Posts by Scorox

    Thanks for reading and the informative replies! here are my thought on what I read in your replies:



    The problem is that I don't think that feature was actually meant that way. I think the progression from governor to king was considered to be a purely temporal, from newbie to veteran player. Governors would be a mostly supportive role for the kings who actually compete to win the game, while they in turn are less threatened and can learn the ropes and participate in the game for a world or two without actually competing much. I think it was inteded that over time, *every* veteran player would become king - activity or wishes not being a factor.

    Oh I never realized that the initial idea was to have you progress from Gov to King as you gained experience with the game. The reason why I think it's so damn cleaver is because it really let you tailor your role according to level of effort and commitment you are able to put into a particular server. Playing as King is my choice when I want to maximize my chances to win... because then you have much larger control over your destiny and may end up with a crushing victory like this :thumbsup:
    Victory.png
    On the other hand, on servers or at other times in your real life you may know that you cannot put in the effort needed to make use of the full control you have as a king, and hence I then choose to play as governor. This is why I love this system.




    many of the kings in-game are zero-prestige newbies in their first round, because of all the veteran players this game has, way too few choose playing king voluntarity. That would mean, since without kings -> no kingdoms and without kingdoms -> noone collecting victory points to compete over the game (no kings meaning to the game as it is designed that just noone wants to play competitively), the game would effectively become Sim City.

    I do not completely agree with this. The Image I posted above with my victory as King I did have "3 bronze" prestige level.. I had never completed a server before that one. What made a victory of such a great marginal possible was dedication and the willingness to learn everything.. and possibly also some individual skills that are useful in the King role. Therefore I strongly disagree with having Prestige as a Barrier to Entry for the King role. And this is why I made my suggestion of having everyone start as major and letting Kings and Kingdoms form naturally among the players whom their neighbours assess to be capable enough. In my suggestion players that will be allowed to start a Kingdom and be King is basically restricted by the players in that area who will have to be this King's governor and/or neighbour. And given how many people that do select the King role today, I do not fear that there will be a shortage of players whom will try get the 10 Majors to pledge loyalty so that they can be King. The only difference here is that you need to convince your neighbours or your suitability of being a King before you can be one, instead of just "selecting" King at a menu.


    As you see, my suggestion still allow anyone to be king, but it requires that you first convince your neighbours that you are suitable for the job.




    The problem isn't "how can we better weed out the suited candidates from the bad ones from our huge pool of candidates for the king role", the problem is "how do we get enough candidates for king in the pool to allow us to be picky in first place."

    To solve the underlying problem, we need to somehow fix the attractivity of these roles, so that we have more candidates for the king role, and then we can get picky.

    In my opinion no extra perks and benefits can balance up the sacrifices you need to make as a King. In the contrary, the extra perks you get of being King do really attract people to the King role that are in it for the perks, not for leading a Kingdom. So the question is not how you do attract more players to be king, the question is how you attract more of the right players to be King. This is what my suggestion is aim at. Say for example that you are an experienced player, and you realize that all the Majors whom try to gain your loyalty are shit.. then you might consider taking on the King role after all, since this is your better chance to making something out if this server as compared to serving under one of these "perks or ego driven" wanna be Kings. And suddenly this server is up one more experienced as King. Even if the process of selecting a King in your region takes a day extra or two, compared to areas where there is a premade group, I feel that it absolutely worth it.


    However, I do agree that there are several things you can do to make the King role less stressful and demanding.
    1. A King must be able to step down should he find it overwhelming. It is a way to huge task for some players to commit to the King role for 6 months straight.
    2. The administrative duties must be simplified. Especially the treasury management craziness needs to be simplified... planing treasury villages location, instructing dukes to place down treasury villages in time, having understanding on how moving treasuries work, and all of this is totally unnecessarily burdening the King role.
    My second suggestion about the Castle Cities are aimed to solve this.



    Many players complain that their kings are so bad and that ruins the game, and that governors are really at such a disadvantage, and that they can't change anything about that as a governor, but that they still want to play competitively and win, and they don't pick the obvious remedy the game offers for their plight: Playing as a king themselves. So play king and you can change it!

