Posts by Aeneas

    "As long as he is active, you are stuck with your King. Sure, if he was really bad everyone could gang up and boot him out, but I've only ever seen this happen early on for Kings who didn't know how to play. "


    In regards to this, on the most recent Comx3 server the #2 ranked alliance "OxY" was lead by a king named "ImperatoR" he treated his players terribly and I lead a rebellion which almost everyone joined our side due to his terrible treatment of us. The rebellion caused him to delete and 3 of his dukes to delete, although one submitted and joined us.


    Then I ruled over the new kingdom :P and this was in week 6 of 8 weeks by the way. ^^

    True. But he was really, really bad. ;) The exception that makes the rule, so to speak.

    Well good Kings do the things that you guys have been saying. Maybe I've been unlucky, but I can't say that I've seen some of these in evidence even in Top 5 Kingdoms. In particular:


    1. I'm usually more active than my King and I'm nowhere near active enough to be a King in my own estimation
    2. Kings often try to duck out of making decisions or make very bad decisions when it comes to dealing with player disputes
    3. Kings have to be bullied into making defchats etc. Well, it's not as though Governors can do it.
    4. Kings don't seem to be very apt at spotting potential traitors; they are too easily taken in, e.g. by flattery ;) and instead suspect everyone, which cripples communication
    5. Kings generally say, "We only defend Kings and Dukes, because they have the treasures"
    6. Kings are lousy at picking Dukes
    7. etc.

    You''ll have to explain. If you mean that exploits allow you to be competitive, well I don't care for that kind of competitiveness.

    There is already a current rule in this. If a king goes inactive (Grey) then the next biggest duke automatically becomes king.

    The biggest Duke, but I'll forgive that error. Still, some Kings might be so desperate that Kingdom X doesn't win that they delete. This was what I was hinting at.

    I think preventing removal/abdication of dukes and even king when wonder reach level 50 is a good way to balance this out.
    Like what you did when hitting level 50 wonder no kingdom can invite new members to their kingdom. :D

    What happens if a King goes inactive?

    My latest server has left me once again questioning the balancer of power between Kings/Dukes/Governors. I've played all three, so I have a reasonable perspective I think.


    As long as he is active, you are stuck with your King. Sure, if he was really bad everyone could gang up and boot him out, but I've only ever seen this happen early on for Kings who didn't know how to play. Leaving and joining another Kingdom is only even thinkable early on also if your King knows how to play the game. But knowing how to play the game doesn't mean that they are good, or compatible, Kings.


    Generally Kings appear to trust no-one apart from any pre-existing clique (and I understand why, but this doesn't make it any easier to take), so most of the Kingdom are kept in the dark and have no part in decisions that affect them considerably. Given that, in a decent Kingdom, Kings get more resource and don't have to waste troops acquiring it, I feel that they owe the Governors something, and let's face it, it's not protection like it says at the start of the game - the Governors protect the Kings/Dukes, not the other way round.


    At the moment I don't feel I have the time to play King and I'd rather not be a poor King. Others don't feel the same reluctance; maybe that's because the advantages of being King are so large. Therefore I suggest that there needs to be an advantage for Governors that's not available to Kings (or probably Dukes). I'm not sure what that might be, as I'm sure Travian wouldn't want anything that might cut gold use. For now then, I just want to make the suggestion that there needs to be something to make being a Governor more attractive.

    We're aware there's a problem and are thinking of some solutions. But firstly I'm going to give a short description of the issue in my words, so that you can add to it if you think it's not a complete picture:


    Right now you can switch your dukes and king too easily, so you can make the attacked player a governor right before the attack lands to protect your VP from being stolen (cause VP can only be stolen from dukes and kings now).


    Is that accurate? Are there some other unwanted behaviors related to this currently happening?

    There is a basic issue on how easy it is to 'cheat' with VPs all round, they're just too easy to move; the whole VP metric is broken. The only way I can see to fix it is stop the moving of VPs completely. That is, VPs once earned would stay with that Kingdom, no matter what happens, and can't be moved or stolen. Of course you can earn new ones, but the old ones stay where they are. If the Kingdom is dissolved they just disappear.


    To counterbalance this you may want to think about awarding VPs for any attack that does damage on a WW, which will encourage aggressive play in the endgame an stop Kingdoms merely hunkering down and protecting their WW. Another possibility is to have a multiplier which increases as the server goes on. I say these assuming that the reason for VP steal was to encourage attacking in the late game.

    This has already been mentioned in respect of specific instances, but I'd like to raise it as the most important issue facing TK at the moment; one, which means that I shall not play another game until it is fixed.


    What I'm talking about is the merry-go-round of treasures and VPs caused by players moving Kingdoms, abdicating and all the other nonsense designed to play the system with regard to VPs.


    On Comx3 we have reached the logical conclusion of this tactic, where every major alliance is using the tactic. The first time it was clever; now it's just mundane, but it completely breaks the game.


    Fix it now Travian, or this will kill the game faster than a North Korean assassin.

    Scout units working should be upgraded with rally point. eg they should be able to give report of military buildings and also they should be able to help catas/siege attacks to bring down specific building with less amount of catas eg useful for WW levels.
    Some people usually build Scout hammers, this will encourage them.


    My idea about option of reinforcing a grey/inactive villages is that it should not be removed to keep some suspicions about the target village.

    Not strictly Rally Point, but I do agree that you should be able to scout more, e.g. to see if there are traps. To offset this maybe you could need more scouts and/or scout losses could be higher from scouts at home.

    In addon to anti-cheating: they have absolutely 0 cheat detection at the moment. There's been players botting for months without any bans. It's not just multilogging that's the problem, there's dozens of players raiding 24/7 playing solo. We've got couple of those botters banned by proving they are botting, but seems like TG team hasn't caught any themselves.

    May one enquire as to how you proved it?


    But I also think that the prevalence of cheating spoils the game. Two examples of multi-accounting that I've seen in "Top 10" players:


    1. Personal Defence - while I saw genuine examples of this in TL, I've not seen one in TK so far that was clearly a separate person and there's definitely been some that weren't (e.g. player B attacked me for being rude to him, when actually I'd been rude to player A); in general these personal deffers never say a word to anyone.
    2. Personal Farms - one King actually told me not to attack 'player X' as it was his personal farm.


    I fear that cheating is rife and Travian don't care.

    So the hero's weapon that gives, say, +5 to every Phalanx. Let's say he has reinforcements from both his own villages and from other players. Is that:


    • Every Phalanx from his home village?
    • Every Phalanx from all his villages?
    • Every Phalanx from all the players?

    Originally, dual accounts were not allowed, but in practice everyone used them. It was impossible to ban duals that had password access to the same account. Things would revert back to that situation if you removed sitters/duals now...This wasn't in the hands of the devs I'm afraid.

    They're called Duals, but in some cases there are three or four (maybe more) people playing on one account. They have a huge advantage, but not everyone wants to Dual. Ergo for those of us who don't, having alternatives is great. This would definitely be useful to us and I can't see how it harms the cheaters duals.