NEW TRIBES IN THE GAME

Because they only care about Travian Legends.. they even introduced a new quest system and new game modes.

Why are the players of Travian Kingdoms hated?

The best we can get is a sudoku game on the forum! (sorry to who made it)

We demand new tribes! Why can't you deliver? No more excuses!

We won't offer any ideas to the game if none of them will be implemented

"The best we can get is a sudoku game on the forum!"

hahaha so true, or write memes

Spend more gold and devs might get interested in this game again

Please note that Legends and Kingdoms are very different games.

They may have a common past, but now a day they are going in different directions.

We cannot just take the changes of one and implement it in the other, we have to look for our own path and implementations.

There are good things in Kingdoms that are not in Legends, just to mention one the Halloween special worlds.

And we hope that with time more interesting and different things will come to Kingdoms.

And there is where you can help us to find those things.

Travian Games is quite a big company with almost 200 employees and I assume at least some of them are constantly assigned to travian kingdoms. I cant imagine that its difficult to implement one or two new tribes with new troops, new design and a new buidling and tribe specific functions etc over the time of multiple years.. Developer studios with 10 people or even a lot less have easily achieved more in a lot less time. Especially with you guys having so many years of experience with travian in general and quite a few with kingdoms.

It would be so nice, make so many people happy and bring veteran players back, I think the time and work put into it would be worth the while!

There could even be test servers where the tribes are balanced and work on them is done until they are ready for release. Just 2 tribes over the next few years would bring so many new strategies and mechanics to the game..

I guess you could even ask the community for help with balancing and ideas for new, refreshing troops and mechanics since there are a lot of long time players who really care for this game and know a lot about strategy.

I hope plans exist that head into that direction, otherwise I see many players losing interest in this game over time, especially since competition is just getting stronger with video games getting more and more popular in the whole world.

I love your simple yet engaging game with a lot of strategy once you think deeply about it, but since there is no progress and you play roughly the same game over and over, it is necessary to release somewhat big updates and new content at least once or twice per year.

Thanks for reading through the whole post!

Hoping for a (to some degree) satisfying statement or an explanation on why my thinking is wrong or why it isnt possible to release new tribes in a somewhat restricted timeframe.

Quote from Unknown

And we hope that with time more interesting and different things will come to Kingdoms.

And there is where you can help us to find those things.

Many good ideas are already in the forum. As well some improvements that should not be very difficult to implement. I have one idea in my mind... It is very difficult to find the time of arrival from the hero, when you are farming villages. There are at least two ideas in the forum to make it easier, to find the time of arrival. But one thread is already 3-4 years old? It's kind of frustrating if you read sentences like the quoted one and "nothing" changes. If you would tackle small tasks/improvements the players would see at least something and see that you take care of them. I guess most player with some background knowledge knows, that it's not a 5 minute job to add new tribes. But other things shouldn't be so difficult. Writing phrases "with time more interesting and different things will come" it sounds like maybe maybe we will do something but probably not. But if we do it, please praise our changes and be quite for the next 5 years...

If you do not want same tribes how about other ones like Vikings/Mayans(Mayos)/Troijans or as we have Romans/Gauls/Teutons from europe area how about something from N/S America, Asia, or Africa continent?

I actually agree with some of your points, but there are things in the background that are not exactly like you mention.

But, we will take this into account, I actually like the idea of having more tribes, but different ones from other games.

It all comes down to the amount of players.

I wish we would have such a domain, that would mean we have plenty of players to fill in the game worlds.

Unknown

Have you guys considered rebalancing the troops already in the game? I know that they were made a lot cheaper in kingdoms compared to legends, but the stats of the units has been the same for over a decade now. I guess I'm just curious about whether or not you have considered it, and if so which changes were considered.

Does that mean that you have some idea of how to do that?

I personally feel they are balanced, but if you feel they are not, we can always consider options.

What would you like to see changed?

Although it may actually be fitting for a new thread of its own. So that may be best.

I personally do think that the tribes are balanced pretty well with advantages and disadvantages on all sides. BUT: a thing to consider is the fact that on every server, gauls make up for roughly 50% of the players while teutons and romans roughly share 25% each. Eventhough I personally dont think they are unbalanced or too strong, something about gauls seems to be more appealing to most of the players... I dont have any advice on hand right now but I guess 1/3 per tribe is what should be the goal. An own thread on that topic might be the best idea.

To start off with, this was just pure curiocity, but after spending about 30 minutes looking into this, I've realized that there are a few issues that I think needs to be resolved actually.

1: Legionnaires, Phalanxes and Spearmen are too cheap/build too quickly.

