I was there... 3000 years ago.. in old travian with limits in alliances.. com7 in 2008 had Poland First to Fight... 20 alliances.. I led the winning team on com8 we had 11 wings or more..
I don't believe for a moment that limiting player numbers will remove wings.. I full agree with your goals.. more action, more mid game fighting.. its the best part of Kingdoms v the old servers..
There has to be something else... player limits won't make a single difference.
I was there... 3000 years ago.. in old travian with limits in alliances.. com7 in 2008 had Poland First to Fight... 20 alliances.. I led the winning team on com8 we had 11 wings or more..
I don't believe for a moment that limiting player numbers will remove wings.. I full agree with your goals.. more action, more mid game fighting.. its the best part of Kingdoms v the old servers..
There has to be something else... player limits won't make a single difference.
I dont believe it either, but it will make it less rewarding.
I dont think there is anything you can do to prevent wings.
Display MoreVery simply. Without multiaccounts there is a lot of space for real players in the main kingdom.
As an example, I will give the current situation on com1nx3. There are 18 kingdoms with the name Unreal or similar name. A total of 193 accounts I counted. Since the beginning of the server as far as I know they got 78 bans, mostly for script, autoclicker or multi account. For me, a game with multiple kingdoms that compete with each other, or create temporary alliances, promises much more fun than one massive kingdom with a lot of wings, which will only play a large number of accounts, including a lot of multi-accounts. That's not fun for anyone at all.
In old Travian was set limit working well, in Travian Legends also, why not here? If you have more than 100 (example) real players in your team, you can make two kingdoms, that are play for the win, they can sometimes cooperate, but still, each other play their own game for the win. Also, there will be more fights for the WW, not only settle and building around WW from the start.
It's a game, fun have to be on the first place, don't you think?
Also game will be very interesting, when is forbidden to send reinforcement to any other player from different kingdom ...
This has nothing to do with multis. 
So what is your proposal? Limit kingdom member count and forbid inter-kingdom reinforcements?
I was there... 3000 years ago.. in old travian with limits in alliances.. com7 in 2008 had Poland First to Fight... 20 alliances.. I led the winning team on com8 we had 11 wings or more..
I don't believe for a moment that limiting player numbers will remove wings.. I full agree with your goals.. more action, more mid game fighting.. its the best part of Kingdoms v the old servers..
There has to be something else... player limits won't make a single difference.
Whether it makes a large or tiny difference, it'll at least deter however many % of players from wanting to be part of a meta. The Kingdom limit is what I believe to be the initial first step towards the issue. Ultimately there is no way to nullify Wings/Metas, but there are a million and one options to explore to discourage it or make it less rewarding. Another idea off the top of my head would be to give more Achievements, or add further significance to having them. Again, likely won't massively chunk the % of meta players, but it's another chip away at the issue.
This has nothing to do with multis.
1) Before you react, just read it all first. This topic is mainly about the treasures, this have to be first step for me and about that was also my first coment. Let kingdoms to fight about them, not hiding. Because thats the biggest problem of this game, big kingdoms generate a lot of treasures and VP just because they have a lot of accounts and separate wings and dont need to defend those treasures, just hide them when they are under attack.
2) My reaction about set limits is on the second track, but also important. Multiaccounts are big problem of this game, a lot of accounts in main kingdoms and wings are multis. With multis you generate more treasures, then more VP and also they are farmed for better resource income. Wings with a lot of multis also donate treasures to the main kingdom. Later also used for def troops. If you dont see it, something is wrong, maybe you dont want to, maybe you are in this kingdom and you like it. But it goes hand in hand with point number one. Set limit is everywhere, just imagine playing Dota2 5 vs 30 or playing football 11 vs 60. When you enable outnumber, game is ruined. You have more players? So, make a new team, play with them separately. Outnumber have use in politic, not in the games.
3) If you are happy with the game, how is going, and you have fun, good for you, but lot of people dont (mostly the people who does not like cheating like multis and autoclicker). But if you are not, leave here coment with your idea, what's can be done. I like to read and share ideas, not all of them are good or solve the problem, but sometimes you can find something what can be done.
