Incentivizing Combat

  • Actually,
    if the attacker gets 50% back and the deffers get 50% aswell after a week, the deffers will have much more def than the off guy. Deffers already have a rather big advantage at the moment with waterditch/wall/morale.
    Let's take a concrete example:
    (When I talk about troops I talk about their crop consumption not a single unit)
    Two average players with 5 villages of 750/800 pop each.


    Off player (teuton): He produces troops 24/7 on one village, with barrack and stable lvl20
    infantry: 882*7 = 6174
    cavalry: 216 tks, 648*7 = 4536
    subtotal: 10710 crop consumption in a week
    Considering he crashed a 20k hammers, he will get back 10k after a week, that's the same hammer after a week.
    total: 20.710


    Def player (teuton aswell):
    The def player that stopped the above said hammer lost 20k troops, after a week he will 10k troops back.
    Now a good deffer will have 5 villages where he produces infantry on 3 villages and cavalry in the two remaining villages with barracks and stable lvl20:
    infantry -> 569*3*7 = 11949
    cavalry -> 266*2*2*7 = 7448
    sub total = 19.397
    total = sub total + saved troop = 19.397 + 10.000 = 29.397 which is 41.9% more than the off player.
    So this obviously scales in favor of the deffer not the attacker week after week, so in the long run they will be able to def way more villages.


    But I just realized that the survival feature wouldn't change the fact that def players are still op. they just produce troops way more quickly than an off player if they have a well set up account.
    After thinking about it more deeply, the feature itself is pretty useless unless some new mechanics to really hurt the enemy are put in place. If everyweek we attack the enemy with the same hammer and that the damage is so irrelevant that they will have more troops than the attacker anyway the following week, this feature won't change anything on the current state of the fights except helping even more deffers.

  • Mayo : You're right that def already has some general advantages. We can change it so that only home village defenders can survive, but not the reinforcements. As a side note, this might even make the redeployment more interesting in certain cases (because it allows you to change the home village of troops).

  • I have to say I have some reservations about having any troops at all surviving. I feel the same way about bandages, however. Like so many other things, I would want to see it played out on a server before making a final judgement.


    Again, as with much of what has been introduced in TK, I believe that what started as an interesting and exciting new version of Travian which needed a few tweaks has become an over complicated and too heavily edited mess. Sorry, devs, but that is what I see and think. You have taken a Piper Cub and tried to make it fly like an F-16.


  • 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.


    This seems to me to be a poorly disguised version of the merge troops feature TL tried in special servers. Although, with the restrictions you mentioned it may work out better and cause far fewer problems.


    Getting players to send troops on long marches has been a problem. It seems that any offensive troop movement over 2-3 hours appears too long for many players now, and few understand or wish to learn how to adequately fake opponents so defending has become much easier and simpler (and not just in TK). Skill has become far less important than luck. However, the answer to having a large offensive army too deep in friendly territory to send attacks short distances is and always has been to send them on longer marches, covering the real attacks with fakes in equally valuable targets and coordinating timed attacks with your team. In other words, the answer is to develop and use the skills needed to successfully attack opponents at a distance in concert with team mates. This is not a problem the game designers can address - as the fault lies not with the game but with the players.


  • It seems that any offensive troop movement over 2-3 hours appears too long for many players now, and few understand or wish to learn how to adequately fake opponents so defending has become much easier and simpler (and not just in TK). Skill has become far less important than luck. In other words, the answer is to develop and use the skills needed to successfully attack opponents at a distance in concert with team mates.


    This is not a problem the game designers can address - as the fault lies not with the game but with the players.


    Daaarn Daniel, back at it again with the white vans. Still playing the same old blame game. Many active players quit when the game changed. The game did not change because of the players where changing. At least not when T3.6 and T4 first came out. Then you saw first big surge of active players leaving. One could very well argue that the players you see right now have always been there. Even pre-T4 days. Difference is that before you could see proactive players.


    As the game evolved from T3 to various T4 versions, the players experienced changes also. New game mechanics made it easier to defend against attackers, which lead to active players either quitting or adapting to new style of play where they focus less on daily attacks and more on simming and hammer building.


    If the game model promotes hugging then it is ridiculous to blame players for exactly doing that. If the Travian would implement a rule where defenders get 50% defense bonus 5 days out of week, would you still go around blaming the players who would attack during those 2 days that this rule does not apply?