    Actually I think that this response do happen, and that it is equally likely to fuel the "bad king" situation as it is to solve it. Because the more players that have had the negative experiences of bad kings, the more people will be motivated to play the next server as King themself.. without regards to whether or not they will have the right activity level or skillset for the job. The "bad king" situation thus pushes even more unsuitable kings into the game.. all thinking "Next time I will play as king.. I'm fed up with shity Kings". But there is nothing and no one evaluating these "reactionary" King's suitability. This is where my suggestion comes in.

    Thanks a lot for your feedback Curtain, and I'm happy you like the ideas in the broad sense! ^^ Your suggestions for sure improves it I agree. Let me give my thoughts as I read it.


    "majority so at least 66% of the kingdom agreed but perhaps even something like 75% or 80% to make sure no trolling happens."
    ... Ye I totally agree, I just pulled a number of 50% out of my head as I typed on.



    "often times the barrier for entry is something like more prestige requirement which isn't really fun and doesn't guarantee the person is actually good at the game (let alone being good as a king)."

    ... I feel like that in the very very initial state there are now barriers of entry for kings. You simply select King when you start the server.. and then you are off to selecting your 2 Dukes. Note that under the Kingdom union system Kingdoms will start with 2 UNLOCKED duke slots. Anyone is in other words free to make a kingdom and select 2 dukes... this is what I mean by lack of barrier of entry to be a King... not even prestige points are required (which I agree would not help very much if that was a limiting factor).





    "danger that it favors premade teams if the interface on it isn't crisp as heck. I got a premade team myself and I bet I wouldn't have any problems getting 10 govs to vouch for me to be a king if I wanted to."


    ... Yes but if the players you know have enough trust in you from previous servers to pledge loyalty to you and serve as your governor and making you king, then this is a good thing. You passed the evaluation by your friends, and other governors in your area can feel a bit more save following. In today's system it is usually the remade teams that are the most successful in electing a King, just because there are some level of evaluation my the pre-made group of the king in advance. What I would argue is that the system I propose will benefit players that do not start as pre-mades .. since the kingdoms they will find on the map have a king that has been evaluated and trusted but more experienced players. The system do however, as you say, make it more difficult for an unknown and unskilled player to form a kingdom... but this is the purpose, so that players new to the game do not end up with an king that ruin there first experience in TK. There is however room for new players to become King their first or second server, but that will require them to be very skilled diplomatically and dedicated... but this is what we want for the rest of the players that play governors.






    "I think the castles shouldn't be real villages though, instead they would be more like the Robber Camps ...Say Outpost as lvl 1, Fort as lvl 2 and Castle as lvl 3"
    ... Ye I though about this too.. and I'm not completely sure what I prefer myself where thb. However, the benefit of having real villages is that now with the new treasury system you are required to place about 2 to 3 treasuries in each treasury village in order to be able to expand contentiously. So having Fort/Castle villages for this propose could have the following necessary implications:


    1. They can have stronger but much more expensive defence as compared to normal villages. Hence to build a Castle Village to protect the treasuries would sort of act like a mini-WW project that you have to succeed with as a team throughout the server.


    2. All troops build there belongs to the Kingdom. So the hammer built in this village (or the DEF) will not get lost when the King gets deleted or goes inactive. It will fall under the control of the next King.


    .... In this way the whole kingdom will be motivated and engaged in pushing res to the Fort/Castle villages to secure the kingdoms treasures... to maybe work towards that max level 50 Castle there. And maybe also pushing res there to build a common monster hammer. In general this will favour teamwork and organisation more.. and all members of the kingdom can take pride in what level of the Castle they have there and what crazy size there Castle City hammer is. But most importantly, nothing will get lost when a King has to be replaced.

    Dear TK developers and community,


    First of all I would like to say that I absolutely love what the developers have made with Travian Kingdoms (TK). It is an incredibly cleaver idea to introduce the 3 different roles (Gov, Duke, and King) in a systematic fashion to accommodate for players different levels of activity and wish for responsibility in the kingdom. However, over the time of playing TK I have come to realize that the game's largest problem have always been the negative player experience that players have had due to their own King. Don't get me wrong here, it is not power of the King that I'm arguing is the problem, it is rather who the game encourages to hold this power that is the problem.


