Posts by 50 Calibre

    @Reducter....You disliked my post and that is not a big deal to me but this thread was the developers asking us what we liked about the game in regards to ourselves.


    You did not even post a rebuttal about what you disliked about what I said about how I FEEL about the game. This thread was started by Georgi and I think in hopes of understanding what we as players like about the game so far.


    So not even sure any dislikes should be given to anyone in this thread as it is for each to jot down what makes the game fun for them on an individual basis.


    So maybe instead of focusing on that dislike button you should post about what makes this game fun for you to play.

    I like Kingdoms because it is new and I have had the opportunity to help shape this game from it's beginning days.
    As with other versions it is the interaction with fellow game players and alliance members that bring life to this game.
    This new version has also attracted a new following of players and many of them are discovering that playing as a team
    works better and is more fun then being in an alliance where the focus is on only a select few.


    Those who are long time players of Legends either like this version or they don't. I think the transition is a lot smoother when you can begin a game in it's early stages
    Many are so used to doing things a certain way in Travian and a new version with different actions may lead many to think that something can't be done.
    If trying to make the transition then keep this in mind. Kingdoms is different and many things that work in Legends does not work in Kingdoms.
    However the game is still identical enough that what you know from Legends can help you learn Kingdoms faster. Just a matter of taking the time and asking those of us who have been here.

    The game has made it easier for new players to survive but still needs to be tweaked a bit so that in a fight, there will be a winner and a loser.


    Overall my fun comes from learning as this game evolves and helping others pick it up as fast as they can.


    50 Calibre
    The .COM's



    To me passive force is the use of diplomacy, teamwork, communication, deception and spying.


    Of course aggressive force is the use of troops and intimidation.


    I do not advocate spying and very seldom use that tool myself. However if I did then the only 2 people who would know is me and that spy.
    What gets people in trouble is when they brag about doing it. To me that is just an ego thing and the need for attention.
    When you are involved in deep cover situations those should remain your secrete forever. If not then you will always be known as a spy or a leader who deploys the use of spies. So much greater care is taken when dealing with players or alliances known for it.

    I like and respect you as well Daniel or I would not keep trying to get you to play on Colony. :)


    Just a simple debate as many have different views of what is acceptable in war. I broke your quote into 2 parts as they are the ones I wished to focus on.



    One excuse I still hear, repeated by Jallu above, is that somehow the fact that BZ's manager rights were taken indicated some sort of betrayal on United's part. If you will bother to read the thread I cited, you will see in BZ's own words that his intention was to remove all kings and disband United if it looked like United was going to win. That is why manager rights were taken, to prevent such treason.


    I remember when this happened because badzone was also in that skype chat. What still mystifies me today as it did back then is why would United take the time to remove rights for one they may have suspicions about and leave all their hopes in another player that even United players suspected from the start.?? United let a known Xtools players hold their main WW and this was only because United wanted that WW and cried in that chat so it was arranged for United to take in Heart. United had more then one and should not put all that faith in an arrangement.



    As far as I know, no one in United suspected that the WW holder intended to defect after using United to build the WW to within minutes of level 100. Jallu has said that was planned by xTools all along, as others have said also.


    As I said before the United leaders admitted already that this thought had occurred to them and had always suspected it but never thought it would happen. So instead of securing a WW on your own merits United settled for an arrangement with xtools and then badzone and swordy turned on them and said lets have a "friendly war" How is that not deceiving xtools?? United never said a word while it looked like xtools would win the server but when the tides began changing and United saw they had an chance, they took it by suggesting this friendly war, including dropping the NAP at their convenience. So as I said before all alliances during that server used all those tools listed. So no one had clean hands for what took place.



    As for how I felt about it I posted that already in the original thread but let me just say that in war there is no rules. Name one country that would abide by them?


    I learned from that server and our policy is now that only trusted and long term members of our alliance can be kings and/or hold our WW if we take one.
    We set our kings before server even begins and we have a rotating system in place for WW builder so that everyone can get a chance to experience what it takes.
    We still have arguments just like other alliances but we know that at the end of the day we are all still Colony.


    Just keep this in mind...No matter how many rules you enact to try and control what can go on, Humans will always try and with lots of success find a way around it or just completely ignore it.
    Name one criminal who has obeyed the law/rules?


