Incentivizing Combat

  • As we, and also many of you, have observed before, it would be nice if there was more fighting going on, which would make game worlds much more exciting in the long run. For now, we have identified two major issues that we want to specifically tackle with an upcoming combat-focused update:


    • It is too scary to ever lose troops in battles, because the long-term repercussions are too severe and coming back after a big battle was lost can be very difficult.
    • Walking distances to the “frontline” become prohibitively long later in the game. Attacks take forever and defenders have all the time in the world to prepare. Big armies built in older villages in the center of kingdoms are more or less useless most of the time.


    Within the design team, we collected some ideas on how to go about those problems and want to present two concepts today to gather your thoughts. We are still in the conceptual phase on these features, so your feedback can really make a difference.


    Feature Idea: Survivors

    After a battle involving lost troops on your side, you will be offered the opportunity to look for scattered survivors by performing a “troop adventure” 7 days later. This new adventure type costs 2 adventure points, but does not reduce your hero’s HP. You will be able to recover 50% of your losses (except for settlers and chiefs) per battle through troop adventures.


    This essentially means that you can get a “refund” on your combat investment. Therefore the feature should hopefully alleviate the severity of losing battles and incentivize taking risks from time to time.


    Feature Idea: Troop Redeployment

    The second idea is concerned with giving those large armies sitting in the middle of big kingdoms, far away from the frontlines, a purpose again. You have the possibility of permanently relocating troops to a new home village, as long as it is “younger” (i.e. was founded or conquered later), than the original village of the troops. Redeployed troops will be merged with any existing troops in the target village.


    Of course we have to implement a few limitations to prevent exploitative strategies and also huge undefeatable hammers from forming. Firstly, in the target village you will need enough “free crop” = crop production – crop used by buildings – crop used by troops (wherever they currently are). You can only redeploy as many units as the target village’s free crop value allows you to supply. Also you obviously cannot redeploy settler or chief units.


    On top of that, to not incentivize quickly building up new villages within enemy territory without giving the enemy sufficient time to react, it will not be possible to immediately deliver resources (via the respective premium feature) to villages that are not within your kingdom’s borders.


    Update: Merging Kingdoms and Alliances

    Last but not least, I want to give you an update on the idea of merging kingdoms and alliances that we discussed before. This approach has indeed become one of your focuses in development right now. Our programmers are already in the middle of implementing all the necessary changes to a local test version. So you can definitely look forward to trying it out yourselves in the future! :)


    So, what do you think about our new ideas of survivors and troop adventures, as well as the strategic options opened up troop redeployment?

  • Alrighty then...


    I'm fine with the survivors idea. Seeing the bulk of the adventures return rubbish, 2 points towards getting back 50% of lost troops would be fine. As always. a few questions though... Is this for attacking troops only? Or could the hero pick up troops lost in defence? If the latter, would it be 50% of all troops, or just those from the village the hero is housed in when sent to scavenge for survivors? Would the survivors stack up over time, or would there be a time limit? I'd imagine that over the course of a server, if stacking was allowed, you could turn up a fairly significant hammer out of nowhere just from that. Would there be an upper limit? Would it include siege? Again, if no to upper limits, and yes to siege, splatting an EGH early on and getting 50% back could again be a significant hammer? Maybe exclude troops lost at WW villages?


    Troop redeployment - no. For a number of reasons. Firstly, the no rushing resources idea wouldn't work. It takes a king with a spare treasury slot, a spare CP slot, 3 settlers and 12 hours for influence to appear, and rushing res to build up a forward hammer villa would be available for other players settling there. That doesn't really matter to me personally, but it again creates the impression of too many advantages for the gold whales like myself.


    More to the point though, strategically, it's not really viable. Even if you rush all fields to 10 - 12 if you have two CP slots and city up, have the king establish influence, insta the resources and the rest, and assuming you've got a 15C to do it with, you're looking at 10Kish troops. In crop. At the stage in the server where you need to be closer to the action, 10K troops wouldn't even make the rubber mallet category, it's more like a feather duster. And that's before we get to my ideological opposition to dumbing the game down, and removing the long term consequences of poor planning.


    If you're serious about making the distances change, scale the effect of the TS for distance and server age.

