Posts by darkmatterx_COM

    One of my biggest peeves with the current state of kingdoms is that there is no way to force a king to abdicate.


    If by bad luck, your king happens to be a complete idiot, your team is stuck with him for the rest of the server, unless he is willing to abdicate on his own.
    The only other option left is to found a new kingdom, in which case you lose all VP and the 30-kingdom merge limit is reset, so you're basically stuck between a rock and a hard place.


    I'll give an example,
    on the current server I'm playing, our neighboring kingdom is led by a semi-inactive king who logs in once every several days, does absolutely nothing for his kingdom(besides occasionally demanding deff when he's under attack) and habitually lies to his own fellow team-mates. His dukes were good players, and we wanted to merge with them, hoping someone could finally convince him to abdicate or he'd go inactive. Eventually, everyone got fed up, declared a new kingdom and started catapulting him to zero.


    Does it make any sense that this king, who is being catapulted by his own dukes and governors, should remain as king no matter what? And that all that VP should go to waste along with the 30-day merge limit?


    I think there should be a intra-kingdom political aspect to travian, where one of the dukes can declare a rebellion against the king and auto-found a new kingdom which will,


    1. Retain some of the VP from the old one corresponding to how much %age of total treasures he and his allied dukes held.
    2. The kingdom's age will same as the old one(since it's just a rebellion in the old kingdom to install a usurper king)
    3. Every other duke will receive a choice to side between the old king and the usurper, and they will join that kingdom without treasury needing to deactivate.
    4. Governor's also get a choice who they want to side with if their villages lie in territory belonging to both.
    4. Both sides will have a special casus belli that allows them to steal VP from one another so that if one side can capture all treasures, they take all VP of the pre-rebellion kingdom.


    For post-union kingdoms, perhaps rebellions can be led against kings by vice-kings and dukes or vice-versa, I'm not sure about this as I haven't played much in these conditions yet,
    Historically, kings were always threatened the most by their own vassals & subjects, less so from other kings.
    With a system like this, we can finally have a system of accountability between the king and his dukes.


    So plz give your thoughts guys, what do you think?
    Are there any flaws? Can this idea be improved somehow?

    I think after so many years, travian must have access to a lot of data generated by players caught cheating or using bots and the data generated by non-cheating players.
    Why not feed all of this data to a machine learning algorithm and train it to identify anomalous behavior in the future?


    Any suspicious behavior can be flagged by the algorithms and checked by a multihunter manually to see if it's correct or not and flag it appropriately, over time the accuracy of the algorithms should improve to require minimal human interference.
    i say this, because over the past 3-4 years, use of these new technologies has increased significantly, perhaps travian should look into it to improve their game.

    Again Chip you really need to start actually reading the posts properly or leave responding to players who can do so.
    It's obnoxious, the amount of rhetoric in your posts.


    No one was complaining about your 120 players alliance by itself.
    For all it's worth, the one-kingdom change will nerf even that to some extent.
    We're complaining about your 120 players + Dominion + BoB + Tonkawa being content to fix a server between yourselves without actually having to fight for a win.

    Elaka


    I've never disputed anything of Titan's leadership apart from it's ability to coordinate offence and i don't feel inclined to comment on something I don't know much about in the first place either.
    And the only people who have any right to question my leadership are the ones I've actually led.
    Normally, I wouldn't give a damn what someone else thought about it, but if you really want to see I can send you a screenshot on private of some of the feedback I got back from players I helped.


    About the meta issue, a lot has already been spoken on it since kingdoms and this thread started and I think the consensus is pretty clear.


    Torn


    Since this was my first time on Kingdoms, I was mostly managing my account alone without a dual, but RL stuff meant I had to take a week off every month or so.My sitters kept the account alive for those periods, which is why my fields were so underdeveloped.
    And you're right about us not hitting you as hard in the endgame as GS did.
    thing is Circle was led by about less than a dozen veterans who knew what they were doing and were fit to cause any damage on the attack, rest were all pretty green and I was the only one who had any serious experience coordinating offence.We did go all out on the offence once against you and a few times against BoB before in coordination with GS.


    I was working on a research project in my college for about the last month or so and I barely logged on, but the other vets kept the acc. alive till the end which is why the hammer was small too.No one else had coordinated large scale offence before and everyone else decided without me it would be better to wait for the end and try to hit your WW so we could give Dominion enough of an advantage that you might be compelled to break your confed. to prevent them from winning.If it had worked and you weren't ready to let Dominion win, the server would've gone on for longer.
    Sadly our hammers were to weak and few to achieve that goal.


