Merging Alliances and Kingdoms?

  • One WW, more than one WW...It doesn't involve most people either way. So i'm with you guys that a different mechanic is needed, has been needed since the earliest versions.


    Considering that the old artifacts always stopped early fighting and didn't improve the rest of the fighting, I don't know that they're the best solution (if they're a solution at all) if you want strategy to impact the endgame more. Why not let fighting change VP all server long? And I don't mean just by letting treasures get stolen.That would get people to fight for them...

  • Considering that the old artifacts always stopped early fighting and didn't improve the rest of the fighting, I don't know that they're the best solution (if they're a solution at all) if you want strategy to impact the endgame more. Why not let fighting change VP all server long? And I don't mean just by letting treasures get stolen.That would get people to fight for them...


    How would that work? What kind of fighting can earn/reduce VP without making it easy for players to farm points? Ancient EU worked pretty well instead of WWs, but people only went for NPC-owned artifacts and didn't really bother to try conquering from other players. (I only have experience on aeu on .fi servers which are kinda low populated) Dang it's hard to come up with good winning mechanic, maybe the problem is people and not the game :D

  • I really like the proposed changes. Reducing the bonus from a WW ought to help a lot in encouraging people to fight for treasures more. I like the implied tradeoff between grouping tightly together and expanding to cover lots of territory.

  • How would that work? What kind of fighting can earn/reduce VP without making it easy for players to farm points? Ancient EU worked pretty well instead of WWs, but people only went for NPC-owned artifacts and didn't really bother to try conquering from other players. (I only have experience on aeu on .fi servers which are kinda low populated) Dang it's hard to come up with good winning mechanic, maybe the problem is people and not the game :D


    Having the VP drop when treasures are stolen would prevent farming for points.


    Treasures held give you a gain on points, treasures stolen reduces points from those that its stolen from.


    I still think giving a VP bonus on a WW, just for holding it regardless of the level is a flaw. It would be much more game changing if the amount of our bonus was based on how much of the WW you actually built.

  • Having the VP drop when treasures are stolen would prevent farming for points.


    Treasures held give you a gain on points, treasures stolen reduces points from those that its stolen from.


    I still think giving a VP bonus on a WW, just for holding it regardless of the level is a flaw. It would be much more game changing if the amount of our bonus was based on how much of the WW you actually built.


    Isn't that how the system currently works? So you think nothing should be changed other than VP boost from WW levels instead of rank?

  • Isn't that how the system currently works? So you think nothing should be changed other than VP boost from WW levels instead of rank?


    The only thing that would change is that lower rank WWs would get a little more attention, but only a very little because it's usually a dogfight anyway.


    The real question is whether WWs are the best metric for the endgame, or if it should be something else. Having both built one and helped others build I have to say that it's great for the builders; not so much for the non-. Either the non-builders have to be more involved, or have something else to do. Or you drop WWs in favour of something else.

  • Isn't that how the system currently works? So you think nothing should be changed other than VP boost from WW levels instead of rank?


    No, you gain VP by stealing treasures today. If the boost of the WW was change to be based on the level of the WW, then it would be a big change - would make damaging a WW more important then just slowing them.

  • Victory points (vps) are generated by the treasures that the king & dukes hold for the kingdom/alliance inside those treasury villages.
    If you steal treasures from anyone who is in an alliance that is lower ranked then you in VPS, you do not get any VPS bonus for that attack but those treasures will still produce VPS once the king or duke have control over them.
    If you steal treasures from anyone who is in an alliance ranked higher then you in VPS, you will then receive bonus VPS based on the amount of treasures you stole and ranking of the alliance stolen from. Those same treasures once under control of king or duke will begin generating VPS as well.


    I think what Maytrix was saying about the WW bonus is that the bonus should be based % wise on the level of the WW when the round ends.


    Finish to 100 first and of course you get the 100% vps bonus.
    2nd place ww finished at level 93 so they get 93% vps bonus
    3rd place finished at level 77 so gets 77% vps bonus.