  • I like the survivors idea aswell, would allow people to don't be scared to attack and therefore allow more action.
    The troop redeployment I really don't see the point either for def or off units for it to exist. Let's say you chief a village, you can redeploy there 2k def, which will be completely useless. Let's see you chief a village in the middle of the enemies, you redeploy 2k off units to attack them with catas but again with the wave limitation you would get destroyed in two seconds.
    Now let's say you have a new village, you will be able to redeploy 3k def units on the new village, it means that you will lose the troop levels the units had in the previous village which is a huge loss, so there is no point on doing it either. If you have an hammer of 50k and you move away from it 7.5k/10k, it's a huge loss overall.


    I might be one of the few that don't see a problem in the fighting incentives since I try to fight as much as possible on the servers I play. The distances aren't a problem if you play correctly. The time you give at the deffenders to prepare is barely enough if you do things correctly. It's all about strategy, if there is a guy that sends a single attack on someone, it's obvious that it will be heavily deffed, It's not a problem of the game itself, it's a problem that people barely use any strategy.
    The real problem is that there are not enough objectives on the map, or rather there are but they don't give you some bonuses or some advantages. So I think you should focus on implementing objectives like artefacts but different, like some objectives in the map you must fight for to obtain some treasuries or some VPs (I'm just throwing ideas). Also give more importance to kingdoms and less importance to WWs, create some limitations like maximum 1/2 WWs for each alliance, lower the bonus/change their effect, the bonus instead of being applied the last day could be applied everyday. This would give a lot more incentive to fight the top alliances in order to steal treasuries and VPs ---> More elaborated off strategies and more def plannings.


    There are a lot of servers, we're still in beta, in my opinion you should try to implement different ideas on each server and see how it goes. Until now every server almost was without fightings and ended 1vs1. You removed the US/UK servers in order to have more people on COM servers which was the right move to do but there are still a lot of servers which are basically empty after 2/3 months and you keep opening new servers (COM6) without implementing any different ideas. It's fine opening new servers but at least try something new, or if you won't try something new keep 3/4 servers active, where there are 2k players in each one, instead of spreading them across servers where you will get always the same feedback at the end of the day.

  • Is this for attacking troops only? Or could the hero pick up troops lost in defence?

    Both!


    Quote

    If the latter, would it be 50% of all troops, or just those from the village the hero is housed in when sent to scavenge for survivors?

    All lost troops. They would then return to their respective home villages after being found on a troop adventure.


    Quote

    Would the survivors stack up over time, or would there be a time limit?

    We don't really like the idea of a time limit since the ability to wait before bringing troops back to save crop opens up valid strategic options. However, as you correctly mentioned, we also don't want all losses you ever had piling up and you bring a huge army back in the end. Currently we're considering only generating a troop adventure if your losses in a battle are among the top 5 currently available troop adventures at the time of battle.


    Quote

    Firstly, the no rushing resources idea wouldn't work. It takes a king with a spare treasury slot, a spare CP slot, 3 settlers and 12 hours for influence to appear, and rushing res to build up a forward hammer villa would be available for other players settling there.

    True. We could solve this by requiring both the starting and target village of the resource delivery to be within one single common border. That'd also be in line with the changes we're trying out for the alliance/kingdom merge. We don't want to encourage kingdoms that are scattered over multiple positions.


    Quote

    At the stage in the server where you need to be closer to the action, 10K troops wouldn't even make the rubber mallet category, it's more like a feather duster.

    Apart from the "offensive village rush" strategy, wouldn't being able to shift troops to multiple villages that are closer to the frontline make sense instead of having big armies sitting around safely (and boringly) in the center of kingdoms? We get a lot of feedback along those lines. Sure, you could just say it's poor planning, but for many players it, earlier in the game, feels like the right thing to do to build up a significant army. And then later on they realize they can't really make use of it.

  • About 1): You currentlly have a LOT of safeguards in place for defenders. The problem isn't that offense players attack and then lose too many troops, causing them to stop attacking. The problem is that they don't attack in the first place, because doing any significant damage is too hard (for a whole number of reasons, the one you mentioned usually not being one of them). By making another safeguard, for the attackers this time, you'll make it so that there is no danger for defenders and no danger for attackers either. What you should do instead, if you want to allow for more damage, is to incentivize damage: Bring back croplocks, make the wave restriction a bit less strict. Perhaps make catapults cheaper per crop unit. Make chiefs accessible earlier by making them cheaper too somehow. Make it impossible to instant merchant and instant build to a village that's has incoming attacks within a few hours. Stop allowing cages to be bought. Remove trappers. Just making wild suggestions, but that kind of stuff would help, a lot.


