Victory Points for Conquests

  • I would like to see victory points awarded to alliances for conquests. The points to be awarded for conquest of active villas only. 10 points per conquest for chiefing from a higher ranked alliance, 5 points for chiefing from a lower ranked alliance. 0 points for inactives. I believe this would infuse the game with more competitiveness, and alleviate some of the mid - endgame boredom many of us are experiencing with all these NAPs.

  • Kewl (or should that be Kedd - I feel like I have to abbreviate it, it's a cultural thing),


    I get and appreciate where you're coming from here, but I've got a serious question for you, and then a bunch of observations... At the moment, you can get victory points already (providing you're not in the #1 ranked alliance), and that is by stealing treasures. This doesn't seem to happen, at least not to a large extent. I fail to see how adding a further mechanic for VP gain is going to change the mid game stuff. Players who want to go looking for action will, and those who don't won't. It sure as hell ain't going to change the behaviours of the players going for metas and a million NAPs.


    Now to the observations. Let's say this is implemented. How do you define active? The current definition appears to be that the account owner has logged in in the past 7 days. That's hardly active in my book, but I guess you're happy with that?


    Next - is this something that could be abused? I can just see a meta alliance swapping villas between wings in order to boost VP. Especially if you get points whether higher or lower.


    Let's say the point above is fixed one way or another. I've just looked at my current server, which is roughly at the midpoint. It's a fairly low pop server (529 active players). The top alliance has 362K victory points. 10 or 5 points aren't going to do anything here. You get 50 points per treasure from the #1 alliance, and 10 per treasure for higher ranked alliances, and players can have hundreds or even 1000s of treasures. 10 points per chiefed villa when players get to a max of maybe 25 villas on a regular server is just a little pointless.


    I just don't really see any point to this suggestion.


    Which brings me to the final observation, that I will concede contains a fair bit of personal opinion here. I've found over the years, from 3.0 onwards, that the players who chiefed villas have always asked for it to be more recognised in the game. Wanting some sort of chiefing count to be included with Top Attackers, Defenders and Heroes in the player stats pages, showing the stats on getter tools that they'd chiefed over 50% of their villas, talking about chiefing actives, when invariably it was from an account clearly on the downward trend, and not always from that player's actions etc...


    Very simply, there is already a significant reward for chiefing - it's getting a developed villa. From an overall game mechanic point of view, chiefing is a very minor, unimportant part of the game, with a couple of exceptions - chiefing an enemy WW when it was high level, pre TK, when you could chief a level 99 wonder (I've been told that on TK, to chief a wonder, it has to be 0'd first). Or chiefing a hammer villa that had a significant hammer (I'm talking in excess of 300K crop per hour on a slow server, with at least 10K cattas in unit count), especially if said hammer was en route to WW. Any other instance of chiefing is just insignificant in the great scheme of things. And this seems to really annoy heavy chiefers, they feel they're not being recognised for following what is the only true path to enlightement, hence all the suggestions for more rewards or recognition for chiefing.

  • Frankly, I'm just looking for anything that would get more war action going. I would define inactive, for this purpose, as any account which has gone grey. (My actual opinion of inactive is any account that isn't checked into daily..but for points purposes, I'm going with what the system terms inactive)
    I'm not really caring about so much about garnering more pints for the sake of winning...just anything to boost war activity.

  • vvv


    I have participated in quite a number of chiefings from active and involved opposing players. Chiefing a hammer village while the hammer is marching is a very significant action, as it saves whatever village or WW the hammer is marching on. If the hammer is coming from a capital, of course, it has to be zeroed to kill the hammer. Either way, your team has accomplished something major. Doing such things requires coordination and close teamwork - as it is even more difficult in TK than in TL. Proper faking is required, timing must be worked out well and several players (at least) have to work together and get it right for something like this to succeed. (On the TEST/Fis, I did manage to zero hammer village by myself while the hammer was marching on my king's capital - but the server had run at least twice as long as normal, and I had an overabundance of troops. I sent 20 fake waves at 3 other targets to land at the same time - and luck played a major role in my success. There is little room for luck in Travian - by rights, I should have failed.) In the "good old days" chiefing (or zeroing a hammer) was a team effort.


    I see your point about chiefing inactive or otherwise insignificant villages. The reward is in the village. However, if there were some way to reward a team for working together - whether on offense or defense - it would go a long way toward bringing the missing team spirit back to the game. Perhaps some method of registering an operation with the game in advance, giving the target and listing the participants - a minimum number of participants, giving points according to the type of target (more points for a capital hammer, a bit less for a non cap hammer, none for a supply village). The result of the op would determine whether you win or lose points. This would mean a lot of work for the devs, and some method of declaring village type in the main building would have to be added so the game would be able to discriminate. I don't know how practicable this would be, but it is an idea.


    I have withheld my support for the idea of awarding points for killing troops, for attacking. Too many inactives, too many small accounts, on any server to make such a system mean much in the final analysis. Like weekly attack stats, it would be misleading. And it would encourage attacking small accounts, as well as attacking alone. Also, gaining attack points means losing troops as well and I can't wrap my head around the idea of rewarding someone for losing troops. The game needs some way in which teams are rewarded for acting as teams.

  • Daniel,


    I'm very much on board with you here. I agree that co-ordinated chiefing of a hammer villa is a different matter altogether. But let's not pretend that well over 90% of chiefings that occur on any given server are anything other than the insignificant "one more feeder chiefed from a semi active account" type...


