Posts by Pinkguy#NL

    Why not invent some sort of citadel?

    Do it kinda lika city mechanics? Iow, for ex 1500pop is needed to make a city into a citadel. Res/cropfields upped to mx lvl15. Not able to fully describe it, like i see some others do, as i just tought of it looking at the metropolis and this topic

    Lvl 12 already takes 30 days (32 for iron) to pay for its own costs (no gold bonus, oases, or modifier building).

    Lvl 15 takes 83 days. There are very few realistic scenarios where you actually want this for anything other than your capital.


    Cities already offer a safe option for expansion. Cities produce almost double the resources of a village and they are a lot easier to protect.

    Lets not further stimulate safe (boring) play.

    I know this is a controversial topic so I fully expect very mixed reactions.


    In my opinion.

    There should be no need to reinforce someone not part of your kingdom or your kingdoms confederates.

    This includes spiking.


    "But my friend and I are in different kingdoms."

    Well then how about you use the relocate function, you know, like it was intended for?


    "But we did fast settle and are not yet in any kingdom borders."

    Make use of the duke invite mechanic.


    "I want to be able to see who are farming."

    You got 2 nice tools for that: Top 10 and scouts.


    "But I don't want to risk all those scouts"

    Oh no, sounds like you gotta weigh the risks. Are we gonna make the game skill based now? How terrible.


    Reinforcing non-allied players can only be used for unsportsmanlike things.

    This persons situation could have been avoided by not allowing reinforcement of non-allied players: Hacking

    It would also fix spiking.


    Travian Legends already has this. From what I understood most players really like the mechanic. Mainly cause it helped prevent personal def multis and spikers.

    Use a tool to generate unique passwords for each site you use.

    KeePass Password Safe

    Keepass is open source meaning that, if you really want, you can exactly see what happens to your data.


    This ofc doesn't fix your situation but it might help prevent it in the future.

    If I understand you correctly then moving the navigation to the top of the tab would also fix this.

    Also, you can change the url (bold part)

    https://com4.kingdoms.com/#/page:village/location:32/window:building/cp:3/subtab:Incoming


    Also, this is a reply to basically the same discussion from a thread.

    Hello,
    Thanks for reopening the debate on this, its a great suggestion.
    Unfortunately, it has already been suggested many times since 2015 and it has never been taken into account :(


    This issue has been addressed.

    30th december 2020: Rally point

    27th june 2019: Move send troops button or page numbers on inbound troops

    9th october 2015: Rally Point: More filters for Inbound / Outbound


    Probably longer back, but I am tired of scrolling.

    Btw, another thing that I saw quite a lot is "mark as read" for chat. But that's another discussion.


    edit: had to work around the auto link formatting

    Great idea but once again an idea that requires a lot of technical development and balancing.

    Maybe reduce the idea to a bare minimum.

    What would you consider to be the minimal product that would satisfy your idea of a solution to the problem?

    Would allowing great warehouses and great granaries be sufficient?

    Perhaps allow the construction of a building like the Waterworks (Travian Legends Egyptians unique building) which boosts the effect your oases have.

    Increasing culture points sounds a bit counter productive. We have problems with crowding so they shouldn't really get the tools to make it even more crowded.

    Max loyalty increase is bad in my opinion. Its already difficult enough to coordinate city chiefings.

    IMO travian kingdoms is already very forgiving.
    In legends if you build the wrong troops you can't even put them at the back of the queue.


    This obviously doesn't invalidate your concerns.
    I guess what I am trying to say is that it would be nice but would be a low priority, mainly due to the fact that it might be abuse sensitive.

    I am not sure I understand how this would change the gaming experience for everyone.


    But I would love you have some more info, how will it affect players?

    The most clicked buttons are those of the worlds where you are the main account owner.
    Having these buttons load last is annoying. (especially Monday between 12 and 1 AM when the lobby is slow cause servers are busy processing achievement data)

    More importantly if you want to play as dual somewhere and then the buttons jump down cause a new piece of the lobby loaded, you often missclick on the segment that is pushed down and now you're loading an account you're sitting or another of your gameworlds.



    lobby_load_lagg.png

    See how the "Get Travian Kingdoms for your smartphone" and the segment with your main servers isn't loaded yet? Well when that loads the rest of the stuff jumps down causing missclicks for the impatient (like me).

    The problem is that allowing raids is enabling bad sportsmanship.

    Games and sports should be designed to enforce good sportsmanship, and not rely on the participants to enforce it.

    TLDR: Force attack only on robbers. Both free and premium players benefit from it.


    All bickering aside.

    Yes, the majority of players spend only a little bit. I was inclined to say nothing but then I might be counting too many multis.

    The majority of gold purchased comes from only a small percentage of players.

    Now I don't know the actual statistics but studies on "freemium" games/apps, hence called "platforms", seem to generally agree that the majority of income is derived from only a small portion of players/users.

    The platform is free so its easier to get people to participate in the premium features and persuade them into gradually buying more and more premium features.

    The platform is designed to represent a demo of what the premium features are and why you should want them. A bit like how a casino sells a "lifestyle", a feeling, rather than an opportunity to get rich. "If you come spend your money here you will feel like the elite." is a statement that could be translated into "If you buy gold you will know what it is like to truly be a pro Travian player.".


    It is about striking that balance between 2 steps:

    1. Get new players.

    2. Get paying players.


    This relies on 2 concepts:

    1. The game is fun enough to play without premium.

    2. The game is significantly more fun to play with premium.


    The hero only feature would indeed be a bit too restricting for the active players. This would make them feel like newbies are being protected and rewarded for passive play. It would benefit concept #1 but penalize concept #2 too much, pushing people to step 1.