    EDIT: Chip, I have nothing against large groupings of players as long they're properly coordinated and active.
    What I do have a problem with is sucking up 60% of the players on a server into a single meta(That's excluding Tonkawa)
    That is just plain messed up.
    I prefer balance on a server so everyone has a chance and everyone can enjoy it

    There is no easy way to access conversations with other players in the new forum.(Maybe I'm missing something here)
    I have to first select a player profile, click send msg, then go to conversations to access previously sent msgs.
    Also I don't think players are being notified of msg's being sent to them.
    Some players I've msg'd have been online for quite a while since and not even read them.

    @Titan players posting here.


    In your posts you've chosen to mostly just try to bash me and my alliance ever since I posted here to try and prove yourself to be "better" ignoring most of what I've actually written.
    I don't care which one of us is the better.
    I don't give a damn.
    What I do care about is the tendency of metas to form in this game.
    So I suggest instead of taking some BS stand and trying to prove yourselves the greatest travian legends that ever existed, a group of players your size come up with some actual ideas to fix the meta issues on travian and persuade the developers to change it.
    I notice that some of you such as VVV have done just that for a while.
    I applaud him for his efforts.
    But, for changes suggested by us all to be implemented, we should all lobby for them aggressively.
    Hopefully, together we can change this game.
    And if it weren't for all the "meta" crap this server and pointless confed's, I don't have much of a problem with you guys.


    Torn

    Here is a solution since you asked for one Chip:


    The fundamental problem lies within the game mechanics which the developers so far have not fixed, but some fault lies with the players as well for exploiting those mechanics.
    The solution is to punish VP gain for excessive population in an alliance the same way morale bonus for smaller pop accounts works.
    Basically, the bigger you are the slower your VP gain.
    Stealing treasures in declared wars(some VP gain for stolen treasures even from lower ranked alliances) can offset this so more fighting all server long.
    One of way of doing this is associating all VP to treasures so like if you stole all an alliances treasures, you steal all their VP.
    I think if we all pushed for this to be implemented, it could solve the underlying reasons why this server turned out the way it did.
    It would favor more active smaller alliances.


    Also I don't know why you think your GT acc.'s were hacked, the only intelligence we had on you were from a player in your meta who for some reason decided to delete but did us the favour of letting us view some of your chats first.

    @VVV dude,


    We never kept more than 1/3 of our defence on our wonder, with our treasuries under fire from you dominion and Bob, we couldn't really afford to.
    And that so-called offence you keep claiming could have flattened every WW on the server all would have died, but we chose the funny option :D


    Our own attacks in the war against you caused many of titan's players to delete, but of course you probably don't remember any of them because Titan is a meta, it relies on numbers and doesn't really work with the governors part of it, else you'd remember Kolumbus, Baba and the other players who all deleted under our attacks.
    GS needed to gain VP from you, and they did an awesome job of it despite their handicaps.
    Not to mention the ~15ish hammers of yours we destroyed early on due to bad coordination on your part, some of them were fit to be WW killers from what I remember.
    thanks to most our defence being kept at home, we survived those attacks with little damage and only a few hundred treasures lost.
    And the defence on your own WW was pretty weak, to the point our hammers managed to knock it down enough you needed BoB's WW to win.
    Had Dominion seen fit to go for the win, it would have been anyone's game.


    So instead of resorting to baseless attacks to cover up your own inadequacies and complaining about the only opponents who actually made your WW offence a joke by killing most of your offence early on, your efforts would be better spent on firing your terrible offensive coordinator thanks to whom we were able to intercept all those hammers :)

    I think it's time I shared some of my thoughts on this from Circle's viewpoint,


    We were aware that Titan and BoB were allied and would eventually merge and that they had confed'ed Dominion early on.
    For those of you who aren't aware, together these alliances along with their affiliates represent roughly 60-65% of the population of Com5 and a majority of the experienced players.
    to be honest this was my first time on Kingdoms and I have to say, I am pretty much disgusted by the behavior of most of the leaders of the various alliances.
    It's like you all decided to meet up in some chatroom early on and "fixed" between yourselves an understanding that no matter what, you would be allies and the biggest of you would win without having to take the risk of actually fighting each other for the win.
    Maybe you should all just sing Kumbaya and pray for world peace.
    All this for the sake of an easy win.


    By midgame, Titan was twice the size of it's nearest competitor (Us) and to our knowledge had agreements with BoB and Dominion.
    That's 3/5 of the top 5 alliances.
    You say GS and Circle ganged up on you?
    It was an alliance of desperation, we were the only ones willing to openly fight and try and stop you.
    And GS was very weak from it's war with EMC and we were roughly slightly stronger than Dominion, nowhere near you.
    I warned you Chip early on I would try and maintain the balance of power on the server to counter any metas.
    My only hope was to convince Dominion to end this madness and actually start playing the game.
    their hammers could have flattened your WW with our help and you could've flattened everyone elses.
    Wouldn't that have been fun?
    But Fresco was happy playing second fiddle to you guys.
    Well, guess what Chip...


    You won.


