Offense vesus Defense Viewed as an inbalance

  • Hi all,


    I've just been thinking about this lately.


    Is it me or are defensive players the orphan children of Travian? The village that gets attacked gets the credit, is that correct?


    Does anyone even account for the resources that defensive players spend of their own resources on defending others as compared to offensive players using stolen resources?
    Is there anywhere that factors in what defensive players save in terms of resources, buildings and influence? In real life, "protection" costs a great deal.


    They are rarely pushed if ever, depending on your alliance's point of view.
    They aren't scored the same way.
    They don't have the same access to resources like active offensive players.
    Once their job is done, they are forgotten until the next time someone else is attacked.
    They HAVE to train both types of troop because of the robbers and for general resources.
    They don't seem to have a distinct advantage.
    They don't even get recognized for their contribution in a real way.


    Would it be possible to declare at registration not just the type of Tribe you will choose, but the type of player? I know it's not that simple but it shouldn't be that difficult to figure it out either.


    Because I am thinking if a person declares Offense, Defense or (Half&Half (first time registers only)), then quests could be tweeked. They could also get a "discount" on offensive troops up to a certain limit and/or type which would allow them to stay somewhat even with demand - just being able to keep even with Robbers would alleviate a lot of nuked villages and newbie farms and quitters!


    All this leads to the question, why would anyone want to be a defensive player as a newbie or others without "friends"?


    I happen to like playing defense in theory but in practice they seem to be at a distinct disadvantage.


    Why do you choose Offense or choose Defense?


    Thank you~


  • I've just been thinking about this lately.


    Is it me or are defensive players the orphan children of Travian? The village that gets attacked gets the credit, is that correct?


    I didn't read past ^this, as the answer to your question right there is, "No, that is not correct for Kingdoms. It was true in the past for T4.x and all prior versions of Travian."

  • The only thing I agree about this is the fact that defensive players have to produce offensive troops too in order to fight robbers. If you kill stuff in defense, you get defense points too. Also, you can dock your defensive units in oases to have resource production. Almost as good as raiding if you ask me.

  • Well for my point of view Travian dont have to pay the consequences of player wanting to play def but the leader of the team must always push the deffer in ress weather he will be using the ress making def or making off killing the robber anyway its a win win for the team


    If travian would make some like that player would all register as def and play off


    Regards Alb

  • It is up to the team to replace a defender's losses. Any good leader will call for a push when defense troops are lost. Of course, it is only when a team plays as a team that this will happen.


    Awarding the defense points to the actual providers of defense was long overdue and a welcome change in TK. For far too long, those who play def went unrecognized.

  • Well the Travian team has a lot they can still do with kingdoms. Imagine defense quest where loot is awarded to the player that kill the most attacking robbers. As it is now yes the game is geared to offensive player like it always has been. I'd be ok with offense and defense getting on more an equal footing through rpg and hero quest elements of the game. What I would really like is them to add a Banner men ability for dukes and kings.


  • They are rarely pushed if ever, depending on your alliance's point of view.
    They don't have the same access to resources like active offensive players.
    Once their job is done, they are forgotten until the next time someone else is attacked.
    They don't even get recognized for their contribution in a real way.


    Well, attackers almost always get more attention than defenders. That's the way our society works, in games or in life. For instance, in football, strikers and attacking midfielders always get more attention, more media coverage, even higher salary, than defenders and GK.



    They HAVE to train both types of troop because of the robbers and for general resources.


    Agree. That's an issue. However, when I play around with the simulator, I don't think it makes much difference. If you have reasonable number of troops, adding more troops won't make your loss significantly lower. Meanwhile, defenders should always have some attacking troops just in case (attackers should also have some defs as well). Besides, if you play Roman or Gaul, you can always build some EC or Haeduan, right
    :p



    They don't seem to have a distinct advantage.


    Disagree. Defenders have many advantages (I myself play def).
    - Less time required. This is huge!!! We have our real life as well, right?
    - Can produce troop at different villages. For Travian Kingdoms, this advantage is much stronger as you can build mines to lvl 12. A simple math will show you that a normal 6-crop can ensure your lvl-20 barrack running continuously producing legionnaire/praetorian. It means that you can just build it, and then letting it run continuously without any resource transfer. 3-5 villages like that and you are safe against most average hammers (remember that there is no troop training artifacts now so the attacker's training rate is at most twice your single city's training rate, 20% more with correct helmet).
    - Put troops at oasis: Now, def troops can create resource! While I wouldn't say they are more profitable than EI/TT/club in good raider's hands, it helps. A def player should be in charge of defending oases surrounding their villages and easily get high ranks there.
    - The lower need of cropper. Some people are still exploring whether croppers are still necessary in Travian Kingdom. But most seems to agree that croppers are now less important. Without the need of cropper, players can stay in their first village area without the need to travel far to find good cropper. Distance and time is key.


