Why is the game dead?

    Quote from Pinkguy#NL

    "Some want..." and the vast majority doesn't.

    I mean the same thing could be said about wings too though... at least from my experience. Maybe you interacted too much with RfR and Rebel and that's why you think people all desire wings :D

    Quote from Pinkguy#NL

    Because it has plenty of downside?
    People don't WANT it.

    I think they do WANT it. Whose word wins now? Yours or mine?

    Quote from Pinkguy#NL

    I've already addressed this.

    You said off and def players would just jump in and out of the kingdom as needed. Which I don't believe would work even with the current rules of the game?
    I seem to recall you can't rejoin a kingdom you've left for 3 days, can you? This is definitely true for menhirs and I vaguely remember it works for simple invitations too. But I'm not a 100%. But this is beside the point, I think you got the idea anyway;)

    Quote from Xayira

    I think they do WANT it. Whose word wins now? Yours or mine?

    There is a good reason why we moved away from that system. Kingdoms were limited based on their size, which was a lot smaller. Because people wanted the ability to play with larger kingdoms they changed the system. First they added dukes and got rid of alliances, then they revamped the way you unlock additional treasuries, then they introduced kingdom unions. Finally they removed Secret Society member limits. All those features were aimed at increasing kingdom capacity and allowing easier organization.

    Its not your word vs mine, it is you not knowing the history of the game and refusing to accept that people never wanted limited kingdom sizes.

    You're the one who wants to move away from the norm. How about you make a poll? But eeh, be sure to warn them about how much of a hassle it will create for organization. We'll see.

    Quote from Pinkguy#NL

    There is a good reason why we moved away from that system. Kingdoms were limited based on their size, which was a lot smaller. Because people wanted the ability to play with larger kingdoms they changed the system. First they added dukes and got rid of alliances, then they revamped the way you unlock additional treasuries, then they introduced kingdom unions. Finally they removed Secret Society member limits. All those features were aimed at increasing kingdom capacity and allowing easier organization.

    Its not your word vs mine, it is you not knowing the history of the game and refusing to accept that people never wanted limited kingdom sizes.

    You're the one who wants to move away from the norm. How about you make a poll? But eeh, be sure to warn them about how much of a hassle it will create for organization. We'll see.

    I'm still looking for the cause and effect correlation in your speech.
    But ignoring that fallacy let's talk history then. Previously you were able to unlock a new treasury slot every 4k treasures. This got increased to 10k. If all people want are large kingdoms and the devs are enabling this what was this change about?

    Why was the number of dukes reduced from 4 to 2? To allow for larger kindoms as we all want?

    If people (and devs) want larger kingdoms why are sentences like this:

    Quote from JJ

    Smaller kingdoms also mean more action, as distances between possible targets and allies are reduced.

    the promo slogens for quite a few changes?
    COM5 started 2 weeks ago. 2 premade kingdoms (called GM and Unity ingame) appeared with only a handful of players, creating a single kingdom only. You claimed players want to play is large kingdoms, so what is the anomaly on com5? Or maybe your claims are just as much anecdotes as mine are and you should mayhaps also consider running a poll before presenting your own opinion as the will of the playerbase?

    You're just cherry-picking parts of some updates that in theory help larger kingdoms while ignoring both the context of these changes, and, more importantly, the other half of the change log.

    Quote from Xayira

    Previously you were able to unlock a new treasury slot every 4k treasures. This got increased to 10k. If all people want are large kingdoms and the devs are enabling this what was this change about?

    It would be nice if you could actually read instead of just pulling bs out of context.

    The post about the 4k->10k transition.

    In summary:

    Unions are introduced.

    Kingdoms now have 1 treasury slot per royal by default.

    A village with a treasury unlocked can build multiple active treasuries.


    Some history that is not explicitly mentioned in the post:

    4k was too easy in the late game and kingdoms would be able to absorb pretty much half the map. This happened HERE, where 4UMA had half the map.