    At least that is what I am reading.


  • I think what Maytrix was saying about the WW bonus is that the bonus should be based % wise on the level of the WW when the round ends.


    Finish to 100 first and of course you get the 100% vps bonus.
    2nd place ww finished at level 93 so they get 93% vps bonus
    3rd place finished at level 77 so gets 77% vps bonus.


    At least that is what I am reading.


    Mostly correct :)


    It all depends on what the bonus at each level is. Perhaps it would make sense that each WW could give a bonus of 100%, and each level adds towards that. So as 50 cal said, game ends and your WW is 80%, then you get an 80% bonus. If however it was kept as is and 2nd WW gets a 50% bonus of VP, then if 2nd place was only level 50, that would be 50% of the possible bonus - 50% of 50% is 25%.. so 2nd place would get a 25% bonus on VP points. I'm not sure which would be better - all WW's having potential for 100%? or similar or same structure as is, but by only getting a percentage of the bonus based on the WW level, it would impact strategies a lot. I think it would put less of an emphasis on holding multiple WW's since a single WW at a high level well defended could give a better bonus.


    Other thoughts I had on VP and kingdoms in general -


    1. Why not have additional VP based on the size of a kingdom? Instead of only getting a daily gain from treasures held, you could also get some sort of gain from the size of the kingdom?
    2. Why not have the ability to fortify a kingdom area - say maybe an influence around an active treasury where if all spaces are held by that kingdom, then you can fortify it, perhaps essentially putting a wall around the whole area?
    3. What about giving a bonus on simultaneous attacks? If 3 armies attack a single target at the same second, they should get some sort of bonus and all attack at the same time. It just makes sense when you think about how attacks would work.
    4. This adds a lot of complication to it, but if we think about how this would work if it was real, if an ally saw an army traveling by their village, they could attack it. Might be interesting if it was possible to interact (attack/defend) against a moving army that is going by territory that is friendly to the attacker. This would in essence make it more risky to be on the edge of a kingdom and safer to be deeper inside. It would certainly make attacking and defending more interesting and add a bit more depth. Not sure it would make things better or not, hard to say.

  • 1. Would be an incentive to metas. We need the opposite, so negative VP growth for the size of the kingdom.
    2. Why would this make for good gameplay? It's a change, but how is it actually better?
    3. Again, this changes gameplay, but for what reason and what are the intended gameplay improvements? How is it actually better? Besides it making more sense in your point of view? The merge feature in SE comes to mind, which is a horrible idea for TL or TK (they're currently trying to implement it on TL, and it's getting rightfully shotdown.) I know that's not exactly what you're proposing, but that as well reeks of a random gameplay changement with effects on gameplay that are unnecessary because they do not improve anything and are ill thought out. It does make 'sense' that you would be able to merge troops - but that doesn't mean it has to be part of gameplay or automatically makes for better gameplay.
    4. This would make it nearly impossible to plan an offensive operation.

  • 3. What about giving a bonus on simultaneous attacks? If 3 armies attack a single target at the same second, they should get some sort of bonus and all attack at the same time. It just makes sense when you think about how attacks would work.


    This would be interesting. So, rather than having same-second attacks land one-by-one, all the attacks that land in that second are grouped together for one epic battle with multiple attacking accounts v. multiple defending accounts. This would really change the game in a big way.


    People would be rewarded for landing their attacks all in the same second, and it would become much, much, easier to knock down a world wonder. I think we would see a lot more shredded and tattered accounts throughout the server.


    I like it.

  • Mostly correct :)
    3. What about giving a bonus on simultaneous attacks? If 3 armies attack a single target at the same second, they should get some sort of bonus and all attack at the same time. It just makes sense when you think about how attacks would work.



