Victory Points

  • A spreadsheet or something to know what actions = how many victory points for both offense and defense, for kings, dukes and govs.


    For example;
    You're a gov with a pop on 100, you start a new village = how many Victory Points?
    You're a duke and you conquer your first village = how many victory points?
    You're a king and you gain 3 new govs to your territory = how many victory points? ect ect ect.


    What actions gain VP versus influence, or both? If VP's are so important to winning the game exclusive of the WW build, why is there so little information about VP and how to gain them? The same with the loss of points?


    You want to gain as many as possible while keeping your opponent from gaining any or better yet, losing them. How do we decide which is the best course of action to take without knowing the effects of actions on Victory Points?


    Thank you kindly ~

  • That's it?!? Only treasures create victory points? Then how does defense contribute VP's? Ooh boy, just when i thought i was getting an understanding.


    This is something which has come up before as well, and though I have given it thought I haven't come up with a better way to suggest which would be reasonable and make sense. Attack points giving VP wouldn't work, as too many come from NPC targets, and attack points may well show how many troops are killed but in the end have little bearing on the success of an operation - so even restricting the VP to points gained by killing other players' troops would be a poor indicator. If attack points can't be used, then defense points can't either. Population is perhaps the most misleading stat which could be applied to VP.


    Other things have been suggested, such as buildings destroyed, villages/cities destroyed or chiefed, battles won, etc. but here you also have the inactives factor, etc. and in my opinion these things would be nearly impossible for the system to quantify.


    The one idea I heard which makes plenty of sense to me is to have kingdoms and/or alliances build and defend team villages (stronghold villages, if you will) in which a certain number (100,000?) of treasures can be kept. They could be given a VP bonus for any team attack or defense points gained in any attacks on or defenses of these stronghold villages. Such a village would have to be different from a regular or WW village, with different buildings, etc. but would be team efforts.

  • The inactives factor and stats gained from attacking the NPC are easily removed from the equation though. The system knows (or could know) who's weak, who's strong and who's inactive. Anyway: Destroying or chiefing villages/cities giving a boost to VP (perhaps only when attacking a bigger (in terms of VP) alliance?) could work I think. Anything is better than what we have now honestly, where you can just have a bunch of kings give friendly treasures away and never attempt wars as a team. Whoever's best at warfare should generally win this game, it's a wargame after all.

  • The inactives factor and stats gained from attacking the NPC are easily removed from the equation though. The system knows (or could know) who's weak, who's strong and who's inactive. Anyway: Destroying or chiefing villages/cities giving a boost to VP (perhaps only when attacking a bigger (in terms of VP) alliance?) could work I think. Anything is better than what we have now honestly, where you can just have a bunch of kings give friendly treasures away and never attempt wars as a team. Whoever's best at warfare should generally win this game, it's a wargame after all.


    I don't disagree with you. One thing we have always agreed about is the game needing some way to stop the "friendly" transfer of treasures. I just can't think of a way to do it while preserving the possibility of stealing treasures from enemies.

  • DH, that sounds like an effective and fun way to gain points, has anyone knocked down the idea yet?


    So what points were we talking about when it was stated that finally defense gains points? What kind of points and what good are they outside bestowing a feeling of, I don't know, pride? Is that a big factor in the game?


    I've thought this whole time that the boards that say who is this weeks attacker, robber, defender, climber equated somehow to VP. What a bummer!


    DH's idea sounds great, like Capture the Flag kind of thing! And if for some reason, that could not work, at least it's on the right track, yes?


    You are all superb players here, there's got to be a solution. And us newbs might bring new eyes that spark some workable ideas.


    Is it worth a try to figure out another way to gain victory points and cultivate more of a team effort?


    And if there is a "moral bonus" then the devs already know the strengths of each player else how could the bonus be awarded?


  • I don't recall anyone being against a team held "stronghold" village, but we all have to consider that it would require quite a lot of work by the game designers to incorporate it.


    The points we speak of when we say finally the actual defender gets points are defense points. In previous versions it was the owner of the village being defended who got the points and any medals resulting from them. It was just a matter of the defenders finally getting official recognition for the troops they provide and the good work they do for a team.


    New players is what this game needs to survive. There are not so many veterans left in the game - which is why I keep stressing the need to bring veterans back as well - but it is you new players who will determine whether Travian as a whole regains some of the success it has lost or ultimately fails.


    As to a different way to gain VP as part of a team effort, in my opinion some such way is essential to the future of the game. Team spirit has all but disappeared from most aspects of the game, so anything added to the game which would bring it back is a big plus in my eyes. That it should be something we can all plainly see, such as a team stronghold village or something similar, is something I feel is important.


    Some will disagree with what I say next, but I ask only that you think about it. I have learned something in every server I have ever played - the game is not a simple one. I don't believe it is possible to know everything, and it is certainly not possible for an old man like myself to remember everything. I don't think anyone is the final authority on playing the game, with the final word on how to play it. There are too many different possible ways to play it; and too many different situations with too many different enemies, and too many different team mates, all of whom play it differently. New players can learn just as veterans do. We can tell you how the game functions, we can give you advice gained from our own experience - but you have to learn on your own. Good luck to you:)

  • I don't disagree with you. One thing we have always agreed about is the game needing some way to stop the "friendly" transfer of treasures. I just can't think of a way to do it while preserving the possibility of stealing treasures from enemies.


    All you need is to have treasures stolen take away from victory points rather then increase them. This alone would stop anyone from "friendly" transfer of treasures as it would not reduce their VP, not increase it. And I think with a change like this, even the #1 alliance should be able to steal from a lower alliance and reduce their points - it should all be weighted though based on VP score. After all, if #1 alliance has 500,000 VP and next alliance has 499,999 VP, the current gain of 50 VP per treasure from the 2nd alliance stealing from the first is a HUGE advantage for the 2nd alliance.. While there's no advantage for the #1. Yet if it went both ways and the weight meant the 2nd alliance being so close to #1 would reduce the points, then the 2nd alliance attacking and stealing treasures would drop the #1 in points.


    This would put a much bigger emphasis on the daily VP earned. But it would stop "cheating".


    The other thing that needs to be addressed which I witnessed for the first time today is an alliance king leaving during an attack and coming back after the attack. Somehow a king leaving should impact the VP. Because I see this as cheating as well. It was done simply for the reason of preventing the attackers from gaining VP when the attacks hit. Too many loop holes with VP that clearly were not how it was designed. Really ruins the fun of it.

  • When a king leaves his alliance, the alliance loses one victory point per treasure the king currently owns.


    Is that active treasures or total treasures? If its total (active/inactive) then that can have an impact, but when an alliance has millions of VP, losing 100k isn't a big deal either.


    I really think the whole VP system could use some adjustments. I've yet to see a server where 1 alliance had so much VP that they didn't care about the WW. And I think it should be possible for this to be the case - if one team works actively enough to increase their VP, they should be able to have 200% more then any other alliance. But it shouldn't be easy to do this, although it should be possible. I think my idea for having treasures stolen reduce the VP of the alliance its stolen from would be one step towards this and then you could also increase the amount alliances earn by having treasures active.


    I just don't feel VP plays a big enough role and it still ends up being much more about the WW. At least on the servers I've played where the top alliance are all very close in VP.