Incentivizing Combat

  • The changes they will do in the next test server are overall a great news, new VP mechanics, new WW bonus VP, new kingdoms. It will force people to either fight all the time or they won't have a chance to win.
    After a year they finally take some step forward with the requests we have made


    Attacking is not all about making farms.. and I don't know where you have been but TK has been all about being huge alliances with servers ending with 1 meta vs another which is super boring. We are finally getting a few servers where people play for winning on their own and it's a lot more fun (COM4 / COM5). If TK alliances don't make everyone feel part of the group is not TK fault, but of the king/leaders of your kingdom and alliance.


    The 4k treasury isn't that bad, it gives less importance to treasuries and more to other villages and with the new VP mechanics even more. To be honest it's not a problem at all, in the last servers we had kings with more treasuries than when the treasuries held 10k. And no it's not pointless to go after treasuries lol.


    The oasis thing made it too easy to have extra large kingdoms too easily, territories are smaller which means governors and kings must work together to have the maximize the kingdom expansion.

  • If TK alliances don't make everyone feel part of the group is not TK fault, but of the king/leaders of your kingdom and alliance.

    I find I have to disagree, either that or there is some dynamic I don't get. Sure if you want a large alliance you can get a large apparently active alliance, but in TL I've often played in small tight nit active alliances and had more fun than any other form of alliance. TK just stomps all over that, I'm going off the idea of Kingdoms more each day, I started to play TK wanting, even expecting a new exciting dynamic, but as time has gone by each experience, each day I feel more burned and really I regret selecting to play Kingdoms rather than Legends.


    I'm not one of those people that always complains that each iteration of Travian is worse than the last, often times quite the opposite, but Kingdoms as an idea just doesn't work. First off, TL I could play without thinking about end game until... well shortly before end game, that wasn't the best approach if I wanted to "win" but if the "win" wasn't important to me at the time, I could still get into an alliance that worked for me and play a fun game. IN TK I'm basically forced into an alliance/Kingdom (and settling a village elsewhere doesn't help). Your forced to basically help the local king regardless of whether they are your enemy or a numpty (and boy, my experience so far is that 99% of all kings are numpties). When the server has finished I plan to make longer post detailing my experiences of TK both good and bad, I believe in contributing to the process the game is currently undergoing, but I won't be returning to TK unless there is a fundamental shift that makes it harder for numpties to become kings, easier for players to choose where and when they place their loyalty, resources and help, better game play for deffenders and less emphasis on winning over gameplay.

  • I totally understand your point of view and your experience ChillingEffect. When I first tried TK I ended up in a kingdom without having much of a choice (I was fine with it because I was only testing) but near the end of the server I realized that governors and duke might find their self in a sensitive position with respect to their king. Their king has absolute power on with who they are or where they belong and you can't do anything about it except either crowing yourself or going away. In my first server I had to "betray" my king, i.e. leaving him, because he was following people whose ideas of travian weren't aligned with mine and therefore I didn't want to play with them.
    The point is, the kingdom mechanics still need some more work and starting randomly without knowing anyone might end up in a really bad experience if you give up because your situation sucks, which honestly is completely understandable.
    In order to really enjoy tk to its full extent you need to find/start an alliance who knows his s*** and that plays as a team, you can find some of these here in the forum (Colony with Amamurt and 50C /mine :P). This obviously is subjective to my experience on TK, although I feel like people that played on COM4 with us feel the same way.


    For the choosing where to be, I guess the easiest way is to rush for a second villa and to settle within the borders of the kingdom where you would like to place your loyalty, but this doesn't differ a lot from TL does it? I mean it does obviously since you need to settle within borders if you want to join a kingdom but you can live a few weeks without being inside borders and still rock a server if you chose wisely right away your kingdom/alliance.


    I agree that TK until now was either you plan to win since day1 or deciding to win at the last second is almost impossible, but with the changes in test server it's going to change, anyone playing the game as he likes will be able to win it at the end. I'm fairly confident that this are the first good changes that we saw on TK and once implemented the game will be much better (I really hope I'm not wrong)

  • I still feel the servers are far, FAAAR too short. It takes until day 60 before you can fight properly. That lasts for about a month which isn't that long. After that, most people stop caring since it's endgame time and only the few relevant alliances have something to do.


    Also, another problem I've been running into - and this is gonna sound hopelessly arrogant - is that there are very, very few alliances and players left who really know how to play. Great, you have an amazing alliance that's setup the way it should be, with just the right people..but who are you going to fight? It feels like you need to wade through hordes and hordes of noobs until you finally meet an opponent worth a damn. I'd be happy to find more than 2 actually good alliances on a server. It'll take years to rebuild the general quality levelto a point where most servers will have more than one or two reasonably good alliances, and TK's incentives are just not setup to help do that. Much the opposite, they only serve to encourage metas (yes, there we go again). It will probably never get there. And yeah they're trying stuff with the test server, which I don't really have an opinion on yet, and also the special T3.6-like server (Rise of Alliance or something). Maybe it helps, we'll see the effects in a few years from now.


