This reminds me of 1 vs 1 fighting games where the player with lower health looses if the time is up so a bad player sometimes will give early damage to the opponent and then keep on jumping back and forth to dodge all attacks on them from the enemy.
What are you trying to achieve with your last last post? You're just repeating yourself, without any new argument or going into my points, that I wrote. I really tried, but I don't see any substance in your last post. I do try to dicuss these topics, provide arguments and reasons for my believes and thoughts, everything you did was to say "you're wrong, I'm right". This appears a little childish to be honest. If you want your opinion not to be ignored (by anyone who doesn't share it, not only by me), post reasons for your thoughts and arguments of some quality. For instance, why do you think hard-limits are beneficial for strategic depth? What are those reasons, that you think a player limit would be good for? What are those hard limit examples, let it be Kingdoms or another game, that you're talking of? And why do you think, they are a good design choice there?
I can see that Scorox is just trying to say that he respect your opinions on the matters and not mad at your posts. Regarding all the questions you asked, most of them have been touched upon in some manner or forms throughout these 2 discussions and I do not see starting a debate on them over and over again.
Clearly both you and we think that the game is not working properly or competitively enough. While we are suggesting limiting kingdom members, you are suggesting having consequences instead for having more members which is a better option in theory but it's very hard , if not impossible to implement while limits are easy to implement and all the consequences can be addressed via new strategies and different gameplays.
My main point is, that one should have the option to have many members, if one likes to, but that it should come with a downside aswell - and not, that one just can't pass a certain member count.
I'd prefer that as well, and as mentioned before, it is not desirable to make decisions in who leaves and who stays, but this is what leaders are for , to make right decisions. Many players have argued that it's in the name of the game that kingdom is supposed to protect each member, active or passive , good or bad, which is a valid argument superficially, but again, even in real kingdoms, not everyone was in army, there were peasants , there were tradesman, there were troops, priests , what not, so no this game is just not a copy of original concept of kingdoms. If it was that, there would be roles for players to produce just resources for kingdom, and they can't make troops, etc.
Anyway, we all have seen interactions and communications in various kingdoms throughout the servers and in no kingdom, not even the best of the best ones we see more than 60 players proactive. Rest are just being "used" for tributes, VP, spamming defense; sure that's works in favor of the kingdom but it essentially makes Travian a game for recruitment rather than a war game.
Ignoring few anomalies most of the servers are just 2 way contests or even 1 way (all the servers where 2nd kingdom tries to unite with other kingdoms to take on the pre-organised meta rarely works in favor of them, there are more than enough examples from recent past , likes of GGG and ★STARS★, it might again superficially looks like a fair contest but at the core it never is).
Will your suggestion about having consequences works better than hard limiting the members count ? Maybe. But it will need to introduce few new mechanisms in the game and will change the game in some ways or other. Hard limit will allow us to keep the same game with minimal change in strategies and game-play (and yes, we all know T-L exists but people are not going to go back to it as the differences in graphics and game experience is of monumental scale)
Takže trik používat více účtů je udržet účty běží: D
I don't think buying gold feature has anything to do with languages or domains, there are around 200 countries in the world with thousands of languages , we can't have them all unfortunately.
I was referring to the problem of getting duals, sure it's much more easier said than done theoretically, but if you'll look around, you'll see the interest of most players in this regards. Duals are still a very rare case mostly used by veterans and experienced players.
Anyway, having a dual should be a privilege not a necessity. Also, the overhaul of dual system is pending since decades so I would refrain from touching that topic again.
not every player is 'good' (however one defines it), so why should all duals be? improving together can be as much and more fun as having a dual doing everything because hes better and he knows better.
you could always test how you get along with your potential dual or pick one from your last round together, ask around (in your kingdom, in rl, the forum,...)
not everyones even cares about prestige, also theres always the option to change prestige gain for duals instead of creating NT servers.
what else than (mainly) covering the regular times you cant be online would a dual be there for i wonder?
Marshmallowman That is not really solving the problem, that's just saying - "deal with it"!
That's what duals are for. We don't need to create a niche to separate the player base even further with these kind of servers.
You really thinks Duals (good and decent duals for the matter) are readily available .I have came across a plethora of players who don't even believe in concept of duals because they have trust issues plus dualing someone gives no prestige or achievement whatsoever so no, that's not what duals are for.
Ignis_COM Please give me more examples from normal speed servers rather than one instance from speed server where gameplay is different.
In normal speed BM have won rounds despite being in smaller numbers but in majority of the times a meta with superior members count have won.
Also your strategy of meta moving towards WW is valid and with 60 members limitation, there can be atleast 6-7 kingdoms moving towards WW allowing for 6-7 separate teams on a minimum having 1 WW each.
Ignis_COM Please check @Scorox's post clearly showing that kingdoms below rank 2 rarely have any chance of winning the server or even influencing the server strongly (surely there will be some exceptions but generally speaking). In many servers you can also see players in Rank 3-10th kingdoms being tossing around from one kingdom to another and ultimately ending up in big metas eventually which is not really a pleasant experiences by any means for any new player.
According to current trend :
2 metas contending in most servers - 150 players each - 300 players truly making a difference.
According to limited kingdom rule :
10 kingdoms contending in most servers - 60 players each - 600 players truly making a difference.