    Although this is past history it is relevant to this thread and the original poster. He is also looking for a way to keep things from happening and both actions are nearly identical.



    p.s. Samurai cried for xtools to hand them over a WW too since they could not take one. just saying ;)

    Seems to still be a lot of words being spoken about what took place so long ago. Many called it unfair and many others say the game should be fixed so that WW can't change hands after a certain time.
    Many blame xtools for all that happened during that round. Everyone blames everyone but take a look back at the steps you took as well.


    - Many followed Alb and Samurai blindly based on Alb stating he could do it all and win the server just because he was some kind of Travian god.
    You did not take the steps to secure a WW and instead of doing research on the taking of a WW, you all followed advice that was not true.
    Many had already known that you did not need to send catapults to the WW and if Alb was so great he would have known that. So he waited till the time when WW's were released and settled a village near it cause he felt he was the great Alb and everyone else would just cower in his presence. Then when no one would give or let Alb take a WW without a fight he raged quit. Many will call me a liar but I know Alb. I am the one who introduced him to Kingdoms and I was the one who removed him from my alliance when he stated this fact..."I am a better player then anyone in Kingdoms" Then he started going off with death threats against some of us so we parted ways.


    Now some of you may say I have an ax to grind but those who do know me know I do not lie and only talk facts when it comes to Travian.


    Now let's look at the tools of war.....
    -Spying
    -Deception
    -Passive force
    -Aggressive force
    -Strategy


    During that server and in every server these tools should be used when they can to help you achieve victory. These same tools are used in the real world military's and have achieved success and failure thru out time.
    The debate still goes on here how those tools should be removed from a WAR GAME. Big question for me is why? This is supposed to be a real time strategy war game played by people from around the world.



    As someone had mentioned in another post, I was in the main skyp chat that held the leaders of Xtools, United, The Colony¿³, Amory and I think there was another but can't recall.
    It was those on the Swordy account that began talks about having a "friendly war" with xtools. However as it turned out it was only United ways of saying they wish to break the agreement they had with xtools and win the server.
    I was never a big fan of United as they used peace agreements only to full fill their agenda. Again though that is part of the tools listed above (deception) and they played it well. I would have to add that Xtools played it even better.
    We also had an agreement with xtools but ankur also understood that we would not defend xtools or their ww and that we as an alliance would be going for the win as well. We did absorb a wing of xtools that was more closely related to our alliance then xtools so that one wing did get our help at the end and to this day most of them still fly our flag and not xtools.


    So all sides used all of the tools that are available. As leaders or players you either learn from that or you beg the game designers to change it so it cant happen again. So when does that stop? If everytime you lose a server you make the developers change it and soon you have a game where we all get a trophy for participating.


    If the art of war is taken out from a war game then there is no point in playing it any longer. So for those of us who like war and all the good and bad that go with it, I beg the developers to do more to put the fight back in the game and let us humans be human in a GAME OF WAR


    I am sure I will get blasted for this but to me many are missing the whole point of a war game. Everything that is being discussed are possibilities that can happen and has happened in real world politics and war.
    If you are not fond of it then maybe a war game is not your cup of tea and I mean that in no disrespectful way but it is a war game

    Hey Jallu


    Long time and you have yet to come join us for a server. :)


    Your comment has some merit to it but our WW is usually behind anyway just due to how we build it.
    You cant beat having everything in place before leveling that WW and sometimes that means all the other WW's may be up in the 20's before we even que level 2.
    Hearing things slam against the village and die are worth those extra days of development. ;)


    Besides he is talking about chiefing attempts after it has already been taken. If we chief another WW from someone we do not care what shape it is in as long as it cannot be used.
    So creating as much damage as possible would be a good thing. ;)

    That makes more sense there and yes I sure did not understand that by his post. :(


    Look at it from an experienced players take though. If i knew I was going in to chief then you can bet I have sent enough cats in one wave to target both residence & palace. Nothing worse then arriving to hit only 1 and it is the other. Happened to me too many times to not go in full bore all the time. Hopefully others will learn as well. :)

    A palace cannot stop someone from chiefing the village. It is only a building.


