End Game on COM2

  • You didn't find it difficult because you were a king.


    Leadership is not just as it was in earlier versions. Try being a leader in an alliance as a governor. Then try convincing a king he should remove one of his active but non-communicating governors, who is of course giving tributes if he's smart at all. If he doesn't want to, you only have the option as a leader to remove the king and ALL of his governors from your alliance...Great. Or at best, make someone king who will then have to fight with the previous king. Depending on what the alliance and the people are like, it might not go so well. Leadership should always be able to remove someone from the alliance, whether that removes him from the kingdom or not.

  • You didn't find it difficult because you were a king.


    Leadership is not just as it was in earlier versions. Try being a leader in an alliance as a governor. Then try convincing a king he should remove one of his active but non-communicating governors, who is of course giving tributes if he's smart at all. If he doesn't want to, you only have the option as a leader to remove the king and ALL of his governors from your alliance...Great. Or at best, make someone king who will then have to fight with the previous king. Depending on what the alliance and the people are like, it might not go so well. Leadership should always be able to remove someone from the alliance, whether that removes him from the kingdom or not.


    I did say:

    .I believe the alliance leader should have the option of granting leadership rights to dukes. I would certainly not object if that were extended to include governors.


    The point I was trying to make with that post is that the right people need to be in leadership. For now, that means the right people need to be kings. However, the responsibilities of leadership are no different here than in earlier Travian versions. It makes sense to me that only kings can remove a player from the kingdom (and there-by from the alliance), but I do agree with you that alliance leadership should be allowed to include dukes and even governors. Alliance leadership can discuss and agree on who should be booted and even who should be recruited and into which kingdom - it does add another step to the process, but the process is the same, if execution is different.


    The responsibilities a leader has to those he or she leads is certainly no different. Only those willing and able to honor those responsibilities should be in leadership.

  • But it seems to me that all of us have had a responsibility not only to poke holes in the fabric of the game but to come up with ways to mend it afterward.


    Despite my stance, I know the strategy xTools used violated a lot of principles the long standing Travian community has. I think this is a great opportunity to do just this and add in additional game mechanics like the ones you have already mentioned.

  • I agree that the current system has made it more difficult to exercise control as a leader. However there are ways to work around the difficulties.
    A king can kick a member out before said member becomes inactive and use the duke system to get an active player in who is not under some kings map influence etc. And yes, a leader - in the case of a "king gone mad" situation - can leave king without governors ... assuming governors actually know and accept who is in control.
    And yes I know it is far more time consuming and even costly from when it was in non TK versions, a proper pain in the behinds, so I agree that overall management rights need to be granted to the a alliance leader.
    With that said I also agree with Daniel... a leader is a leader, no matter what other title they have due to the game format, and they need to at least try and lead.
    And I'll stop my trail of thoughts here because I dont want to go into a blaming game.
    :)

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Ladiac ().

  • I did not find it at all difficult to remove a governor who was a problem (in the closed Beta). One attack by me and he was out.


    That's great.
    What if he was in someone else's kingdom and giving tribute? Good luck getting him out of the alliance. And have more fun when you manage to finally convince King #2 to kick him out and he ends up in King #3's domain and is still in the alliance! Now you have to convince another person who is looking at all that nice tribute to attack the governor to get him out of the alliance.


    So it could actually take up to 3 attacks and lots of bargaining just to get rid of one governor... and hope he doesn't come on the chat to make lots of drama about "why r u ataking me? we r allys. I hepL you!" and start off a whole discussion about why he's getting kicked and maybe who is next.


    MUCH easier if the leader of the alliance can simply boot a person -- no mess, no fuss.



    Quote

    Nevertheless, leaders are leaders. Kings lead individual kingdoms and together, kings lead alliances


    Ideally, yes. But in the game, as in real life, there are plenty of folks who are just out for themselves. And in game, there are tons of people who think they know what they're doing but they're really clueless.


    I started COM5 just to see how different it is from COM2 and my king, my "leader", has experience in T4.4 and so he thought that meant he should be king. But I had to give him point by point instructions on how to start an alliance. If I were intending on actually playing this server through, I would already be looking for a new king on day 2, as clearly this guy isn't going to be effective.


    Quote

    It is the responsibility of leaders to ensure that those they lead are led effectively. This would, of course, include removing any player who does not contribute to the team.


    Now, that's a tricky description -- is giving me good tribute a contribution to the team? Many kings would say yes. Your words seem to imply that isn't enough.



