[discussion] 15cropper – your feedback is needed

    Hi,

    a summary from Italian community - 3 users.

    Two of them don't want this feature for these reasons:

    - If a player is not active he'll lost the village and only kings and dukes could benefits of that in tributes.

    Defender players won't have 15c and from the start there will be crop supply problem. That means less troops and buildings. Even now many troops are lost against robber's hideouts and camps. (thanks to TEKILABOY )

    - This could disadvantage strongest players because they have wait. In addition players have to fight against robbers and another NPC is not needed, this might reduce player fights. It's better something to encourage fight between kingdoms (thanks to Smilzo )


    And the positive feedback:

    - This feature could give game more competitive and could change kingdom strategies. But without any reward because an uplevelled 15c is still an advantage. NPCs could have also have siege weapons and troops in these village will grow after a while. And if 15c has buildings and fields completely uplevelled it has to be well guarded because the whole kingdom will help the player having 15c. These NPC's 15c has to be near good crop oasis and the most part near WW villages (thanks to Babbi#IT ).

    This comment will be deleted probably but still I sugested this kind of change and was deleted a month ago... I don't understand you CMs. You like us to be positive and constructive yet honesty is always the true path. And honestly we need more content, love and features if TK is going to prosper.

    A little summary from the german community


    - Defensive players are scared, as they most train def-troops, how they are supposed to get a 15 crop field. They think this idea is more made for offensive players. As a defensive player, you need mor time to get to catapults and chiefs, as you have not the income from farming, as a offensive player has.

    - No menhir stones on 9 and 15 crop fields.

    - Make capitols chiefable, for example if the player is inactive and has a grey dot.

    - WoW hammers will be smaller, because you have the necessary amount of crop production way later.

    - The idea is not solving the problem, it just moves the focus in the beginning from 15 to 9 crop fields.

    - Faster deletion of inactive accounts, which are blocking 15 crop fields, or removing of the capitol status from a crop field.

    - Limitation for accounts, that you can only have x 9 or 15 crop fields.

    - If a player is inactive, natars should attack and conquer the crop field.

    - The game does not need NPCs, it needs players because Travian Kingdoms is a PvP game.

    Moony
    Community Manager
    Travian Kingdoms DE

    I agree with most of comments except :

    Moony wrote:

    - No menhir stones on 9 and 15 crop fields.

    I reckon that was always a case.

    Moony wrote:

    - Make capitols chiefable, for example if the player is inactive and has a grey dot.

    Maybe grey villages but if done for all capital they will loose there significance, and in end game, kingdoms will start trying to chief and ruin big hammer villages. With the amount of fakes, it'll become near impossible to defend treasuries + main hammer capital villages since chiefing is easier than 0 pop'ing..

    (like a now server start)

    2 days ago I logged in to com5

    Game-settling game on c15 and destruction of the first village.

    as a governor without gold.

    I have 123h protection.3 setllers and 1400CP.

    now I'm going to set up another village at c15.

    Is not this something wonderful anyone can reach?

    and this with a completely non-aggressive game, only with what the program gives me at the beginning.

    And this is not right for some!

    A bit of a summary from the Spanish community:


    The original reaction from some players on the Es section is positive, they like the idea of having to work harder for the 15c and 9c.

    That way team work will be necessary to get the best villages for your kingdom.


    Others have ideas, for example that the recompenses have to be linked to the size of the defending troops from the NPC.


    Some are worried that the defensive players will have to create a mini off to be able to get this type of villages and consider a disadvantage for those players and feel offensive players would have a bigger advantage.

    They go as far as to say that kings and duques will have a huge advantage over governors to get these villages and one suggested that the troops you encounter are different depending your own growth and strength.


    1 or 2 don’t like the fact that the NPC player could destroy your village.


    A player suggested that instead of this another option is to not allow menhirs to be set in 9/15c villages.


    Morning

    O.K

    .right,

    but defenders still do not have any benefits.

    C15 with cereal at 10 or 12 should have a warfare army and be a city for conquest.

    Give the others a blank C15.

    who need fight be fight for c15 1000 pop or 500 pop

    who not need be c15 0pop.

    It’s fantastic how much feedback we get from the international thread as well as from the local ones, so thanks for your input on the discussion.


    I see that you have brought up some pros and cons and we will be evaluating them. This will take some time, so please be patient.

    So far, the main pros are:

    • More teamplay on player side be it in kingdoms or groups
    • Active NPCs which leads to more PVP 
    • NPCs are guarding the 15c and thus delaying the access to it

    On the other side the main cons are:

    • Experienced players would profit the most from the concept as it currently is, and it would be too complicated for new players
    • Deff players would need to get support from off players to have a chance in getting a 15c
    • PVE element in a PVP game  


    You’ve also provided good suggestions to tackle the cons. We will discuss them within the internal team and come back to you about it.