    About 2): The problem that causes this is mostly the meta problem. Big alliances make for a huge amount of distance between frontline and center. To stop that, you need to stop metas and/or lower the amount of time the troops need to travel. Simply making troops run twice as fast after some amount of fields using the TS might work. Even then, it matters little if everybody is in the same meta/huge alliance.


    About survivors): This isn't the way to go even if it works as an incentive in practise, which I doubt. Troops lost should be troops lost. This would make for another unneccessary, lame gameplay mechanic. Also see 1).


    About troop redeployment: Agreed with VVV on this one. I don't think you can make this in a way that isn't exploitable AND remain useful. To really move a hammer later in the game will always be too big for the requirement you're specifying. Also if I'm not mistaken this allows for building one huge hammer and then moving them into smaller pieces to 10 newer villages? Interesting gameplay mechanic, but I fear this is going to be either completely overpowered or not useful (as VVV points out). If someone wants to move his hammer village later on, they just need to build a new village and crash the old hammer. It's also rediculously easy to circumvent the limit you're setting on instant merchant. Just have a king build a village there and put yours next to it at the same time, done.


    EDIT: oh, new post. Ok, that stops the instant merchanting and now it takes a while to fully develop the village before you could move troops to it. Still allows you to randomly have a few hammers in an area all of a sudden. There's not much the defender that gets invaded can do about it once he realises what's going on. A hammer can always suddenly be anywhere, instead of just in the village you originally saw it in. For that reason I still don't like it.

  • .
    Feature Idea: Survivors
    After a battle involving lost troops on your side, you will be offered the opportunity to look for scattered survivors by performing a “troop adventure” 7 days later. This new adventure type costs 2 adventure points, but does not reduce your hero’s HP. You will be able to recover 50% of your losses (except for settlers and chiefs) per battle through troop adventures.
    This essentially means that you can get a “refund” on your combat investment. Therefore the feature should hopefully alleviate the severity of losing battles and incentivize taking risks from time to time.



    Not sure this is the answer. You just keep eliminating any risks in a war game that should have risks and consequences for every action you take.
    It's like everyone receiving a participation medal even when you have accomplished nothing.


    You have the ability to adjust speed of the units so why not just have any troops that are sent as an "ATTACK" pick up speed based on the distance of the target.
    Much like you have catapults set to a defined amount of waves, You could possible even have the speed being adjusted during the march of the troops.
    Example...Troops left village at normal speed
    Troops picked up speed once they passed the 20 square mark
    again pick up speed say at 30 mark
    and so on and so on. This would put a little more pressure on the defenders to make sure they can defend in time.
    Would be interesting to see with hero maxed out on speed items, TS operating and the fastest horse.
    Add all those up and troops could be getting to targets faster without giving the attacker that much more of the balance.





    .Feature Idea: Troop Redeployment

    The second idea is concerned with giving those large armies sitting in the middle of big kingdoms, far away from the frontlines, a purpose again. You have the possibility of permanently relocating troops to a new home village, as long as it is “younger” (i.e. was founded or conquered later), than the original village of the troops. Redeployed troops will be merged with any existing troops in the target village.


    Of course we have to implement a few limitations to prevent exploitative strategies and also huge undefeatable hammers from forming. Firstly, in the target village you will need enough “free crop” = crop production – crop used by buildings – crop used by troops (wherever they currently are). You can only redeploy as many units as the target village’s free crop value allows you to supply. Also you obviously cannot redeploy settler or chief units.


    On top of that, to not incentivize quickly building up new villages within enemy territory without giving the enemy sufficient time to react, it will not be possible to immediately deliver resources (via the respective premium feature) to villages that are not within your kingdom’s borders.



    My suggestion about troop speed will mean this is not needed. I am not a big fan of the troop deployment so my opinion is biased against it.





    Update: Merging Kingdoms and Alliances

    Last but not least, I want to give you an update on the idea of merging kingdoms and alliances that we discussed before. This approach has indeed become one of your focuses in development right now. Our programmers are already in the middle of implementing all the necessary changes to a local test version. So you can definitely look forward to trying it out yourselves in the future! :)


    Cool will look forward to see how that turned out.