    And yes, I'd be a fan of anything that rewards teamwork. But I personally don't have a problem with the VP system yet. From the server I'm on, the accumulation of VP, and the protection of them, seem far better achieved via teamwork than by solo work. So far, I've seen large numbers of uncoordinated solo splats at treasury villas. In many cases, one or two more hammers would have broken through and cleared a significant number of treasures. It appears to me that teamwork doesn't occur because no-one's really gone to the trouble to show just how effective it is.


    And while I see where your idea of registering operations comes from, it reeks to me very much of the style of timed war that many mobile games (CoC and co) have as their main mechanic, mostly because their player base is casual. It seems a little odd to hear you of all people asking for a casual game mechanic... I personally like the fact that Travian allows a player to go off and wage war on their own, and be rewarded for it, as well as being able to participate in an organised effort, at the time of choosing of the players. Generally, organised efforts will return greater rewards (typically you'll steal more treasures and more VP acting as part of a team than not), which to me is the way it should be.

  • And while I see where your idea of registering operations comes from, it reeks to me very much of the style of timed war that many mobile games (CoC and co) have as their main mechanic, mostly because their player base is casual. It seems a little odd to hear you of all people asking for a casual game mechanic... I personally like the fact that Travian allows a player to go off and wage war on their own, and be rewarded for it, as well as being able to participate in an organised effort, at the time of choosing of the players. Generally, organised efforts will return greater rewards (typically you'll steal more treasures and more VP acting as part of a team than not), which to me is the way it should be.


    Maybe I failed to explain it well enough. I was trying to say register the op with the game, kept secret from all but those who are to participate, but the players participating would still have to do all the work themselves. Seeing an op take shape, after enlisting those who are to join in, then seeing all of them follow through by launching at the exact times necessary for the entire group to land as close as possible to the exact second they are supposed to land is (or once was) a large and a very rewarding part of the game. That is the essence of teamwork, which is what once made the game great, in my opinion. Something I would never advocate against.


    It was just a thought, intended more to provoke other thoughts than to be taken seriously, lol.

  • Another personal opinion. I believe conquering villages to be too complicated to ever find its way into gaining VP or being reflected in a players in game stats. The great majority of villages conquered are conquered from Natars, from inactives, from players who are barely active and have small accounts, They are, in the main, feeder villages and are conquered without much in the way of a fight. Many are immediately reconquered. Villages changing hands in such a way should not be rewarded in any way other than gaining possession of a somewhat developed village.
    I don't know whether it would be possible to have the game distinguish between feeder villages and hammer villages, but if it is, it is only the hammer villages which should pay in VP or stats.


    Capitals cannot be conquered, so there is perhaps some room for rewarding one player and one team for destroying a capital. However, here again you have the facts that small accounts with few troops, barely active accounts and inactive accounts would be the most likely targets. Award VP for destroying a capital if the account is larger than yours, maybe. I am following the discussion, but in my opinion it would not be possible to implement.


    There is my slightly inebriated contribution as a TK player.

  • Guys, I think we're not focussing on the most important aspects here. The objective in fighting is to eventually defeat your opponents. VP should be a measure of progress made in that respect. Conquering enemies used to be and should again be a legit way of making progress, just like catapulting enemy players. Attacking players efficiently can also be a way of making (perhaps less definite) progress, but that's the keyword - efficiently. If you for instance, as a Gaul player, take out 20k enemy troops in a week with a 4k theutates hammer you keep attacking with and never lose much of, that's something that should definitely count as progress. If you crash your hammer every week and take out only 1k troops with a 20k hammer, or you take out 10k defense with 10k offense, that isn't progress and shouldn't gain you VP. Obviously inactive accounts and natars do not count as enemies any more than robbers or oasis animals do. Nor does fighting 'friendly' alliances count (I can see the obvious problems with that statement).


    The fact that conquering enemies does not currently happen only means that the balance is off in TK or - see feedback thread - that the game has problems. Conquering in older versions was commonplace, especially to make progress in defeating enemies. It was most definitely not the case that only inactive villages got conquered. I also don't see why taking feeder villages from an opponent wouldn't be worth it. After all, you don't just gain a village, they lose one which brings you closer to indefinitely killing them off. And you're not limited to conquering just the one... I've seen entire accounts conquered in alliances ops, even all at once.


    If we agree on all of the above, we can figure out the how. Perhaps the calculation could be different for taking enemy population down when compared to efficiently (that is, cost-effective, that is, your action cost you less resources than your opponents and the bigger the difference, the bigger the VP gain) taking out troops. Perhaps the problems with "fighting friendly alliances" aren't too big when it's more efficient in terms of VP gain to attack actual opponents and not less active friendlies. Perhaps the friendlies don't like getting attacked either. Also, don't forget that gaining VP this way is automatically "for the team" as you gain VP for 'the team' and not for 1 account. This should definitely promote teamwork, especially if you can lose VP for your alliance too.

  • I agree that it would be nice to see a more sophisticated way to gain victory points. How about this:


    Under alliance diplomacy, you have an option to declare war on another alliance.
    How about if you get victory points for reducing the population of an alliance with whom you are formally at war?


    I think it makes sense to get victory points based on your kill/loss ratio in combat also. Maybe the game could keep a running tally of an alliance's kill/loss ratio, and use that ratio to influence the rate at which their treasures generate victory points. So, for instance: if you are doing well and killing more troops compared to what you are losing, then your treasures generate more than 1 victory point per day. If your alliance has more losses than kills, the treasures generate less than 1 victory point per day.


    Maybe the building demolition thing can play into this as well... the alliance's ratio of conqerings / being conquered could influence the rate at which victory points generate as well.


    And for catapulting buildings: the ratio of population destroyed in an enemy alliance compared to the buildings our own alliance loses. Each of these three things could either enhance or diminish the rate at which treasures generate victory points for an alliance.


    What do you think?