Kingdoms need new concept. World Domination mode?

  • Hello! :D


    First of all I want to say that I love the game but I just feel that it need some improvements and balance, especially the endgame.
    I will be focusing in this thread on how we should make endgame more fun and exiting also I will write about a suggestion for a new game mode.


    How the game is now:



    • Usually there will be 2-3 alliances fighting over the WW and one of them will win by a very big margin, Usually you also know who would win before endgame starts.
    • Defensive troops are much better then offensive, especially if you are the stronger alliance and are ahead in WW levels. You do not need to attack anyone to be able to win.
    • You do not have to care about how much VP you have until endgame. Stealing treasuries from #1 to get as high as them is very easy at EG.
    • If you are #1 you just have to build WW to 100 first and have much defense to win. (Also called Turtle tactic.)
    • Not much resources is needed to build the WW.


    Those dots above can make the EG very boring.
    I got some ideas with things that would make it all funnier, anyone else got any ideas?


    Changes I'd like to see as it is now:



    • More balance in combat system, especially for EG. Hammers die easy and takes long time to build. Defense you can build from every villages of you alliance. My thoughts is to make offensive troops cost more per attack power but higher the troops attack power. Means; More attack power a day is possible to be build from one single village but will cost more resources, this will make it easier to rebuild a hammer if lost. Now it take alot of time even with GB and GS.
    • Lower or change the VP gain to steal treasuries from #1 rank alliance. As it is now it's no tactic about kings build up good and collect VP early and mid game.
    • Add something more to fight about, like a artifact hold in a village making storage +50% for the alliances WW. Or make them build the WW 20% faster. Or even make the whole alliance holding it get 20% faster building time in all villages. This will make players fight for common goal more then just the WW.
    • Make the WW cost more resources, the last 10 levels can cost 50%+ more.



    World Domination Mode


    A new game mode at some servers where we just take away the VP and the WW from the game. This server is about that as one alliance have 85% of the population inside their kingdoms to win.
    Keep the treasuries in the game and make them fill the function to be able to have more dukes.


    Max kings in a alliance to 5
    Max duke slot to 12
    When EG start, same amount of days when WW usually come then make it not possible to register or restart anymore.
    But add function to still be able to sitter players if you get to 0.


    This would be a gamemode where it's way more offensive and a focus to 0 high value players from your enemies and will be more fight over treasuries.
    A mode where you need to play better as a team and you will be able to have alot more tactics.


    What do you think about this game mode?


    Dear // Janne

    The post was edited 6 times, last by janne ().


  • Having a maximum of 5 kings per alliance would be like the 7 king per alliance system, would be interesting to see how it fits in with your other proposed ideas. The duke slot to 12 is not a bad one either.


    Your system of not being able to register or restart anymore after WW activation would make players disillusioned by the endgame in their server not able to delete. Not being able to register is fine, but the restart seems a bit harsh.


    janne wrote:

    But add function to still be able to sitter players if you get to 0.


    Now this is one point I don't like. What if you have some urgent commitments and have to go out for a couple of hours? So, sittering should still continue like how it is now.


    Those are my views on the world domination mode. And a few games do have this territory control endgame.

    BlackHeart- Anything else?

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

  • "Usually there will be 2-3 alliances fighting over the WW and one of them will win by a very big margin, Usually you also know who would win before endgame starts."


    Not true, on last server you have not idea who would won. Many alliances in first and second month renamed in another alliance. At the first day of ww on servers, you can't guess who will win. We had that situation on all last kingdom com servers. It's not so clear and easy :)

    "Defensive troops are much better then offensive, especially if you are the stronger alliance and are ahead in WW levels. You do not need to attack anyone to be able to win."


    Not true, you can have even 2 million deff in ww, but see what happens with only one hammer like this which you can build very fast, means you need hammers, alot of hammers, specially if some ally has more wws: (com3) http://prntscr.com/8y22hx (there was +2mil deff in village)


    "You do not have to care about how much VP you have until endgame. Stealing treasuries from #1 to get as high as them is very easy at EG."
    Not true, from experience from last all servers :) You have to care.


    "If you are #1 you just have to build WW to 100 first and have much defense to win. (Also called Turtle tactic.)"
    See quote number 2, and at the end, people still can robber some vp from you, or merge 2-3wws into one against one "turtle ww":)


    "Not much resources is needed to build the WW."
    True, but holding one million of army there is not easy, believe me :)
    So you described ww and infact everything as EASY thing, easy to win, no, believe me, it's not easy to win :) alot of time and hours you need to invest to MAYBE win :)


    The only one thing you can do: Do not open so much servers, you do remember before newer times on t4 why there was 15k players on each server. Because there was not 10 open servers on every domena. There was 1-2 open and one speed on each. So that's the only way :)



    And btw, what problem do you have with server if you are not playing on him? and if you are playing on that server ofcourse you can have fun, alot of fun, and yes, people who are playing on for example com5 have fun :) doesnt matter if there is 3000 players or 800

    The post was edited 11 times, last by Matej221 ().

