VOTE FOR SMALLER KINGDOMS / MEMBER LIMITATION

Likewise

Quote from ⭐❌

Snorri I will not bother answering once you do not bother stating misleading information.

Quote from ⭐❌

Be2-e4 your posts are now sliding in the direction of being funny rather than credible. I doubt anything can be achieved by paraphrasing your single sentence 10 times and write long paragraphs about the same things again and again and nitpicking every minor loophole or details you can find in the opposition's argument just to prove a point.

I would suggest you to go back to the start of the forum, read all arguments and counter arguments , make a table to get your head around them, then go to other threads from Deacon and Scorox and do the same , this will enable you to jot down all the pros and cons of the proposed system yourself. No one is here trying to pull you to the yes camp, you obviously are against the idea because, "in your opinion" it's not a valid proposal, and fair enough we respect your decision but posting to every single argument here with the same long paragraphs pointing in null and few of your minions at your disposal liking your posts is nothing productive to the whole proposal.

Lastly, there are hundreds of suggestions made each month on the forum and some are good, some bad, I'd still not go and keep spamming a suggestion or a proposal as "trash" in the forum, no matter who much I dislike the suggestions. You do realize that world is all about perspective right ? Just because you don't see validity in some thing, it does not mean it's incorrect and that it do not stand credible for others. So, no the proposal is not "Trash" and I'm so tempted to say that your pointless arguments are "trash" but I'd refrain from doing that to do not contradict myself.

P.S. I'd answer your questions once you find a justifiable analogy to explain the circumstances, since paper cut fingers is just not fitting in the situation, so maybe try some serious stuff which forces you to amputate your limbs!

This is a prime example of a post without any content. You have zero arguments, all you say is "you're wrong, I'm right, I could proof it, but I don't". You obviously can't proof it, because I'm obviously not wrong. But you can obviously not admit it, maybe too high of an ego.

And yes, hundreds of suggestions. I don't post so much in everyone, because not everyone is such a bolt and closeminded TE like you. Not everyone spams in every embassy. Not everyone thinks he's the greatest and the decider of everything, which you apparently do (otherwise you would include cons in a proper wording).

Quote from ⭐❌

Do you see me mentioning the extremities of the pros so that you want me to mention extremities of the cons ?

You are just making up things in your head just to contradict the idea and just not accepting the legit cons which is already justifying your point in a broad aspect.

The players are free to make their own conclusions from the points listed and evaluated the extent to what it can affect them/game. As said again, "new players" was one of my main concern when Deacon first started this whole proposal so I do not know what you're trying to achieve here. Rest assured no one here is "out of their mind" here as you pointed out in your post, probably you, but nothing productive in pointing that out to you here.

You post every little pro-point, that could maybe under certain circumstances become real. Doesn't matter that it's unlikely, absurd or whatsoever. But you refuse to add any cons, unless the con will be 100% the case, and even then you write a weak wording for the strong pro. That's the problem. And you do exactly that. And that's a problem and one of the reasons, why your vote is unrepresentative.

Quote from ⭐❌

Can I please request to close this thread, I reckon we have had enough arguments over this topic and admins can look into them and evaluate. I am afraid any more dragging this thread will just result into going off topics and posts without any credibility to the original topic and not to mention players repeating themselves and paraphrasing everything.

Aka you see that you have no arguments and are wrong, so you want to shut the discussion down.

Concerning this (no idea how I quote a quote):

Pros :

• Unbiased game due to size restrictions.
  • Wings will make sure it will be as much unbiased as its now (Legends as a proof)
    As discussed before wings will loose interest to be slave to the parent kingdom after maybe 1 or 2 rounds. Again you'll contradict by saying that wings will take turns in servers which is just a prediction, you know it yourself that most of the main players are not going to spend servers taking turns and sitting out in wings.
• More competitive
  • Bullshit, people will be saving their armies for WW and will be afraid to lose it too early, no fight for top spots will happen until late game
    Is this already not the case now ? Even if I agree to you point for 1 second, atleast in the end game there will be 6-7 kingdoms fighting for the top spot rather than 2. Again "Bullshit" is a very subjective opinion, you never know some might use the same term for your posts.
• More kingdoms fighting for top spot.
  • Not really (wings as a reason for that)
    Already elaborated both of these points in the explanation above.
• More players in leaderships
  • Not really (Kings of main kingdoms will rule their wings too). But honestly this is the best "+" of that list which has a potential
    Thanks, and even if main kings rule the wings, it'll still give more powers to more players.
• Easier to manage kingdoms.
  • Even harder, because you will have to maximize your effort, every player of your kingdom will have to be looked after. Whereas now some people don't care about people who don't practice teamplay but still send deff to WW later.
    "Every player of your kingdom will have to be looked after" - this should have been always the point, otherwise how would new players learn the game ? Or how will intermediate players become better at things ? You yourself pointed out a valid loophole in the current system where many players are just forgotten about and leadership just take it easy if they have numbers advantage.
• More room for diplomacy and strategies.
  • Again wings will deny this
    You sure love wings , don't you ? Not sure how you imagine playing the game if this is implemented, but many players in the pro side imagine playing with a compact better team rather than a spread out wings ideology.

