No Union, smaller Kingdoms

  • Instead of having a Union happen at 30 days,

    I'd like to request a server without any Union happening ever.


    1 King & 2 dukes just the same.

    But instead of the Kings being fixed in place at day 30, they would be locked in place from day 1 (this would stop a lot of abuse around making temp kings)

    Even worth considering whether King & Dukes should be locked in as soon as the kingdom is formed (making leaders make more responsible choices in the early days)


    Union is good for bringing 60-100 players together easily, but really it just gives a bigger area faster, making it easy for meta's & premades to easily get ridiculously Op a lot quicker than a "New" kingdom ever will.


    also it would make it harder to recruit as many players & thus keep kingdoms smaller


    Union gives 3-4 extra treasuries(with the borders they create) & they give a boost to treasures for VPs,

    but I see a benefit in both those things Not happening to help balance the level of play on the battlefield.

  • Quote

    always these discussions about who should have won, who not... For most of the guys the medals are important, thats why almost everyone wants to join some big fat meta. In fact, after you are part of that kind of big group, every action suddenly stops. You are just a tribute producer and the real game happens only between kings and dukes. So it could be nice if kingdom size would be limited, lets say by 90 players. From my own experience, the absolutely best fun you could have in travian is if you are playing in small group of very active players.

    as Presequencer#EN wrote in the other thread

  • Tribute is too powerful it gives massive advantage to large kingdoms.

    Worst mechanic in this game.

    We were told by our king to max fields just so he can pump troops, he would not give us any freedom to play as we wanted.

    True story, we are tribute slaves.

    -Governors

  • Tribute is too powerful it gives massive advantage to large kingdoms.

    Worst mechanic in this game.

    We were told by our king to max fields just so he can pump troops, he would not give us any freedom to play as we wanted.

    True story, we are tribute slaves.

    -Governors

    Why on earth would you stay with such a king?

    You can just tell him to go **** himself. YOU are encouraging that behavior.

    But instead of the Kings being fixed in place at day 30, they would be locked in place from day 1 (this would stop a lot of abuse around making temp kings)

    Right, cause now we can't have legitimate players be temp kings, so it encourages the use of multi kings.

    Union gives 3-4 extra treasuries(with the borders they create) & they give a boost to treasures for VPs,

    but I see a benefit in both those things Not happening to help balance the level of play on the battlefield.

    Say hello to the old school wings system.

  • Right, cause now we can't have legitimate players be temp kings, so it encourages the use of multi kings.

    Well I don't think anyone should use temp Kings (legit or otherwise), so it kinda starts to fix that problem too

    Say hello to the old school wings system.

    There will always be those that just play in a wing style, whatever measures are brought in

    but making it harder to gain such a big territory & kingdom size, would be a step forwards for sure. Unless of course you fully support the meta?

    This suggestion halves the problem just by a few simple implementations.


    other things that could be considered are to reduce the SS limits, to make it more difficult for these wing formations to communicate (sure they can take it to another platform, but ingame they would be restricted again)



    when Unions were started we were getting 3.5k-5k players a server, so it makes sense to reduce kingdom sizes until numbers rise up again?

  • I like this direction. Another option, or maybe furthering this - make people pay an entrance fee to be a king. They can't abdicate once they are king. Only add these if there is a prestige factor too so newbies don't waste their money. These increase costs so that people are more hesitant to abuse the system.

  • I'm not sure what abuse around making temp kings you are referring to, but I don't think that locking in a king from Day 1 would be a viable option.

    It seems to me that this would cause even fewer kings to spawn and a big problem with being outside of borders and selling stolen goods.

    Does this also take away the ability to abdicate all together? Can a King become a someone's duke?


    I agree that smaller kingdoms would make the game more exciting for all players, I'd just hate to see them have to take away some functioning mechanics.

    Is there another way to get the players to not form such large boring kingdoms without taking away and instead by adding or adjusting something?