    I find it humorous to think that company would blame its clients for using products what they are intended for. Laying blame solely on players makes no sense. Same goes for laying blame at game developers. I do not blame TG for loss of active players. I simply state that the new mechanics promote more peaceful gaming and therefore you have less aggressions.


    We can complain that the playerbase is declining but there is no reason to believe that this has ever been a problem in the eyes of the company. Company's goal is to keep its profits at certain point, so this will be addressed first. One could argue that TG has addressed many times its profits levels rather than declining playerbase. In that way, those new type of players you complain about may still very well be valuable to TG. While you may have less players, they may still bring in as much or even more money than those who have quit. Those passive players probably make up biggest part of the profit margin also.

  • I play no blame game. I am only stating facts. Newer players (not talking about the simmers we always had) have not learned to play as team players, nor have they developed the skills needed to successfully plan and execute major operations against opponents. The average age of modern players is much lower (again, showing that they have not always been around) and the attention span of the average player much shorter.


    A big part of the reason for much of this is that so many of us left in disgust and these newer players have few truly knowledgeable veterans to teach them and instill the values needed to be team players. Part of the reason is that the game (mostly T4) itself changed drastically so that it rewards individuals more than teams, I grant that, but in TK the team can and should be the focus of the players - for the majority it is not. Failing to develop the skills needed to coordinate with team mates in timed attacks with adequate faking is a failure of the player, not of the game. It takes time, effort, and at least some degree of dedication to develop what we would have considered basic skills in the old days. And it takes experienced leadership to teach these things to new players. Those of us who played in the "old days" should be leading the teams and teaching these things, but the sad truth is most new players seem unwilling to learn.


    So yes, players need to change. Until we do, there is little the designers can do to correct those things most wrong with the game. However, if incentives can somehow be added for teamwork and for learning the basics, for following through and developing the skills I mentioned, then perhaps more players would put in the time and effort needed to become good team players. You want incentives for combat? Start with the real issues and go from there, Give incentives for teamwork, for coordinating with team members and learning to time attacks, to properly fake (with enough troops - last server I played I was still seeing attempted fakes without a catapult, with single infantry units, etc and on less than worthwhile targets). Once players started working together with a team and learning what we used to consider the basics, developing the skills (not all that difficult to learn) then you would see a lot more fighting and a lot fewer hammers splatting - as well as a lot fewer players deleting.

  • I haven't read all the responses, so forgive me if I repeat anything.


    First - I don't like the scavenging for survivors. If you want troops to survive, you raid. If you send an attack, you are telling your troops to fight until everyone last one is dead.


    Second - Being able to send troops to another village is an interesting idea. It seems to me that the test server is used to test concepts before rolling them out. Why not set up a test server to see how this idea works in a real game and then get feedback on whether or not it should be rolled out?


    I think the key is to think about how battles would work in reality - granted this is a game, but I think there are big issues with attacks being sent from far away and someone having tons of time to defend. Here's my thoughts and they complicate things... but could make it a bit more interesting and strategic..


    This game is about kingdoms - A kingdom generates influence and good kingdoms are large and are solid end to end (mostly anyway). I've always though it odd that a defender can see an attacker coming the second they launch the attack. What logic is there to that? How can they see my troops starting there march when they are so far away?


    Why not give each village a visible distance that they can see things. Maybe add a new building, such as a tower that improves that distance. You can also have allies play a role, so if an army is going right by an ally, I can use that allies visibility.. but why not add some components to that - such as once an army falls in range of an ally, the person being attacked would only see the attack notification in as much time as it takes a scout from that ally to reach their village. No scouts in the village, no warning until another village or the village being attacked can actually see that attack.


    Implementing something like this, would do a few things. 1) It would reduce the defense since people wouldn't get as much notice and wouldn't be able to move all their defense. 2) It would give bigger advantages to having a big kingdom with critical things based closer to the center. 3) cities/villages on kingdom borders would be much more vulnerable. It might make building remote cities just for visibility a new part of the game. I think with visibility, there could also be a way to get rid of fakes. I mean, can my city really not tell that there's 50 troops instead of 100k until they actually go splat on my wall? I've always found that to be foolish, but somewhat of a necessity given how easy it is to put so much defense in a village. With cities having visibility, they should be able to see fakes, but not exact troop counts, just an idea that its over 5k 10k.. or something like that.