You competely missed the point, good job. The point is that your arguments are weak and partially wrong, but you present them as pure truth. You say "easier to manage kingdoms", Snorri says, that's wrong, because the leaders have to look after every player. You say this is supposed to be the way. But his point was, that it's not easier to manage the kingdom (which you don't even contradict, but instead say it's supposed to be that way), therefore that your point is wrong. But you still list it as pro. Why? Guess what, I already posted it a few times here.

Also, and now sit down, one can make a case differentiation (or however it's called in english). IF case A happens, then it's bad, because reason X. IF case B happens, then it's bad, because reason Y. A & B are the only cases, in both of which it's bad, therefore it's bad, no matter what. And that's the point. If wings establish, which they will do, you have T:L as proof, then one reason because of which it's bad is, that it changes nothing. If wings don't establish, it's bad because of for instance loss of new players, even more boring midgame, because everyone is afraid to initiate, and so on. Two options. In both cases this proposal is bad. There are no other options. Therefore in all possible outcomes, this proposal is bad.

This is no contradiction, it's a fall differentiation.

I would comment on the points themself btw, but I already did that once. Feel free to search and read it.

Edit: Does anyone know how Wichtigtuer translates into english? Didn't really find a good translation.

starx if u just want to make T k and T l excatly same games with same systems i dont understand whats the point. There is people who like T kingdoms system and enjoy playing it, if u dont like it and want to have excatly same as T l just leave kingdoms and play legends noone stoping you , yes in Travian kingdoms there is problem but deffinetly not the limitations ........ there is ton of ppl who play tk only cuz of this kingdom system and dosnt mind other bugs or things like attack limitations, and u wanna take it away ? And u dont even try to understand them why they dosnt want it taken away.... you just keep saying same cons over and over...

You post yet another post, in which you do exactly, what I point out as a problem, over and over again. Yes, you replied to his concerns about the points - but that was not the point of his post. You read what you want, you miss the point of other people, and respond to what you want to respond to, ignoring the actual point, because - which is what I assume - you're lost and have nothing to say about our actual points.

With your next paragraph you do the exact same thing. Miss my point, talk about something else. I told you this, because you said, that he was contradicting himself, but are completely wrong with that. That's nothing to do with any kind of mentality, it's just logic, if you want to think about whether something will cause bad or good, one thinks about what can happen. For us it's obvious, what will happen. But since you refuse to believe this, we step down to your refusal and show you, that even if the bad case wouldn't happen, another bad case would happen. Then you say we contradict ourselves.

But at least you finally provided some kind of argument, instead just posting how wrong I am.

So you say one can't compare T:L directly to TK in this (and probably some other) concerns. This is basically not wrong, one should at least backup the comparision, before doing it. My thought process was, one argument on why they wouldn't wing up was, that wings aren't in the end screen. This is true and a fact. Obviously. But that's true for T:L aswell, wings aren't in the endscreen and aren't official winners. Yet they exist, so I assumed, that being officially a winner isn't a must-have for the players, as long as they are on the winning side - or, said in a better way, not on the losing side. Nobody wants to get smashed (I guess), so one goes to the kingdom, which looks good for you, instead of competing against it. Not because you urgently want to win, but you don't want to get torn apart.

