Merging Alliances and Kingdoms?

  • 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 am glad you are getting back to the KINGDOM being the focal point and with the 1 king concept. This will make the king position one that should not be take for granted and to just collect free resources from your governors. As 1 king you will be very busy running your kingdom. I also believe that there should be some form of revolt concept put into this too so that kings can also be overthrown or somehow lose their title if that is something the governors want to do in the event of a slacker king. This will make the position even more difficult but also give the title a round of respect as you will have to be a clever & self motivated person to play this position. Activity levels would have to be thru the roof but with some of the players I have run across it should work out okay.




    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.


    You are correct Paul. If com1 was a 1 king server then we would have made our settlement phase way different then what is was and focused on settling so that one king would be the borders.. Since it is still 3 kings we made our move as that and did it early in the server as we had planned prior to the server start.


    If the 1 king concept is done then we may need the ability to have more dukes (I would still cap this at about 10 if not just leave it at 7). Kings for sure would have to settle more villages and would not be able to cluster as the governors or dukes. Some kings on servers are not doing that at all even when taught and then come back asking why their kingdoms will not grow. I try to teach ingame to any alliance I am in on test and even enemies and you would be surprised how many times I am told my help is not needed because they have been playing Travian for 100 years but first time Kingdom players. I have seen a lot of kings kingdom shrink to nothing and then they end up deleting or pissed off cause they have no governors. It takes a lot to be a king and will be even more under a 1 king version. When a server starts kings need to recognize if they have had a good spawn drop or a bad one. Then have the confidence and not an ego to determine if staying a king is best or dropping to a governor or joining elsewhere as a duke.

  • One alternative would be to make the number of dukes unlimited, but just have it continue to scale with the number of treasures that are currently earning victory points in the kingdom.


    A second, similar option would be to make the number of dukes limited, but allow dukes to build more treasuries depending purely on how many treasuries there are in the kingdom.


    I.E. you still have 1 king and 7 dukes, but once a duke has a level 20 treasury full of treasures, then he may activate a second treasury. Once he has 2 treasuries full of treasures, then he may activate a third. If someone steals the treasures from his level 20 treasury so that it's not full anymore, then his treasuries with the fewest treasures get deactivated automatically, and he cannot re-activate them again until he's back up to full treasuries again.


    This way, the fight over treasures would have a direct outcome on the kingdom borders and the overall landscape of the game. Kingdom borders would shift a lot more and need to be protected much better.


    I like having the kingdom borders being more variable. Maybe another way to do this would be to make the radius of influence for a particular king be strictly based on treasures alone instead of population. If that was the case, we would see a lot more fights over treasures as kings strive to build their kingdoms. If you let someone steal treasures from a key village, then your kingdom's border suffer.

  • Does anyone remember why dukes were introduced in the first place? What the original concept was and why just a king was insufficient for play? I remember the "Hand of the King" vs the Duke naming poll. lol. Is there a way to compare the feedback to each change made to the game?


    I keep hearing about the alpha test and it sounds like the majority of things just needed to be tweaked, but I can't find anything on what happened at that time. I'd like to be able to compare the tweaks over the course of time to see the development of the game. Is there an accessible archive?

  • 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.


    Then, just remove all Confed/NAPs. It's the same thing. Make alliances (max. 3 kings) the greater group. Each alliance for itself!

  • Here is an idea that just popped into my head.....


    If you keep the 3 kings system then what could happen is when a king joins an alliance, his borders become part of the alliance borders and even kingdom chat is lost in place of alliance chat.
    This way everyone can see themselves as part of the same group and not separated by borders between each of the 3 kingdoms.


    Now that I am writing this out, I feel like this may not be of help at all. I will post it though to see if anyone else can expand on what I am thinking

  • Lots of good ideas here, trying to catch up and follow..


    I think 1 king could be a good concept - although I'm not sure its 100% necessary. The benefit to this is that in the current form, there is typically 1 king that is the main alliance leader. Yet the other kings can still have private conversations within their kingdom, which can be counter productive depending on the other kings. A single king with dukes ultimately being able to cover the same territory over time would be an interested an I think welcomed change.


    The one issue I've seen with Kingdoms is related to the VP. The issues are as follows:


    1. Cheating can take place with two alliances working with each other to rob treasures back and forth from each other, thus raising the VP of each alliance.
    2. There is no benefit to being at the top of the VP list in most cases - typically (from the servers I've played - all but one speed) the top alliances are all very close to each other and the WW decides who wins. Often there's just 2-3 top alliances and they take multiple WW's.