    Quote

    I will say that kings should be leaders, should be capable and experienced, and should take responsibility for making sure their governors and dukes are building effective accounts and participating in team activities. They should actively recruit players they see as reliable and desirable for the benefit of the team


    That's a lot of "shoulds" and leaves a lot of room for "are" and "aren't". People choose king because it sounds different. Starting COM5 yesterday showed me the description of king vs governor isn't enough to dissuade people from choosing king. There are 620 kings yet only 105 of them have managed to make any dukes. So your "should" is leaning heavily towards "aren't" for most players.


    You live in a dream-game where everyone makes sense, plays fair, works for the team good, and knows enough about what they're doing to do all of those things properly. That almost never happens, and the bigger a kingdom or alliance gets, the chances to have more and more selfish or ignorant or lazy or unhelpful players increases dramatically.



    Quote

    If there are players in a kingdom who do not know the game, the king should teach them or have someone else teach them.


    Still in your dream world. What if the king can't teach well? What if he doesn't play well or know much about what he's doing? Worse, what if he only thinks he's good at the game because last server his team won and he managed to send 5k defenders to a WW along with a shipment or 2 of wheat each day? Now you've got inexperienced players trying to lead because they chose king. Yes, eventually those guys are going to get swallowed by other kings, but in the meantime how many governors were led down the wrong path?


    Quote

    Everyone had the choice when registering, whether to play as king or governor - anyone who chose king should be willing to take on the responsibility of leading a kingdom with all that means


    More "should" with no way of making it happen.


    We are still bumping our heads into the same issue since the early beta -- kings have way too much power over their governor's game and fate, and often it only takes one bad king to ruin an entire round for a governor. Especially if the governor is a new player, or even just new to TK, they won't know how to change kings easily or realize they can do so at all, and will try to ride it out and make do the best they can. Then their king deletes in 2 months or goes inactive and they're left floundering.

  • I think you're being a little harsh about Daniel living a utopia. Havent you ever find yourself in a situation where a leadership was all of the above or at least tried? I have more than once, so I know its not too much to expect.
    I do acknowledge the pain in the butt a bad king can be though.


    Maybe a pre-arranged leadership team could be a solution to that problem.? Meaning you enter a server having a 7 member team yoo know they are going to assume a king position both management and map wise... dont know perhaps it would work perhaps not.


    Still though, if your kingdoms members suck you're doing it wrong. I feel like sticking to my guns when it comes to this.
    :)


    ps You mentioned kings being hesitant to remove a governor due to tributes. From what I've gathered and correct me if I'm wrong, the villages/account are/is generating tributes not the governor as a person. If you declare the governor "open season" for the rest of the alliance, the villages will still generate tribute... they'll just belong to some other player.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Ladiac ().

  • Maybe a pre-arranged leadership team could be a solution to that problem.? Meaning you enter a server having a 7 member team yoo know they are going to assume a king position both management and map wise... dont know perhaps it would work perhaps not..



    This is what we did on the Colony. We had our kings picked before the server started. We all chose the same direction and then once landed we decided to which WW we were going t osettle around. As soon as our kings began settling then all members of our alliance then began settling in the appropriate kingdoms where they were assigned. Of course we also picked up new members since governors are auto dropped in your kingdom for the first couple weeks. Overall we had a very good start and our plan executed out about 90% before we had to switch gears to compensate for the inevitable problems that arise.


    I traveled across an entire quad as somehow I settled in the SW quad when I chose EAST as my drop zone. My king i had was also inexperienced but claimed brilliance based on his T4 life. Yup I attacked him and he took my spawn village but then deleted afterwards.

  • I think you're being a little harsh about Daniel living a utopia. Havent you ever find yourself in a situation where a leadership was all of the above or at least tried?


    Yes, but it is more an exception than a rule.
    And when there were a few limited leaders (usually 1 main + a few helpers) for a 60 person alliance, it is much easier to find the right place join up. You can talk to the leader of an alliance or 3 and make a decision. In TK you start with whoever the system sticks you with, and your options are fairly limited for awhile. If you know how the game works, you can find a better king with only a little trouble, but if you're new you're basing a lot of it on luck -- and there are a LOT more incompetent kings than competent ones.


    I'm not intending to be harsh on DH, but he has a tendency to view everything in light of how it could be if everyone does it right, rather than the realistic light of what tends to happen the other 95% of the time.