    Let me be a bit more concrete. We have all have seen it happen to our selves or to other players, bad experiences with Kings that have either gone inactive, have threaten his governors to send resources to him (or be kicked from the kingdom if they didn't), used his kingdom in a purposefully destructive way to his governors, or in any other way abused his power as a king... or more commonly been a very poor leader. Again, do not get me wrong, I think that there will always be a skill disparity between the Kings on a server, but what I will argue is that the current system encourages disparity to be larger than it needs to be. And the losers of this happening is the governors.


    Given the importance the the King role have over the game experience of other players I think it's high time that we together analyse the King situation and possible remedies to it. Please keep the discussion going in this thread and I will update my solutions section with the new good ideas that are submitted.



    ~ Problem -- What is the Bad King Situation in TK? ~
    In short the "bad king situation" of TK could be descried as: Players are by the game forced to permanently subjugate themselves to a king whom have not proven his ability or willingness to act as leaders or to act in the players own interest, and there are no clear way for governors to judge a King in advance of joining. Or in other words, the game throw players into the force of other players whom more often than not abuse this power in various ways, and in the process sabotage the player experience of the players the game have allocated to them. There are 3 parts of this problem:
    1. The Game essentially forces the player to join the first best king based on your randomly allocated position. Alternatively move away from your starting location to another King, which might be just as likely to ruin your experience on that server.
    2. The Game does not only facilitates, but also encourages, anyone to assume the King role, independently of his/her suitability to hold this power.
    3. The choice of King is in practical permanent. As you start to settle more and more villages in the area of this King, you will eventually find it impossible to revolt against malpractice of the King.
    In short. There are no checks and balances on who can assume or hold the King role, and consequently on who will have this huge impact on the player experiences of unknowing governors.



    ~ Current Solutions -- What do the game offer today to mitigate the problem? ~
    There exist only 1 counter measures to the problem today, and that is to only start a server as pre-made with a group that have a king of proven good records as king. Unfortunately this option is not available to new players, and they are left to the lottery of placement.



    ~ Is this problem solvable? ~
    One may begin to think about whether or not TK does something differently than other games of this type, which could enhance this problem. In my experience there are 2 MAJOR difference in TK compared to other games of this type.
    1. In the other games there is HUGE amount of work required to be performed before you will be accepted as the leader of an Alliance. Specifically you need to first assume the willingness of the people around you to have you as their leader. This process of trying to gain the loyalty of your neighbours and having them accept you as their leader is by itself sort of a natural filter that will eliminate leaders that cannot handle work of actually being the leader throughout the server. In TK however, the process of becoming a leader is as easy as clicking the left mouse button at the start of the server.
    2. In the other games your position as leader is not in anyway fix. You may at any time be switched out for someone else if the members decide they want a better leader.


    To summarize, TK is unique in the sense that it requires almost no effort to assume OR to keep the role as King. The only thing that can threaten your position as king is if you AND your governors are demolished by an opposing Kingdom. And the fact that TK is unique in this regard is for me a sign that there are solutions to this problem.



    ~Proposed Solutions ~



    §1. First off is the important question of WHO can assume the powers of being a King. The key here is to set up Barriers of Entry. Before a player even can claim the King role he must have demonstrated some abilities that will be required to lead a kingdom and to keep this governors safe an with at least a hope of going far on the server. A concrete proposal I would like to make is:
    - All players on a server start completely without Roles, they start as Majors.
    - A Major can pledge loyalty to 1 and only 1 other Major, and thereby signalling that he would be willing to serve as the other Major's Governor should the other Major get enough support to found a Kingdom and be King.
    - IF a Major can make 10 other Majors (within a certain distance from him on the map) pledge loyalty to him, then this Major can Start a Kingdom and crown himself as the King. The Majors that had pledged loyalty then instantaneously becomes Governors of this kingdom.
    This System would not only filter out Kings that are incompetent in the diplomatic realm. The governors have themselves been engaged in evaluating all players that aspires to be king by asking them for their loyalty. Furthermore, the fact that a king have been able to gain these first 10 loyal Majors to join him as Governor will signal to the other players in this area that this King may actually be someone they can rely on, hence they are also more safe in their decision even if they did not take part in the "evaluation" process.