10 kingdoms contending in most servers - 60 players each - 420 players truly making a difference.
(Remember it's a bit difficult to hold 2 WW with 60 players so kingdoms will go for just 1 WW, allowing other kingdoms to take rest of WWs)
Great Post Scorox , hats off for compiling that data and laying out facts and figures for everyone. This should be really valuable for the other threads where we're debating about limits on sizes so thanks a million!
I'd like to make some observations from this data myself,
- In majority of the cases Kingdoms onward rank 3 have no chance of winning the server.
- More Members = More VP. Period. (Yes more active and great members can chance the flow of server, hats off for BM for your compact and better kingdom, but it's not a general scenario)
- Huge member difference between Rank 1st and rest of ranks, on an average, according to the Graph:
18 Players less between Rank 1st and Rank 2nd Kingdom
- 18 x 100,000 = 1,800,000 VP difference on an average without fighting. (Considering the post where each player is worth 100,000 VP on an average)
Out of 18 players, on a rule of thumb, let's say :
10% are extraordinary player - 2 Less Extraordinary Players than Ranked 1 kingdom.
40% are good active players - 7 less Good Active Players than Ranked 1 kingdom.
40% are semi active players - 7 less Semi Inactive Players than Ranked 1 kingdom.
10% are liabilities - 2 less Liabilities Players than Ranked 1 kingdom.
51 Players less between Rank 1st and Rank 3rd Kingdom
- 51 x 100,000 = 5,100,000 VP difference on an average without fighting. (Considering the post where each player is worth 100,000 VP on an average)
Out of 51 players, on a rule of thumb, let's say :
10% are extraordinary player - 5 Less Extraordinary Players than Ranked 1 kingdom.
40% are good active players - 20 less Good Active Players than Ranked 1 kingdom.
40% are semi active players - 20 less Semi Inactive Players than Ranked 1 kingdom.
10% are liabilities - 5 less Liabilities Players than Ranked 1 kingdom.
and so on for rest of the ranks...
Also, as Deacon said, if valid points are enlisted clearly and asked to be added on the main post, I'm more than willing to edit it.
And I saw Deacon quoting Mads post while saying to check other posts before giving out negative comments, which you quoted, maybe better to go back and see how that post was worded and see how positive that post was to start with before siding with it just because it aligns with "No" Camp.
Well not everyone is able to sleep with stress, also many old players which started travian during their youth are having families and careers so a server like such will make it easier for them to keep playing and still don't let it interfere with their lives.
To be honest, I'd prefer a normal game world , something like we had for Dry world. These limitations are easy to implement IT wise and the findings can be recorded after the end of normal server and evaluate how much players enjoyed the game world compared to the other game world.
This involves a lot of stuffs in planning strategies, diplomacy etc, throughout the length of server so a short test server might not suffice.
And this is a proof Im a simmer? I played 3 of those servers.. with UNSC I ended up 8th deffender... On the other 2 I ended up in top10 attackers with WW hammers 100-150k big.. Also Iv never placed myself in top 12% of Population... Is this what you call simming?! You better stop making me laugh.. Btw who you are that you can be accusing us here like this?
Snorri this thread is not about you I believe, @DainioujuDima's images were merely showing the big difference between top 1-2 kingdoms and the rest of the server. Also, regarding the simming part, there have been many instances of big kingdom simming and that's just not my opinion, that's a fact, but again it's a different conversation and I can suggest few examples myself even from the servers you were on, but I'd rather keep it separate from this topic but give me a buzz if you're still interested in knowing about those servers.
Again, @Scorox's recent topic as mentioned in post above provides a clear picture of the ongoing pattern that the server is a tug of war between 2 main metas, sometimes a supremacy of a single big meta or very rarely a balanced server.
Also regarding the posts Deacon pointed before where you asked him to respect other's opinion, I'd suggest to read those posts and see it for yourself how those posts are clearly trying to establish disrespect against the idea and more-soever against individuals.
Lastly, It was mentioned in one of my initial posts that I'm willing to add up more cons if anyone comes up with it (barring cheating , multiying) and I did that based on Be2-e4 's post so rather than pointing the differences between pros and cons please jot down few valid bullet points of cons to be added to the list.
For all of your not already following @Scorox's post regarding the unbiased data regarding kingdom size and VP correlation, I'd request you to check it out here : Statistics of Travian Kingdoms 2018 (COM x1 servers)
Again, please feel free to make your own observations but that's the facts out there which cannot be dismissed or ignored.
That is usually the case on the smaller servers. And this is exactly what would happen to normal com servers if set limits to the player amount. Normal off armies, but fewer def units.
So the opposite of it with hammers not able to do any damage to millions and millions of defense is any betters ?
Again , as players mentioned previously, defense strength is directly proportional to members counts and hammer's strength is not.
Be2-e4 - Like a Boss!
BridgetB Don't get me wrong but that sounds like asking - "Do you have an idea of killing someone without making it look like a murder!".
Okay but seriously, if we can implement using of cages like scrolls for example, you can only use 100 cages a day and if you have travian plus you can search and filter animals or an additional pack, which you can buy to search and filter animals. Well it's still pay-to-win, but it's atleast competitive.