    One was I could see to fix this would be to have attacks where treasures are stolen lower the VP of the alliance they are being stolen from. And have all alliances be able to lower the VP of other alliances, so the #1 could attack the #2 and lower their VP. This would prevent cheating as there would be no benefit to attacking friends as it would only lower the VP. It would also make the daily VP you can gain more valuable, and if the number of active treasuries was increased or the amount of treasures was increased, this would also increase the role of the daily VP. And rather then a straight amount of VP that would be lowered by attacks, it could be based on factors such as the VP difference between alliances, size of alliances..etc. So the #1 attacking #2 or vice versa would be more significant than the #1 attacking the #20 alliance. But the #20 alliance attacking #1 or #2 would have a decent impact as well. I think this could help balance things out and really reward a smaller alliance if they were to have success attacking a bigger one. It could also reduce the importance of the WW, but would still have it as a significant factor.


    An added twist could be changing the benefit the WW gives an alliance as they have multiple WW's. So an alliance wouldn't get the huge advantage they might get by having the 2nd, 3rd and 4th place and get a bigger bonus then the alliance that actually completed it. After all, it is technically possible for an alliance to have the #1 WW to level 100 and another alliance have all the others at just level 1 and they'd still get the bonus. One way to weight it based on WW completion would be based on how many levels they completed.. So with 2nd place being 50% bonus (maybe this could also be increased to 75% or something?), how much of that 50% bonus you get would depend on what level your WW was. If the WW was level 50 when game ended, then you'd get 50% of the 50% bonus, thus a 25% bonus.


    Just some thoughts - sorry for the rambling.. hope it all makes sense :)

  • Then, just remove all Confed/NAPs. It's the same thing. Make alliances (max. 3 kings) the greater group. Each alliance for itself!

    These pacts (NAP etc.) have no impact on the actual game though. We would still have groups (kingdoms) within groups (alliances), with the latter just existing as a container for victory points. It's unnecessarily complicated.


    If you keep the 3 kings system then what could happen is when a king joins an alliance, his borders become part of the alliance borders

    Currently the different kingdom territories within an alliance don't have to connect, which makes the map much harder to parse for players. One desired effect of the changes would be to have quite stable connected territories, so that the diplomatic and regional shifts on the map make more sense. Basically a round of TK should tell a more or less holistic story of how things developed over time.


    @Maytrix: Thanks for the "rambling". We're indeed currently considering some changes to the details of VP stealing. Although this would certainly be influenced by whether or how far we go forward with the idea discussed in this thread. :)

  • We pursued the idea some more. Here's roughtly what we're currently thinking about trying on a special test server:


    1. Merging alliances and kingdoms:
    - Maximum number of kings in an alliance is 1 (this is for testing purposes; if we were to introduce this to normal servers, we would of course switch all necessary features from alliances to kingdoms and get rid of alliances properly)
    - Duke slots unlock with every additional expansion slot (new village or city upgrade) used by the king
    - The king and each duke can build one treasury by default; every 4000 total treasures in the kingdom, a new treasury slot is unlocked that the king grants to himself or a duke (a player can't receive an additional treasury slot twice until each other player received at least one, so there's always a more or less equal distribution of treasuries/treasures)
    - Dukes collect their own tributes (15%) from nearby governors within their influence range; the remaining 5% go into their own tribute fund for the king (overall tax rate will always be 20%)
    - Dukes don't get Robber Hideouts anymore
    - Kings collect tributes from nearby governors and all dukes within the kingdom (if they're within the same borders as the king)
    - Overlapping tribute territories lead to smaller individual tribute amounts (10% for each involved king/duke; but the respective governors still only "pay" once) but overall can give quite a bonus for the whole kingdom, so there's an implied tradeoff between spreading out and sticking together

    2. Victory point stealing rebalancing:

    - You steal less victory points from the #1 ranked alliance
    - When stealing treasures from an alliance within the top 10 you always steal points as well (even if it is ranked lower)
    - Other rules stay in place as they are (steal 10 points per treasure from higher, but not from lower ranked alliances)


    3. World Wonder bonus rebalancing:
    - We want to reduce the victory point bonus from world wonders in general so that it isn't the only deciding factor as often anymore
    - New bonuses from rank 1 to 7: 50%, 33%, 25%, 20%, 15%, 10%, 0%


    We are looking forward to your thoughts, comments and suggestions. :)

  • Looks so much better than the old system, especially the rebalancing of VP stealing.


    I'm having hard time understanding completely the treasury slots, and i bet new players would have no idea what is going on either. With treasures being such a large part of the game in the future i think you should consider buffing treasuries to be cheaper or hold more. People will gather even more treasures than they currently are, and people are having hard time already holding every treasure active.

  • Sounds much better than the current system, and means it's less of a big decision at the start whether to go King/Governor, since anyone can easily end up being a Duke (which is kind of equivalent to the current King).


    Actually it would be very nice, if that whole King/Governor decision could be entirely removed from the beginning. Maybe anyone can declare themselves a King at any time (much like anyone can create a new alliance in Travian Legends)?

