High pop accounts and Kingship

  • Mayo,

    I've gone back and re-read all your posts, it doesn't make sense. I've been in the top 5 or so for pop for pretty much the duration of com5 (been #1 or #2 for some time now, though not really that worried about it. If I finish #1, cool, but I'll trade that for the server win every single time). I've had the largest kingdom for at least half the server. I've had the most treasures for a significant part of the server, though I seem to recollect that Vedder had me beat for quite a while (same alliance). I'll guarantee you that I've had more troops die at my walls than any other player (though I'm nowhere near the leaderboard for def points, there are some serious deffers in our alliance that put me to shame). I'll guarantee you I've lost more high level fields, and more treasury levels, than any other player on com5.

    Whether you sim or not has nothing to do with size, or whether you're a king, it's about the decisions you make. If you want to sim, knock yourself out. If you don't, don't. But it's not like either choice is forced upon you by size, role or anything else.

  • Wait a few weeks in after WWs are on and depending how big is your meta you will eventually understand what I meant. You will also see the difference between you and other large kings that aren't in a situation like yours.
    I understand that for you what I'm saying makes no whatever sense though.

  • Here is another way to look at the expansion of ones kingdom....

    What is the point if you can do what needs to be done with just enough room.

    This is where rankings and medals hurt team work. Kings want to have the biggest or best kingdom for that title or rank.

    On a team it is what is best for the team and not one particular player no matter what position they are playing(king, duke or gov)
    Plus there is no guarantee that having the largest kingdom mean you are the best king or even the strongest. This game is played and won by those who can come together and work as a team.

  • Come on, late game any kings in top 10 aren't complete noobs and they have built a relationship with their governors and duke. Top kings aren't on top of it randomly, I'm sure VVV isn't a top king by chance.
    Medals are just a plus for players to compete between each other and they mark what you were able to accomplish alone or with your team, gettings medals is also possible through teamwork.
    Sure there might be kings wanting the biggest one but the majority wants the biggest one to be able to compete with other big kingdoms.
    And no this game is still won by the ones having the biggest meta and the ones simming the most during the server.

  • I think you missed my point I was making and I guess looking back I really did not stress what I really wanted to say.

    Just because something can be done, does not mean you have to do it.

    For example.....

    - Just because you have an open slot to promote someone to a duke, does not mean you need to do it.
    - Just because you could expand your kingdom does not mean you have to do it.

    Many people play for the medals and rankings instead of playing for a team. I have known many players who build a big army but only want it to score the purple raiders ribbon. So it never gets used for or to help the team win a battle or a war.
    Only used to collect medals and ribbons.

    I have promoted many times for them to do away with the individual awards and make them more team oriented. So instead of medals for top farmer, alliance medals for winning battles and/or wars. This is a war game after all. :)

  • If they are happy with what they do, its a playstyle aswell, likr someone who decides to sim or one that decides to play aggressive.
    Having some medals at least shows that somehow you actually play the war game :p

  • Mayo,

    Sorry, but that last statement is something I will never agree with. Raiding medals count for nothing. And most attack medals count for nothing too. Let me put it this way - the majority of most servers, the top attackers in any given week are suspiciously similar to the top robbers. Sure, the medals look pretty, but they don't mean anything about playing a war game. Realistically, whether you like it or not, this war game is defined by VP, which at present is defined by WW. So unless you do real damage to a WW, or chief kill a WW capable hammer (and we know those are few and far between on these servers), or splat killing a WW capable hammer, all the raider and attacker medals in the world actually don't show anything. If you don't do one of those three as an attacking player, then you've actually shown that you don't know how to play this particular war game. If you want people to pat you on the back for lotsa raiding and killing small number of troops that will never define the outcome of a server, go play one of those casual mobile games that is everything we want Travian to avoid becoming...

    On a slightly more conciliatory note, yes, you can actually contribute towards a win by heavy attacking by making your enemies quit/go grey. But as a general rule, you need an entire alliance of that. I'm yet to see it. A single player going nuts all server long certainly will get players to quit and weaken the opposition. But in overall effect on winning this war game, the dirty, dirty boonie simmer with a real WWK will always have far more influence on the overall server result than any hyperactive attacker.