    Stay tuned ;)

    Sheila

    Maybe instead of working hard on the idea and implementing it eventually, might be an option to do a voting amongst players who would want to see the idea going forward and who don't want to see such idea being worked upon.

    Might save some valuable time of your team who're working on this project.

    Sheila wrote:

    So far, the main pros are:

    • Active NPCs which leads to more PVP

    Sorry, I must have missed it but you are saying "Active NPCs which leads to more PVP"... Are active NPCs a pro in it self? And how is it going to lead to more PVP?


    I kind of see it more as a negative = "Active NPC leading to less PVP"... Or?

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

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Scorox ().

    Honestly I dont think most players would be happy to see this feature, instead of trying to add stuff like this why not work on ideas that the playerbase actually want to see implemented - or even just put some work into advertising the game? As of now googling travian will take you to legends not even kingdoms, if you put even a few days into advertising then you would massively increase the playerbase and make the game overall more fun

    Again, I dont like the idea of having them occupy all 15cs from the start of the server, but the current amount of Natars that start a server should build, grow, expand, attack....and Robbers should be able to usurp inactive Kings....and/or form their own independent Kingdoms....along with growing and building, etc.


    This would make servers more competitive. This game may be PvP in some players eyes.....but in reality its mostly SIM and PVE against robber hideouts and camps (I dont consider raiding a grey/inactive PvP), with some occasional PvP/Kingdom wars throughout a 5 month server. I keep seeing PvP vs PVE arguments.....but this game is a WAR GAME first and foremost!......doesnt matter against who.


    If the issue is limiting the rush to settle fast....maybe a 3 day minimum to settle from start of server may solve issues with that.....or make it so it takes 2 CP slots to settle a 15c and 1 ½ CP slots for 9c's.

    Sheila wrote:
    • Deff players would need to get support from off players to have a chance in getting a 15

    Could someone explain to me why its a difference for deff players? I mean, you are making a hammer in a village that is most likely not going to stay a hammer village anyway (at least in the very most cases), you make exactly as much as needed to clear the village, preferably not a single unit more to not waste res, time and overall crop. so once taken, you have to do researches, queue troops and do everything you have to do, no matter if off or deff player. the only difference is that you are not able to start your def yet (what goes for offers with their off aswell as with their deff if they needed some) and maaaaybe you could argue that offers would already have a fitting hero weapon if they found/purchased one.

    For off players,kings and dukes who not play def.

    O.K

    You're right, too

    How much time did we use the deferrals to make conditions for the second settlement in 12h (x3 server) or 40h (normal server) and jump to c15? (One year?)

    You say: menhirs are the cause and we want change.

    It's not true when a player moves to another village as a king. He takes another 12 hours to do the menhir. In 12 hours, we are all at C15 without menchir.

    We will need some time to improve the game requirements and as deferers develop the required way to occupy the c15 as soon as possible and at the same time protect your robbery.

    And when defensives become faster than you to move to the c15, what will you then ask for?

    We do not need to off at any price. Nonstop requests require def, send def ,,,,, seND send Deff PANIIIIIC

    Nope man, sory here is not deff 4 now.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Gobez_Dalo: Ps. Poorly aroused, organized and pre-arranged group of players will not have these worries ().

    What about simply turning off beginner protection once a second village is founded. Seems pretty silly to reward 12hr settles with both a great cropper and the ability to recover for days under beginner protection. Lets be honest, the majority of players fast settling are not beginners anyways.

    i_love_crystian#EN wrote:

    What about simply turning off beginner protection once a second village is founded. Seems pretty silly to reward 12hr settles with both a great cropper and the ability to recover for days under beginner protection. Lets be honest, the majority of players fast settling are not beginners anyways.


    Would not you rather be kings without protection?

    but dukes?

    No? Why not. You want to be king and you do not want to put your head under the sword :)

    ah .. the kings are GREAT BEGINNERS

    Gobez_Dalo wrote:

    Would not you rather be kings without protection?

    but dukes?

    No? Why not. You want to be king and you do not want to put your head under the sword :)

    ah .. the kings are GREAT BEGINNERS

    I dont think I understand your question.


    Regardless of king, duke, gov, etc. I think that once a second village is founded beginner protection should be removed. It would still allow players to do the 12hr settle strategy if they want but it would make their sacrifices more meaningful because they would be sitting at 80 pop with no troops, no defenses, no resource production, etc. That is the sacrifice they chose in order to rush a cropper. I think that the current system rewards them for rushing to a cropper because they can sit safely in beginners protection for days recovering from the sacrifices they made to get that cropper.


    For players doing a more "normal" (less sacrifice, more economic, etc) settle strategy where they settle in a few days, they typically leave beginners protection around the same time that they settle their second.