    The biggest issue is that people raid robbers and then the robbers that survive are pushed to the next wave. This could simply be fixed by forcing attack only.

    This benefits both categories of players.

    Problem:

    Menu items are pushed down when loading the lobby.


    Most affected:

    People with slow internet


    Solution:

    Switch the load order to load from top to bottom instead of bottom to top:

    - Latest server

    - Other servers

    - Play as sitter

    - Play as dual

    - Recommended game worlds


    This way buttons won't get pushed down when a new item is loaded.

    Really funny to see this.
    Even before kingdoms was released I read a discussion about non-village type buildings on the map like outposts and such.

    I really liked this idea mainly cause scouting towers might be used to detect fakes, one of the mechanics I hate the most.


    Short answer is "technically not possible".


    In travian troops don't actually move over the map like in an RTS such as Age of Empires or Command and Conquer.

    I don't know the exact mechanics but I think its something along the lines of:

    Users issue actions which we will call "events". Every second has its own list of events, in order of their issuing. Game data is adjusted according to those events.

    For example, I send and attack.
    Server will:

    - remove troops from my village

    - store the target

    - store the time the attack lands

    - store the troops that are part of the attack

    - store the village of origin


    Once it is time for the attack to arrive the stored data is used to calculate the battle and if I won, schedule the return event.


    This is a nice and simple system.


    The introduction of "intercepting mechanics" such as seeing what troops pass would require a lot more logic which needs to be designed, coded, tested and all that stuff. It is technically simply not feasible.

    I remember talking about this a year or so ago.

    The best idea I heard back then was a "taunt" function, where you force the barbarians to attack you.

    They attack full force. You can't attack the camp after you taunted them. After you kill them you can clear the camp.


    If this is tested and found too easy for deffers then give the robbers some bonus strength (not in numbers, that would mean more exp).


    This was probably the best idea in terms of how many people agreed with it and how easy it would be to implement.

    I think the 2nd best idea was to send def to the camp and then the robbers would attack the camp. Kind of a "sortie" (defenders coming out of the castle and attacking the besiegers).

    Force attack instead of raid or removing the overflow mechanic is essential to avoid in-kingdom quarrels.


    Forcing hero should work well to avoid people missing out cause robbers spawned while they are at work or asleep.

    If a metropolis is added to the game, many players will probably like to create a metropolis. 2 to 4 villages are needed to build a metropolis. If we consider 4 villages, 43 is divided into 4 equals 11 players. So kingdoms have to choose between more players or building metropolises. Of course, kings want a small number of metropolises, especially for treasury villages, but they tend to have more players. But players tend to build a metropolis. This causes players to move to smaller kingdoms and build metropolises there for themselves rather than going to larger kingdoms and losing the privilege of building a metropolis.

    In addition, the construction of the metropolis prevents the construction of more villages and the map becomes less crowded. So you see, with metropolises, you can reduce the crowds and direct the players to smaller kingdoms, and prevent bigger kingdoms.

    It no longer sounds like you care about the problem but instead just want to propagate your own idea of a, possibly very nice, feature.

    It feels like you are dismissing other solutions because they might get in the way of your Metropolis idea.

    Again, I appreciate your unique idea and your enthusiasm for it. However, I think it is, for technical reasons, unrealistic to ask of the devs.


    To get back on topic. Crowding of servers is an issue on many, but not all, servers. Crowding of kingdoms is almost always an issue but only occurs later in the game.

    If we reduce server crowding then we also create more possibilities for people who join a server late. Potentially increasing the player base. A lot of players are working people and might not have time on the day of server start. People who start a day late should still be able to get a decent cropper with relative ease.


    I propose we focus on the server crowding.

    Reducing kingdom crowding is more a late game issue and should maybe get its own thread.

    You think the kingdoms are too densely populated but you also think kingdoms should remain small?

    How do you propose to handle that? And please try to focus on practical solutions more than elegant or "realistic" solutions.


    I think you'll quickly get to something in the direction of hard cap on kingdom sizes (in terms of members), but I am strongly against that.

    Maybe we could think of something that gives smaller kingdoms a bit of a bonus against larger kingdoms, the same way larger players get an offense penalty when attacking smaller players.


    I don't mind if servers have 3 major kingdoms in the end. As long as those kingdoms are active all server round and not wait till the last month to finally start fighting.

    all servers are not crowded. Many servers have so much free space that you can create a village anywhere you like. But on some servers, especially speed servers, this congestion may occur. I also agree that this congestion is inappropriate in some places, especially in several major kingdoms. But in my opinion, your solutions do not reduce the clutter of the map. The crowds are concentrated. They do not occur everywhere on the map.

    There should be more empty space within the great kingdoms. My thinking is based on historical facts, not what we want to happen in the game. All this density should not be created. That's why I came up with the idea of a metropolis. With the advent of cities, the number of villages decreased and some of the map was prevented from being crowded, and the same thing happens with the advent of the metropolis.

    Read more: Metropolis

    I welcome fresh gameplay ideas. and you do make a valid point.

    However, we need to be realistic.

    It takes a long time for bugs to be fixed and new features to be introduced. So we should make any proposed change as easy as possible.


    I do agree with your statement that it is mostly the kingdoms that get too crowded.

    Since number of treasuries is tied to treasures and we don't really want to change that, maybe we need to change the impact of a single treasury.

    Maybe its worth to think about expanding the range of the treasuries.


    Right now the treasury has following ranges:
    <100 pop: 2 tiles

    100 pop: 2.5 tiles

    250 pop: 3.5 tiles

    500 pop: 3.9 tiles (less than 4 in any case)

    1000 pop: 4.2 tiles (less than 4.24)