  • (example) I produce a club every 98 seconds, I think it's good enough. If you want higher troop production there is the speed server for that, but yeah as Ammamurt said and as I said we need objectives on the map or objectives that gives VPs by doing what this game is supposed to be, a war game.

  • So a few more thoughts...


    The basic problem TK has is as Ammanurt pointed out, it's been too heavily biased towards defence. You've removed hard croplocks. Outside of treasures there is little to no consequence of most attacks. You lost some of the serious consequences from TL (loss of artefacts, though I don't want artefacts back, chiefing hammer villas given you can now city up capital and have an unchiefable hammer without losing GB/GS etc...). And at the same time, you boosted defence, by applying hero items to all troops of all accounts, and hero bonus percentage to all troops from that account rather than just the village restriction. Given that defence can come from everywhere, but attacks from one villa, this was a boost that defence didn't need.


    I'd argue that scavenging for troops should be for attacking troops only. And I'd argue against relocation of troops. Again, that would be biased towards def. You put a newish village to the frontline as a defender with most of your villas deep inside safe territory. You can move troops closer to the action to react much faster. Not only that, but a decent treasury village can have 20+ villages in its influence zone. That's 20 sets of defence that can be pooled. But you can't pool 20 villages worth of offence.


    Next. As it stands, crop consumption in village is based on the troops eating crop, not troops from that village. You would need to keep track of troops from that village, otherwise, you send your troops to rein, then send more troops to relocate, rinse and repeat, and you've got 50K of crop troops or more in the new village on the frontline. Leaving that loophole in wouldn't really help offence, as defenders could bulk move troops too.


    Part of the issue here is that you've halved the length of the server, but haven't done enough about CP, prod, travel time or training time. Again, that biases towards defence, due to the pooling ability versus the lack of that option of offence. I'd suggest that CP (given the recent tweak to the start of the CP curve - again, thank you for listening!) and possibly training time could be left reasonably alone (as that one has been tweaked a fair bit from TL), if you had a look at prod and travel time. The latter could be fixed by scaling TS for distance and game world age. As for prod, I would recommend against a straight multiplier, I would suggest you take the current exponential curve for prod over levels 1-19 and steepen it significantly. Levels 1-5 aren't the problem, but level 10 should pay more, and 18 way more than it does. I'd also argue for GG and GW in cities. Potentially, I'd also argue for an upper cap of 15s in cities rather than 12s. Actually make them worthwhile from a prod point of view, if not a CP point of view.


    And lastly, we come back to the favourite topic - metas. Nothing kills attacks off like metas. And I say that as the king of currently the biggest kingdom on com5, with a tendency to absorb anyone I can into the kingdom. That's for the simple reason that most people play to win, and metas **** all over every other option when it comes to winning. Sure, a smaller alliance may beat us (EMC, I'm looking at you), but when I say smaller, we're talking a couple of percentage points here - 10 to 20 players - not half our size. Anyone half our size is already effectively out of the server, at about the halfway point, unless they start merging with other alliance to get to the same size.


    Changing from alliance to kingdoms won't change the meta mechanic. You're just talking about a kingdom the size of current alliances, and the current NAP and confeds. Get rid of all diplomacy. If you're not in kingdom/alliance, you're an enemy. Don't allow reins for non kingdom/alliance villas (though we'll never have the fun of US4 where attacks sent as reins mistakenly defended a village and killed all following hammers...) And scale the combat mechanic heavily for difference in either population or village count of the two warring parties. Actually make small elite teams viable.


    And give VP point modifiers for attacks too. Don't make it chiefings or pop points catta'd down, no matter what everyone else says, we all know that's going to wind up belting the smaller players. Make the base calculation of the modifier enemy troops killed * your troops survived. So a splat gives you nothing. Enemies dodging gives you nothing (unless it's a treasury, and then you get treasures and possibly VPs depending on alliance/kingdom standing). Well timed follow homes, especially cav on clubs, returns a motza. Picking the right target and killing a reasonable amount of def for minimal losses to your hammer returns an absolute bonanza. Alternatively, make it enemy troops killed/your troop losses - similar sort of return, the more troops you kill for minimal losses, the bigger modifier boost you get. If that modifier keeps increasing with every successful attack, an alliance that doesn't have huge treasures but chooses their targets wisely and attacks heavily could still outperform the sort of meta simtastic alliances that tend to dominate servers as it stands - especially if you scale the battle calculations for relative size.