    Quote

    Because I am thinking if a person declares Offense, Defense or (Half&Half (first time registers only)), then quests could be tweeked. They could also get a "discount" on offensive troops up to a certain limit and/or type which would allow them to stay somewhat even with demand - just being able to keep even with Robbers would alleviate a lot of nuked villages and newbie farms and quitters!


    It's hard to do. The quests are easily abused by multi-account. I also don't think there are many players playing strictly def/atk.


    Quote

    All this leads to the question, why would anyone want to be a defensive player as a newbie or others without "friends"?


    It's a hard question. Everyone has their own reasons, their own playstyle, the own life at its limit. I play governor/def because we are in beta and I could be quite busy in life sometimes. I'd say playing def is good when you don't want to commit lots of time/gold.

  • Thank you everyone for contributing to my knowledge base :-)


    @ wonkamonster, Can you explain to me how this is different than past servers? exactly how are defensive players given points and does any of it - without attacking others - contribute to the VP of the kingdom/alliance?


    @Alb, as you said, "any good leader..." now I've been reading the boards here and see that the lack of good leadership is an ongoing issue, so where does that leave the majority of players or the smaller defensive players in a strong alliance? Yes, anvils may be pushed but the others? not so much.


    @beggingforfood, so what happens in the next server where oasis no longer has influence? Will they still be multiplayer oasis or go back to the old way? You must be in a large alliance because i am surrounded by big alliances that have already claimed any reasonably close oasis as their own. Try completing with that as a small player.


    @ jallu, that's the key, isn't it? All you really need to be successful as a newb is to have one good and trusted friend. The veteran players all have developed relationships of all kinds, but how many have one truly, fully trusted friend that they met in-game? And wouldn't that be the same if you chose to play offensive with a trusted defensive player? From what little i have seen, a player really needs to pair up with their opposite to get the most out of everything. And what would attract you to defense and why do you play offense instead? BTW, are you saying in your tag that NOBODY has stolen a single treasure from Alb?


    @ DH, that's the qualifyer, "any good leader," HEY! there's another thing you and Alb agree on ;-)


    @ Wildviking , what is a Bannermen? And would this help both offense and defense?


    @Seiryu, Do live in a country without mandatory insurance laws or criminal neighborhoods or a military? Protection is pretty expensive in my part of the world, even when the resources come from a distributed tax base, you pay for police and firemen, countries pay for military, in my real life, we tend to pay a lot for protection.


    What i have read on the boards here is a lot of complaints about the robbers, i am guessing those complaints are coming from defensive players, but i don't know.


    it's nice to know there are contented defense players. I would agree that defense plays easier in real life, as long as you have a good sitter who can send out support when needed. Thank you So much for the math. I know it's an important aspect of the game, but i am still trying to figure it out.


    i am don't know if i agree with the idea that croppers are unecessary, if no croppers than there is less battles and also that means that everyone maxes out at the same cap if the number of villages are equal. Do you thnk it would push players to create more and more villages without developing the ones that they have? They are going to have to build more as it is with the treasury cap, no?


    i keep forgetting about the abuse, Alb brought that aspect up also.


    i get the impression that you view defense as a kind of sim account, less active. but if you are doing all that you recommend, guarding the oasis, building anvil size troops and deploying them for the entire kingdom or alliance, it sounds like it could become very busy.


    Thank you all, you;ve given me a lot to think about. Tweeking the quest based on your type of play is too easy to abuse, that makes sense and thank you for pointing it out.


    One recurring theme here are the oasis, but do we know what oasis will be like in the next serve? Who gets access, how they are obtained, that sort of thing.


    i don't think you all understand just how much you veteran players with your experience (that can't be found in any book)contribute to the Travian knowledge base. i really appreciate your input.


    just curious, would or do any of you employ defensive players as Dukes?

  • I guess we should start a new topic and each of us discuss what our own views are as to what it takes to be a good (alliance or kingdom) leader. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I may do just that this weekend. I believe it would make for an interesting discussion, especially if we can get both experienced leaders and those they have led to contribute.


    I like to think there was a time when I was a good leader. However, I no longer have the time and can no longer put the needed effort into being what I consider a good alliance leader. I will point out that a good leader is not always liked by everyone, is seldom appreciated by the team he or she leads, and must make decisions which are often unpopular.


    However, one of the things a good leader does is to be sure his or her members, including especially lead defense players, know they are appreciated and receive the teams support for what they do. It is one of the ways such a leader encourages not only a player (offense or defense) but the entire team.

  • @ wonkamonster, Can you explain to me how this is different than past servers? exactly how are defensive players given points and does any of it - without attacking others - contribute to the VP of the kingdom/alliance?


    Simply put: past servers it was the player who owned the town being attacked who got all the defense points (and any possible defense ribbons). Any and all heroes present split the xp evenly (rounded down, I believe).


    In TK, the defense points and xp are split according to the % of things you kill. So if I call for defense and only have a handful of prats on my own, but you send an anvil of 10k phalanx and P3 (player 3) sends 5k phalanx, then I will get (maybe) 1% of the points, while you will get ~66% and P3 will get ~33%. If your anvil was big enough, and the attacking player lost enough troops, then the defense ribbon would be yours.