    -> 3. Again, this changes gameplay, but for what reason and what are the intended gameplay improvements? How is it actually better? Besides it making more sense in your point of view? The merge feature in SE comes to mind, which is a horrible idea for TL or TK (they're currently trying to implement it on TL, and it's getting rightfully shotdown.) I know that's not exactly what you're proposing, but that as well reeks of a random gameplay changement with effects on gameplay that are unnecessary because they do not improve anything and are ill thought out. It does make 'sense' that you would be able to merge troops - but that doesn't mean it has to be part of gameplay or automatically makes for better gameplay.


    I like that idea. It would reward teamplay. I could imagine to give the attack bonus if a 2nd army of same or larger size arrives within a short timeslot. Which percentage bonus do you think would fit?


    This would be interesting. So, rather than having same-second attacks land one-by-one, all the attacks that land in that second are grouped together for one epic battle with multiple attacking accounts v. multiple defending accounts. This would really change the game in a big way.


    People would be rewarded for landing their attacks all in the same second, and it would become much, much, easier to knock down a world wonder. I think we would see a lot more shredded and tattered accounts throughout the server.


    I like it.


    Merging the attacking armies would be too strong in my opinion. Yes, the defender has this advantage, but as an attacker I already have the freedom to choose when and where I'm going to attack. I think it's fair that the defender keeps this unique advantage.

  • That would be an incentive to throw hammers on the same second. But why is that something you want to encourage specifically? If it's teamwork you want to reward, figure out an incentive for teams to destroy other teams. Then you have an incentive that emerges from regular gameplay and works across the board. That would be much stronger. Now you're 'hardcoding' gameplay by telling people they should throw their hammers in the same second/timeperiod, which won't do as much/does not actually change much at all and could have unforeseen consequences in terms of balance and gameplay.

  • 1. Would be an incentive to metas. We need the opposite, so negative VP growth for the size of the kingdom.
    2. Why would this make for good gameplay? It's a change, but how is it actually better?
    3. Again, this changes gameplay, but for what reason and what are the intended gameplay improvements? How is it actually better? Besides it making more sense in your point of view? The merge feature in SE comes to mind, which is a horrible idea for TL or TK (they're currently trying to implement it on TL, and it's getting rightfully shotdown.) I know that's not exactly what you're proposing, but that as well reeks of a random gameplay changement with effects on gameplay that are unnecessary because they do not improve anything and are ill thought out. It does make 'sense' that you would be able to merge troops - but that doesn't mean it has to be part of gameplay or automatically makes for better gameplay.
    4. This would make it nearly impossible to plan an offensive operation.


    1. How would this promote metas? If there is 1 king and dukes, it just promotes growing your kingdom as big as you can. Maybe rather then kingdom size, the bonus could be based on kingdom density - I just think having another way to gain VP besides the current methods would make things more interesting. Game play as it is gets pretty repetitive.
    2. It would just add another element changing strategies. Makes a little more sense too since we're talking kingdoms.
    3. Again, just would change tactics. Might make things more interesting
    4. Not really - perhaps a lookout tower of sorts would be needed - take that out and you can more freely travel. Just thinking along the lines of things making sense - does it make sense a large army could walk right by my village and no one sees it?


    I just think there needs to be something to add a bit more to it - it gets kind of slow and repetitive - and I only play speed servers.


    - - - Updated - - -



    Merging the attacking armies would be too strong in my opinion. Yes, the defender has this advantage, but as an attacker I already have the freedom to choose when and where I'm going to attack. I think it's fair that the defender keeps this unique advantage.


    I don't think it would be too strong if it was easier to determine where the fakes were going to. Again, since its kingdoms, it should be easier to attack villages on borders and harder to attack villages in the middle of the kingdom. Armies marching past all sorts of friendlies would be easy to spot. Would be an issue attacking a WW though, but perhaps how well the area fortified around the WW is would reduce any bonus on simultaneous attacks.


    If the game is going to be all based around 1 king and dukes..etc seems it would make sense if there were bonuses to having a solid secured kingdom.