4) To make it harder for the wings ... i dont know what can work, maybe if they are farmed and losing treasures, just spawn for them robber camps more frequently, but without resources and stolen goods and attack kingdom villages more quickly, catapult their villages. Just make game mechanic to dont let them to be serve for main kingdom and to not to be fun. I just think out loud.
My issue is that this is not a thread about multis. There are literally bizillion threads about that. Argue there. Also, wings do not automatically mean multis.
I was there... 3000 years ago.. in old travian with limits in alliances.. com7 in 2008 had Poland First to Fight... 20 alliances.. I led the winning team on com8 we had 11 wings or more..
I don't believe for a moment that limiting player numbers will remove wings.. I full agree with your goals.. more action, more mid game fighting.. its the best part of Kingdoms v the old servers..
There has to be something else... player limits won't make a single difference.
This has been discussed before. You can add mechanics to make a limit actually matter. Maybe you cannot trade with non-kingdom members. Or cannot reinforce non-kingdom members. Tournaments where only members of winning kingdoms who played 66% of the server with the kingdom can participate. Camps and treasures already do create some incentive. You get way more wheat in a main instead of a wing. It isn't impossible. Just takes creativity and having a thought out plan about the dynamics.
This has been discussed before. You can add mechanics to make a limit actually matter. Maybe you cannot trade with non-kingdom members. Or cannot reinforce non-kingdom members. Tournaments where only members of winning kingdoms who played 66% of the server with the kingdom can participate. Camps and treasures already do create some incentive. You get way more wheat in a main instead of a wing. It isn't impossible. Just takes creativity and having a thought out plan about the dynamics.
This is where we should focus the discussion.. making the limit actually matter. This was the point of my first comment on this thread... (see below)
Perhaps based on people comments, the actual numbers need to change.. or the numbers in my 'settings/limits' needs to dynamically adjust for each game world..
The use of Wings at the moment increased the number of players and villages that can contribute to the end goal of treasures and VP accumulation. (not telling you all anything you don't know - just setting the scene to explain my logic)
Extra wings means extra royals means extra treasuries means extra camps and extra tributes.
So whether you make some Kingdom limit or not - players will happily take one for the team - and play in a wing, and then there are mechanics to absorb these players as the game progresses and treasures have been accumulated to cover the previously settled areas.
Suggestions so far (with pros and cons - i hope these could be expanded.. and if we can try to adopt this approach - there will be suggestions.. lets try to capture the pros and cons and see what we end up with as a final list).
| Suggestion | Pros | Cons |
| Limit Players in Kingdom | Makes competition for winning badges | Does not actually stop wings because players will play in wings and forego a badge (imo) |
| Prevent stealing own Kingdom Treasures | Aims to make more war because treasuries are harder to defend | Makes it more attractive to have wings for this purpose |
| Punish Small Wings (reduce treasures, increase robber cata, increase SG crop rewards in bigger Kingdoms, less incentive to def no allies) |
Drive need to be in main Kingdom Make it more difficult for players in smaller kingdoms to play More likely to punish semi active multis |
Really punishes newbies.. Punishes small non wing kingdoms |
My take is that if you prevent Wings throughout the game.. it will force an even playing field for the top Kingdoms.. and instead of winning by having the most players.. you have to win by stealing them... which is what I thought the agreed aim for everyone was..
Kingdoms with less than 15% of total GWT treasures get absolute minimum crop from stolen goods. Players rely on SG to fund armies and manage the ebb and flow of army needs. No serious player can survive in a meta wing. Make sure that players in Kingdoms above the 15% threshold get at least 10 times the amount of reward of all types for those below. This percentage might need to be adjusted for the phase of the game.. I'm thinking from like day 50 or 60 onwards where the main kingdoms/meta have already been properly formed.
Block players from changing kingdoms earlier in the game. Currently you cannot change Kingdoms once WW level reaches 50. Why not make it based on a number of villages? you have 5 villages for Kingdom 1 - lock it in.