    10k + more default space + union at day 30 meant a better distribution of when you would gain kingdom size.

    4k meant that people had to have wings early on while all those treasures were pushed to the main kingdom so they could make new treasuries as soon as possible.


    SO. The 4k->10k change was actually part of a change which aimed to make big kingdoms easier. Something you would have known if you had actually read the full context of the change instead of just cherry picking one aspect.



    Quote from Xayira

    If people (and devs) want larger kingdoms why are sentences like this:

    Here is the full context of that sentence:

    Quote from JJ

    With the rebalancing changes, there will be smaller kingdoms in the beginning, making it a bigger challenge to grow in size due to the bigger treasury slot requirements. Smaller kingdoms also mean more action, as distances between possible targets and allies are reduced.

    Was that the case? No. They predicted something which was absolute nonsense. There were no smaller kingdoms in the beginning, there was not more action than before those changes.


    So you're just quoting stuff that appeared to be completely untrue but you were quoting it anyway cause it supported your point of view.

    You're trying to use an "Argument from authority", which in this case is a fallacy.



    And please, before you even try to repeat the bullshit argument "if 4k was so easy to get big, why did they remove it". Owning half the map was ofc not what people wanted. Besides, this was territory gain after the establishment of kingdoms was important.
    Gaining treasuries because less significant in the late game, which is where the 4k system made the biggest impact.

    Quote from Pinkguy#NL

    Was that the case? No. They predicted something which was absolute nonsense. There were no smaller kingdoms in the beginning, there was not more action than before those changes.

    Was that the case? Partially. But that's beside the point because as you can clearly read in both JJ's and FabianF's messages the intention was that. Sure the implementation wasn't perfect so it didn't exactly achive what they wanted. But they did want smaller kingdoms. They expicitly says this in that forum thread FYI :)

    Quote from Pinkguy#NL

    It would be nice if you could actually read instead of just pulling bs out of context

    In summary:

    Unions are introduced.

    Kingdoms now have 1 treasury slot per royal by default.

    A village with a treasury unlocked can build multiple active treasuries.

    what is the bs out of context again? You are a joke.
    Your summary is missing the duke # reduction from 4 to 2, and the 4k to 10k limit raise. Kingdom territories became smaller thanks to this change. What exactly is out of context here?

    Also you have now on 3 different occasion told me I don't know the game's history so just to get this out of the way:
    - I have played as gov with the 7 kings system
    - I have, as a dual on a king account, played (and won) a server with the 3 kings (and 7 dukes) system
    - I have, as a dual on a king account, played (and won) a server with the 1 king and 4 dukes system
    - I have played both as gov and as duke on multiple kingdom union servers.
    So now that we have established that I don't just randomly take guesses at how past iterations worked and hope I got them right,
    we could get back to finding a pattern in the above mentioned changes?

    All of the changes reduced the influence area of kingdoms, either by explicitly allowing fewer active treasury villages, or by slowing down development by raising treasury requirements on multiple occasions (1k, 2k, 4k, ... anyone?).... or by removing the influence generated by oases! (This just randomly popped into my mind)

    But even if we believe having fewer treasuries and continously raising the requirements to open new ones somehow allows for The One Thing we all wish for (ie gigantic kingdoms); we should still not ignore that the developers explicitly claim they introduce changes to reduce kingdom sizes.

    Quote from Pinkguy#NL

    And please, before you even try to repeat the bullshit argument "if 4k was so easy to get big, why did they remove it".

    here's a fun fact: I have never said this

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Watch your profaaanity! Also i herby ref this weird argument won by xayira, since relying on foul language is, in fact, not an argument. Let it be known to all 2 other people reading this forum, and unknown when he reads this in 3 years instead of ever moderating it, that we have a new champion of "y is dis game dead lul"!!!

    Quote from Larry#EN(11)

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Watch your profaaanity! Also i herby ref this weird argument won by xayira, since relying on foul language is, in fact, not an argument. Let it be known to all 2 other people reading this forum, and unknown when he reads this in 3 years instead of ever moderating it, that we have a new champion of "y is dis game dead lul"!!!