You can build def units in every village you make at the 1x price cost of building them in a regular barracks, and you can group them up and have them fight as a single fighting force. In the early game they are not too cheap though, but the moment off players have to build in great barracks and great stable to keep up, def players will pull ahead big time since the cost of off units are effectively doubled from that point onwards. This means that even the super cheap off unit clubmen cost 360 resources, almost the same as a praetorian, which is the only def unit I haven't included in this list because I think it's the only def unit that might actually be balanced in terms of cost. I think bringing the other infantry defensive units more in line with praetorians in terms of cost would be a good first step. Just doing something like increasing the cost of all of them by 80 resources each would be a good start. This would also put defensive infantry units more in line with defensive cavalry units, so I don't know why they were this cheap to begin with.

Legionnaires: 305 resources each (example: 95 wood, 65 clay and 145 iron)

Phalanxes: 315 resources each (example: 105 wood, 145 clay and 65 iron)

Spearmen : 320 resources each (example: 170 wood, 65 clay and 85 iron)

Praetorian: 340 resources each (unchanged)

This issue could also possibly be fixed by making the units trained in the Great Barracks and the Great Stable cheaper. As it stands, in the endgame of speed servers, def units are running rampant, and off armies are completely unable to keep up. on 1x servers this is not so much the case though, but most of my experience is from playing 3x and 5x servers, so if someone with more 1x experience would give a few words on this idea, then that would be great

2: Teuton def costs a lot of wood to build. Both spearmen and paladins cost way more wood than any other resource.

I think that one of the reasons why teutons aren't played a lot as def is because of this fact, because it costs way more gold to run a def teuton account compared to a def gaul account, and it's not a whole lot better. A way to change this is to make the teuton paladin cost more clay than it does wood. This is not really going to change the power level of the teutons at the top level, but it will make the barrier for entry for playing def teutons a lot lower, and I think that is the reason why almost no one plays it. Gauls are just a lot more simple in comparison since phalanxes are more balanced in terms of cost, and because of how robber camps work you are almost forced to take balanced 4446 villages when you settle if you don't want to get killed by your own kingdom. This means that as a teuton def you are forced to npc regularly to make up for the excessive amount of clay and iron you have to make up for the huge lack of wood, and since the only other common playstyle that has excess wood is romans building EC and catapults, and since the def teuton also has to compete with off teutons which is way more popular, trading clay for wood on the marketplace tends to be difficult.

Just changing the wood and clay cost around would be sufficient.

Paladins: (170 wood, 330 clay and 200 iron)

One issue with this is that it might seem too similar to the gaul def combo of phalanxes + druids.

Edit: I would also like to mention that just because 1x servers are balanced, does not mean that 3x servers are balanced, because they are both running 2 completely different versions of the game. What do I mean? 1x servers end up having on average 3x as many VP since there are 3 times as many days where VP gets counted. This means that stealing VP on 3x servers is way more significant, and due to this chances of large swings are much more likely on those servers. Also, maintenance on 1x servers and 3x servers is the same. This is actually the direct cause that def is so much stronger on 3x servers compared to 1x servers. Production is 3x as high and training time is 3x as short, but because the maintenance is the same, it means that if you have 20k production after factoring in the production cost on a 1x server, and 60k on a 3x server, the time it takes for the 1x server to run out of resource production is the same as the 3x server takes to run out of production. Why does this matter? Because on 3x servers, as a def gaul player you can more or less run 15 level 20 barracks until the end of the server from day 35, but if you tried to do the same on a 1x server you would end up with too many troops to feed after 20 days of building, and then if you didn't lose a lot of them in battle, you would have to stop production in several villages, reducing the amount of def you will have in total later on. This is where off players finally get a chance to shine because off units are on average stronger than def units per crop spent on maintenance.

++ definitely agree on the Teuton bias for wood ++

While it helps TK with Gold required for NPC - keeping total constant and rebalancing the res mix needed likely to attract more teuton defense players.

Get real, the only way they will add new tribes is to make completely new game.

Quote from Mr_John_Smith

Get real, the only way they will add new tribes is to make completely new game.

why would they...? I cant imagine its necessary to make a completly new game just to implement 1-2 new tribes.

On the other hand, I dont have much experience in programming and I dont know anything about their specific case, so I could be complety wrong.

Quote from SchliZzCola#DE

why would they...? I cant imagine its necessary to make a completly new game just to implement 1-2 new tribes.

On the other hand, I dont have much experience in programming and I dont know anything about their specific case, so I could be complety wrong.

It's not about programming, I think it would be super easy to add additional code,

it's about balance in the game,

it would need to test the changes properly and thoroughly to check if the gameplay balance is violated with adding new tribes,

and that takes a lot of time and resources,

and it would be too much of an effort for this game.