Merging Alliances and Kingdoms?

  • Yes i think this change will make huge difference on gameplay too, and i support it. With this method it would improve teamwork and make it easier to command an alliance for the king and his officials. Ofcourse this might cause some problems because most of the players will want to be king with this way but for the veterans or experienced ones this is a perfect idea.

  • Right now the number of Dukes any alliance can have caps out at 21..... 3 Kings and 21 Dukes.... The number of treasuries a kingdom can have caps out at 42 max. Is your suggestion to reduce this number? And if not then how do you plan to make sure that an alliance has the same number? The max cap for treasures earning VP is currently 56k (14 x 4,000). Is your plan to lower that for each kingdom?

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

  • Hey Ameno, nice to hear you're spreading the word. Concerning your questions, the details would really have to be determined by testing. So far the idea is that dukes might have 2 treasuries and kings maybe 2-3 as well. Depending on how big kingdoms become, we could also slightly increase the number of dukes per king (or maybe increase the influence area that's created per treasury).


    I think you are being too restrictive in limiting treasuries. The current 1 every 2nd village +1 for kings is fine, and perhaps 1 every third village +1 for dukes would avoid letting expansion get out of hand. A kingdom should have the capacity to hold at least twice the number of treasures held by the average kingdom at server's end so far. Positive thinking tells me we can expect an increase in the player base over time, and that this idea may well speed that increase - the more players in the game, the more treasures will be created by the game. The more the game turns toward teamwork and fighting, the more of those treasures will be stolen, and it would not be a good idea to get into a situation where the top 3 kingdoms have all their treasuries full. The number of treasuries will need to be open ended, so there is no maximum capacity so long as kings and dukes keep expanding.


    Of course, a TEST server may well show this - but please keep in mind that the player base will be limited on a test server, especially if it is a closed server. I do believe it best to run this on a closed server, for reasons I stated before.

  • This is another great idea, this version of the game is based for 80%-90% on the team play, and i find really absurd that there is no ways to play with your premade team.


    This is a good argument in favor of making it easier to move your spawn village. However, there needs to be a limit on how many govs/potential dukes can move into a kingdom at any one time, else our premade teams would immediately overpower all other kingdoms on the map. Having been in the position of king with a number of govs in early server, and also having been king with a couple govs while those around me had 4 or more to begin with - I can tell you, it makes a big difference.


    I have also been a gov in a kingdom with a barely active then inactive king, as well as a gov in a large kingdom with an active king. Having a bad king/no king, especially when there are friends on the server in whose kingdom you wish to be, does not encourage you to play on. However, it would be as bad for the game or worse if we could just bring a premade team of 40 into a single kingdom early server while all the kingdoms around us had 4-6 govs.

  • As far as I'm concerned premade teams should be the preferred way of playing this game. Only players who have not played the game much before should start without one and try to join one next server. Premade teams always outperform non-premade teams anyway, so why not let them join up as a team? Perhaps it works as an incentive to get more premade teams, which would only boost competitive/ play and therefore interactive/activity levels.

  • First of all, thank you all so much for the continuous feedback! :)


    I like the idea in general, but I would like to add that it would be a nice idea (IMO) that players can build up their kingdoms before enter the game world, so if you have friends that play the game they can add to your kingdom and start together.

    I agree that this would be a great feature. In a limited form of course since we don't want big premade teams dominating everything. Another thing we have to keep in mind with this and the idea of premade teams in general though is that we don't want to make life too easy for multiaccounters. That's for example also the reason why when you're using the "invite a friend" feature, your friend will be suggested to start in the same cardinal direction as you, but not automatically right next to you or in the same kingdom.


    One problem I see is that most of the governors in a kingdom probably don't want to or don't have time to be king - that's why they chose to be governors! If a king goes inactive, and nobody is in a good position to take their place, their govs may be stranded.


    Giving dukes more treasuries just moves the problem. Players still get screwed if their duke goes inactive. Kingdoms losing influence when players quit the game is really frustrating and demoralizing for the players who are left behind. (This happened to me 3 times on US4... I never had more than 2 villages inside my kingdom's influence where I could sell stolen goods properly... usually only 1, and even that was only because I kept building new villages just for that purpose, as my kings kept abdicating.) I don't see an easy fix for this.

    It will at least be less of a problem if fewer players depend on a single other player. Also, remember that we have the village relocation feature coming to help out in extreme cases. After all though, in a game that's based on teamwork and cooperation, it will always be a bad thing if someone just stops playing. Either the team can stand together and compensate (which I believe would be easier with the suggested changes), or if that's not possible and large parts of the team fall apart, the remaining players will have to find new allies. We can't force anyone to keep playing.


    Right now the number of Dukes any alliance can have caps out at 21..... 3 Kings and 21 Dukes.... The number of treasuries a kingdom can have caps out at 42 max. Is your suggestion to reduce this number? And if not then how do you plan to make sure that an alliance has the same number? The max cap for treasures earning VP is currently 56k (14 x 4,000). Is your plan to lower that for each kingdom?