    To bring this down to a single, shortish paragraph for the tl:dr modern generation... I don't think you need to dream up new mechanics - I think the basics of TK is a massive improvement on TL. You need to tweak VPs to reward attacks, you need to fix the imbalance towards def (and I get you're after a slice of the casual gaming market, so no huge consequences, but you've overloaded def with the hero bonus and items), and you need to tweak battle calcs and reins/diplomacy to allow for other strategies than meta for a server win.

  • What you should do instead, if you want to allow for more damage, is to incentivize damage


    Of course, if those changes are not enough, we will continue to push for more combat. We have some early ideas in mind already that go further into the direction you describe. However, we believe that the survivors mechanic can go a long way in making losses feel less frustrating in general. So what we ideally want in the end is to really incentivize combat and make it have enough of an impact, but then also not make half the players quit the game after a big clash, but potentially clash again soon. There's a balance to be struck.


    Quote

    I don't think you can make this in a way that isn't exploitable AND remain useful.


    Don't you think it should be possible to find the right balancing so that large enough numbers of troops can be redeployed to make the feature useful, but not as large so that they'd dominate the game? It might well be that our initial approach ("free crop") is a little too conservative. But we can find other solutions that raise the bar of how much you can do with the feature.


    Quote

    A hammer can always suddenly be anywhere


    Not that suddenly since the troops at least have to move to their new home once (like when relocating the hero, it's an enhanced "support mission"). But yes, it's something to watch out for, and the main reason why we are thinking of rather strict limitations regarding troop amounts at the moment.



    You have the ability to adjust speed of the units so why not just have any troops that are sent as an "ATTACK" pick up speed based on the distance of the target.


    It's not a bad idea since it would also tackle the issue of having too long walking distances later in the game. However I think it might be somewhat difficult to communicate to players. Plus it seems to me that the troop redeployment idea in general (apart from whether the balancing details discussed so far makes sense) could add quite some strategic depth to the game on top of fixing the distance problem.


    to really incentivize attacks in this version you need creat a goal four destroying others players or alliances, for instance to get VP or some other objective.
    and make trops more quickl in building


    Yes, if we continue to see too little fighting in the future, we're going to find more incentives. Modifying the game's goal certainly is an option to achieve that.
    I don't think you'd want troops to build faster in general. It would shift the balancing quite a bit and also make the game a lot more demanding. But what the "survivors" mechanic would do is that if you already had a lot of troops, you'll get a speed boost on your way of getting them back a while later.


    I'd argue that scavenging for troops should be for attacking troops only.


    I think you're making a good case here. What we would lose by doing that is the potential to reduce the frustration of players who got destroyed in an attack by an overwhelming force. They wouldn't get anything back and even if they did some damage to the attacker, it'd maybe not even count 100%. So they likely wouldn't get back on their feet. However, maybe we can't really stop that from happening anyways, at least not with that feature, and shouldn't take it into consideration in this case. On the other hand it might still feel like a "slap" for defensive players and there are probably subtler ways to buff offense after all.


    Quote

    As it stands, crop consumption in village is based on the troops eating crop, not troops from that village. You would need to keep track of troops from that village, otherwise, you send your troops to rein, then send more troops to relocate, rinse and repeat, and you've got 50K of crop troops or more in the new village on the frontline.


    Note that in the OP I didn't just write "current crop consumption". In fact it says the consumption of your home troops counts "wherever they are". So it's a slightly different concept. Sending away troops on support missions would never allow you to redeploy more troops.


    Quote

    Get rid of all diplomacy.


    I think that came up before in the thread about the alliance/kingdom merge, and I believe that it would make a lot of sense. We should either make the diplomatic relations mean something in terms of gameplay, or don't have them at all. Actually streamlining the overall structure of the game can be a good first step into that direction.


    Quote

    Actually make small elite teams viable.


    I'd definitely like them to be more viable than they are now, but in general we also still want to encourage the feeling of growing your kingdom over time and becoming a more and more powerful empire. That's one of the gameplay pillars.


    Quote

    Make the base calculation of the modifier enemy troops killed * your troops survived.


    I really like the direction of this approach. We have some ideas for changes that try to encourage battles between players of roughly similar power that reward you specifically for taking on appropriate challenges, in a sense "self-made matchmaking". It's something we definitely want to look into more in the near future.