    §2. As I mentioned above. It is not only enough for the King to do a good job in the start of the server, a king should also be required to do a good job throughout the server in order to make the experience enjoyable for the kingdom members. Solution in §1 increases the likelihood of this, but things may happen along the way. In short, should the King be banned for cheating, go inactive for some reason, start to abuse the power of being king, or clearly demonstrate that he is not capable of working in the members interest, then there MUST be a way to replace him. In the current Kingdom Unions this is not possible, which have been criticised here on the forums (I will not enter into this discussion here). In the previous version it was possible for the King to abdicate voluntarily. However, the option to abdicate voluntarily is not enough to protect the Governors and the Dukes from a King that decides to go inactive or begins to abuse his position. There must be a way to replace a King from below.


    Before going into suggestions on how such a system could and should work there is one thing that need to be kept in mind. Namely, that even if the King himself is supportive of stepping down as king, maybe due to some unforeseen event IRL that forces him to stop playing.. there are Barrier to Exits that make the process of changing king close to impossible to achieve after a while. Primarily these Barrier to Exits are the treasury villages he is owning. The process of replacing these with villages of the new King is simply too much to go through with. But these Barrier to Exits must be torn down.



    So a concrete solution to this problem I would like to make is:
    - On the initiation of a Duke, a vote to replace the King with himself (The Duke) will be accessible by all members. Only submitted votes are counted, and a majority of >50% is needed for the change to realize.
    - Treasuries are NOT built in normal cities belonging to Kings and Dukes. As a new Active Treasury slot would become available (in the current system) instead a Castle City Slot Becomes available. This slot permits the assigned Duke/King the ability to found a Castle City on the map. These villages have certain properties:
    1. These are the only villages in which you can build treasuries.
    2. The population in these villages do not count towards the Duke/Kings total population.
    3. IF the King/Duke loose his role as King/Duke the ownership of these villages goes to the newly assigned King/Duke instead. The same is true for the troops produced in them. These villages are simply "owned" by a certain Duke/King slot, and the player have only control over these as long as they hold the position of that King/Duke slot. Who even holds these positions gains control of these villages. It is also to these castle villages that the Taxes goes... which in a way ensures that the taxes will be used to increase the power of the Kingdom, no matter of the current King/Duke falls of along the way.
    4. These villages have a distinguished look that captures some of the feelings it gives he players that have been lucky enough to hold a World Wonder. Specifically I would find it interesting if the Inner Circle of the village was covered with a Castle (like a WW, but a Castle instead), hence the name.
    5. These villages starts with a water ditch (level 1) as if it was a city., and a Wall (level 1).


    By this system the kingdom is allowed to live on successfully even in the unfortunate situation of the King goes inactive or something else happens. There are no Barrier to Exits, the only that is needed is a majority vote... + we get a cool new village type :whistling: .




    ~ Final Remarks ~
    1. As you noticed I did not mentioned anything about the Kingdom Union version here. The reason is that this system can be incorporated with with either 1 or 2 kings. But just from my own preference I see no reason why there need to be 2 kings if you can easily remove a bad king with a new and better.
    2. I personally fully support the changes so that we now need 10.000 Treasuries for a new Active Treasury slot. Smaller Kingdoms were indeed needed.



    Thanks for reading~
    /Scorox

    I think that in order to discuss the problem of this system one must first realize two things.
    1. In any given server of Travian Kingdoms the objective is to win.
    2. In order to win players will have to make strategically sound decisions.


    Now, with that out of the way we can start to discuss the problems of the Union system.


    §1. First of, the union system FORCES you to union with another kingdom as King. It is not something you can choose. If you don't you cannot win as King.
    §2. Should one of the kings go inactive or in another way sabotage the Kingdoms progress the Governors dominant strategy is to leave the kingdom for another kingdom. This was the case before when you had only one king, but now the 2nd king will be left with a Kingdom with no members and will most likely need to delete from this server.
    §3. Before the Union update the most damage a spy could have in your Kingdom was to leak information to his friends in the enemy kingdom. Now however the best way you may use a spy is to have him as a King and simply let him start sabotage or go inactive once the union is performed. Basically the optimal strategy here is to ask a friend that do not really intend to play the server to start a kingdom and have him merge with a neighbouring enemy, and then go inactive.
    §4. Should one of the Kings be banned or deleted for cheating, then this will force the other king to quit the server as well (for the reason in §2).