  • I'll need to play it before I'm completely sure especially about the amount of dukes this will result in (will it need some kind of cap?), and how tributes for dukes is going to impact things, but all around I think these are good changes.

  • As we have seen, some things sound good or bad in print, only to have the opposite proven when put into practice. It is the same with a game, so as long as it is kept simple to begin with then I say go for it and see the result. Then make adjustments.


    I like the way this sounds, but am a little concerned about the number of dukes which might result and overlapping areas of influence, as well as the limits on the number of treasures per treasury will work out. Again, rather than wonder, let's find out.

  • I like the ideas, but I think I still think I'd prefer to see stealing of treasures lower the VP of those you stole from. And I think multiple WW's shouldn't be stacked like they currently are - should be a bonus for each one, but I think each subsequent one should give less. Or simply consider my suggestion of weighting the bonus you get - build the WW to 100%, get 100% bonus from it, 50%, get 50% of the bonus.

  • I like the ideas, but I think I still think I'd prefer to see stealing of treasures lower the VP of those you stole from. And I think multiple WW's shouldn't be stacked like they currently are - should be a bonus for each one, but I think each subsequent one should give less. Or simply consider my suggestion of weighting the bonus you get - build the WW to 100%, get 100% bonus from it, 50%, get 50% of the bonus.


    I think the bonus from the highest level WW a team holds should be the only one which applies. So the team would get a bonus for the level 100 WW, but any WW they hold lower thn that would not give a bonus. In currently running servers, that would mean the maximum bonus is 100%. For the second place builders, it would be 50%, and so on. Holding multiple WWs should not give multiple bonuses.

  • I think the bonus from the highest level WW a team holds should be the only one which applies. So the team would get a bonus for the level 100 WW, but any WW they hold lower thn that would not give a bonus. In currently running servers, that would mean the maximum bonus is 100%. For the second place builders, it would be 50%, and so on. Holding multiple WWs should not give multiple bonuses.


    Why not? You need to come up with a reason, because from what I've seen having multiple WWs helps to keep people involved. Plus there's little point in capturing someone else's WW.

  • I like it, I like it a lot. That means the game designers have covered off 2 of the 3 big ticket items on my wishlist. It looks very promising, I'll be having a go at that test server.

  • I think the bonus from the highest level WW a team holds should be the only one which applies. So the team would get a bonus for the level 100 WW, but any WW they hold lower thn that would not give a bonus. In currently running servers, that would mean the maximum bonus is 100%. For the second place builders, it would be 50%, and so on. Holding multiple WWs should not give multiple bonuses.


    This is why I suggested having the bonus you get be based on the number of levels. Makes it easy since you have 100 levels - each level gives 1% of the potential bonus. This way, it really makes getting your WW built up as much as possible that much more important. In fact, with a system like this in place, each WW could give 100% VP bonus - only the first one to complete it will actually get that 100% and the others would only get a portion. I think it would make for a much more interesting game, since 2nd place WW could almost get as much of a bonus as 1st place if they were close in levels. Having multiple WW's would be less important as well, since it would be harder to get them all leveled up to where it would help.


    The way it is now just seems poor where #1 WW could hit level 100 and say all the others were held by a single alliance, but all level 0. They'd end up with a bigger bonus then the #1 WW. Doesn't seem right just for holding one.

  • This is why I suggested having the bonus you get be based on the number of levels. Makes it easy since you have 100 levels - each level gives 1% of the potential bonus. This way, it really makes getting your WW built up as much as possible that much more important. In fact, with a system like this in place, each WW could give 100% VP bonus - only the first one to complete it will actually get that 100% and the others would only get a portion. I think it would make for a much more interesting game, since 2nd place WW could almost get as much of a bonus as 1st place if they were close in levels. Having multiple WW's would be less important as well, since it would be harder to get them all leveled up to where it would help.


    The way it is now just seems poor where #1 WW could hit level 100 and say all the others were held by a single alliance, but all level 0. They'd end up with a bigger bonus then the #1 WW. Doesn't seem right just for holding one.


    Server populations is nowadays quite low, there isn't many people with WW hammers at all. I think holding multiple WWs and building all is better than holding just one pretty much in all scenarios. I don't expect my enemies to hit more than one WW on the current server we are on. If they hit one down we will just move our def to second highest wonder and keep building that as our main wonder.


    In my opinion TG should remove WWs and introduce some sort of artifacts (like in legends) to give buff to your VP producing. It could be some sort of a building that gives buff depending on levels, max 20%(?) VP production per artifact. People would keep fighting for them and catapult them down to reduce enemies VP production. Perhaps enemies would even lose VP for each level the building gets catapulted. Servers would end on a set date instead of when a WW gets lvl 100. I think this would make gameplay much more strategy-based instead of people just having to spend million gold for most catas on the server.


    I know someone can even make up even better game mechanics than this, but in my opinion anything would be better than WWs with current VP system :D Dump VP or dump WWs.