    You completely screwed the balance of power on this server and ruined the game for thousands of players(many of whom will not be coming back!) who instead of getting a fun dynamic experience of the wargame called Travian got the shoddy deal in which YOU fixed this server and ruined it for everyone.
    Kudos for making one of the most boring and underhanded servers in recent memory all so Titan could say it won.
    Shame on you.
    It's shenanigans by players like you who can't fight their way to an honest victory that are responsible for the decline of travian and cause players to leave travian.


    Circle may have finished third, but unlike Titan or Dominion we didn't have to merge/ally over half the server to do it.

    I think in TK, you have to actively go out and find players like yourself.
    I made an alliance here first time, just me mostly.
    Made it bigger, beat down the nearby alliances, other players saw my success, msg'd me , we expanded.
    Later on merged a few times to get a nice team going.
    Now, we're the 2nd biggest alliance.
    Our alliance is now very active, most of the others have dropped off.
    Almost like TL now.


    If you can't find old-timers like yourself, better teach the new ones ;)


    Wish I'd read this before but onto the issue,


    I almost completely agree with everything you've said so far VVV especially the part that they're going around rewarding attacking completely the wrong way.
    The developers shouldn't encourage "blind attacking" per se like they've done with the change revealing treasures, but instead encourage "warring" b/w major alliances past the initial stage of a server once things settle down a little. The One Kingdom change will help that quite a bit, but it isn't enough.
    They need to go further and create a permanent steady VP loss proportional to population for alliances not at war with another.
    This is the ancient world, you are meant to Fight, Kill, and Conquer.
    Wars themselves need to be given more meaning by adding extra VP gain for treasures stolen during a declared war.


    Also in order to get rid of cases like current Com5 where everyone just allied each other at the start, Confederations should be given more meaning in that a war declared by either side will automatically force their allies to join whether they like it or not.
    It'll mean that allying with another alliance is an "actual alliance" and force each other to join the other's wars.
    Not actively participating in an allies war should be accompanied by a VP loss I imagine(I'm sure a suitable mechanic can be thought of for example, If x %age of treasures are not stolen by you out of total stolen in war by all sides where 'x' is percentage of population of your alliance versus the main participants etc. etc.).
    It would also give NAP's weight and separate them from Confed.'s because right now there isn't much difference.


    Plus, we'll see some cool server wars when one the member of one block declares war on some alliance part another block.
    Small conflicts this way could suddenly spark massive world wars.
    And get rid of all those annoying peaceful blobs we see so often.
    It'd also fix a lot of the other issues you pointed out, such as no scope for VP gain from wars for top-ranked alliances.(Encouraging TITAN to stay peaceful in Com5's case)
    With these changes, if an alliance wants to accrue the VP to win, It will have to fight wars and attack enemies all server long.
    So you won't see those cases where people build hammers till day 150 and splat.
    In the current scenario, there is only case for VP gain, not loss, that needs to be changed asap.
    Along with the changes, you've suggested, I believe many of the issues facing the game currently could be fixed.


    My point of contention with you VVV is where you point out we have half your attack and less than half your defence points.
    I'd like to point out that as your main opposition, our alliance came not from a pre-existing group like Titan, Bob, EMC, etc., but was gradually formed from merging several other alliances during the course of the server. Due to that we lost much of our attack, defence and VP points during the mergers, if those values were included our attack points would only be marginally lower than yours, however our Defence points would be lower quite a bit admittedly and our VP would only be slightly lower as our treasures have been only slightly lesser than yours over the course of server.


    We did not get those treasures by "simming", we did it by destroying every single opposing alliance in our quadrant and taking those treasures by force. It is the reason only 2 major alliances exist in SE anymore.
    It is because we warred everyone else out of existence, however we remained off the top 10 board as we were much smaller than Titan and still are.
    Right now Titan has 80% more population than us, but only 33% more VP.
    If those lost values were included and on a per population basis, our attack and VP values would be significantly greater than yours.
    Not only that, our raiding efficiency is higher than yours.
    On a quality basis, my alliances players are better than yours.(no offense intended, just an opinion)
    We aren't simmers VVV, just smaller.


    I often get the desire to write as long posts as you can VVV, but at my age, patience isn't exactly my greatest virtue.
    So I'll just cap off to say I agree with all the game changes you proposed along with my own and I hope the developers take a cue from what everyone is saying and do the needful :)

    If we're going to stretch these servers out so far, I think existing legends is far better than kingdoms as it is with artifacts etc. to keep everyone interested.
    players prefer faster servers and most would have long deleted and managing all these villages won't be an easy job.
    Overall, make the game boring.
    The current speed is fine.
    Even one player playing an account can be top 15 easily as it is.
    And Legends has a fully functioning android app to boot.

    It's in one of those 3 tabs under account settings.
    And if I remember correctly you can only do it for a limited time period after server start once and for a gold cost.