    The only time a village is safe from chiefing is when it is a capitol. As you have pointed out the WW cannot be a capitol so it can always be chiefed no matter what building you build.

    If the timer is running then that is how much time it is till the WW's spawn and you can attack them.
    Not sure how to answer your question as you did not state why you want to build a palace in the village.

    My post is in regards to new players spawning into an already existing server.....



    This may be a lengthy post so bear with me and apologies


    Recently on com1 our alliance experienced 2 bugs that spawned 800 million new players at the center of the map around the WW located at 0|0.
    It was so bad that one member called them (mushrooms..shout out to MANIAC) ;)


    Those who enjoy playing this game for medals and rankings would have enjoyed this fiasco but I can tell you it was nothing but a headache.
    Since we are a very large core pre-made team, all of these spawns disrupted our natural order of settling. Nothing can change what happened it seems but squares that we had intended for our members became new villages for those spawning. Many 7c squares were turned into 6c squares. Out of those 800 million spawns we may end up with 5 new members who actually want to play the game. Now we have to sit and wait first for those non players to first go gray and then even longer for them to be removed from map. Even then all those 7c will not regrow. They are lost never to return.


    All of this though as frustrating as it was has opened my eyes to a problem that will be hard to negate and alters game play for serious alliances.



    Pre-mades of course is a group of players who are playing for a team and stick together thru many servers. Just a definition for the very new players of Kingdoms and Legends altogether.
    During a server the pre-made alliance may evolve on the server from their spawn points or they will settle a stronghold area. The latter theory is then you have more control over who is in your alliance/kingdom.


    With new players being spawned randomly across the map and of course in your area then as an alliance you lose the ability to control your alliance growth. I have found over the years that keeping a team at 50 members or lower gives you a higher success rate in activity. The perfect number for me would be around 40. With this random spawn, players you do not even know are now in your kingdom.


    So naturally you alert the hitters and you cat them down but then you get labeled a bully and the curse of all new players. At least half of all new spawns will go inactive. some grow slow or just enough to keep from going inactive. A small percentage will become great team members and the rest will settle a second village in another alliance somewhere else.


    What makes this a problem?? Glad you asked.....


    I think it is a problem because the new players are automatically added to the alliance when they spawn. This action takes away the very power a leader needs to keep his alliance operationally trimmed.


    So I would like to ask if TG can take a look at this and maybe change it that even if you are spawned into an alliance, does not mean you are auto put in. Maybe give an option at start when you pick gov if you wish to start in a kingdom border or outside a border. The king(s)/alliance leader(s) though is the one who should decide if a player should be allowed in or not.


    Just my 2.5 cents and hope this can at least be looked into.

    .
    Feature Idea: Survivors
    After a battle involving lost troops on your side, you will be offered the opportunity to look for scattered survivors by performing a “troop adventure” 7 days later. This new adventure type costs 2 adventure points, but does not reduce your hero’s HP. You will be able to recover 50% of your losses (except for settlers and chiefs) per battle through troop adventures.
    This essentially means that you can get a “refund” on your combat investment. Therefore the feature should hopefully alleviate the severity of losing battles and incentivize taking risks from time to time.



    Not sure this is the answer. You just keep eliminating any risks in a war game that should have risks and consequences for every action you take.
    It's like everyone receiving a participation medal even when you have accomplished nothing.


    You have the ability to adjust speed of the units so why not just have any troops that are sent as an "ATTACK" pick up speed based on the distance of the target.
    Much like you have catapults set to a defined amount of waves, You could possible even have the speed being adjusted during the march of the troops.
    Example...Troops left village at normal speed
    Troops picked up speed once they passed the 20 square mark
    again pick up speed say at 30 mark
    and so on and so on. This would put a little more pressure on the defenders to make sure they can defend in time.
    Would be interesting to see with hero maxed out on speed items, TS operating and the fastest horse.
    Add all those up and troops could be getting to targets faster without giving the attacker that much more of the balance.





    .Feature Idea: Troop Redeployment

    The second idea is concerned with giving those large armies sitting in the middle of big kingdoms, far away from the frontlines, a purpose again. You have the possibility of permanently relocating troops to a new home village, as long as it is “younger” (i.e. was founded or conquered later), than the original village of the troops. Redeployed troops will be merged with any existing troops in the target village.