    Is it simply that the King/Leadership role is too difficult and too much responsibility while the governor's role is too easy and uninvolved?

  • PaultheGaul there are lots of ways the start King's position is abused at the moment, mostly by meta forming kingdoms "one such way" They start King acounts all across the lands (15+ kingdoms & more) to recruit all those Gov's around they can, that will later be brought into the main kingdom, the king abdicates at that point & becomes a gov, he has usually grown fat on a King's wealth, with no intentions of ever being a real king & thus has a good army by doing so, they just play pretend king until the real king has enough treasures to come & absorb the wing & then a ready made "Kings" army is also recruited.

    If there was a shorter timelock on such things, then those meta kingdoms would not be able to feed off these temp kings, making themselves massively rich in many ways, if the borders were restricted more, it would take a lot longer for them to finally be able to absorb the numbers they usually do, before Union it is easily possible to have 10 treasuries opened (we've done it ourselves as 70 players, so imagine how much is possible for 100+ - 300+ players)

    without Union this would be cut to 5 treasuries max, thus halving the area of those fat Kings & making them put in a lot more effort if they want such a massive sprawl.


    I agree it is just an idea at the moment that would need developing, maybe some "npc" Kings could be placed on the map? That could be a start point for all Gov's & they could have a certain level of def in them to protect the treasures any Gov's may sell whilst living in their borders (until they menhired away) so that treasures aren't just passed around freely within these large groups & would cost an attacker real troops if they found the treasure total appealing.

    Another thought here would be to make Kings spawn further apart from each other, so that there is not the same squeeze around 0/0 at day one, just more mini kingdoms spread out across the map


    A King's position should never be taken lightly, the entire gameplay of all the Gov's depends on whether you get a commited King or a naive/greedy one that fails the Kingdom at the first sign of conflict. So having less of them, but more commited ones might be a better option?


    I also agree, that too much pressure is placed on Kings & Dukes, we have previously asked for more roles to be introduced, to further spread some of the tasks that always fall to so few at the moment, leading to burnout & eventual retirement from the game completely.

    Prince, Viscount, Earl, Baron etc are all titles that could inspire more players to get involved in helping the leaders & could have some extra perks ingame for doing so :)

  • I also agree, that too much pressure is placed on Kings & Dukes, we have previously asked for more roles to be introduced, to further spread some of the tasks that always fall to so few at the moment, leading to burnout & eventual retirement from the game completely.

    Prince, Viscount, Earl, Baron etc are all titles that could inspire more players to get involved in helping the leaders & could have some extra perks ingame for doing so :)

    I like this idea a lot.


    To teach newcomers more about the king status, let them hold a lower title with influence only 1 square max within the overall kingdom area so they could receive like 50% tribute from their neighbours and other half goes to the king + the same player pays 100% tribute to king so the kingdom gets even a slight increase if baron/viscount uses extra income to build fields.

  • I like this idea a lot.


    To teach newcomers more about the king status, let them hold a lower title with influence only 1 square max within the overall kingdom area so they could receive like 50% tribute from their neighbours and other half goes to the king + the same player pays 100% tribute to king so the kingdom gets even a slight increase if baron/viscount uses extra income to build fields.

    One big pyramid scheme of tributes :P

  • Well I don't think anyone should use temp Kings (legit or otherwise), so it kinda starts to fix that problem too

    ??????? Every starting king will be a multi. How in the hell is that a fix?


    other things that could be considered are to reduce the SS limits, to make it more difficult for these wing formations to communicate (sure they can take it to another platform, but ingame they would be restricted again)

    They removed SS limits cause people wanted bigger groups.

    You're trying to undo past changes.

  • They removed SS limits cause people wanted bigger groups.

    You're trying to undo past changes.

    is that so bad? If something changes & it's seen to work against the balance of play, is it not right to try & balance it again?