    Quote

    Maybe a pre-arranged leadership team could be a solution to that problem.? Meaning you enter a server having a 7 member team yoo know they are going to assume a king position both management and map wise... dont know perhaps it would work perhaps not.


    Potentially this could work. A lot could depend on placement for your team members, though.



    Quote

    Still though, if your kingdoms members suck you're doing it wrong. I feel like sticking to my guns when it comes to this.


    How do you figure? I'm a governor -- I have no say in who my kingdom members are, none.


    Quote

    You mentioned kings being hesitant to remove a governor due to tributes. From what I've gathered and correct me if I'm wrong, the villages/account are/is generating tributes not the governor as a person. If you declare the governor "open season" for the rest of the alliance, the villages will still generate tribute... they'll just belong to some other player.


    Uhh... yeah. But if you're a king and you're getting 7k per day from a town just for keeping the player around, are you going to kick him just so other people can farm him? I mean, as a farm he'd generate another ~70k per day in total, but you're not necessarily getting much of that personally. And he'll likely delete or go inactive and get removed in ~2 weeks. So ~1M spread among the team (and anyone else who notices him go gray) over the course of 2 weeks or 7k/day for the rest of the server for you + whatever troops the person occasionally does produce to help out...plus any additional towns the player makes later on.


    You know what? Farm everyone! More resources for the team!

  • @WM: Those who do it right would dominate in short order, opposed to those who do it wrong. When I say should, then I am speaking to those who consider putting themselves in that position.


    As far as booting someone giving tribute - that tribute is a drop in the bucket compared to what farming the same account can bring in for the team, including the king. However, it is not a leader's own account he or she would put first, if an effective leader, but the good of the team as a whole. Yes, you have ego players playing as king who think only of their own accounts - how is that any different in principle from those same ego players gathering a following and exploiting them to advance the ego player's (in this case, read leader) own account in T4?


    I have found that with an active hand leading a team, the inexperienced, the poorly motivated and even the lazy players will normally respond to encouragement and guidance, so running into a player who has to be booted is not an everyday occurrence. It happens, but more rarely than many think if the leadership is effective.,


    I believe you have played for a while, so you have seen what makes a good leader and what makes a good team. If you truly do not believe those things can be accomplished in TK, even as it is now, then I have to wonder why you would bother to play it.

  • Yes, but it is more an exception than a rule.


    It is more an expectation than a rule, imo. Not an exception. I've seen a lot of functional teams. Some more successful than others.


    How do you figure? I'm a governor -- I have no say in who my kingdom members are, none.


    When I said "you" I meant it as "you who are leading" not as in "you Wonka". Obviously you (wonka) had no control over it.



    Uhh... yeah. But if you're a king and you're getting 7k per day from a town just for keeping the player around, are you going to kick him just so other people can farm him? ........


    Oh no, not farm obviously... chief. You kick 'em and then you chief 'em. Oldest rule in the book of how to be a real beach hahaha....
    And yeah at the end of the day some of those kings will have to realize that tributes are a perk and a good one but this is far from being a rounds goal, else our whole discussion is without a doubt void.

    The post was edited 3 times, last by Ladiac: spelling ().

  • Pre-existing teams are currently the ONLY possible solution to the problem. That and random luck. But people who happen not to be on a pre-made team, which is a lot of people right now, probably the grand majority of any server, run into all kinds of problems part of which could be prevented by simply giving the alliance leaders, whoever they might be, all rights instead of the kings. As we've seen, there is no reasonable way of assuming that those who are kings are automatically good leaders. Most aren't, definitely not at the start of the server. So at least make it possible for an experienced governor to found an alliance, get all permissions, kick people from the kingdoms that the governor isn't even part of, etc. Even if he doesn't start out collecting tribute.


    @DH: "Those who do it right would dominate in short order, opposed to those who do it wrong"


    In an ideal world, definitely, yes. But in the real world (sorry, but I more or less agree with Wonka about you living on a pink cloud sometimes :D ), a lot of kings and alliances live through the server even though considering how they play they should have been destroyed ages ago. Especially if they simply become big enough. So even though they're "doing it wrong" and are giving disadvantages to their governors at all times, they might still more or less succeed even if they don't win the server. Leading to a potentially crappy server for all the kingdom's or alliance's members.

