Posts by PaultheGaul


    I think one idea of a Night Truce server is to allow people to sleep peacefully. Which leads me to assume that some thought has gone into what exact times are ideal for this Night Truce period.

    This server was posted as CST time zone, which means that once our clocks change the server will no longer be aligned to CST time zone.


    I personally think the adjustment is necessary.

    Sorry don't see an edit button.



    Tuesday, January 25th at 2:00 pm UTC+1

    • COM1nx3 - Speed Night Truce - Join the Embassy here:


    Which will be the truce hours and time zone of this server? Maybe I am missing it, or maybe it is just expected to be known but I am not seeing it on the post and there is no link to the Embassy thread above.

    Unknown, if you're speaking on behalf of Travian staff then this is extremely concerning. I've only been playing Kingdoms for a year and the thing that puts me off wanting to continue playing this game more than anything is the lack of care from the Travian team to work with the players, and make decisions that will help the game, both for community and financial growth.

    You have a great product that many people enjoy, but whoever's calling the shots in fields such as community feedback, bug fixing, and the game's overall longevity, needs to have a word had with them. Because if all these highly understandable and explained complaints to poor server scheduling are being met with nothing more than "lol just play a German server or speed server, we hope you play for a long time, Merry Christmas," to say it bluntly, you're a disappointment for all players. Either your management is unbelievably poor, you don't care, or you disregard the community's opinions and feedback so much because your heads are so far up your own asses that you think your thoughts and ideas are so much better than everyone else's. Either way, this is disappointing.

    These server decisions are bad for your community, and bad for your marketing. So many of the same type of server coming out so close to each other will spread the community so much that it'll create less competitive servers, which will cause an decrease in player count, due to mediocre or poor experiences. A lack of a specific type of server over a period of time can also cause a decrease in player count, as if you don't keep your demographics engaged with content, it'll cause a decrease in player count, due to people finding something else to do, and increasing chances of them just moving on from the game.

    wow well said. I've been playing this game for too long and I feel the same way.

    If you move your hero to defend another village or provide another village a temp boost in resources, does it change where robbers spawn? That could get wonky.


    I had this exact same problem last round. Wound up using option 2. Later on in the game I shifted to option 1 when wheat became an issue.


    I will think on this and maybe come back with any additional comments.

    I have had a few people mention this concern to me.

    But my understanding was that a Robber Hideouts details are determined once you clear the robber. So you should not have to worry Robber Hideout spawning in the wrong village if you are just moving hero around.

    Is this incorrect?



    One missing pro is the defense of the kingdom being able to see attacks on your hammer village.

    Ah good point! This is definitely a pro to option 1,2 and 4



    Edit: I reached out to Support and received confirmation on the Robber Hideouts, and so this swapping Hero should not be a problem.

    Quote from Black Swan

    Yes, this is correct. The robbers spawn time, and coordinates get set up at the moment when the previous ones disappear from the map.

    Hello,


    I believe that it would be beneficial to make it so Robber Hideouts spawn by your Hero's Home Village instead of your Capital Village. I see 2 good reasons to change it and I can't think of any reasons to not.


    First, most people don't attack Robber Hideouts without their hero - it's just not a fiscally responsible - especially with the new Natar Horn changes, this also may help indicate to players who don't use their Heroes for Robbers to begin to, and possibly even convince them purchase a Natar Horn; there's your CBA. ^^


    Second and most importantly in my opinion, it negatively affects some players currently! For example, take a defensive governor; the main reason you have any offensive troops at all is for Robber Hideouts and Robber Camps. Now let's say you are maybe a bit casual of a player, and maybe were not fortunate enough to have secured a nice cropper in your kingdom's borders, and now unfortunately your cropper is 10 squares away from your kingdom's borders and hopefully not further...


    In my opinion, this scenario above leaves you with 3 options:

    1. Train offensive troops in only 1 village inside borders -
      1. Pros: You can get some Robber Camps OR clear Robber Hideouts with ease. Only have one offensive army to feed.
      2. Cons: Your sieges to Robber Hideouts will be horrendously long and so you will never get Robber Camps unless you take larger losses (or need more offensive troops) on Robber Hideout attacks.
    2. Train offensive troops in a village inside borders AND your capital -
      1. Pros: You get to both siege Robber Hideouts AND get some Robber Camps
      2. Cons: Have to feed and train 2 armies, this interferes with your plans to be an defensive player and usually people with less time choose to be defensive players and unfortunately casual players are unlikely to get any Robber Camps to be honest.
    3. Train offensive troops in only your capital -
      1. Pros: Clear Robber Hideouts with ease. Only have one offensive army to feed.
      2. Cons: Very unlikely that you will be able to siege your Robber Hideouts AND get a single Robber Camp.


    All 3 of these options have their sacrifices and are not ideal. But I believe that by changing the rule to spawn Robber Hideouts by the Hero's Home Village we can add a 4th and better option which allows the player to train small offense troops in 1 village in borders to both siege Robber Hideout's AND clear a Robber Camp or 2.

    • Train offensive troops in only 1 village inside borders -
      • Pros: You get the ability to siege Robber Hideouts and keep a minimal offensive army size. You also get an increased chance at getting some Robber Camps since your hero will be home in reasonable times. Most players will not notice a difference that this change even took affect.
      • Cons: I can't think of any...


    What do you think? Can you think of any cons to this change above?



