Posts by leo#EN(19)

    Can you explain what the problem is? Are you worried it will not have enough players to be profitable? Will developers be stretched too thin supporting local servers? I think players uniting to this extent deserve an explanation. It will also help to understand priorities.


    This was a softball. TK should have embraced the community involvement and leaned in even. Publicized the battle royale. People have commented here that they wanted to be heard. They explained what they want from this game. Not in insignificant numbers. So please help us to understand why it cannot happen. What hurdles were found when you looked into it. Surely after starting hundreds of servers over the past two decades it isn’t a technical hurdle.

    Re: chat. I think it's important to look at the underlying problem. Instead of travian investing a ton in a chat system, there are many out there already. Most kingdoms use discord anyways. Maybe the solution is to work with an existing tool instead of updating or patching an internally developed system that would require a ton of time.


    Really should be approach of all ideas proposed. Understand why the suggestion was made (the real problem) and address that instead of just following a solution.

    Bellatora to return this thread back to its original purpose, have the devs been approached with 5 ideas? Can you let us know which 5? Or is it up to the community decide? Once they've been discussed with the devs, can you let us know what feedback there was so we can fine-tune ideas in the future?


    To everyone else, if you aren't directly presenting 5 ideas, can we stop so the conversation isn't muddled when it goes to devs?

    Yeah, you did by lumping them together. Take away the farm list feature and people will use external tools to run farm lists, giving a very few players an immense advantage. If setting up farm lists is so easy, then everyone would be doing it. I use farm lists to farm and I find that they actually save me time. Punishing activity sounds like a great way to drive active people away from the game.

    I didn't say to remove the farm list feature. I literally started off with "Delete greys sooner. Prevent farming loopholes that bots take advtange of, etc. Possibly have a cool down or move accounts below a certain size being farmed." I'm not a professional writer but I am think that's pretty clearly not saying "make farming illegal."


    The point of what I'm suggesting is to weaken "easy farming." If a player goes grey, delete the account after 3 days. If they want to come back then they should start on a new world anyways because they're being farmed to death. Other players here have mentioned menhir abuse. Remove that. If a player is still active and being farmed for days with only 1 village under a certain prestige, put up a protection, offer them more quests to guide them out of being a farm, and offer them a nice relocation recommendation into a smaller area. Either they are new, and we should be providing more guidance, or they are a multi and by putting up attack protection we are blocking illegal behavior.


    "If setting up farm lists is so easy, every would be doing it." I mean. It is easy. It mostly requires time, not so much brain power. Again, I have done this. I understand this game. Making a good farm list does require some skill. But to reward someone so much for logging on every 20 minutes isn't going to build a larger player base. This is also why bots are so beneficial. You're encouraging something that is easy to automate and that only requires high frequency. Not something that requires skill. If it did, bots wouldn't be so easy to find. Not all top farmers use bots. But the fact that bots are so easy to make mean the mechanism is broken and the wrong incentives are in place.


    "Punishing activity..." I never said punish activity. I said stop over rewarding activity. There is a huge difference. One is "This person has logged on 10 times, we should ban them." The other is "Let's make the game a little more balanced so people don't have to log on 100 hours a week so that we can grow the game." People who log in more should still gain advantages. I mean, a huge one is that they build more buildings, grow faster, and are more reactive to the real time attacks. I'm not suggesting stopping or "punishing" any of that.


    I would prefer playing against 10,000+ players, some hyper active, some not. Some really good and experienced, some learning. Rather than 200 of the same players repeatedly.

    Farming is a strategy. If you don't like it you don't have to play that way. Please provide evidence of bots and cheats to Support rather than smearing those who raid.

    I didn't suggest that all farming people used bots. I have farmed top 10 a few times legally. I did say that it incentivizes bots, which is true. Farming by beating actual players and stealing their resources is strategy. Logging on every 20 minutes to send out a farmlist for 100s of greys is not strategy. There is nothing wrong with it. It is just not what I'd like the game to reward. I would like it to reward real strategy more. Where you have to think and plan, not mindlessly click a button the most. I am suggesting that the game take away some advantages that bots and hyper active people have.

    I'm currently taking a break. Maybe permanently. So take my thoughts with grain of salt. But I've posted many ideas here so felt like contributing anyways.