  • When this game finally comes out of beta, and possibly on some of the national servers open now (I cant say as I'm not on any of them) you will see larger groups of players who know and have played with each other before. I don't know about what I consider teams, since that concept as applied to the game suffered a great deal in T4, and I just don't have a clear picture of how many real teams there are left. It may be that to a large extent they will have to be reintroduced to the game. I played the closed beta as king to get an idea how difficult it would be for a team (in my case it was a group of chosen individuals) to start a server and then join up in a kingdom by choosing a spot and having everyone settle there. Colony did the same thing in this server on a larger scale with actual team mates, and in both cases it was proven not only possible but easily workable.


    I have agreed with you, Amm, that alliance leadership should have the option of granting leadership rights to dukes and even governors (Alliances, even kingdoms, need officers such as OC and DC, for example) - but I have to disagree with you about governors founding alliances, booting other governors or kings, etc. They have limited alliances to 3 kings already, and it is still Travian Kingdoms. I never approved of leadership by committee - always, it seems to me, there is too much talk and too little action (I have been part of such committees, have been a sub-leader, and have led) - so I have always felt there should be one leader with the final word on everything, a leader who knows how to delegate without losing control. It is an integral part of the game that kings run their kingdoms. The kings in the top spots in an alliance can surely discuss any membership issues and come to an agreement, and if they fail to agree then the Alliance leader can make a decision and require the others to comply. Allowing anyone other than those kings to found alliances, boot players, grant leadership rights, etc. waters the whole thing down way too much. I have to say if someone wants to lead, he or she should be a king, and if not a king then should have to serve as subordinates to kings.


    So many of the objections I read from you and others about things like this go back to things like "then you have one king who won't do it (whatever it is)" or "but they won't communicate" or "you can't get people to do that". Well, it is true that most people who play Travian today do not play as we once did. A leader must lead, and those who are led must be led. If they refuse to do something the leadership requires and will not be reasoned with, boot them. Many today do not know the game or how to play as a team. The only possible cure for that is to teach them, either by leading them or by example. I can assure you, there is no rose color on my glasses. What I say can be, can be.

  • I will be joining Colony whenever they start next server, so we'll see if they really are a team or not. I have high hopes anyway ^^


    Anway, I'm not sure what the difference would be between granting governors all leadership rights versus allowing them to found alliances/kick governors and kings. If a governor can't do those things he can't fully be a leader. He'd always be a handicapped leader dependent on others (which I believe is exactly what you wouldn't want). What if the governor wants to be the one with the final say on everything? Currently, he CAN'T require the others to comply. He can only ask politely, not connect consequences to not complying. He's a powerless, handicapped leader.


    I agree there should be one person that makes the final decisions. I just think it should be able to be a non-handicapped governor too. The role of kings and governors are still there and have different gameplay mechanics regardless of who actually holds leadership permissions/systematic abilities.

  • I will be joining Colony whenever they start next server, so we'll see if they really are a team or not. I have high hopes anyway ^^


    Anway, I'm not sure what the difference would be between granting governors all leadership rights versus allowing them to found alliances/kick governors and kings. If a governor can't do those things he can't fully be a leader. He'd always be a handicapped leader dependent on others (which I believe is exactly what you wouldn't want). What if the governor wants to be the one with the final say on everything? Currently, he CAN'T require the others to comply. He can only ask politely, not connect consequences to not complying. He's a powerless, handicapped leader.


    I agree there should be one person that makes the final decisions. I just think it should be able to be a non-handicapped governor too. The role of kings and governors are still there and have different gameplay mechanics regardless of who actually holds leadership permissions/systematic abilities.


    I can respect your opinion without agreeing with it totally. In my opinion, dukes and governors should only be allowed limited leadership rights and only in established alliances. Similar to what I have referred to as sub leader. Subordinate to the kings, with trustee rights in alliance leadership. I think if someone wants to found an alliance and control it he or she should have to play as king and lead a kingdom as well as the alliance. To me, it seems the only reasonable way to preserve the concept of Travian:Kingdoms.


    Good luck in Colony, by the way. From my contacts with them, I got the impression their leadership is more than capable and they understand the value of real teamwork. If I play a server which Colony is playing, I will most likely ask to join them myself unless some of my old team gets back together.