    So that's a huge difference, and seemed to be what the majority of your post was about --the lack of "official" game recognition for the defender.


    As for VP -- no. You get those from stolen goods which are turned into treasures, or by stealing treasures. Both things require at least an average amount of offense.


    Quote

    @Alb, as you said, "any good leader..." now I've been reading the boards here and see that the lack of good leadership is an ongoing issue, so where does that leave the majority of players or the smaller defensive players in a strong alliance? Yes, anvils may be pushed but the others? not so much.


    Anvils rarely get a push unless they take a significant blow due to defending an important ally target.
    Personally, I hate alliance pushes. The only time I found them to be useful was with the large/unique Builder Artifact -- in which case you push someone to build a new town specifically to hold a GG/GW arti to be chiefed every ~week or so to let everyone have a chance to use it. When an anvil took a hit, I will (often) personally send over some resources, but would never require it of the alliance.


    Also, I've never like announcing things like, "hey, our biggest anvil just lost 70% of his troops, please send resources to his sparsely protected towns," which is one of the reasons I actually liked the anonymous defense system. And I know a lot of anvils who felt the same way -- they were content to be acknowledged by leadership and the players whose towns they saved, but didn't need more than that. (I also know many anvils who wanted it this new way, so it can't hurt to try it out.)


    Quote

    @beggingforfood, so what happens in the next server where oasis no longer has influence? Will they still be multiplayer oasis or go back to the old way?


    I don't think they've announced this yet.
    They're supposed to have oasis production added directly to your towns again, too, so there is a lot to be determined on how oases will work.



    Quote

    @ jallu, that's the key, isn't it? All you really need to be successful as a newb is to have one good and trusted friend. The veteran players all have developed relationships of all kinds, but how many have one truly, fully trusted friend that they met in-game?


    I'd say about 1/3 to 1/2 of the vets who have played 2 or more servers have found at least 1 partner of this nature. Whether that person sticks around for multiple servers or not...


    - - - Updated - - -


    I guess we should start a new topic and each of us discuss what our own views are as to what it takes to be a good (alliance or kingdom) leader. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I may do just that this weekend.


    Go for it.
    I'll take some time and try to remember the good (and bad) things I've done as leader.

  • @ alliance pushing: In the best premade (meta) alliances I've seen there were always a few people designated to be pushed from the start. Those would get ahead and make large hammers very early in the game, with which some potential enemies could be easily annihilated early on when defending was impossible. It's a style that's really unfair to everybody else, unless everybody else also plays this way (which will never happen since the game is pay-to-win and therefore not competetive enough to become semi-professional). It's a potentially good strategy though.

  • Well for me i dont ask any governor to push anyone since they have their own accounts but i like to push my govs that are always here for the alliance
    i think of it as a way to thank them of the marvelous sacrifice they do for the alliance
    i think as leader its normal to help

  • @ alliance pushing: In the best premade (meta) alliances I've seen there were always a few people designated to be pushed from the start. Those would get ahead and make large hammers...


    Yeah, I've always hated that.
    But I've also seen it backfire almost as much as it has worked. Either the pushed player decides to delete early or he gets mad for some reason and attacks his former allies.
    I've also seen big players join smaller alliances, get pushed to build "a hammer to protect all of us" and then go back to some other alliance.


    Well for me i dont ask any governor to push anyone since they have their own accounts but i like to push my govs that are always here for the alliance
    i think of it as a way to thank them of the marvelous sacrifice they do for the alliance
    i think as leader its normal to help


    I agree with all of ^this.

  • I agree with comments on alliance pushing.


    Also agree with anonymous anvils. All anvils I've worked with in the past have been happy with loads of praise, plus comments like


    'to my anonymous heroes' on my profile page for the green ribbons' - last server I played I was rank 1 defender with all 3 special greens as an offensive teuton, and all the golden green medals and the anvils just loved the anonymous action because they never got any retribution despite destroying all those hammers because no one knew who they were...

  • so many different styles. I can see why teams that have been together over a couple servers are highly efficient, all these guide lines, all the kinks have already been worked out so efficiency is much greater. But also the unexpected events cause by someone learning adds another dimension.


    Can a kingdom/alliance play an exclusively offensive game? (thinking the best defense is the best offense) I don't tend to agree with that but has it been done?


    Have all of you played on the same alliances at one point or another?


    I am kept very busy here with all the details and input. This forum has been great for me because of all of you.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Rom ().

  • Yes, I've seen alliances play a completely offensive style and do blitz-style manouvres, but it can only pay off short to midterm and then only if the alliance gets ahead with their aggression. After that you'd need to be able to defend something. You can't crush every alliance on the server quickly enough which means there will be people attacking you at some point, but it's possible to wipe out every resistance in the quad with that strategy. I'd like to see it used in a quad with several good alliances that are all prepared to deal with it, see if it still works then. A completely passive, defensive style would usually not work, but there's always situations conceivable in which even that can work. It all depends :)