    1. Actually post a roadmap of planned features/bugs that will be addressed. Legends does this. Many software companies do. This is extremely helpful to the community to understand the direction. It also helps with those of us who like to contribute ideas (I think this section of the forum should basically have a running list of ideas so people can contribute to already proposed ones).


    2. Provide some mid-game functionality that will help bridge the gap for long servers. Some of us like the speed of x1 but mid-game can be very boring. Artifacts or server-wide territory camps have been proposed. Many ideas to choose from. A new task or challenge, not just a building that hopes to increase fighting.


    3. Increase server variety. Again, many ideas have been proposed. Follow any. Have server length change. Make maps much smaller sometimes or have different surprise elements. Change the end game objective. Don't let the game become formulaic. Some of us players talk about optimizations as if this game can be perfected. That takes the strategy out if we can follow a pre-server plan to achieve the optimal troop level.


    4. Allow ops to be planned and executed in game. Don't require us to time a send perfectly. That's not how war works. This change allows for us to focus on strategy, not perfecting the timing mechanics (or encourage illegal external script use). This would also be a huge boost for allowing people to use the app. You can't do an op from the app currently. It just ins't practical and probably never will be. (While on the app and attacks, fixing push notifications would also be huge too)


    5. Eliminate farming incentives. Delete greys sooner. Prevent farming loopholes that bots take advtange of, etc. Possibly have a cool down or move accounts below a certain size being farmed. Not only will this actually provide newer players with some chance of sticking around, it also removes cheating incentives and forces players to focus more on strategy to build great accounts. I would guess the number of players who want to spend all day sending a farm list is much lower than the players would prefer being able to compete by using their wits to build a strong account. I know this idea in particular will get pushback, but think long-term about the need for a larger quantity players, not 100 dedicated who will spend 100 hours a week on the game.

    When sending scouts, adding a chief to the party allows a user to scout village makeup. The chief is known for its persuasiveness, the scouts help sneak it into the village and bribe the city planner to know everything there is to know about the village.


    Why is this useful?

    - Know what you're getting before you chief a village. it's always unfortunate to chief a village and see that it isn't as valuable as you expected and requires more investment.

    - Understand what the enemy is doing strategically. Are they already using a GB/GS? Are they prepping a new village to be a treasury village? Are there 6 trappers? Level 18 fields? Do they have 5 healing tents to allow them to easily recover?


    How it could work:

    - 1 chief is required to make this balanced and harder to reach

    - If >50% of scouts die, chief also dies and no village information is retrieved

    - If <20% of scouts die, number of scouts are shown but chief is not shown. Defender is not told that you did a full village reveal.


    This adds a new twist to the usage of scouts. I think it makes them and overall intelligence more valuable.

    A second one - being able to message "leadership". When I send a message, I'd like to be able to just type in "leadership" and send a message to all the royals in my kingdom. As a governor or not a governor. This would start a thread that would then be replyable by anyone in leadership and me. This would be really helpful for things like asking questions, requesting help, etc. Currently the options are 1. Message one person in leadership who then takes it to a leadership chat to discuss. Or 2. message a kingdom/ss chat that allows everyone to see.

    I think a great QoL update here in the forum would be for mods to have a stickied thread at the top of this forum where they can track all ideas presented, status (will be implemented in 6 months, being implemented, needs elaboration, etc.), links to the original thread(s), and votes on feature popularity.


    It is more work for the moderators. But I think it will help tremendously.

    Add a map layer (what's currently called filters in game, such as treasury, capitol, etc.) called "Strategy".


    Governors would be able to select this to see certain items added by the royals.


    Royals would be able to add certain items. Future treasuries (which would also show their expected area of influence as a city), key defensive targets, potential villages to chief, notes on troops (enemy offenses build location, anvil players), etc. There's a lot of potential here.


    When creating, a royal will be able to specify if visible to royals only or all kingdom.


    This feature is not available to SS. Let's build on features that help make wings a nuisance.


    I think this feature helps add to the strategy component of the game and most of the building blocks are in place already so it might not be a difficult ask from dev team. This also allows governors to see things like where they can strike without an entire op planned to help the kingdom. I know from as a governor I'd like to do things chief a strategic village but there isn't a great way right now to convey that information right now. And the ways to mark future treasuries is not great at the moment.

