accustomed to games where you actually have to think and are not spoon fed.

After coming from another game, primarily a pay to play game which has 200+ active servers, i really prefer travian. It's cheaper, a hell of a lot cheaper, and the people who want to be here are not generically egotistical people with deep pockets, perhaps egotistical, but not many ways a few million in the bank can dramatically effect other people's experiences.

I disagree travaian is dying. Perhaps the developers should give more attention, but every game developer doesn't listen to its fan base to the degree we like.

If kingdoms was 60 members limited right now, with no other Change, yes people will still be able to abuse the system, but at least the amount of vp that's potentially available is equal for all kingdoms. This at least gives all kingdoms a chance to win the game through strategical decisions instead of one one cluster f****** kingdom.

There are so many pressing issues in this game that need to be addressed....I just dont think the member limitation is one of them....not to say that it wouldnt be appreciated in the game, but just so many more things that SHOULD be addressed first, like the fact that you cant dissolve a kingdoms union.....thats fine, but the fact that you can delete.....with an active treasury....and TREASURES!!......thats is just a terrible design!

That seems like a pressing issue 🤣

Maybe we should have a chat with devs about it? Not a pa stunt, a genuine discussion with mods and devs about what we want and why they do or do not want to fix these issues