  • Well I'll agree with you generally, but always using my current server as example my governors/dukes and my off medals are from our collective off activities. Obviously a good 20% of the total off points in the ladder are due to robbers but the rest sure isn't.
    We killed an alliance midgame and damaged pretty badly the biggest one midgame/lategame and reduced their possibilities to win the server, we would have done it with everyone if we had more time but server length doesn't allow it.
    But yeah having sim a few WW hammers sure makes a huge impact on who wins and who losses at the end which is kinda sad and not fair for some but since you can do it, we cant really complain, we should have done the same thing right?

  • I just would like more viable strategies. I don't want to see then end of WWK simming, I like indulging in a spot of that too much for it to disappear, I'd just prefer there to be other viable strategies. And if you're discussing com4 here, I'm not aware of anyone who has simmed a WWK, god knows I haven't.

  • Wish I'd read this before but onto the issue,

    I almost completely agree with everything you've said so far VVV especially the part that they're going around rewarding attacking completely the wrong way.
    The developers shouldn't encourage "blind attacking" per se like they've done with the change revealing treasures, but instead encourage "warring" b/w major alliances past the initial stage of a server once things settle down a little. The One Kingdom change will help that quite a bit, but it isn't enough.
    They need to go further and create a permanent steady VP loss proportional to population for alliances not at war with another.
    This is the ancient world, you are meant to Fight, Kill, and Conquer.
    Wars themselves need to be given more meaning by adding extra VP gain for treasures stolen during a declared war.

    Also in order to get rid of cases like current Com5 where everyone just allied each other at the start, Confederations should be given more meaning in that a war declared by either side will automatically force their allies to join whether they like it or not.
    It'll mean that allying with another alliance is an "actual alliance" and force each other to join the other's wars.
    Not actively participating in an allies war should be accompanied by a VP loss I imagine(I'm sure a suitable mechanic can be thought of for example, If x %age of treasures are not stolen by you out of total stolen in war by all sides where 'x' is percentage of population of your alliance versus the main participants etc. etc.).
    It would also give NAP's weight and separate them from Confed.'s because right now there isn't much difference.

    Plus, we'll see some cool server wars when one the member of one block declares war on some alliance part another block.
    Small conflicts this way could suddenly spark massive world wars.
    And get rid of all those annoying peaceful blobs we see so often.
    It'd also fix a lot of the other issues you pointed out, such as no scope for VP gain from wars for top-ranked alliances.(Encouraging TITAN to stay peaceful in Com5's case)
    With these changes, if an alliance wants to accrue the VP to win, It will have to fight wars and attack enemies all server long.
    So you won't see those cases where people build hammers till day 150 and splat.
    In the current scenario, there is only case for VP gain, not loss, that needs to be changed asap.
    Along with the changes, you've suggested, I believe many of the issues facing the game currently could be fixed.

    My point of contention with you VVV is where you point out we have half your attack and less than half your defence points.
    I'd like to point out that as your main opposition, our alliance came not from a pre-existing group like Titan, Bob, EMC, etc., but was gradually formed from merging several other alliances during the course of the server. Due to that we lost much of our attack, defence and VP points during the mergers, if those values were included our attack points would only be marginally lower than yours, however our Defence points would be lower quite a bit admittedly and our VP would only be slightly lower as our treasures have been only slightly lesser than yours over the course of server.

    We did not get those treasures by "simming", we did it by destroying every single opposing alliance in our quadrant and taking those treasures by force. It is the reason only 2 major alliances exist in SE anymore.
    It is because we warred everyone else out of existence, however we remained off the top 10 board as we were much smaller than Titan and still are.
    Right now Titan has 80% more population than us, but only 33% more VP.
    If those lost values were included and on a per population basis, our attack and VP values would be significantly greater than yours.
    Not only that, our raiding efficiency is higher than yours.
    On a quality basis, my alliances players are better than yours.(no offense intended, just an opinion)
    We aren't simmers VVV, just smaller.

    I often get the desire to write as long posts as you can VVV, but at my age, patience isn't exactly my greatest virtue.
    So I'll just cap off to say I agree with all the game changes you proposed along with my own and I hope the developers take a cue from what everyone is saying and do the needful :)