  • I did not play as a king this round but I was in control of my alliance. Like I have posted before making rules will not solve any of these problems. You are only handcuffing yourself. There was never any power struggle as we all know each other from many server and time. I asked for something to be done and it was done. If I was asked to do something, I did it. It is all part of putting together a team and this same insight can be used as you work with other alliances on the server. If you have any doubts about any team on whether they can be trusted, then they can't. It is your leaders who are responsible for that. Kingdom's will be tougher on what team you will play on but if you do not like your team in the first couple days, then make sure your settlers know where to go to get away from them. This game is about interaction with others, both bad and good. Don't blame problems that occur because of bad decisions on a lack of game rules.

  • Yes, like I said: It's possible in pre-formed teams although even there you could run into unsolvable issues if somebody decides not to play ball with leadership somewhere halfway and enough people agree with that person (likely a king). The problems arise mostly in non-preformed ones though.


    You can't, just to paint a picture, blame people for spawning somewhere in a non-preformed alliance, realise it's crap and then join somewhere else only to realise it's crap there too, after which they for instance try to create their own alliance only to realise that they have to play either as king or be useless. It's currently impossible to be a governor leader in a non-preformed alliance. Will never work. The only alternative at that point being to for the third time choose another king to be with, without having any idea if the third one will be any better...The problems are neverending regardless of the decisions the player makes and personally, I would never again join a server unless on a premade team. It has nothing to do with "rules" but with capabilities that kings have but governors don't. It's not wrong decisions, but game limits that are stopping governors to be effective leaders in non-preformed alliances right now.


    @DH: Ok, fair enough, and thanks!

  • We in Colony had our problems as well with one of our pre-arranged kings as he felt he did not have to follow the orders that were given to help solidify our position. We removed that king ourselves and all those other alliances who were directly affected can attest to this.


    As I have said it is not about a lack of rules, it is just a lack of leaders doing what is right and to hell what others think. If you work as a team then big things can happen from small packages. Team work begins at the top, whether they hold a title of king or governor. In a pre-formed team the title do not matter, "the team does" So if you are in an alliance and the leaders are not working together then chances are you will not have a good time there. However if the leaders work to solve problems based on how it affects the team, then those under you will follow you to hell and back and then go back to hell to make sure the job was done.


    Since Ammanurt has agreed to join us and is very vocal, then he can be the un-biased poster on whether we in the Colony are for real or not. I have no doubts on what he will say after he experiences our pre-launch festivities as well as our 1st month plan. It is not hard to run an alliance and keep it focused, just need the time and energy to do it. Look for leaders who have that and your experience either on Kingdom's or Legend's will be a great journey.

  • I believe you - but you apparently happened to have the power to do so. Not all governor-leaders are so lucky.


    In my case, I had a king in my alliance I desperately needed (I was trying to cement my and my king's leadership position in a hastily formed crappy alliance in order to fight samurai) since he had a lot of governors. One of his governors refused to listen to leadership in any way, so we wanted him out - also to test if his king was genuine and would listen to the leadership positions we had discussed with him we would assume and that he had said he would follow. Of course, the king wouldn't do it and I as governor-leader couldn't, and as far as I'm aware my king couldn't do it either since that gov was in another kingdom. Except by attacking him with cats, which would've lead to enemies in a supposedly friendly kingdom, and the ONLY kingdom anywhere near us from which we could have gotten help while we were already fighting samurai. In the end, that kingdom was destroyed first, then us, mostly by samurai. If we'd had the power to simply throw him out of the alliance and thereby removing him from his kingdom, we could afterwards have done more diplomacy with the king and the rest of his governors to get them more on board, showing them that not playing for the team wasn't an option. Now, not playing for the team was easily an option, or so it seemed to him.


    His style of playing still baffles me, both of us literally had no other way of surviving the server and yet he didn't ever really try to cooperate... So I take your point regarding the lack of leaders.

  • There is a thing most of the players don't like about travian - how time-consuming it is. It is one of the main reasons people leave the game. With that in mind I struggle to understand where the desire to put as many responsibilities as possible on one person is coming from.
    A king, by the way the game is structured, has certain tasks - mainly expand kingdom's territory. There is no need to force other tasks on a king (no reason to forbid it either of course)
    A duke is even more confusing. The original function of this position is to expand the territory and maybe partially shift a burden of treasuries guarding. Why is it connected in any way with leadership? I watched with horror constant rotation of dukes to gain territory. I know a lot of capable people who will never accept the position because of visibility issue. I can rant endlessly.


    Kings and dukes are game functions, there are absolutely no reason for the to be an equivalent of leadership roles.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by ELE: gramma ().