Just like greys... get no defense points or hero XP for defending another Kingdom
If you are in Kingdom A (a wing), and the main Kingdom B (main) takes treasures from you, then if you have a village in the influence area of a treasury from Kingdom B, you automatically and are locked from granting tributes to the king/duke of Kingdom B. They must attack you to take tributes.
Extra wings means extra royals means extra treasuries means extra camps and extra tributes.
Understated benefit of wings. more royals means more OP hammers and anvils ultimately.
What about this?
- When kingdom with more VP attacking treasury from kingdom with less VP, they must destroy treasury to take the treasures.
- Treasures can be moved inside the kingdom only between another kingdom treasuries, not by governors or another kings or dukes villages.
- When the treasury is under siege, treasures cannot be moved by normal attack, only when treasury is destroyed or deactivated.
- When treasures are stolen by another kingdom without a destroyed treasury, in the kingdom from where the treasures were stolen, there will be a rebellion. Robber camps without resources and treasures will appear instantly, and they will accidentally attack the main villages of the members of the kingdom (or treasuries). The same thing happens if the same kingdom repeatedly destroys the treasury or if the kingdom destroys the treasury itself.
What about this?
- When kingdom with more VP attacking treasury from kingdom with less VP, they must destroy treasury to take the treasures.
- Treasures can be moved inside the kingdom only between another kingdom treasuries, not by governors or another kings or dukes villages.
- When the treasury is under siege, treasures cannot be moved by normal attack, only when treasury is destroyed or deactivated.
- When treasures are stolen by another kingdom without a destroyed treasury, in the kingdom from where the treasures were stolen, there will be a rebellion. Robber camps without resources and treasures will appear instantly, and they will accidentally attack the main villages of the members of the kingdom (or treasuries). The same thing happens if the same kingdom repeatedly destroys the treasury or if the kingdom destroys the treasury itself.
- I dont think there comes any benefit with this change. It just removes the GHOST mechanic. Stronger kingdom already gains no VPs from taking treasures.
- This is actually interesting. I was also thinking that only overflowing treasures can be moved around.
- I feel that this is redundant. I would also not set 'being under attack' as a condition. It can be easily abused by others and becomes just a pain in the ass for both sides.
- Imo, this is overly complicated and annoying.
Display MoreHello all,
I have seen multiple proposals to reduce the power of big meta kingdoms by either limiting the number of players in a kingdom or directly altering the VP production of such kingdoms etc...
What I propose, would also limit the effectiveness of huge meta's absorbing wing after wing during the duration of the server but through a new playstyle that I believe is very interesting.
Currently, a common tactic when the kingdom's treasuries are attacked is to empty all but a few of the treasuries that are to be defended. This is done by governers attacking the treasuries, moving them to their own village until the king or duke collects them again either through the tributes or by attacking them.
Another common tactic, if time allows it, is to deactivate the treasuries altogether and move the treasures in a single attack rather than multiple.
What I propose is the following:
A kingdom member cannot steal treasures from an active treasury from its own kingdom.
What I believe this will do:
Having this rule, a kingdom that wants to protect its treasures would need to actively defend the treasuries or, if time allows it, deactivate the treasury and risk its members being open to attacks that are no longer visible on the map during the time.
Kingdoms would have to be more strategic about where to build up treasuries and have the defensive capabilities to defend them. Since the amount of active treasures is what determines the VP production, a kingdom needs to build up treasuries but also be able to defend them.
I think this will make it harder for kingdoms to absorb wings in the mid-game while allowing other kingdoms to attack perhaps underdefended treasuries and gain VP production and extra treasures this way. It can make the game more dynamic, giving smaller kingdoms more of a fighting chance by keeping the VP gap between kingdoms smaller throughout the game.
As always, there are probably scenario's that I have not thought of that could exploit this new proposed rule.
Please discuss these below and let me know your thoughts!