    Thanks,

    Paul

    In hindsight of some of the wild comments on this thread; I'd like to clarify my opinion...


    I agree that this game is seeing a decline in players and some change to make the game more exciting for the majority of players is necessary.

    There are some really interesting and good ideas mentioned here, and I agree with direction towards smaller kingdoms and more involved players. Unfortunately though, these ideas need a lot of fine tuning.


    p.s. thanks for remembering the def points :) to my knowledge the record is still waiting to be broken on any x1 server

    Challenge accepted?

    again with so many other great teams involved too :)

    Humbled to have been part of these great servers.

    I'm not sure what abuse around making temp kings you are referring to, but I don't think that locking in a king from Day 1 would be a viable option.

    It seems to me that this would cause even fewer kings to spawn and a big problem with being outside of borders and selling stolen goods.

    Does this also take away the ability to abdicate all together? Can a King become a someone's duke?


    I agree that smaller kingdoms would make the game more exciting for all players, I'd just hate to see them have to take away some functioning mechanics.

    Is there another way to get the players to not form such large boring kingdoms without taking away and instead by adding or adjusting something?

    Is it simply that the King/Leadership role is too difficult and too much responsibility while the governor's role is too easy and uninvolved?

    Hello,


    I would like to be able to see and accept all of the trades in the Marketplace "Buy" tab that are being listed from my account's other villages.


    My assumption is that there is some anti-pushing logic involved in the Marketplace that restricts who and how many trades you can see.

    I can't see any reason why this restriction is currently in place for trades within the same account.


    It becomes difficult to manage 15+ villages as a def player who is training troops in every village. I spend a lot of time going through each village and training troops and trading the remaining resources on the Marketplace.

    Often times, I will have the resources available in my capital to trade with myself - unfortunately I am not currently able to see anywhere near the amount of trades I have listed.



    Thanks,

    Paul

    simply more waves less camps does not fix the problem...instead of 60 camps if it spawn 30 with 10 waves each that mean most of them will be taken by gauls with TT's or nearest city's.

    I'm not understanding your reasoning for why this wouldn't work... The "taken by gauls with TT's or nearest city's" is happening already. So you're saying by shortening the total number of camps and increasing the waves this will cause this problem to increase? Lowering the number of camps also lowers the potential benefit of splitting your army right? The current rule is only 1 attack per camp per account, but when there are many camps with few waves this is why we see players splitting their armies.


    Also, the problem with your math here is you've left out a key component - the number of players in the kingdom... And I did not state what I think the right balance is, only that maybe it could be rebalanced to remedy this issue.


    with less camps and more waves unit count in them will be increased aswell

    This is definitely a valid concern and something they would have to validate that it wouldn't grow exponentially before implementing, but that sounds like something that could also be fixed by a simple formula adjustment.


    That's why i said leave them as it is just restrict that 1 camp with 5 waves cant have more then 5 attacks

    I think this is definitely a potential solution. This would help solve the wave sniping but doesn't resolve the greedy player who splits their army to take the most stolen goods.

    This is something that is not really in the game currently, so this would be an entirely new mechanic they'd have to build. However, they have recently been testing the max attack limits on player to player so maybe that is laying the foundation for this change.

    What if there was simply less Robber Camps and an increase in amount of waves per camp?

    It seems the problem could stem from improper balance of an existing mechanic and there is already a limit of 1 wave per camp per person.


    I am very happy to see a 1x server, and I don't want to sound ungrateful but...


    What process did you take in determining the start date?

    This is exactly the point I was trying to make - it seems like some important factors aren't being considered.


    First the date is so sudden, only 8 days to spread the news to our friends and foes for a nice friendly competitive server. 1x servers last a long time and are a big commitment, especially for big kingdom leaders who are trying to organize participation.

    Also, the server starts in August when this thread is intended for, and named for, servers starting in September - this is not something that has been done on any announcement threads this year. I think this could cause some confusion and potentially only hurt the player turnout.


    Maybe this is something that you can bring back to the team to consider as new variables in your formula for determining server start dates.

    No 1x COM server? Until Oct at least?

    I think SacredLegend hit the nail on the head here.

    Timing is crucial for all server types and it seems to be something that has been overlooked a lot recently.


    In my opinion, 3x and 5x are great fun and all - but they require duals for a player to be relevant; whereas, 1x a solo player can still be respectable among top players.

    I personally go harder and use more gold on 1x servers.

    I would honestly like to know how many developers TK has. If Is it not just an illusion of German propaganda hidden behind a gaming company (jk). 👍


    Even here on the forum I miss the old moderators (/wave Georgi), who also had some internal information. The BridgetB administrator is probably on vacation as well. It's a pity that the BIRTHDAY server was such a trash.


    But the amount of gold for non-paying players was cool (for multiaccounts ofc too). 👌

    This is a valid question that I have as well.

    From what I've seen in some videos and such, they seem to have an excessive amount of artists. Which is why I assume we keep seeing the same capabilities just being re-skinned.

    I assume they have developers who added some configurable options to the servers so that anyone can make some simple modifications, then sent the bulk of the developers away/

    At least, this is how I've seen businesses run in the past when having custom applications built and seems to be what we're seeing here.

    Makes no difference. you can literally write the code for them and it wont matter. Kingdoms has no developers left who would know what to do with it. Just a bunch of CSR's with configurable options for servers.