  • 1. How would this promote metas? If there is 1 king and dukes, it just promotes growing your kingdom as big as you can. Maybe rather then kingdom size, the bonus could be based on kingdom density - I just think having another way to gain VP besides the current methods would make things more interesting. Game play as it is gets pretty repetitive.
    2. It would just add another element changing strategies. Makes a little more sense too since we're talking kingdoms.
    3. Again, just would change tactics. Might make things more interesting
    4. Not really - perhaps a lookout tower of sorts would be needed - take that out and you can more freely travel. Just thinking along the lines of things making sense - does it make sense a large army could walk right by my village and no one sees it?


    Growing your kingdom as big as you can just means asking as many people as possible to join your kingdom, doesn't it. So how is that not promoting metas? Metas don't need to be divided up into groups to be metas. Any big group is by definition a meta. I agree we need a change from what we have now, just not this one :D


    - - - Updated - - -


    Also, there already are bonusses to having solid secure kingdoms: Their solidity and security, lol. Merging the armies has such massive gameplay changes that you cannot call the game Travian anymore if you implement it.

  • Not to be the one throwing a wet blanket on this conversation, but please don't let yourselves over-complicate this new concept before it is even tested. Start out with the simplest part and build on it as you go - One kingdom, able to spread out and have any number of dukes, limited by the number of the king's villages sounds a good place to start. Adding too many untested moving parts to any apparatus leaves you totally unable to determine which caused the failure when the machine breaks down.

  • Growing your kingdom as big as you can just means asking as many people as possible to join your kingdom, doesn't it. So how is that not promoting metas? Metas don't need to be divided up into groups to be metas. Any big group is by definition a meta. I agree we need a change from what we have now, just not this one :D


    - - - Updated - - -


    Also, there already are bonusses to having solid secure kingdoms: Their solidity and security, lol. Merging the armies has such massive gameplay changes that you cannot call the game Travian anymore if you implement it.


    That's how I play it now - the bigger the kingdom the better, so I don't think that really impacts it. I agree though, there are already benefits. And I also agree with the post, we need to see how the new changes play out.


    Only thing I'd really like to see that they aren't changing it seems would be the reduction of VP by stealing treasures vs gaining and a scaled bonus on the WW based on level.

  • That's how I play it now - the bigger the kingdom the better,


    Can you please discuss this statement more? How is having a bigger kingdom better?


    Since there is a lot of discussion about team play, this just seems to be the opposite. If you constantly asking others to join you then you again end up in a giant meta 100+ members and only half of those will be active or bother answering the calls from the kings/leaders.


    I just hope you do not feel this is better because your using the governors to supply you with free resources. I have seen so many kings now who demand activity, but do nothing to help or even teach members what they should be doing or not doing. To them it is all about the tributes and how much more they can get. If something is not done to correct that then this game will become about the kings only and governors are only here as resources mules. It is already affecting how I see this game as the greed of human nature strikes again. I just find it difficult to watch as no one seems to want to play a game anymore without cheating or the need to abuse others.


    Is everyone that afraid to lose at a game?


  • This brings me back to something I have said all along. A king needs to be an experienced and strong leader. Such a leader will always put the welfare of the team itself above that of his/her own account. There is too much gimme among players in the game today, to much emphasis on individual medals and stats, among both kings and governors/dukes.


    In the games descriptions of the different roles, it is still said that a king should protect the governors. In game play, we have seen that that is not possible once a kingdom has gained more than a few governors/dukes. A strong and experienced king can protect all team members but not with his/her own account - it must be done by leading and guiding the team, and the team's most valuable assets are the treasures held by the king and dukes - it is those which must be the first defense priority for the entire team if it is to be successful. That means it is, in the end, the governors which must provide defense to the kings and dukes. In this new concept, kingdoms will be much larger and so it is even more important for the different roles to be better defined, and even more important for kings to be experienced at leadership and to possess strong leadership skills.


    As to being afraid to lose, speaking only of myself, over the years I believe I have had as much fun and enjoyed the game as much in the servers we lost as in those we won.