    I think you mistyped there, 42 is the maximum number for an alliance, not a kingdom. Basically the idea is to only have kingdoms with one king and maybe a few more dukes than a single kingdom has right now. The number of treasuries would be a bit higher than it currently is for single kingdoms. So the territories of a team would be bigger than single kingdoms right now, but not nearly as big as a full alliance.


    I think you are being too restrictive in limiting treasuries. The current 1 every 2nd village +1 for kings is fine, and perhaps 1 every third village +1 for dukes would avoid letting expansion get out of hand. A kingdom should have the capacity to hold at least twice the number of treasures held by the average kingdom at server's end so far. Positive thinking tells me we can expect an increase in the player base over time, and that this idea may well speed that increase - the more players in the game, the more treasures will be created by the game. The more the game turns toward teamwork and fighting, the more of those treasures will be stolen, and it would not be a good idea to get into a situation where the top 3 kingdoms have all their treasuries full. The number of treasuries will need to be open ended, so there is no maximum capacity so long as kings and dukes keep expanding.


    Of course, a TEST server may well show this - but please keep in mind that the player base will be limited on a test server, especially if it is a closed server. I do believe it best to run this on a closed server, for reasons I stated before.

    You might be right that it should theoretically be open ended. However I would probably not want to have a single player spanning large parts of the kingdom on his own, but distribute influence between many players. Maybe the solution is to have a couple more treasuries per player but the potential to have many more treasury-owning players in the endgame. We'll see. We definitely like the idea of testing this and are thinking about a list of the minimum changes required for a reasonable prototype approximation.

  • Marius,


    That's a very good point. The answer that immediately jumps to mind is to not change number of treasuries, which affects area of influence, but to significantly boost the number of treasures per treasury. If you take it to say 10K or even 20K, they also become much juicier targets when close to max capacity. 1300 odd treasures from a maxed 4K is not really that tempting a target.

  • .... The number of treasuries a kingdom can have caps out at 42 max. Is your suggestion to reduce this number?


    Your numbers reflecting the cap for treasuries and dukes are correct but there is no cap on a kings active treasuries because a king can keep expanding and adding indefinitely.


    The kings only restriction is the time of the server and how fast he can spit out villages.


    I have advocated adding more storage capacity to duke (5K) and allow the king to have at least 1 active treasury that can hold 10K

  • 50 Calibre,


    Come on, that's not quite right. Servers only run for a finite time. There is only so much that you can raid, build up CP buildings, throw parties. What's the most number of villages we've seen in a server? 42 is probably on the low side for an elite, heavy raiding alliance. But you're not going to see much more than 70 treasuries in an alliance. While that's probably fine for now, from a future planning point of view, if we get back to the magical 10K+ players per server mark, that may not suffice, at least with current storage capacity.

  • Agreed VVV


    I honestly think that the best way to fix this is just raise the storage capacity for dukes to 5K and if it is where they are going allow the dukes to have 1 in every 4 villages a treasure village


    For kings they should be allowed in every village if they wish to. Since the king is the main influence factor then there really should be no restriction for him.


    Getting back to to what VVV said about the server life. If Travian wants to test out the 1 king per alliance thing then you must give them a shot of CP % bonus. Kings need to spread faster then the kings around them if you want to create bigger kingdoms. This was how it was on the alpha server so the system works. It just needed to be lowered a bit cause that was too fast even in my opinion. I will support a CP boost for Kings but not as strong as it was on alpha server.


    p.s. To anyone playing king....When settling your second village, it is more important for you to take a regular village in order to spread the kingdom borders then worrying about taking a 9 or 15c. My very first king on alpha server did not take a cropper till his 5th village and ended up with about 8 croppers when it was over. As a king you main focus needs to be on the expansion of your borders. Don't put all your expansion pressures on your dukes neither cause those could also be very weak points in your kingdom. So make those choices wisely and not just to get alliance rank.

  • What if we merged alliances and kingdoms so that there was only one diplomatic entity in the game, while giving the duke role more power and its own tributes?


    Personally, I think the combination of kingdoms, alliances and treaties all on top of each other creates quite a lot of complexity, that can be really hard to understand and follow, especially for new players and governors in general (...)


    For example by making dukes more important and differ more from governors by allowing them to collect their own tributes. They would then give a share to the king who would only collect from his dukes (making the tribute collection a lot less stressful). Basically we could position dukes closer to the king's role, so that they could even replace an abdicating king without too much trouble.


    About alliances... i don't think it is even remotely complicated. Area of Influence = Kingdom, 3 Kingdoms = Alliance, 3 (or 4?) Alliances = Confederation (between themselves).


    Not to mention kingdoms and alliances propositions are not the same. Comparing them is like comparing alliances and secret societies. This separation between kingdom and alliance is good because each king has more freedom to lead their govs/dukes, chosing where to settle etc. This is actually crucial when kings are well apart from one another.