  • As it is now building a WW does cost a lot of resources(1 million+ of each for level 100)


    This means that you have to build a meta in order to gather that much resources. If you wish to bring more alliances into play then reduce the cost of the WW build by 50-60% and this will enable more alliance to take that leap and build one of their own instead of teaming up in a giant meta which everyone seems to be growing tired of.


    Adding more king or duke slots is only adding to the whole meta attitude and then before you know it everyone will only want to be a king or a duke


    Don't bring artifacts back. Artifacts and medals are the reason we have so many individual players and not team players.




    There is another game that resembles Travian that employs world domination and I played it. I quit the server on the 4th year of it.s life. It went on for another 15 months after my deletion. That is 4 years on 1 server and spending money to keep up with my 4000+ villages. With that many villages you have to have the premium package or you cannot even manage an account that size. Not sure if they still run like that but will never play another game that is based on domination of the server. On average I think servers were running 2.5 years.


  • 1m of each is not much resources. Can easily sent from three medium sized kings and be able to que straight ahead. I would like it to be a challenge to have resource ready for next WW level after building one,my wish is to make it harder to build the WW 24/7.
    My thought was not to only have servers with domination mode, but have servers with both. Then you can choose what you wanna play or why not play both :).
    What you are talking about with another game is irrelevant since Travian is not that game. A speed server with this mode would not even take as long as a normal server to play. Making players not be able to restart or register at EG would make it not take that long.


    "Adding more king or duke slots is only adding to the whole meta attitude and then before you know it everyone will only want to be a king or a duke"


    It's for the other mode World Domination I talked about.


    I was talking about artifacts that made a whole alliance better not those that are for one village. This will not make player more individual but make them play as a team.



    Fun to see players that do not agree with me, Maybe I just have had a eye to predict what alliances would cooperate and see the game very much simpler then most players.


    Defending 3 WWs and have them rank #2 #3 #4 to be able to get more VP then #1 is alot harder and you also need to send resources to all. Kinda not a winning tactic, easy to nuke down those.


    Even if one hammer can damage a WW still when that hammer is out it will take you way more time to rebuild the hammer then the time to build the WW up again. Only time it would be worth it is if your enemies do not have any hammers them self or if you able to take out all defense at enemy WW with many hammers.


    FYI.
    To the people who want to know who I am. I have played since closed beta under different names and last server I played as Oatmeal at kx3-com.

    The post was edited 3 times, last by janne ().

  • 1m of each is not much resources. Can easily sent from three medium sized kings and be able to que straight ahead. I would like it to be a challenge to have resource ready for next WW level after building one,my wish is to make it harder to build the WW 24/7.


    In this reply you completely remove all the rest of the team from the concept of even sending. You are basing the ending being done by only 3 kings.
    This is why I suggested to make it easier/cheaper to build one and then maybe teams would not be so eager to join a meta as any team would then have a shot at winning. The whole concept of Kingdom's was to try and put some team work back in the game. I do agree though that the ending is a tough one to figure our a new concept.




    My thought was not to only have servers with domination mode, but have servers with both. Then you can choose what you wanna play or why not play both :).
    What you are talking about with another game is irrelevant since Travian is not that game. A speed server with this mode would not even take as long as a normal server to play. Making players not be able to restart or register at EG would make it not take that long. .


    That other game also did not envision it's servers to run almost 5 years as it was also set to win after 1 alliance controlled 85% of the server map. That may seem easy to do but if you have a large amount of people on the server and willing to stick it out, a Travian server could last just as long. Even a speed server has no guarantee's that 1 alliance could take and hold 85% of the map. Sometimes it is easy but others times you end up with the scenario I described.




    Fun to see players that do not agree with me, Maybe I just have had a eye to predict what alliances would cooperate and see the game very much simpler then most players.


    Claiming to have a better handle on how things should be does not mean it is true. Just that statement alone hints at you calling the rest of us idiots.


    Many of us have been playing this version even longer then you and the discussion about how it should be played or how to change endgame has been going on since July of 2014.