    I think you should also be able to move defense anywhere. Maybe offense too, but visibility and communication should play a role. Say I want to command my defense from village A to B. I move it there. Well now I want to move from village B to C - I can do that, but a scout needs to relay the message from village A to B - so there's a delay in moving those troops. Same could be done with offense - maybe an offense should also have the ability to set up a camp near a city they will attack - this would give that city added time to gain defense, maybe they can also attack the camp and maybe there could be a bonus on the attack if they camp before the attack - there's risk involved, but the reward could be a stronger attack since the troops have rested..etc.


    Sorry if I rambled, just wanted to share. I think there's a lot that could be done that would undoubtedly make some things more complicated, but at the same time adds more to the game play so its not just all about attacking and defending and guessing all the time.


  • I think the key is to think about how battles would work in reality - granted this is a game, but I think there are big issues with attacks being sent from far away and someone having tons of time to defend. Here's my thoughts and they complicate things... but could make it a bit more interesting and strategic..


    As Daniel Hart/Ammamurt/myself stated before, there isn't a problem with distance or travelling time, but the player basis that has no idea of what they are doing. If you send a few fakes and an attack far away, obviously it will be easy to defend. The travelling distance it's what makes the whole thing more interesting and more competitive, having the possibility and the responsability to chose what to defend, how to defend, with who. Also from the point of view of the attacker, a well planned attack makes the def planning much harder and involves some strategy from both sides, there are a lot of tools that everyone could use but they have no idea it exists or how to use it. When someone attacks he must accepts that eventually he will crash and fail, or succeed.


    The idea of showing attacks gradually based on the distance of the villages// time of a scout to reach the attacking village would be really bad, I mean a border village already have a short travelling time w.r.t the enemy, if you cut also the time, the attacker has basically a free village to attack.
    I really like the balance of the game def and off wise at the moment, the problems are objectives and server duration, (well as well the meta problem, from the first server on, every single TK server ended with two metas fighting each other. COMx3 just ended with a huge big meta having 6 WWs and no one to fight). but this is mainly because no one has the guts to fight for the victory on their own and because simming is much more easy than fighting.
    Fakes and Attacks have always been the basis of travian, removing the possibility to fake is like removing every possible strategy, you attack and the enemy defend the village under attack and in this case the idea of FabianF would make sense but it would be really uninteresting.


    My point is, travian was over populated with T2/T3/T3.6, keeping the same fighting mechanics but changing the whole dynamic of the server and a new design to the game it's what will make travian populated again. Some of your ideas could be cool, but it's really not like what travian is about, it would be a completely different game.

  • This game just needs good kings, interesting kings, ready to communicate, to help everyone, to sacrifice themselves, to send own army and resources to others, to organise deff and off, to make roles in alliance, to keep chat active. Yes, it is atleast 4 hours work per day, but results are: many friendship, great players, great students of game and even better masters of the game, many victorys and many losses :) This game just need crazy kings, ready to risk everyone and everything! :D
    Not everyone can be leader, real leader. TravianGames can make list of 20-30-100 the best kings ever (based ofcourse on some real facts) and pay them to play some servers, and to lead servers on different sides. 3 payed kings per server (as enemy kings) is enough to have 30-40 active and interesting servers! :D > more profit to TravianGames from selling gold.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Matej221 ().

  • I just wished they had a combat rounds system like Ikariam, that way the difference between an Attack and Raid would mainly be that for an attack you can have reinforcements fight as one (as an attacker) and it would consecutively repeat the statistics of a raid infinitely until one side losses. This means battering rams potentially taking down walls and a catapult targetting granary potentially crippling the enemy greatly (if they are at a negative crop consumption.) Because of this, however, the attacker may have the advantage, so perhaps catapults should either take a few rounds till they can activate, or not activate at all until the end of the battle.


    One is more trustworthy when he speaks of his problems before his problems speak for him.

  • This (emphasis mine):


    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.


    I can't believe I just read that.


    One of the feature I always liked about Travian vs the many clone war strategy games out there, is the real risk of loosing it all, I've tried those games where wiping out your million troop army is something you can fix in a few days, and they offer nothing to none casual players, Travian for me has always been about getting a real advantage by killing the oppositions hammers, villages, chiefs etc and even occasionally driving them out the game, but also the converse, the risk to me is the same as the possible reward, I can loose my hammer, my villages, chiefs or even find myself in a place where I'm best just to leave the game.


