Banned maybe? Just guessing
Robbers camps are source of treasures It seems perfectly fine to me that your contribution to alliance victory cost you a bit. That does not seem right though is total dis-balance between offensive and defensive players in ability to get those treasuries with minimum losses.
Transferring gold between domains has never been possible on travian. Cost of gold is different on different domains so I doubt it will ever happen.
But we were talking about secret society, not duke position though? Anyway, we don't have to agree obviously. It's just that in the best small alliances I've been a part of we simply NEVER had spies, for years on end. If you get with a premade alliance like that (and on this server we wouldn't allow any newly spawned governor in, it's not like we'd be going for the endgame win anyway), why not share any and all information?
You brought secret society into discussion about leadership roles. My original point was that many players (myself likely included) will be hesitant to accept duke's position because of visibility issue.
That's why I said "for me". It also depends on your notion of competetiveness. I don't plan on joining 100+ account alliances, but I do intend to be competetive
Does not matter. 20 would be enough.
My point is duke position has other things attached to it that are not necessarily good to have for lets say OC.
Such society, if competitive, will have 100+ accounts in it. No way I will let know amount of standing defense in my hammer village to 100+ accounts, preset or not.
It will be an issue anyway. I can't imaging myself entering such society if I play seriously. Call me paranoid.
Travian has 3 levels structure - individual players, alliances and confederacy. Last one has no (in-game) meaning at all, a union created on skype and publicly announced is pretty much equal to official in-game confederacy, the only advantage is ability to set trade routes to WW and artifacts villages.
TK introduced another level - kingdoms - and than another - dukes - and made confederacy even more artificial. Even alliances are kinda pointless (just triple number of dukes and make one king run them all).
If it were up to me (I suggested it before and was ridiculed for my naivety) I would eliminate confederacy level completely and make alliance ties more, e.i. only alliance members can rein each other or send resources to each other, regardless WW village or not. That will reduce to some extent zerging, complicate multi-accounting and even can be tuned to make life hard for spies. But it's not my call
- - - Updated - - -
Lol, Daniel, I know how consuming leadership is, first hand. Hopefully, I know how time consuming effective leadership is.
It's very rare to see effective meta leader who does it all. Usually the account is run mostly or at least with great help of duals and sitters. My point is king's account is already more time consuming than governor's account and dukes also have additional task compare to governors. I see no reason to tie those tasks with leadership positions.
There is a thing most of the players don't like about travian - how time-consuming it is. It is one of the main reasons people leave the game. With that in mind I struggle to understand where the desire to put as many responsibilities as possible on one person is coming from.
A king, by the way the game is structured, has certain tasks - mainly expand kingdom's territory. There is no need to force other tasks on a king (no reason to forbid it either of course)
A duke is even more confusing. The original function of this position is to expand the territory and maybe partially shift a burden of treasuries guarding. Why is it connected in any way with leadership? I watched with horror constant rotation of dukes to gain territory. I know a lot of capable people who will never accept the position because of visibility issue. I can rant endlessly.
Kings and dukes are game functions, there are absolutely no reason for the to be an equivalent of leadership roles.
You can put the player as a sitter though
The idea behind making oases available for up to 5 players is to encourage cooperation.
There are 4 basic scenarios. I'm talking about strategies, not implementation. For capital oases it's a huge deal.
First, the easiest, is when an oasis is located within the player's kingdom. By placing certain number of troops players regulate somehow who gets what bonus.
Second, also pretty obvious. An oasis is located in unallied/unfriendly kingdom. You fight for it.
If oasis is located in free territory, not much can be done. Whoever is closer will get the higher bonus.
The most complicated situation is when an oasis is located in friendly kingdom. You can't attack it and amount of troops you station there does not make any difference.
What is your experience resolving those situations? Especially the last one. Did it increased the level of cooperation (real experience only please) or just created trouble?
Eventually, long term alliances will develop in kingdoms environment (let's be optimistic) and they will create policies regarding oases bonus distribution. What rules you find appropriate?
Example regarding no insta-build scenario.
On another (travian) server I had my fields destroyed recently and rebuilding now. Originally, we npced and insta starting level 13, it was early game, so the account was small and we did not have resources to do so more than 2-3 times a day, not too much spending. If insta build did not exist fields would take more time but still will worth it probably. Now however, we have big account and alliance push to rebuild the fields so we have enough resources to build much faster and not much time till the end of server to allow slow build up. If insta build did not exist alliance will not be able to help us rebuild, no way to spend those resources. There is not enough time to bring fields to the original level, leave alone to have them produce enough to pay off and without it we can't support more troops. Constant NPC is more gold than we are spending on insta build. Result - once fields destroyed after mid-game an account would be frozen and frankly, how many will continue in such circumstances?
Uksik isn't saying gold users are less experienced or knowledgeable.
He's saying the heavy gold users know they have a huge advantage and want to keep that advantage.
He said that gold users will not be able to find login button, which I read as they don't know how to play at all.
Marius, your account does not proof much, actually. It would be a proof if on the other side team oriented style was implemented and you beat them. But this is not the case as far as I know.
You are saying that most of your governors are not active enough, but it's a question of what comes first - a chicken or an egg. Surprisingly, people are more active than they see that their effort counts, you don't know how it would play out if they were encouraged to be equal partners from the start. This is true for average player but especially true for most players who can potentially build good or even top account. Definitely true for myself and I doubt I'm unique.
Even if we assume that you are exceptional player and for real know better way to use resources than majority of your governors, it's not the case for average king. So yes, there are exceptional cases when there are reasons not to low the taxes, but by default it's better to low the rate.
Last but not least, a small detail which went unnoticed on beta because of oases influence. Without oases influence kingdom's area is smaller, with many gaps. If kingdom has lower taxes players have a reason to settle within the borders (and generate tribute) as they are getting more resources. Villages outside on the borders have have standard production. If rate is medium, villages outside of kingdom's borders are no different, better actually because there is likely less competition for oases bonus. So if I want my account be better with medium tax rate kingdom, I will be looking for a better spot regardless of borders. I'm simplifing it, there are some other factors, but I guess the point is clear - the king gets zero tribute from such villages.
There is no fight because there is not enough active players to make a critical mass. I think it's save to say that old school travian in mass rejected kingdoms. Mainly because it's way too heavy, because analytics with one window system is time-consuming beyond reasonable (and how the hell you suppose to plan an operation against an alliance/kingdom if you can't get the list of the players in that alliance?) and communication is broken. After that everyone has a long list of personal dislikes.
But thanks for proving my point that gold players don't want to shorten the gap between free and gold players because you know, without gold a lot of them can't even find the login button.
There is absolutely no reason to believe, that gold users, even heavy gold users, are, on average, less experienced and knowledgeable players than non gold users. Slightly opposite actually as it's easier for gold user to find experienced dual and learn (again, on average).
Город, когда он столица, дополнительно дает 500 ЕК. Просто город - 200. Столица, видимо, была перенесена из города в негород.
It would be good to limited the possibility of conquest of WW: 2 by ally or confederation
It will also be good to put a limit on how much people raid, how many villages they can have and, heck, why not limit number of catas?