End Game on COM2

  • 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 strangle 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.


    Leadership is more time consuming than even you imagine, if done effectively. It is also very often a thankless task, and I cannot for the life of me see how anyone could see it as a desirable position to put oneself in. Way back, I was pretty much drafted into leadership and try as I might, I have seldom been allowed to play out a server without finding myself stuck with a leadership position again. Years ago I had plenty of time to devote to Travian, but that is no longer true. I was a fairly decent leader in any leadership position I held. I think the most interesting one was leading an academy wing, and that one kept me doing sitter checks, giving one on one advice, and spending a great deal more time in other accounts than I spent in my own.


    But an alliance, and now a kingdom, needs more than one officer. A leader needs others he or she can trust enough to delegate responsibilities to, such as Offense Coordinator or Defense Coordinator. No one person can do it all, but it works best when one person has the final word. I know the descriptions given when registering of the roles of king and governor do not say a king must be a leader, and we have asked that the roles be better defined. However, a king must lead the dukes and governors in his or her kingdom - else, how could it be a kingdom? With three kings per alliance in other servers, it becomes even more important for governors (or dukes) to fill the slots of any other needed officers. Of the three kings, one must take responsibility for leading the alliance (and if there is a meta involved, one king from one of the wings must lead the meta). That is, if it is all to work. Otherwise you just have a bunch of players who happily (or unhappily, if they are someone's target) sim along never really knowing what is going on around them.


    Someone once said that team building is an art. I won't go that far, but I will say that a team is not a team if it is not led. Someone at each stage must do the job.

    Travian has always required a lot of time of those who play it. It is just the nature of the game. You are correct in that a lot of people delete because it takes more time than they are able to invest in it. Leadership in Travian requires a great deal more time.

  • Travian has 3 levels structure - individual players, alliances and confederacy. Last one has no (in-game) meaning at all, a union created on skype and publicly announced is pretty much equal to official in-game confederacy, the only advantage is ability to set trade routes to WW and artifacts villages.


    TK introduced another level - kingdoms - and than another - dukes - and made confederacy even more artificial. Even alliances are kinda pointless (just triple number of dukes and make one king run them all).


    If it were up to me (I suggested it before and was ridiculed for my naivety) I would eliminate confederacy level completely and make alliance ties more, e.i. only alliance members can rein each other or send resources to each other, regardless WW village or not. That will reduce to some extent zerging, complicate multi-accounting and even can be tuned to make life hard for spies. But it's not my call :)


    - - - Updated - - -


    Lol, Daniel, I know how consuming leadership is, first hand. Hopefully, I know how time consuming effective leadership is.
    It's very rare to see effective meta leader who does it all. Usually the account is run mostly or at least with great help of duals and sitters. My point is king's account is already more time consuming than governor's account and dukes also have additional task compare to governors. I see no reason to tie those tasks with leadership positions.

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

  • Of course, in a premade alliance you won't have the visibility problem since I assume everybody will be in a 'secret' society with full vision. It's rediciculous that it's necessary, instead of just having permissions be editable, but yeah.

  • Yeah Ele, Ammanurt only plays as part of small "elite" groups...
    ... that usually are the first in the server to fall apart with the first sign of battle. I've seen it happening all the time in past servers.
    If there is such a record, he definitely holds it. :D


    :hugs:
    Omeleta.

  • On a more serious note. As said before we in the "K1ngs" camp of United were aware of the danger of Heartagram switching. Treachery is always around the corner but I think with the 3 king limit the inner circle in an alliance will shrink by nature anyway, and the com2 scenario will be less likely to reaccure. There are so many ways to get the hollow win - agreed there might be a past ww50 delay or something. But as for my own learning curve in TK, I think one of the most important changes is you need to take charge from the start.


    The 3 king max might also be helpful in the VP dilemma - we couldn't kick a king without losing 4M VP... having 3 kings only will force alliances into a more careful recruitment approach.

  • That's why I said "for me". It also depends on your notion of competetiveness. I don't plan on joining 100+ account alliances, but I do intend to be competetive :D


    Does not matter. 20 would be enough.
    My point is duke position has other things attached to it that are not necessarily good to have for lets say OC.

  • Meh, it was more of a wink than it was a jab.


    On your serious note.
    Travian com7 T3.6 2010. Rangers, under the leadership of Quietmonk steal a victory by switching WWs to their alliance at the last minute. I wasnt playing that server but it was a proper poopstorm in the travian forum. I dont think there was actually anyone, from any other embassy that didnt follow the story. Leaders of the alliances involved even gave interviews to some travian blogger, the ones that had stolen the win appearing as arrogant as you can possibly imagine. None (that was not directly involved) now remembers the name of the WW holder, however that was factually the last travian server leaders of that alliance were welcomed (and thus managed) to play.


    I am sure there have been similar stories in other servers, that havent caught my attention.
    Not to burst anyone's bubble, but WW switch is not a TK pathogen and I doubt a couple of rule restrictions will be able to offer the easy fix some of you are hoping for. Just be careful who you allow holding your WWs.