    If you take that risk/reward profile away by making it a basically risk less world, what is the point of playing for anyone looking for something above a casual kick about?

  • If you take that risk/reward profile away by making it a basically risk less world, what is the point of playing for anyone looking for something above a casual kick about?


    We certainly don't want to make the game "risk-less". We want big players to be able to outplay other big players and that resulting in permanent consequences. The situation I was talking about specifically concerns players who are way too small to put up a reasonable fight anyway. And for them we're thinking it doesn't hurt to have a few "cushions" to reduce their potential frustration, so instead of quitting the game altogether, they continue to play and can then maybe learn to get better over time.

  • I actually never said "only". What matters more is "of equal size". But big players also tend to be the better, more experienced ones, which is why I mentioned them (and I believe ChillingEffect had them in mind).

  • Hmmm, I had large players in mind, but I've seen skilled smaller player make merry hell of larger player, I really do think the risk/reward profile should be weighted towards those that use their troops to fight, i.e. those that are active with their troops should face the largest risks and get the biggest rewards, you shouldn't get a reward or reduced risk just because you kept your pop count low. Sure if you want to help less skilled players do so, but those rewards shouldn't have the ability to keep rewarding those that know what they are doing. Perhaps a cap on troop recover-ability based on time since registration, so on day one you get 100% back, but on day 90, you only get 5% back.

  • Because if "big" means anything bigger than an account with 1 or 2 villages, them I'm fine with it. But if it doesn't: Almost any player can outplay any other player in an alliance setup, which is what you should be encouraging if you really want consequences, teamwork, a wargame. It should most definitely not be the case that only big players are fighting big players, or equal players are fighting only equal players (how would that even possibly work) or what I believe you really mean; that kings/dukes should be fighting other kings/dukes (and the rest can just not participate and sim along). That would be the death of the game.


    What I would like to hear you say is that "We want ANY players to be able to outplay ANY OTHER players and that resulting in permanent consequences, while somewhat safeguarding the smallest new players".

  • The situation I was talking about specifically concerns players who are way too small to put up a reasonable fight anyway. And for them we're thinking it doesn't hurt to have a few "cushions" to reduce their potential frustration, so instead of quitting the game altogether, they continue to play and can then maybe learn to get better over time.


    This is where getting into an alliance or kingdom will help that small person. Any player playing this game has a right to attack any other player regardless of size.


    Fleas spread the black plague back in the day and that killed many humans. So small does not mean that they can't play.


    So working as team the alliance or kingdom would then support and defend that small player against the larger attacker.


    Adding more rules to help that player as an individual will again take away the experience of being helped in an alliance by TEAM WORK.


    Something I think we all agree that we need to bring back but creating rules that encourage individualism hurts team work rather then promoting it.

  • Back 6 months ago or so when i played a king i didnt fight for treasures because building up the treasury was just to annoying and not worth the effort. 4k treasures in a treasury is just to small. It is pointless to go after treasures, Make it back to 10k again. People will then fight for treasures more.


    It is not the troop loss for attacking, it is the lack of point to it. Why make a expensive farm when i can just farm greys all day? Your solution isnt a solution at all. People need a reason to attack far more then pride and a little bit of resources. You also need to stop trying to make the entire server attack the rest of the server. Legends dont have this problem because alliances could get huge, but kingdoms does because alliances are forced to be small and not inclusive. Alliances NEED to be inclusive, you need players to feel they are apart of something bigger so when a alliance decides to attack they all feel like joining in, Allow more dukes



    On this round wheat is a problem, because kings have such small territory and also quit and screw over there governors, getting the crop bonus from stolen goods doesn't happen. There are ALOT of areas that dont have kings. GIVE MORE TERRITORY. If it is tribute that is the problem have two tiers of territory, one that governors can collect crop bonus from and another that kings can collect tribute.



    The idea that you guys are throwing on test server is just a stupid idea all around. Your going to fracture a already fractured player base. You are making the problem of lack of kings much worse.


    When beta first came out and you could conquer oasis and expand your territory, all these problems where not there. You need to go back to the basic idea that was first developed and work from there, the direction your game is going is not good and clearly, is not working (I can tell from the lack of players in kingdoms)