    ??????? Every starting king will be a multi. How in the hell is that a fix?

    not if every starting King is an NPC ;) or maybe there should be a start area, a more protected area that everyone has to menhir away from to be a part of the big game?


    But we also mentioned in another thread taking away the power to be King without first having some conditions met (some prestige or finished games rounds etc)


    right or wrong, at least we're throwing up suggestions that maybe the Devs can find something they like in it all.

    Maybe you can be constructive too whenever you're ready like, as you come across as quite destructive atm (things are easily misread, maybe I read your posts wrong)

    ?(

  • This whole discussion is stupid.

    If people want small kingdoms they make small kingdoms.
    If you wanna make small kingdoms go play regional servers. I'm playing DE1 with 3 friends and so far it is a lot of fun.

    Let people play the game how they want to play, as long as it doesn't violate the rules.

  • This whole discussion is stupid.

    If people want small kingdoms they make small kingdoms.
    If you wanna make small kingdoms go play regional servers. I'm playing DE1 with 3 friends and so far it is a lot of fun.

    Let people play the game how they want to play, as long as it doesn't violate the rules.

    Heya Yubie, welcome to the forums

    yes it's fine to play on this level too, I wish you & your mates all the best on DE1 :)

    I've always been anti-meta myself & have won servers as part of a very small team (20 players max) so I understand the fun having smaller teams brings to your experience

    sadly so many don't get to experience travian on this level & think the only way to win is by being part of the biggest team, which sadly is what kills a lot of the fun in the end.


    Maybe one day though you'll want to have a bigger challenge too & progress your small team into the com servers, how do you think that would work against 300-400 player teams if we don't find a solution to restrict them?

  • Tribute is too powerful it gives massive advantage to large kingdoms.

    Worst mechanic in this game.

    We were told by our king to max fields just so he can pump troops, he would not give us any freedom to play as we wanted.

    True story, we are tribute slaves.

    -Governors

    Been thinking about this & what about if kingdoms could have as many members as they wanted, but the restriction was on the amount of treasuries (say 18 max)?

    This would massively impact on how many tributes are available within one Kingdom. stopping some of those greedy Kings just using Gov's as tribute slaves & also stopping any kingdom getting too big in terms of area

  • This whole discussion is stupid.

    If people want small kingdoms they make small kingdoms.
    If you wanna make small kingdoms go play regional servers. I'm playing DE1 with 3 friends and so far it is a lot of fun.

    Let people play the game how they want to play, as long as it doesn't violate the rules.

    I think the point Jak is trying to make is that the incentive to win right now is to have the largest kingdom possible. Not to pit many smaller kingdoms together against each other. So there are just 2-3 kingdoms each server that are gigantic. If they start smaller, they have to be absorbed to compete.


    That's why the discussion of changing dynamics to incentivize smaller kingdoms, which will in turn change dynamics to increase activity, competition, etc., needs to occur and isn't stupid imo.


    Edit: not to mention the OP-ness of being king atm. They are way overpowered because they get tributes from 100+ members. Not even sure you can spend all the resources.

  • You say So many don't get to experience travian on this level.
    I just told you how they can experience it.

    Com servers are also fun. It is fun being with a strong kingdom.

    There is nothing wrong with big kingdoms. They don't need to be restricted.

    300-400 player teams are insane but I am glad they found a way to enjoy the game.

    The many shouldn't suffer the changes in favor of the few.

    Just stop playing in big kingdoms if you don't like it and stop playing the servers these big kingdoms go to.

  • yubie#NL playing on local servers would be like a step back in time for me & a lot of others on the forums, personally I want to be challenged not put out to graze :D

    under 350 players at start, feels like a very easy battle.


    But I thank you for your thoughts, maybe in time you will come to realise the bigger picture & the reasons for me starting this thread.


    If you don't think there is a problem, then that's fine :) enjoy your local servers. Although a lot of people do see a problem, so is it wrong for us not to try & seek out a solution?