In case you don't believe this, here another reason why wings will always exist like this: Even in the current system, if there are multiple kingdoms, two will confed against the third. Or three against the other two. Or whatsoever. It's happening right now, it would happen with limits, it will happen every goddamn time. Last server I played we were versus two relevant kingdoms. We were 34, one other one a lot (at end they were 54, but many many many deleted due to us, also they had a wing with 25 members) and the third one had internal conflicts at a point which costed them a few players, but they had 60 + 16 (main + wing) in the end. So 34 vs 89++ vs 76. First, we have torn apart another ~30 member kingdom, right next to us, because the king was ... just idk, no words for this. Doesn't matter anyway. After this, the both of them woke up and make a NAP, some weeks later, this became a confed, they defended together and went together in off operations against us. Needless to say, that they lost anyway, but that's not the point. The point is, that it's just foolish to believe, that players wouldn't confed, wing, and whatnot, just to prevent being on the losing side.

Quote from ⭐❌

Be2-e4 You just copied my post where I replied to all concerns and just replied with "You competely missed the point, good job." and "I would comment on the points themself btw, but I already did that once. Feel free to search and read it."

I do not see that a productive argument at all, because we both can reply the same that we already commented on the post and we both can go back and search and look.

You do realize that this is a negative mentality where you aim for wings to save the day rather than focusing on a one stronger team .

Also, as discussed several times, also mentioned in the cons, no one is saying that the wings won't form, they will sure, but the system where the wings will take turn each server is a very absurd one, and feel free to imagine the scenario where you might have to play in wings for 2 servers to win the 3rd one, maybe it's doable for you, but you cannot guarantee that it will be agreed upon by all in your right sense of mind.

Probably wings will form in 1-2 servers but after it players will just start diversifying into separate kingdoms. Also, the argument of Travian legend is valid and acceptable to some extent, but remember, these are 2 very different games with a rather different player-set and a different structure inside a kingdom. Legend does not have 2 Kings and 4 Duals who have the power to make/break a kingdom/ alliance. Legend does not have the influence area , or treasures or VP which can change the direction of game significantly, so while you can still give examples from legend, you cannot use the same parameters or weigh both games with the same scale.

There are so many factors which kicks in when you swap Legend with Kingdoms so it's not going to be a case of "one size fits all" and no rule of differentiation can be applied onto a thing without defining derivatives which in this case varies greatly. You think that you can run the whole simulation in your mind and derive a conclusion but you'll be amused how even a little factor can kicks in and topple everything.
Lastly, just for the sake of clarity, if you decide to ignore above text, let me reassure that this is not a matter of "i am right and you are wrong".

Display More

How can you not see this absurdity? You are talking about little factors which can change everything but only use it to deny our comments about "wing-creation" but why can't you use it on your pros aswell? (Which we have done) You are criticising only other opinions but not yours. And if you now say that it is not true, then all the Cons deserve to be added into initial post aswell because from random observer perspective they have exactly the same probability to happen as your Pros. If you can't understand this then I blame our language barrier and wish there is any native english speaker who could explain it to you all over again because so far you understood nothing

There could be "Kingdom Size bonus" when defending like pop bonus.

Kingdom size should be calculated like Kingdom+Allies population (or members) total.

It could essentially lower defensive troops strength of very large kingdoms+wings.

Meta kingdoms should work extremely hard to protect their WW and treasuries.

Small kingdoms/team would be more protected from attacks.

Everybody would have more equal chances to win or at least to keep till the end.

It could bring more life to Kingdoms.

Lets say (It's just example)

>Neutral players could have defense modifier x 1 (or even 0.8 to make them seek kingdom).

>Kingdoms smaller than 15 or 30 could have defense modifier x in range 1.2-1.5 (not sure about even higher to prevent cheating)

>Kingdoms larger than 60 (including ally) could have defense modifier x 0.7

>Kingdoms larger than 100 (including ally) could have defense modifier x 0.5

>Kingdoms larger than 200 (including ally) could have defense modifier x 0.4

It still leaves some place for cheating, but remember after WW lvl 50, cheaters will not get any badges.

BTW I think there should be even earlier impossible to join kingdom (maybe even at WW open moment)

The concept is reasonable, that's the kind of posts I appreciate. Coming up with new, better ideas, when the old ideas are proven to be bad in many ways in many pages.

One has still to solve a bunch of problems though.

First, nothing keeps me from being in a 6-man-kingdom (with two kings and four dukes only), getting def from my actual kingdom members, who just are in another kingdom. Yes, if you keep it that way after WW level 50, nobody gets badges, but many people just don't care about that enough to accept a 60% loss of their troop strength (similar reasons for which people will always join wings). Similarly, confeds don't need to be "signed" ingame (and clearly, nobody would do that if your def gets weaker then).