    I see that this will result in
    1. That everybody will save their offs till ww's spawn as late game mergers start. so you getto know who your real enemy is.
    2. All of these options encourage bigger kingdoms.
    so for my view point these changes are downgrades.

    1. I don't understand your assumption. Right now plenty of people start saving their offense after day 80ish for WW. How does variable length after day 80 encourage saving offense more than already happens?


    2. My assumption is that the rest of the game stays same, which already only permits mega kingdoms to win. I am a huge fan of changing other aspects to encourage smaller kingdoms. If the rest of the game stays the same, does this really further encourage there only being 2-3 large kingdoms left at the end of most servers?


    Most importantly, do you have endgame changes that you would like better? My goal is to add variety in some way. I don't like how formulaic and predictable the game is. I'm open to a discussion or alternatives in achieving that.

    I have two related ideas for changes to endgame.


    1. Variable and unknown start date to endgame.

    2. Occasional shift in endgame objective (defined as what actually triggers a server to end).


    1. Variable and unknown start date to endgame.

    - Current Status: At day 111, endgame begins like clockwork. All dates and times are defined ahead of server start and automatic.

    - Idea Description: Kingdom moderator triggers endgame to start any time after day 80. Players are only given a 7 day warning message. The date is not determined ahead of the server.

    - Rationale:

    - Provides more variety in gameplay. The server is not formulaic (I can crash hammer on day 80 then have a decent WW hammer still). You play the server and have to adapt to unpredictable changes.

    - Moderators can tailor a game based on participation, action, competitiveness, etc. If a server is dead, endgame can start sooner. If people are really enjoying the server and lots of action is happening, allow it to go longer.

    - There may be a little more action if people aren't sure when the WW will spawn. Every action after day 80 is considered a risk. The WW could spawn soon or in 2 months. Strategy is forced to consider both possibilities.

    - Winning team will more often be better built teams, not teams peaking the right time. They have to account for multiple strategies and play well. Not follow the winning formula.



    2. Occasional shift in endgame objective

    - Current Status: Server ends automatically whenever a WW reaches level 100. WWs provide bonus to VP based on rank. Most VP at end of server wins.

    - Idea Description: Seven days before endgame begins, the objective is defined by moderator and announced. WW bonus and victory conditions remain same. A bonus also for kingdom that achieves endgame objective. Some idea options:

    - First WW to reach level 100. The current default.

    - A kingdom reaches X number of treasures. Would be great for servers with a few kingdoms very close in treasury count. Would change the dynamics of endgame quite a bit and some kingdoms would be incentivized to focus stealing treasures. Defense also spread more.

    - A kingdom holds X number of WWs at a given time. For sparsely populated servers, this might be fun. Maybe impractical though. For a server with 2 main kingdoms, getting 4 would be great. This requires them holding 3 at a time successfully and beating their opponent to 4. Or to help someone else defend if they don't want the objective to be reached yet.

    - A kingdom hold a specific WW for X number of days. This one I would like to be announced much earlier. It would be great to see people fighting over a WW spot because it has an extra bonus and they can control when the server ends if they can win that area. It should always be a contentious area though.



    Please feel free to propose your own twists or to improve on mine.

    Let's say this is going to be your 6th or 10th village sometime during the mid-game. What do you want want to finish first? Do you rather build everything evenly up, focus first only on the resource production, or first try to get culture point buildings upgraded?


    • All the buildings and fields that take less than 5 minutes to finish
    • Main Building to lvl-5
    • Everything with less than 30 minutes to finish
    • Main Building to lvl-20
    • Resources to lvl-8
    • Culture buildings to reach 400 CP / day
    • Resources to lvl-10, including resource factories
    • Rest of the culture buildings to reach 500 CP / day
    • OPTIONAL: walls and other defensive upgrades


    Above is my preferred order for Gauls, when I'm going to be boosting and sending resources from other villages. All in all this takes about ~23 days to reach, and majority of the resources need to be boosted from other villages. But after that it can similarly support next support villages 8)


    What's your upgrade order, and what do you want to prioritize differently? :/ I would like to hear and learn from your methods!

    For me it is storage first. Makes setting up trade route easier.