    To summarize, the union update forces each king to make a gamble after 30 days. You have to make the union to be able to win.. but the outcome from this union is not up you or your members effort. The other king may be purposely offer or accept the union to sabotage, he may seek to free ride all the way to the end of the server, he may get banned for cheating, or he may simply loose interest in playing. In either of these cases the other king is forces to quit playing the server ... all because an unfavourable outcome in a gamble that he was forced to enter.


    EDIT: I expect the term "sabotage" kingdom will come up as a common term soon due to the weaknesses of the system. basically meaning: A kingdom one of your friends create to sabotage for a neighbouring enemy kingdom.

    @Wizzball,


    "It's basically like a player dropping out of any multiplayer match with set teams - yep, that screws everyone else."
    ... this is a very simplistic way of framing it. What I think people have problems with here is that:
    1. A game of Travian Kingdoms is 6 months.. not 30 minutes. To see taxes not be collected and the kings troops stand idle for months is something that destroys the loyalty to the Kingdom (and the loyalty towards the Vice-King indirectly).
    2. When this happens it forces the member's of the kingdoms to choose to screw over the Vice-king. Because when you will be one Active treasury village down for the reminder of the server, then your kingdom have a disadvantage for the reminder of the server which is irreversible.. independently how well you play.
    3. The main King can basically CHOOSE to go inactive, knowing that he have trapped the Vice king to do all the labour (or the other way around). Even worse, one king can actively plan to trap another king in a UNION.. the Vice-King cannot leave so the King can basically start to purposely sabotage things, knowing that the Vice-King is trapped.


    "You're basically just experiencing the one major drawback of a union. Yes, you get additional dukes, and it comes at a much higher dependency on the king(s). There's no free lunch here."
    ... the problem here is not that it makes the game harder. The problem is that Travian Kingdoms is a competitive game where everything about your kingdom is relative to other Kingdoms. It is the relative disadvantage your kingdom is facing to other kingdoms that is the problem. Not the challenge.


    "Joining any king no matter if united or not is a risk, because if that king declares war on a larger kingdom, it's also your villages getting cata'd for his decisions. The whole group facing consequences for bad actions of their leader is what submitting to a king's rule entails. "
    ... Again, I think what people have the largest problem with here is that the Vice-king is locked with the Kingdom, which forces the members to screw over the Vice-King as they leave their kingdom for another kingdom which have 2 active kings.


    "As for preparation, it's of course ideal if a group's leadership consists at least partly of real-world friends so that one can check up if another has gone missing."
    .. Yes, also the old system with only one King required you to be very careful in the selection of the king. However, the problem here is that now the correct way to play Travian Kingdoms under these rules is to from server start have a group of IRL friends create 2 kingdoms with the propose of making UNION between then after a while. Otherwise you cannot ensure that one of the kings goes inactive. So the task now for a IRL friends group is to select 2 trustworthy kings rather than 1 as it was in the old system.


    "The difficulties you are facing are also intended - great gaming entails overcoming difficult challenges, and surviving a very difficult situation"
    ... The objective of Travian Kingdoms is not to survive, it's a game of winning and dominance. Hence, the solution for the members are very simple .. ABANDON the kingdom and join a kingdom which do not have one less active treasury, and where taxes are being collected... and in the process screw over the Vice-King whom did nothing wrong.

    "Consider it a new and unique challenge the game throws at you and either decide to take up on it... or restart the game. That's all the advice I can give."
    ... Again, it's not a challenge... it is a irreversible disadvantage for for reminder of the server relative to other kingdoms. No matter how you tackle the challenging.. your kingdom will always be one active treasury down and taxes will not be collected. The dominant strategy for the members is to change kingdom and to leave the Vice-king in the cold.

    Thanks Curtain!


    Would be awesome to see a picture of that 3-line Gold one.. and to know the requirement for it. Anyone knows?
    Also to know if that 3-line Gold one is the very last one or not.

    Hi all,


    Does anyone know what all of the the prestige level symbols beyond the "3 gold stars" looks like, and how many prestige points you need for each of them?
    So far I have only seen that "Gold/Bronze" with one line, and the one with "Silver" and two lines. Are there others after these ones?


    /Scorox