    Thanks to all of you who are making the effort of writing down your thoughts! It's really valuable to us and definitely impacts how we're going to go ahead with the concepts. :)

  • Of course, if those changes are not enough, we will continue to push for more combat. We have some early ideas in mind already that go further into the direction you describe. However, we believe that the survivors mechanic can go a long way in making losses feel less frustrating in general. So what we ideally want in the end is to really incentivize combat and make it have enough of an impact, but then also not make half the players quit the game after a big clash, but potentially clash again soon. There's a balance to be struck.



    Don't you think it should be possible to find the right balancing so that large enough numbers of troops can be redeployed to make the feature useful, but not as large so that they'd dominate the game? It might well be that our initial approach ("free crop") is a little too conservative. But we can find other solutions that raise the bar of how much you can do with the feature.


    I just don't think it's a good idea to dumb down the game by making attacks less risky. Where's the strategic value if you can just wave your hammer around like it doesn't matter, because you'll be given a part of it back? We already have bandages that used to give 33% and now give 38% of troops back, troops that should be dead, which is bad enough. How much further do you want to push things? 50%? 66%? Might as well give 100% back. Why not 200%? You lose troops, gain twice as many as you lost. That ought to get the attackers going :)


    Even if some sort of balance can be struck: You're making a problem by trying to fix something that shouldn't need to be fixed. Crashing a hammer sucks and it should. That's an incentive to correct tactical gameplay. Bandages (along with other stuff, like free resources from all kinds of sources) and now the survivor feature only incentivize bad (tactical) decisions and encourage never learning from mistakes. It's just a bad idea to implement this. Also no, I don't think there's actually a balance that could be found that would still allow lategame hammers to be moved around in a useful manner without it becoming overpowered. Lategame hammers are big after all. Split them up, move them entirely...Either way is overpowered. Even if it's for smaller hammers it's always overpowered, unless you make them really small such as in the requirement you orginally posted..Then it's useless. I just don't see any way to make it work :)



    Not that suddenly since the troops at least have to move to their new home once (like when relocating the hero, it's an enhanced "support mission"). But yes, it's something to watch out for, and the main reason why we are thinking of rather strict limitations regarding troop amounts at the moment.


    That doesn't matter. If I have an opponent sitting nearby to me, and I don't know he's my opponent (or let's say I've seen his original hammer once, from another village), he could very well have 4 vils nearby. Once he uses the troop redeployment, I will never know until the hammers begin striking me all of a sudden, from villages nearby. Villages from which I couldn't have known he had a hammer. The fact that his hammer took a while to be dispersed is completely irrelevant: To me as a defender, it's sudden. If the villages were built up normally but not as offense villages there wouldn't be a problem without redeployment, if they were built as offense villages you would be able to spot them as threats at least and make a strategic choice. I would argue that adding redeployment actually takes away from long-term strategic decisions, it doesn't add to it.


  • Make the base calculation of the modifier enemy troops killed * your troops survived. So a splat gives you nothing. Enemies dodging gives you nothing (unless it's a treasury, and then you get treasures and possibly VPs depending on alliance/kingdom standing). Well timed follow homes, especially cav on clubs, returns a motza. Picking the right target and killing a reasonable amount of def for minimal losses to your hammer returns an absolute bonanza. Alternatively, make it enemy troops killed/your troop losses - similar sort of return, the more troops you kill for minimal losses, the bigger modifier boost you get. If that modifier keeps increasing with every successful attack, an alliance that doesn't have huge treasures but chooses their targets wisely and attacks heavily could still outperform the sort of meta simtastic alliances that tend to dominate servers as it stands - especially if you scale the battle calculations for relative size.


    To bring this down to a single, shortish paragraph for the tl:dr modern generation... I don't think you need to dream up new mechanics - I think the basics of TK is a massive improvement on TL. You need to tweak VPs to reward attacks, you need to fix the imbalance towards def (and I get you're after a slice of the casual gaming market, so no huge consequences, but you've overloaded def with the hero bonus and items), and you need to tweak battle calcs and reins/diplomacy to allow for other strategies than meta for a server win.


    This is excellent. Do this.

  • I just don't think it's a good idea to dumb down the game by making attacks less risky. Where's the strategic value if you can just wave your hammer around like it doesn't matter, because you'll be given a part of it back? We already have bandages that used to give 33% and now give 38% of troops back, troops that should be dead, which is bad enough. How much further do you want to push things? 50%? 66%? Might as well give 100% back. Why not 200%? You lose troops, gain twice as many as you lost. That ought to get the attackers going :)


    I agree that a "troop adventure" combined with bandages is too much. The effect of bandages could be subtracted from the troops that can be found in the adventure. Getting your troops back earlier with bandages still is an advantage. While having to wait at least one week to get some of the other losses back.