    Of course the rise of alliance thing won't work with just one server, but if that version is ever implemented on at least several running servers at a time, that could help save Travian...Idk, I just feel like TK is a lost cause and probably won't be returning to it either after this server.

  • Yeah it's arrogant but it's true. The big alliances on most servers have no clue on what they are doing, they win because well they still have some good players and you can't do much against 50% of the server alone.
    My theory is that you don't get better alone or by joining a big alliance, you get better if you have to fight for your survival and you need to find ways to survive when you are under attack by people who know what they are doing. In the previous versions of travian I've got 0ed so many times because I always fought people much stronger, until I learnt how to survive. Right now most of governors have no idea of what it is to be under attack, to lose villages, to use troops, etc...
    PS: Come on Ammamurt, I'm sure sooner or later we could start a server where we have more than 1/2 "good" alliances :D

  • I think there are a few ways to promote more combat.


    1. Do not allow WW holders to change alliances. This would stop late game mergers just to get a win by having multiple WW's. Any transfer of WW would have to be done by conquering it, which would leave it vulnerable and be more difficult. Another option is to simply lock alliances once the WW's appear. It also may turn friends against each other since both may want the top spot and not be happy with 2nd.


    2. VP is increased by daily increase and stealing treasures. Why not look at other options to increase/decrease it. Say a treasury has the max 4k treasures. The daily bonus could be based off of a percentage of influence tiles you have. So maybe pop 500 influence is the standard - have all those tiles of influence as part of your kingdom (45 spaces) and you get 100% of the daily bonus - 4k points. For each tile under 45 or each tile over (if pop is 1000) the bonus could be impacted by say 5% or something like that? So if another king is pushing into your influence and taking up 10 spaces, they are taking away 50% of your bonus. So this would give great reason for one king to attack another nearby. Basically, it is ensuring you have strong kingdom borders. How 2 treasuries of the same king influence each other can be looked at - perhaps there's no reason to change it and it only changes if it is a king outside the alliance.. this way you can get full bonus as log as treasures are secure. It also can give you a bigger bonus if you have a city and cover more area you can get over 4k points for 1 treasury.


    3. Change attack notifications. I'm not sure it makes sense that as soon as someone on the opposite end of the map launches an attack, I become aware of it. Maybe each village should be able to build a tower and that tower impacts how far away an attack can be seen. But say a village in the middle of a kingdom gets the benefit of towers on the edges.. This again promotes the kingdom concept and villages towards the center of a kingdom are more secure. Those on the edges, less secure. It promotes attacking since you'd want to keep villages away from your borders.

  • I would like to add one thing on the subject of incentivizing combat:


    I believe people do not fight over treasures because there is a glut of treasures. Treasures, to be valuable, must be scarce. So the supply of treasures should be turned on in the beginning of the game, and then the supply must be cut after a certain amount of time so that no more new treasures are being added to the game.


    I believe that this would greatly increase the incentives for fighting over treasures.

  • I still feel the servers are far, FAAAR too short. It takes until day 60 before you can fight properly. That lasts for about a month which isn't that long. After that, most people stop caring since it's endgame time and only the few relevant alliances have something to do.


    Also, another problem I've been running into - and this is gonna sound hopelessly arrogant - is that there are very, very few alliances and players left who really know how to play. Great, you have an amazing alliance that's setup the way it should be, with just the right people..but who are you going to fight? It feels like you need to wade through hordes and hordes of noobs until you finally meet an opponent worth a damn. I'd be happy to find more than 2 actually good alliances on a server. It'll take years to rebuild the general quality levelto a point where most servers will have more than one or two reasonably good alliances, and TK's incentives are just not setup to help do that. Much the opposite, they only serve to encourage metas (yes, there we go again). It will probably never get there. And yeah they're trying stuff with the test server, which I don't really have an opinion on yet, and also the special T3.6-like server (Rise of Alliance or something). Maybe it helps, we'll see the effects in a few years from now.


    Of course the rise of alliance thing won't work with just one server, but if that version is ever implemented on at least several running servers at a time, that could help save Travian...Idk, I just feel like TK is a lost cause and probably won't be returning to it either after this server.

    I don't really agree that there are too few good alliances to fight. It's fun to dismantle a bad alliance, and it's really fun to fight and do real damage on a good alliance. But I agree that the time available for fighting (where you can do real significant damage) is too short. One operation gone awry, and the alliance has to stop fighting for a couple weeks just to rebuild siege weapons back to the point where you can inflict real damage.


    The one thing I really like about the "finding lost troops" adventure is that ultimately this means that we have more siege weapons, since siege weapons are often the limiting factor in how much real damage can be inflicted.


    If I have 3000 catapults, and I lose them all but can get 1500 of them back 2 weeks later, then I will definitely attempt more zero-poppings. And I'm imagining that for a zero-popped village, the troops don't come back. So I risk half my hammer to attempt a zero-popping on an enemy. If I lose, I lose half my hammer and the defenders get back some of their dead troops. If I lose most of my hammer but the village gets zeroed, then I get half my troops back and the enemy gets back none. The more I think about this, the more I like it. There would be serious incentive to try to go for the zero-popping, as long as the troops of a zeroed village cannot be revived.