    Upgrade storage until I feel comfortable shipping resources constantly. The level depends on time of day. Going to bed soon? Easy to let longer storage buildings upgrade over night anyways. Going to be on a lot the next few hours? I can have lower storage because I'll be around to spend.


    Then upgrade resource fields as quickly as possible.


    I do somewhat build main building during this time. Again, good for over night building.


    I don't focus on market or military buildings or anything else until the RF are complete. After RF it depends on the villages purposes. Will it build chiefs? Then academy and residence. Otherwise marketplace to 20 and TH to 10.

    How about giving double verified (email+phone message/ authenticator) players who have below 2 bronze stars the option to extend their beginner protection to a higher population (300). That would give them some more time. By having only double verified users you might get less multi abuse.

    Would you remove the time limit? No more 7 days. Just whenever you reach 300 pop? Or extend the 7 days too?

    A problem with "fixing the app" is that I think many players have given up on it at this point. Many prefer even just mobile browser, which is sad. Their development rate is too slow to fix it quick enough.


    One creative way that legends gains income is "watch this ad and get 10% off building time."


    The strange thing is that many of their ads are just for their own games. But there are other ways for income if the company agrees there is too large of a discrepancy.

    My theory - legends wasn't supposed to exist after kingdoms was introduced. But legends was more popular (and is now more popular for sure). So they had a game they wanted to work and was supposed to be more modern, app friendly, etc., but didn't surpass the predecessor, and a more popular game they were supposed to ease out but would be killing a large portion of their user base to get rid of at this point.


    No confirmation. Just my analysis of what's happened over the past 10 years or whatever.

    No pineapple

    skittles

    forward

    either/depends


    Coke, Pop, Soda, soft drink, or other?

    You get the general idea. My overall point is that you should get credit for destroying buildings. It would incentivize more mid-game action and not make treasuries the only target. It would incentivize destroying enemy economies. I'm up for ideas on how this can be calculated.


    My thoughts were assume you target a building that is 35 population with 100 catapults. That's enough to destroy the building in theory. You are able to destroy the building to level 2 which leaves 4 population, but the catapults are killed enough by defense that the building stays at level 2.


    The defense would get credit for saving 4 population. The offense would get credit for destroying 31 population.


    That's just for the statistic calculation. I think that idea alone is worth considering by the team. I enjoy destroying players. I'd love to see how I compare in being the most destructive.


    If there is concern that this would cause larger players to just destroy every smaller player, my first response is so? This game should be about clearing out your area. Second, a weight can be added similar to the way pop factors into battle morale bonus. Or a filter can be added. If a kingdom/player is <70% of your size, you get no credit for knocking them down in size. Personally, I think that it should be kingdom to kingdom size, not player to player size.


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    To take the idea one step further, if you wanted to possibly take this statistic and use it to balance the current parity, you could. And this actually seems way more possible with the recent idea of fealty being considered. What if small kingdoms who destroyed players' villages in a larger kingdom were given an attack bonus? Thus allowing them to destroy more players' village in that larger kingdom and to continue to "catch-up?" And small kingdoms who successfully defend large kingdoms from destroying one of their players were given a defense bonus?


    This adds direct parity. This de-incentivizes creating kingdoms of as many people as possible. This is a second component to this idea that should be considered independent. The first idea does not require this to be implemented.


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    As for @iribuya's comment on needing more statistics, I think we all agree with this. However, I would think that a fine community manager, such as Unknown, would agree that if we want to have a general "What statistics should we add" discussion, that it should be its own thread. I would love to contribute. As Mitsu has kindly helped me to communicate, if I'm going to contribute ideas, I'd appreciate them being addressed by the community manager, instead of completely ignored. Else, why would I continue to create idea threads? I created this thread to discuss a certain topic. A specific statistic that would be great to add for people who want action.

    Just wanted to let you know that the idea was liked, it was added to a design idea that is been studied, but sadly I cannot give any time frames, since things move about depending on circumstances and other things that come up and we are forced to work on.

    Unknown Why would you reply to one single reply about this topic. Not the OP. What exactly is liked? @iribuya's mention of wanting more stats? So the developers like adding more stats? Or the original suggestion of specific stats regarding catapults? Tell us what the developers like so our suggestions can help.