    Crashing a hammer sucks and it should. That's an incentive to correct tactical gameplay.


    Yes it should be a big pain. When you've lost 50% of your hammer, don't tell me that wouldn't hurt hard.
    Loosing your hammer is sometimes poor tactics, more often it's a sign that you're not a coward and had the balls to attack an equal or even stronger enemy.


    Using troops and taking risks (and losses) should be rewarded.
    I don't want players too restart on a new server only because they have lost the one big fight.
    Also as a winner, you don't want your enemy to leave after the first real fight. Let him recover after a while, let him some hope and beat him again.


  • Using troops and taking risks (and losses) should be rewarded.
    I don't want players too restart on a new server only because they have lost the one big fight.
    Also as a winner, you don't want your enemy to leave after the first real fight. Let him recover after a while, let him some hope and beat him again.


    They shouldn't be rewarded by having the same hammer the following week, they should be rewarded based on existing game mechanics such as VPs or treasuries. I think you really miss the point that the fights aren't the problem, the problem IMO is which fights to take and why, right now no one has incentives to attack no one unless they are really stupid, like me and my teammates who attack anything. You sim the whole game, crash at the end your big hammer and that's it because the game requires little interaction besides this in order to win it. (It's an overstatement, but that's what it is for most people).


    We've been pointing out the possible best solutions in our opinions to not change the game mechanics but to incentivize attacks, wars. How? By changing WWs VP bonus, creating some new relationship between attacking/defending and victory points and some other ideas said by the usual members (VVV, 50C, Ammanurt to name a few)
    Also creating long lasting damages isn't possible anymore due to the cata wave restriction and because your removed the crop lock mechanic, if the enemy quit after you did one successful attack on him, so why help him even more than you already did?
    If the enemy is worth it, they will come back and viceversa. You lost a battle, you retreat, you prepare for the next one when the time comes and you learn from the defeat, if we can attack every week with the same army it's rewarding the no strategy at all, something like: "let's go all in, next week I'll be ready to do it again anyway", and honestly I hope this is not the road you want to take.


    Another problem is that if people fight during the mid game (which is not necessary at all but we do it because we want to have fun and because this is what we are supposed to do) they will have a huge disadvantage against people who just simmed the whole server. You can call it diplomacy, you can say that it's your fault for fighting during mid game and experienced losses, but this is wrong, it's a war game and if all we do is playing sim city until the last day where we unleash all the troops only once, I don't get it and the solution is not giving back troops.

  • Wholeheartedly agreed with Mayo! :D


    I agree that a "troop adventure" combined with bandages is too much. The effect of bandages could be subtracted from the troops that can be found in the adventure. Getting your troops back earlier with bandages still is an advantage. While having to wait at least one week to get some of the other losses back.


    Same potato.



    Yes it should be a big pain. When you've lost 50% of your hammer, don't tell me that wouldn't hurt hard.


    Actually no, it wouldn't. For me personally anyway. Even in general though: Risking a hammer should mean risking the entire hammer. Doing anything less takes away from strategy: It gives you the idea that you can just throw troops around because it hardly matters anyway.




    Loosing your hammer is sometimes poor tactics, more often it's a sign that you're not a coward and had the balls to attack an equal or even stronger enemy.


    Using troops and taking risks (and losses) should be rewarded.
    I don't want players too restart on a new server only because they have lost the one big fight.
    Also as a winner, you don't want your enemy to leave after the first real fight. Let him recover after a while, let him some hope and beat him again.



    Ok first off: You say using troops and taking risks should be rewarded to incentize fights. But if I get 50% of this hammer back anyway, I haven't really taken much of a risk. Second: We might end up with more fights, but they will be meaningless if both sides just get 50% of everything back. Third: It's not randomly using troops or taking meaningless risks that should be rewarded directly, as this solution would do, it's trying to defeat enemies and trying to fight efficiently for the objectives of the game that should be rewarded. You don't reward that by giving everyone a safety blanket.