  • I think the main problem around the Heartagram switch was that once the xTools leaders knew that it guarenteed them victory, they just didn't bother organising WW ops. Players were left to organise sending WWKs on their own because the leaders did not care/need to send WWKs. There was a lot of bitching in the chats about this and how many WWs we had that we could not defend - resulting in them all being lower than United's WWs - making us think we had lost it. Throughout this, the xTools leaders just arrogantly told us that they had it under control when we could just see WWs getting all their def wiped and no WWK runs organised.


    This was a really bad way to organise a race because not only did it totally **** over United, but it was already really demoralising for the xTools players who were logging in each day to try and hold the WWs togather as well as the many attacks on our borders...yes, all is fair in love and war, but I think I will go back to the country servers where people actually think about the following server (and whether you will want to play with them again) rather than just crapping all over you for this win.

  • Meh, it was more of a wink than it was a jab.


    On your serious note.
    Travian com7 T3.6 2010. Rangers, under the leadership of Quietmonk steal a victory by switching WWs to their alliance at the last minute. I wasnt playing that server but it was a proper poopstorm in the travian forum. I dont think there was actually anyone, from any other embassy that didnt follow the story. Leaders of the alliances involved even gave interviews to some travian blogger, the ones that had stolen the win appearing as arrogant as you can possibly imagine. None (that was not directly involved) now remembers the name of the WW holder, however that was factually the last travian server leaders of that alliance were welcomed (and thus managed) to play.


    I am sure there have been similar stories in other servers, that havent caught my attention.
    Not to burst anyone's bubble, but WW switch is not a TK pathogen and I doubt a couple of rule restrictions will be able to offer the easy fix some of you are hoping for. Just be careful who you allow holding your WWs.


    I cannot find the archived embassy forum for com. Anyone know where to find it?


    Never mind. https://travianchampions.wordpress.com/category/travian/ So apparently it was not at all the same thing. Everyone can read that roundtable discussion and judge for yourself.

  • The archived embassies were never visible to forum users as far as I know. You having been a moderator is maybe why you remember having access to them.

  • Yeah Ele, Ammanurt only plays as part of small "elite" groups...
    ... that usually are the first in the server to fall apart with the first sign of battle. I've seen it happening all the time in past servers.
    If there is such a record, he definitely holds it. :D


    :hugs:
    Omeleta.


    Hi Om! :D


    Heh, jab or not, on .com this is actually more or less true. Sometimes it makes me cry a little. The groups I've been a part of here were just small, not really elite, lol...I don't even remember the names of the alliances I was part of, I guess that says enough.


    Does not matter. 20 would be enough.
    My point is duke position has other things attached to it that are not necessarily good to have for lets say OC.


    But we were talking about secret society, not duke position though? Anyway, we don't have to agree obviously. It's just that in the best small alliances I've been a part of we simply NEVER had spies, for years on end. If you get with a premade alliance like that (and on this server we wouldn't allow any newly spawned governor in, it's not like we'd be going for the endgame win anyway), why not share any and all information?

  • I cannot find the archived embassy forum for com. Anyone know where to find it?


    Never mind. https://travianchampions.wordpress.com/category/travian/ So apparently it was not at all the same thing. Everyone can read that roundtable discussion and judge for yourself.


    Any reason why you have your panties in a bunch again? I dont see me claiming the circumstances being the same. How could they?
    Circumstances cant be the same between 2 different servers and dont need to be the same, for my original post to be valid.
    The only thing that is actually a mistake was the no of the server, apparently it was com9, not 7.



    ps Hey Amm :)


  • But we were talking about secret society, not duke position though? Anyway, we don't have to agree obviously. It's just that in the best small alliances I've been a part of we simply NEVER had spies, for years on end. If you get with a premade alliance like that (and on this server we wouldn't allow any newly spawned governor in, it's not like we'd be going for the endgame win anyway), why not share any and all information?

    You brought secret society into discussion about leadership roles. My original point was that many players (myself likely included) will be hesitant to accept duke's position because of visibility issue.

  • Any reason why you have your panties in a bunch again? I dont see me claiming the circumstances being the same. How could they?
    Circumstances cant be the same between 2 different servers and dont need to be the same, for my original post to be valid.
    The only thing that is actually a mistake was the no of the server, apparently it was com9, not 7.



    ps Hey Amm :)


    lol, try as I might I cannot see where anyone could interpret my post as having my "panties in a bunch".


    Several people have told me they knew of servers in which the same thing had happened. IN order for it to be the same thing, the circumstances would have to be very much the same. In a situation where an active confed existed between the two wings and it was planned and expected, apparently among the leadership of all involved at least - and in which it was acknowledged that the winners of the server were "all who supported and defended the WW" (A paraphrase), well, I cannot see that as the same thing having happened.


    I will add that I have never said it had never happened before, only that I had never seen it happen and that a loophole in the game which allows it to happen should not exist. Even in the situation you cited, players seem to have gotten quite upset about it.