    About dukes, noooooo please don't do that. the amount of people already asking for a duke spot is too high, even when being a duke is nothing but trouble (has to lvl treasury, people will go for your treasures... has to keep defense 24h/day... and no bonus besides crop for each treasure). This will just increase. The duke spot should not give any benefit, really. It should be given strategically to those who really meet the criteria (near an area that needs influence, active player, can defend treasures etc)


    edit: Oh and by the way you could totally change the name from dukes. It gives people the wrong idea of "importance": A duke must be important for alliance goals, not a vip-like importance. They are supposed to "take one for the team" as in levelling a treasury through the game and having a target painted on their backs. Same as kings, that need to settle away from each village to expand the borders, and thus are weaker (individually speaking) comparing to other players. But since dukes get no tribute, they could just be named after something else

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

  • Hi. Players want to know how many active treasuries dukes will be able to construct in this new system. We are running a parallel discussion on Ru forum, so I'll be your "voice from the other world". Ah, and how many dukes will one king possibly have?


    I would suggest duke spots to increase like culture points do (not linear, neither exponentially, but have a fixed amount. Most alliances "stagnate" between 16k and 32k. It could have a more complex - since it is stated in the kingdoms tab, no one needs to calculate lol - just like CPs). Also, after some server time, it would be allowed for dukes to activate a second treasury. So that the expansion. It could be a lot better, if the duke spots were DECREASED in total, from 7 to 5, maybe, and then after mid-server, to 10 (2 villages for every duke). The 7th duke spot comes just "too late", a kingdom with 32k treasures won't have much need for a duke spot, when everyone will have 5+ villages and the strategic map is already defined

  • Giving dukes more treasuries just moves the problem. Players still get screwed if their duke goes inactive. Kingdoms losing influence when players quit the game is really frustrating and demoralizing for the players who are left behind. (This happened to me 3 times on US4... I never had more than 2 villages inside my kingdom's influence where I could sell stolen goods properly... usually only 1, and even that was only because I kept building new villages just for that purpose, as my kings kept abdicating.) I don't see an easy fix for this.


    That's why they state clearly in the tutorial that Kings should be active players, not newbies. And anyone that quits often shouldn't be allowed to register as King again - Travian games could implement a BAN-system when someone registers as kings and then deletes his/her account. When they do this, people could report it, and then those will get a "ban" as in they should not be allowed to register as king again... on any server.

  • Anyone heard of the KISS principle? I think you should develop the basic game in the direction you are thinking, making is as simple as is possible, and go from there. That's what a test server is for. The more complicated you get it to begin with, the more adjustments you will have to make later.

  • For kings they should be allowed in every village if they wish to. Since the king is the main influence factor then there really should be no restriction for him.

    Currently kings are the main influence factor. However, one idea for the new approach was to distribute the influence more evenly between kings and dukes to make kingdoms much more stable. I don't think kings need to necessarily have a lot more treasuries and spread way faster than anyone else.

  • I really like the idea of a 1 King "Alliance", because every server I have seen has far too many Kings and most of the Kings, even those in bigger Alliances, are not suitable to be Kings - most of them take it because it makes them feel important and they want free res. On the last server we effectively had a one King Alliance anyway, because the others just kept dropping out. As a Duke I built the 100 WW and I realised that a Duke building WWs is at a disadvantage - being able to take more than one treasury would help a lot; I could have easily filled four anyway. With Kings dropping out, then Dukes having more treasuries makes it much easier for a Duke to step up; seems a very positive step to me.


    I definitely don't think there should be less Dukes. Our Kingdom reached max some weeks before the end, but by that point things are pretty stable, so I don't see any great need for more either (finding good Dukes isn't easy anyway). The only question is what the total number of treasuries should be per Kingdom. If a King has 6 and Dukes have 3 then that makes 36 total; if it's 4 and 2 that makes 24. How many Kingdoms would we expect to see 'duking' it out? That should really determine the maximum active treasuries we want in a Kingdom. I think it will boil down to a small number and less Kings will be involved than were as Alliances, so that 36 would be an OK number, rather than 24, which would be similar to what a Kingdom would have now. Perhaps this needs to be tested.

  • As long as we watch out that we don't repeat the earlier mistakes of 7 kings in one alliance which caused 200 people in 1 alliance, I think it's fine to have 1-king alliances. Does make me begin to wonder why we have kingdoms in the first place. Maybe in hindsight the entire kingdom/alliance separation does not add much, was a mistake and the original alliances (without kingdoms idea) was more straightforward after all?

  • Maybe in hindsight the entire kingdom/alliance separation does not add much, was a mistake and the original alliances (without kingdoms idea) was more straightforward after all?

    Yes, I don't think you need two diplomatic entities. Kingdoms are pretty much the defining feature of the game. So we should focus on them, make them more stable, make the structure and teamplay within a kingdom more meaningful and interesting etc. And that might be way easier without alliances getting "in the way". That's basically the core idea this thread is about.

  • Yes, I don't think you need two diplomatic entities. Kingdoms are pretty much the defining feature of the game. So we should focus on them, make them more stable, make the structure and teamplay within a kingdom more meaningful and interesting etc. And that might be way easier without alliances getting "in the way". That's basically the core idea this thread is about.


    I can relate to this too. I'm pretty convinced that if we had worked on this from the outset, our alliance on Com1 could have easily fit the whole alliance into 1 kingdom with the strategic placement of dukes. In my opinion, this would be a positive thing.