Have a nice day,Tobionic
As simple as it might sound, this would not really solve anything, as the only thing it would achieve is switching meta to mega treasuries and make it harder to transfer treasures to those, not really anything else in my opinion, ofc making it so anyone could steal vps would make it kind of different, in that sense, maybe it would incentivize not going for one mega, but I guess someone could just be very organized and not have such huge issues with that.
This change would make defending impossible. And we already have a game, in which offence outscales defence for the majority of the game.
This change would make defending impossible. And we already have a game, in which offence outscales defence for the majority of the game.
Well, now it is impossible to steal treasures. Unless a kingdom makes a big mistake. Thats why population wins. And offense outscales defense especially in the early game, where there are not many treasures.
As simple as it might sound, this would not really solve anything, as the only thing it would achieve is switching meta to mega treasuries and make it harder to transfer treasures to those, not really anything else in my opinion, ofc making it so anyone could steal vps would make it kind of different, in that sense, maybe it would incentivize not going for one mega, but I guess someone could just be very organized and not have such huge issues with that.
If you are well organized, you deserve to win. But I dont get to see organized metas. Its a mess more often than not that just gets away with a lot, since the game allows that.
So you want to ruin the balance of the game because you cant steal treasures? Pretty nice logic. Let's destroy one thing that aint broken.
Offence outscales defences maybe even entire game. Dunno, what you talking about.
The game would be so boring. You always have to defend mega's , so any other capitals will get zeroed for free. Game would end up being who has more teutons to smash into walls
So you want to ruin the balance of the game because you cant steal treasures? Pretty nice logic. Let's destroy one thing that aint broken.
Offence outscales defences maybe even entire game. Dunno, what you talking about.
The game would be so boring. You always have to defend mega's , so any other capitals will get zeroed for free. Game would end up being who has more teutons to smash into walls
If you cant steal treasures, then whats the point of the offense now? Why not just keep everything for the WWs to secure an easy victory as a meta? Where is the strategy in the game, if you just empty treasuries every single time and pretty much nothing happens?
In my experience, offense outscales defense heavily in the early game, it balances nicely in the mid game, and in the late game defense outscales offense. The defense is trained from multiple villages which take time to build up.
Now, the optimal way to play the game is to sim for the entirety of the server and save it all up for the WWs. I find this boring. Most of the time, you defend the big treasuries anyway, emptied or not, since these are by far the most valuable villages in the kingdom. But there are several ways to figure out where the real attacks hit, so maybe more kingdoms would learn to use those as there would be no default defensive strategy anymore.
Of course, it is hard to fully envisage what this change would result into. Maybe, the game becomes a complete mess where everyone plays offense and takes treasures left and right. I dont know. But, in my opinion, activity should be rewarding.
The big issue with trying to prevent Wings in the game is it's just not possible. You'd have to introduce the Multihunter's little brother, the "Winghunter." Even then, it can be so easy to just claim you're not a Wing. Having a Kingdom name that doesn't resemble your Main Kingdom's. You could even claim you're just a Confederacy, working together to take down an enemy Kingdom, and then if it lasts until the end of the server you just make an excuse saying "we accepted defeat that we couldn't get 1st, so we're disbanding and joining their Kingdom."
Realistically there's only 2 options, and even 1 of them is absurd: Change the core structure of Kingdoms in ways that would identify and prevent Wings, or continue implementing features, both internally and externally, into TK which give more and more reasons why being in a Wing sucks.
One thing I find really ironic is that it feels more discouraged to be a Dual than it does to be in a Wing, since Duals miss out on Achievements for their own account entirely, meanwhile you can still grind any and all achievements in a Wing, with the single sacrifice of a potential Victory Emblem. I currently have my own forum thread with suggestions, so I don't want to dive too much into this until some or all of those are implemented, but this is where I feel the route of this topic should go.
Your first sentence already told me everything I need to know. You are just below par player, who has no clue, how the game works. Good Luck.
Your first sentence already told me everything I need to know. You are just below par player, who has no clue, how the game works. Good Luck.
Thats by far the best argument here.