  • Just a suggestion for End Game... I've played since travian 2.5 and seen a lot of different playing styles. One of the best Ally I was in said in skype "Winning the WW race is a war of attrition", meaning whatever ally has the least # of major players quit usually wins. My suggestion would be....


    1st, a set timer of 30 days for final phase of server to Crown the King.
    2nd, take out WW's and instead have the winner be the Ally with the most treasures.
    3rd, Increase ally size to 5 kingdoms and have dukes to only 5 per kingdom. This in my opinion would create more attacks on players / more def calls in kingdoms and ally's and an overall sense of action for the final 30 days.
    Lastly, I would like to see a siege of dukes ability.... meaning "2 dukes" from the same kingdom may join in a siege against another king (Only against another king).


    To make it fair with the 30 day timeline.... you could also place a certain mark for treasures.... so if you reach xxxxx amount, then you win to prevent everyone from waiting until the final hour.

    This would definitely even the playing field when trying to attack super Metas that IMO turn the game into sim city. Please let me know what you guys and ladies think.



  • I would like to add to this as it has some good ideas.


    -If possible make it so that treasures cannot be stolen nor victory points generated till end game starts. Would adjust the timer for this to 60 days though. this means there would be plenty of action beginning at the time endgame began.

  • In this reply you completely remove all the rest of the team from the concept of even sending. You are basing the ending being done by only 3 kings.
    This is why I suggested to make it easier/cheaper to build one and then maybe teams would not be so eager to join a meta as any team would then have a shot at winning. The whole concept of Kingdom's was to try and put some team work back in the game. I do agree though that the ending is a tough one to figure our a new concept.


    What I ment with saying 3 kings can do it easy. 3 players with high resources income can do it easy. By making it cost more resources more people has to help to make it possible. In the alliances I have been in everybody has helped very good, just saying that based on my calculations the thing that is important now is just to have everyone helping with crop to the WW as in resources.




    That other game also did not envision it's servers to run almost 5 years as it was also set to win after 1 alliance controlled 85% of the server map. That may seem easy to do but if you have a large amount of people on the server and willing to stick it out, a Travian server could last just as long. Even a speed server has no guarantee's that 1 alliance could take and hold 85% of the map. Sometimes it is easy but others times you end up with the scenario I described.


    A WW race can also be 5 years, but now it is that they have max days until server ends. what say this mode couldn't have the same limit?




    Claiming to have a better handle on how things should be does not mean it is true. Just that statement alone hints at you calling the rest of us idiots.


    Many of us have been playing this version even longer then you and the discussion about how it should be played or how to change endgame has been going on since July of 2014.


    Not what I was trying to say, many people in travian is smart. Else I think they would not choose to play this kind of a game. Was just trying to say maybe the different is cus we have been thinking differently and I have just made good predictions while you maybe had more depth inside how you think the servers would go on.


    - - - Updated - - -



    take out WW's and instead have the winner be the Ally with the most treasures.
    .


    I agree to this. Instead of VP the alliance with most treasures win would make it more interesting :)

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

  • "Even if one hammer can damage a WW still when that hammer is out it will take you way more time to rebuild the hammer then the time to build the WW up again"


    What if we would be able to "change home town" for our off also?
    We are able to send def to eat crops and be used as defense, why cant we send off troops to be used by whoever for making a real huge hammer :)

  • "Even if one hammer can damage a WW still when that hammer is out it will take you way more time to rebuild the hammer then the time to build the WW up again"


    What if we would be able to "change home town" for our off also?
    We are able to send def to eat crops and be used as defense, why cant we send off troops to be used by whoever for making a real huge hammer :)


    What I want to suggest is just a small boost in attack stats, easiest way would be to boost smithy levels in attack power. Because early game it is balanced.
    If we would make the change you are talking about we wouldn't need great barracks and great stables.

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

  • Ok, so I'll re-emphasize my earlier post. comx has about 100 active players with 31% WW in lead.
    I'm sure most even have auto resources to WW and log in once or twice a day just to chat basically.
    The WW ending is really killing the game as most have stopped playing and find the whole build up a waste of time.
    Fix the end game so no WW.... That means no super Defense in 1 place.... That means you don't need massive hammers to do damage. That means you have many more players who stay active because they can contribute.
    The biggest pro of the WW end game currently is the fixed ending timeline.... So keep that and announce a race for the crown.... Most treasures at end of race wins.... 30-60 days would be a blast. Speed server timeframe btw.

  • Agreed, replace WW's with Team Artifacts instead that provide bonuses to the team.
    and VP should be completely tied to treasures meaning if you rob 10% of an alliances treasures, 10% of their VP transfers to YOU!