Then, I'd prefer a continous modifier, like moral malus for attacking a player with less population. One could design the formula that way, that 100k phalanx from a 200 man kingdom is equally strong as 150k phalanx from a 100 man kingdom, or something like that.

Not sure how one would tackle the 6-man-kingdom problem though. If one makes it dependent on the vp/vp production/treasure/treasure growth/average treasure growth or whatever, one always has the problem, that a small kingdom who steals the treasures from another kingdom gets def-malused aswell. If one makes it dependent on the number of players (or anything in this direction), one can bypass it. Hmmm.

I like the concept though, if I have enough motivation the following days, I'll think about solving the problem there, hm.

Edit:

Quote from ⭐❌

Having read all that you have wrote, and stated that it's foolish not to assume that, we still do not factor in several features of kingdoms like Influence areas, 2 kings union (who cannot leave the kingdom) and victory points.

You still "assume" that wings will be the main loophole of that idea, I doubt, since it is much more easier and rewarding for those kings/ dukes to run a different kingdom and do a confed with the 1st kingdom, rather than being a faceless wing. Lastly even if they form wing, they do end up on loosing side, because as you said endscreen do not acknowledge wings so I do not see that as preventing from being on a loosing side.

All that being said, half of the harm from wings are already pre-existing on current system so it's quite unfair to make it look like the proposed system will "introduce" the wings concept.

And yes confed will always happen, it's inevitable, but confeds do try to aim for winnings so not correct to compare them with wings who do not aim at winning but are there just for sheer support.

If you read all, that I wrote, why didn't you read, that both of the said confed (who did confed and work together, despite at least one not being able to win ...) each had a wing?

Yes, I predict, wings will make the bad solution not only bad, but also useless. And yes, they already exist, will persist though a limit (then even be more present) and render the limit completely useless. Without any doubt. I never said the proposal would introduce them, I said it will be useless, because of them.

And I factored TK features in, with both parts of my argument. First I explained, why T:L wings exist, despite not being honored officially, then explained, why one can assume, that for the same reason they will exist in TK. And then I took an example from TK, showing that wings indeed exist, just like I "predicted", to proove foolproofly, that there will be wings and that a limit will fail due to them.

Edit 2:

Quote from ⭐❌

I do not see either you or anyone else from your side putting in so much efforts to highlight a problem and try to address it with a plausible solution, rather just nonconstructive criticism trying to be the frog in the well.

Quote from Be2-e4

It's hard to come up with a useable solution, that encourages skillful playstyle, doesn't kill new players, nerfs the power of a huge amont of noobs and isn't absurd. All four are points a well designed solution should fulfil, a hard cap for the member count doesn't fulfil at least three of them, the absurdity criterium being discussable.

An example for encouraging a more skillful playstyle & not killing new players would be changing vp generation per treasury to a logarithmic or slow polynomial like x^0,5 instead of linear scale after x treasures (this would force a decision: Either you keep storing everything in one main treasury and thus produce less victory points, or you accept being actually attackable and having to think about where to def and store only x per treasury - therefore giving a skillful kingdom the advantage of being able to have less risk when speading treasures due to better def organisation and/or being able to steal treasures if the enemy takes the risk, due to better off planning). (This doesn't fulfil the noob-power criterium though, with the kingdomwide attack notifications one active and skillful deffplaner is enough to defeat an off action singlehandedly. Without the kingdomwide attack notifications there's a second player required, with two players you can cover all six treasury-accounts to track attacks. Every other player doesn't need skill, just be online for a second to send the small amount of def he has. Like I said, it's hard to come up with a good solution, if I had one, I wouldn't say it's hard.)

Also, our critisism is constructive. I explained 100 times, why this is bad. I explained, what would be good. It's nothing to do with being a frog in the well, if I want to prevent you from chopping your finger off, due to a papercut. And yes, you think this analogy is ridiculous, but that's what hyperbolas (no idea whether that's the correct term, in german it's Hyperbel in a linguistic way) are for. To make an analogy which has the same concept, but is ridiculously exaggerated, to make it crystal clear what one means.

What would you like to see implemented?

Keep it simple, bullet points

I totally agree...useless and cowardly kingdoms like BM should have no place in Travian.They are toxic and hurt the gameplay and ruin it for eveyone!

Keep it simpler guys!Don't let the zombies win!

Ever!