    But more importantly, do you have any real numbers on the amount of people that attack once and then just leave? Is this really a problem? This has always existed on earlier versions too and was never much of a problem. Now it is all of a sudden? Mostly we called these people noobs or cowards. Definitely not the types that "are not a coward and had the balls to attack an equal or even stronger enemy". If someone leaves because they crashed once, it's because they don't find the game interesting enough to rebuild. Or they're in a particularly bad situation, in which case this isn't a solution because giving them troops back wouldn't change anything. Or perhaps they crashed once precisely because they were going to leave anyway. You can't solve that by giving them some troops back.

  • By the way, about VVV's idea to reward attacks based on ratio of troops lost: Why would this belt the smaller player less than catapulting/chiefing pop? And if that problem can be solved here, why wouldn't it be possible to solve that particular problem with catapulting / chiefing pop? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, it might serve well enough as an incentive for more wars to start and more catapult/chief usage later on too. But Travian has never been about just wiping out as many troops as possible, even if it's done efficiently. Two good teams fighting eachother could end up dodging every attack, never making use of the mechanic. It's taking out accounts and alliances with cats and chiefs that matters and if rewarding that is what you implement, two good teams fighting eachother will always make use of it. I know incentivizing this will likely be too much for this casual game tho...

  • I don't believe my opinion is as educated as the veterans on this forum.. but I think it would be cool if somehow, small offense armies were able to "outplay" a larger defensive army. Maybe this is too "non-travian", but in my opinion a large negative from the casual gamer player base is that those who start later on in the server can often times feel useless just because those who were early have had so much more time to build their strength, and an all-out offensive attempt from someone who was 2 weeks late to a server may only leave a dent in someone's defense who had started the day the server begun.


    This just popped out of my head but I understand that a popular way of "outplaying" larger opponents with smaller armies is through fake attacks. If there were an integrated system that allowed its players to coordinate multiple attacks with a timer set (obviously with certain limitations) with the GOAL, introduced by travian, rather than its player base, to defeat troops of a player using fake attacks.


    I'm super sleepy so this may not even make any sense at all. How ever if you have any feedback please let me know :)

  • Thank you for your feedback regarding the two suggestions Fabian made in the beginning. I'm surprised where the feedback is going, as I still believe that having less losses and shorter travel distances would bring more fights into the game.


    I have the feeling that the feedback goes in the direction "whether it does or does not bring more fighting", both point are not going to solve the "real problems" the game has.
    Being able to actually "kill" players (destroy troops and villages) seems very important to some of you and getting more meaningful goals to fight for.


    My conclusion: The two suggestions from Fabians first post are just a start to bring more fighting, but we need good goals to do it in a meaningful way.

  • Yup pretty much. One thing tho: No matter the good goals you make, the survival feature will always be an incentive to not think strategically about them. Maybe I should give an example:


    Right now on COM1 our alliance is fighting some highly active smaller alliance that thought they could invade us. They're at a huge disadvantage, are losing, but haven't been beaten just yet. Right now they have enough defense to defend 1, maybe 2 spots at the same time against my hammer with which I'm constantly attacking. If I crash my hammer (and that's reasonably likely), that currently gives them about a week's respite from any more attacks from me (at which point I've rebuilt enough of my hammer to start attacking again). In the future it would of course take much longer than a week. They can expand their villages during that time since I can't shoot down their buildings, they can also rebuild the losses more quickly than me, so crashing my hammer slightly improves their position.


    On the other hand, if the survival feature existed, after making a mistake and crashing my hammer, I would get 50% of it back after a week. With that + what I've rebuilt I can simply continue attacking, probably immediately. That gives me more breathing room to make mistakes (which was your point, since I'm more likely to keep attacking). But... It doesn't matter if the defenders also get 50% back, they can still only defend the same amount of villages at the same time as they could earlier. So making the correct tactical decision doesn't improve their position as much. They now have to make several correct tactical decisions in a row to bring me down, and bring their position to an equally improved level in the scenario without the survivor feature. So instead of being forced to always make the right move or get punished, I can just make moves that are wrong or suboptimal and it doesn't matter as much. Which means tactical decisions matter less. Which in turn means strategy matters less.


    Also, I'm still not sure how this will bring more fighting from people who are currently not fighting. I see the survival feature not as an incentive so start attacking, but to keep attacking. So why would someone who doesn't currently fight/send any attacks at all (the majority of the playerbase) suddenly begin fighting? Having good goals for which attacking is necessary could conceivably change that.