    Of course we have to implement a few limitations to prevent exploitative strategies and also huge undefeatable hammers from forming. Firstly, in the target village you will need enough “free crop” = crop production – crop used by buildings – crop used by troops (wherever they currently are). You can only redeploy as many units as the target village’s free crop value allows you to supply. Also you obviously cannot redeploy settler or chief units.


    On top of that, to not incentivize quickly building up new villages within enemy territory without giving the enemy sufficient time to react, it will not be possible to immediately deliver resources (via the respective premium feature) to villages that are not within your kingdom’s borders.



    My suggestion about troop speed will mean this is not needed. I am not a big fan of the troop deployment so my opinion is biased against it.





    Update: Merging Kingdoms and Alliances

    Last but not least, I want to give you an update on the idea of merging kingdoms and alliances that we discussed before. This approach has indeed become one of your focuses in development right now. Our programmers are already in the middle of implementing all the necessary changes to a local test version. So you can definitely look forward to trying it out yourselves in the future! :)


    Cool will look forward to see how that turned out.

    Heya VVV


    Let me clarify that part you disagree with.....


    Yes I understand that no tributes can be collected. I was never under the impression that they could be.


    I guess what I meant to say was that the greedy kings will do all they can to get those players inside their borders. The only purpose is so they can collect the tributes and nothing more.


    I am just seeing more and more kings who are only kings cause they know if they sucker enough players to join their kingdom, they do not have to farm or work hard to get those free resources.


    It is just a bad side I see emerging and not a big fan of it and many new players will become tribute mules because of it. It will soon resemble the T4 servers where leaders now scream for all members to send their resources to one player. That is not a team environment in my opinion.

    This is in regards to the relocation option for kings or governors....


    This idea is good as it gets players away from bad situations that will slow their starts. However there is one major flaw in my eyes that needs to be adjusted.


    Some players are being added to a kingdom but are still physically outside the borders of the kingdom. Yet they are also automatically added into the alliance as well. So the game is inserting players into alliances without the permission of any of the leaders. I understand this is how the start is done but on a pre-made team this becomes a bit of a problem. There are ways to limit who you want in the alliance much like Legends but you have to create an area and then go to it. So this gives you somewhat control over who is in and who is not.


    Another problem is these players who are on the outside borders will most likely come under attack. Those attacks go un-noticed in the alliance cause you can't see attacks outside your borders. Now you have a governor pissed off cause no one knew about it. Even when you explain the game it does little to ease the anger of someone who just lost something. So now you have a disgruntled member and that is not good for the governor or the alliance.


    I think now the kings need an option to accept such a drop instead of the player being auto placed in an alliance.


    Of course many kings will love to take in anyone cause they are hooked on the free tributes. That is starting to get out of hand but that's another story for another day.

    Can you explain it in some more worlds which problem you have?


    Just as the OP has described and SS'ed in his first post, the whole bottom of the screen fills up with those alerting you to messages you have not read and ones you have. Plus you still get the notifications for the other chat button on the left sidebar.


    So why have 2 chat systems going that is only duplicating what each one is doing?


    We only need one and some options that I described in another post about the chat system

    This new chat still does not give you any options to delete, edit or keep control of a thread. The major problem right now is a king will create a thread, let's say for example "Defense Call"


    When the thread is created you specify the thread is for calls only and no spam. The moment the first call is made then everyone responds or starts talking about the call in that thread. Soon the actual call is lost behind 3 million posts and gets missed cause no one wants to read thru it.


    So maybe give an option to edit or lock a thread so only the kings can post in it. Till this can be fixed or implemented this new chat is no better then the other.
    I for one still do not use the lower left corner cause what is the point to having 2 buttons to go to the same chat but in different set ups. It is really not doing much for the game at all.

    I do coding myself and those error pages can cover many things so there is no way anyone other then the developers can see what exactly the problem is.


    So no one here can really have a clue on whether it is a simple fix or something more serious.


    First the problem has to be isolated and then a fix tested to make sure it does what is intended and not screw up more. Sometimes that comes easy and sometimes not.


    For any of us to sit here and proclaim it is an easy fix is over the top.