(Wtf?I smoked some really,really weird shit tonight!I only know BM= bad lol)

I dont want to feed a discussion around it, but BM is a meta yes, but a good type of meta, for what I heard they basically dont recruit and in some cases they even send interested players into the closest enemy to make them stronger. Unlike all other metas

Quote from <Accord >

I totally agree...useless and cowardly kingdoms like BM should have no place in Travian.They are toxic and hurt the gameplay and ruin it for eveyone!

Keep it simpler guys!Don't let the zombies win!

Ever!

(Wtf?I smoked some really,really weird shit tonight!I only know BM= bad lol)

Display More

I have no intel on "BM", but please don't be toxic yourself with those comments, there are bunch of kingdoms like that, even communities. Please offer your way of changing current situation or just search some +/- on the current one "Kingdom Member Limitation" topic.

Some kind of changes has to be implemented for sure, I'm sure we will see what travian kingdoms will choose, at least to easy the tension in their servers.

Be2-e4

Quote from Be2-e4

Also, our critisism is constructive. I explained 100 times, why this is bad. I explained, what would be good. It's nothing to do with being a frog in the well, if I want to prevent you from chopping your finger off, due to a papercut. And yes, you think this analogy is ridiculous, but that's what hyperbolas (no idea whether that's the correct term, in german it's Hyperbel in a linguistic way) are for. To make an analogy which has the same concept, but is ridiculously exaggerated, to make it crystal clear what one means.

Mr. RIGHT strikes again :facepalm:

Metagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game.

I refute that BM is a meta, if metas played the game as BM do then this thread wouldn't even exist. in my view we play the game as it should be played, if all would "Be More" BM then there would be loads of kingdoms and plenty of War happening throughout the server.

A few things that make us different to your average meta .....

we don't abuse the rules
we don't multi-account

we don't try to recruit half the server or land treasuries in other areas just to aid recruitment

we don't try to be the biggest (usually 50-60 members max)

we don't try to surround every WW (one is enough to win)

we don't try to suffocate the game from within (our members don't delete in volume)

we don't let any member just be a farm (we help them to survive)

we try to make the game a fun experience

we do embrace all the changes made (even if we don't agree with them all)

we do have a great ethos, with morals, loyalty & values

we do play for the benefit of all our kingdom members

we do make every member feel like they are part of the team

we do recruit those players that fall within our borders

we do teach and inspire players to be better and more active

we fight above our weight wherever possible

we do seek to destroy any meta that lands on the same server

we are passionate about this game & the challenges it throws at us & we would never forget our ethos & values just to bring a "win" into play.

We play for fun, not to win .... winning is just a bonus (I doubt a "meta King" would even understand this statement?)

Jak

we do make every member feel like they are part of the team

it is part of the team or only...

TEKILABOY I'm sorry excuse my ignorance I'm not familiar with your team

(my comparison was with our team BM and most metas out there)

which meta are you a part of? and how many members did your team recruit last server?
also how many finished the server and how many deleted?

I'll be honest, I haven't read 10 pages of replies of this thread I can imagine the arguments.

Metas aren't a problem of TK, there have always been metas in Travian. If we really want to see that stop ourselves in the first place should adopt a different mentality and strive to stop recruiting people. TK team can put as many limitations as you wish but at the end of the day there is always going to be a way to look like or act like one.

Addressing Accord comment on my team, I'm unsure of what you consider a meta, we built ours server after server including people willing to play and learn together with us but limiting ourselves in order to prevent ourselves from being too big. People playing with us stay with us for the quality of our team and if you consider 50/60 players a meta then I'm scared of knowing what is a kingdom of 200 people in your eyes. Certainly our players are not the random average player that you randomly recruit in your kingdom, but it didn't happen overnight.

So ultimately maybe the solution to this topic can come from ourselves. Start recruiting and seeing the real interest of people in playing with you, show your values and share them with your team and keep an objective eye on where you are headed. If you are all so interested in making the game more competitive and interesting start accepting the fact that you should stop recruiting and inviting people and start making more war proposals.

Certainly TK team can improve the situation but so do we. Start playing as you wish everyone was playing and you'll see that many people will do the same and even if no one is doing it keep doing it, otherwise nothing will change.

PS @ruiperesc: Yes, we might recruit at the beginning but as soon as we reach the 50/60 players mark, we start suggesting players to join other kingdoms in order to make the game more competitive.