    Let her make a poll. She wants to deviate from the norm, see how many people will agree.

    Half her arguments weren't actually arguments as I pointed out.

    After coming back there are a couple reasons I can think of why the game is dead.


    - Genuine players dont have the feeling cheaters are taken care of (enough)

    - Support tickets get handled too slow

    - Gold being a too big factor for winning a server (at least in their minds, which is what counts the most)

    - Mid game has too little incentives to 'risk it all', so people wait till the end to do something, which also means making a fairly big mistake before that renders the end useless.

    - Quality of Life features are lacking and dont seem to be worked on

    Quote from iribuya

    - Mid game has too little incentives to 'risk it all', so people wait till the end to do something, which also means making a fairly big mistake before that renders the end useless.

    This is mostly dependent on whether you are in a kingdom that wants to actually play the game or a kingdom that wants to win the game.

    Daninho#NL has been a great leader in any server I've played with him so far and has always managed to keep people on their toes and keep the game interesting.

    Quote from Pinkguy#NL

    This is mostly dependent on whether you are in a kingdom that wants to actually play the game or a kingdom that wants to win the game.

    Daninho#NL has been a great leader in any server I've played with him so far and has always managed to keep people on their toes and keep the game interesting.

    I've not played the game for a while, but are there any more reasons to fight mid-game except 'adding a little excitment' yourself? When I played you just wanted to make sure you were protected enough to not get treasures (VP) stolen and then the wonder building became almost 100% the deciding factor.

    It's a funny title, the content is even funnier than the title. It's really interesting that the majority blamed the players. You all have to be TravianGames employees to be so blind. Why the game dies, the answer is quite simple. It has become a game that does not evolve and only sees players as a gain. Every game that becomes this way will be dead. I've heard that the overactive Travian Legends forum has been closed. I think this place will be closed soon. It is necessary to reduce expenses and maximize profits. The whole point is just money. I hope you will understand that the problem is not gamers, that bad people are everywhere, and that the biggest duty of a game maker, distributor and developer company is to protect the game from evil people. Bring back the past, let the kingdom reunion disappear, no menhir, only old traditions, not innovations(!) I just miss the dev diaries that come in every 2 weeks and really work :P


    FN: Some people still don't realize that players are allowed to break the rules. They can see everything you do in the game, they can have an instant effect on everything. But if they punish players who buy a lot of gold, they will offend them and lose money.


    FN2: Just another simple example, the Menhir abuse has been known for about 1.5 years and everyone knows it's not difficult to enter two "if" codes.

    I really enjoy this thread, thank you all for participating!


    I have some questions, first regarding your comments iribuya:


    What do you feel could be done mid game to improve or give incentives?


    What quality of life features are lacking?


    Anyone else that has some opinion about it is very welcome to participate and give us some insights.


    LovëGood I don't know why you feel we are not working at improving Kingdoms. I am not going to go, again, at how we have already modified the Vacation mode and the tests we have made on the menhir feature.


    But please, go to the threads in this area:

    Changelogs & Bugfixes


    And see the different change logs we have already worked on.


    The latest one has been announced yesterday.


    Yes, I agree that probably we would like to see faster improvements, but, what I can say is that, at least lately, we are seeing movement in the right direction.

    Stop asking questions and deceiving people! Why are you all asking this? If you don't do anything?

    Quote from Smilzo

    Unknown

    There is no point in discussing possible improvements, you have not done anything in recent years.

    Don't fool people by pretending to be interested just to increase forum posts.

    maybe they have been busy trying to fix all the abuse issues that certain people/teams created :P


    it's been a couple of years since the last changes I agree, but since then so much abuse has happened with the features they introduced, it makes you question what will happen if they spend time doing so again ....?


    I wish people would stop with it all tbh, I'm not sure any new player would be tempted into the game with all the back handed comments people feel the need to throw around atm