Posts by leo#EN(19)

    Population destroyed = amount of population you've destroyed via catapults. Send a catapult and destroy a level 5 wheat field, that is 1 population destroyed. More destruction.


    I mean, adding a new player to the kingdom if they are in the area is the most ideal solution. Destroying them means loss of long-term troop and resource income. It would be dumb to destroy them. It is smarter to coach them instead. If you want to increase that incentive I'm all for it. But I don't think this in any way incentivizes players to lure in new players only to destroy them. At the very least they are still more profitable as farms wherever they are on the map.


    But there are a million other issues for new players. This is an attempt to add more incentive to action other than 1-3 ops per game going after a treasure. Attacking someone's economy should actually matter in this game.


    I also think this is a way to help curb kingdom size. Provide some incentive on the kingdom level for not being the largest. Penalize kingdoms 3x the size of any other kingdoms. Allow smaller kingdoms to catch up. They can't do that by going after treasures.

    Simple ideas:

    • Statistics that show users/kingdoms with most population destroyed via catapults, the most population saved (if no defense, catapults would have killed 15 population, therefore 15 population was saved)
    • Kingdom-wide morale bonus destroying or defending large quantities of population, attack and defense bonus.
      • Note: Not related to rankings, but recency and magnitude only. This prevents kingdoms from getting a bonus by destroying not much at al.
      • Note: In order to prevent multi-abuse, it will only take into populations of kingdoms similar or greater than the attacking/defending kingdom.
    • Kingdom statistics for these also show current bonus a kingdom has so people may be warned AND might go on the offensive to offset the disadvantage they've accrued.


    The goal of the idea is to increase action against people and focus on destroying each other more, instead of merely collecting and defending treasures. Create an advantage that encourages op frequency.


    It also would be great for smaller kingdoms, who could take do some damage to an isolated player from a larger kingdom, to provide them a morale bonus to continue their fighting (attack and defending) against that larger kingdom and maybe catch up a bit more.


    Questions:

    Should the bonus be nullified for treasuries? I vote yes.

    Should troops be factored into the equation as well? Destroying a village with a hammer kills a ton of troops and should be rewarded. Same for defense killed via lost village. I vote yes.

    Should chiefed villages count as the population of the total village lost? I vote yes.


    Thoughts?

    Reading forum post topics makes my frustration go through the roof.


    Until players / kingdom on the server won't team up to beat the shitty cheaters, a.k.a reiceive punishment from the community, nothing is gonna happen. As we as know travian kingdom admins now.

    Another approach would be that the kingdoms on the server agree to set their delete timers. That gives staff three days to fix it or they lose an entire server of players.

    Not sure what you expect, but the team is aware of your concerns.

    You are a community manager, yet you come across very tone deaf in understanding and communicating with the community.


    "Not sure what you expect?"

    This forum is basically complaints. It's people who are desperately trying to give you a clue about how you can save the game. In my hall of fame, a world from 2019 shows 8.7k players at end. Com3 from a few months ago shows 2k. So yes, players are leaving the game at an alarming rate. That doesn't even show what the numbers are for legends now (seem much higher) and what they were in T3/T4 days. Com2 (Which we tried to tell you was not started at a good time) has 1400 active and will only decrease as all servers do. So what do we expect?


    How about a plan.

    - Tell us why we should bother dealing with a game that appears to be dying, with frustrating and community managers who don't care or don't see the issues? When things are going to actually improve? How players are going to be roped in? How server size can be increased? Plans to make new players stay? And bots be blocked?

    - Tell us why the local regional servers exist with there are <1k players on them when we want more on com, not less? ESPECIALLY if you are just telling us they are all the same and we should play on them even if we aren't from that region. Will they be merged and consolidated to improve gameplay, simply having 15 com servers instead of random FR, DE, etc. servers?

    - Tell us what is being added to the game. I don't mean pointing to the changelog like you do. We see these tiny bug fixes that are long overdue. Hey the card game is in the app now, there is one less reason I have to switch from the app to the desktop to play (still plenty). Hey the menhir has been changed 2+ years after it was introduced to fix issues that were always there. Legends is having a NYE special that adds twists. It has added 2 additional tribes. It has 2x, 5x, 10x. It has special servers. Introduces new buildings. THAT is a changelog that TG should be proud of. You are just embarrassing yourself and showing you don't understand when you point to kingdom's. It looks very much like 1 developer is assigned to keep this in maintenance mode and milk it while T4 will continue flourish.

    - Have a steady and predictable schedule when the major servers will exist. My kingdom assumed there would be January server. we could do December because people have lives. You yourself were too busy to check the forums. Yet you don't want to accommodate people by delaying the server or having a server in January? "Every 4 weeks a com1x and com3x server will be released". Boom. Now people can plan.


    I can keep going on. I have hundreds of ideas and I'm sure plenty of others do too. Your job is to understand the community so I hope this helps you too. Because asking what we expect shows to me that you don't understand what we are asking for. And if we are unhappy, do you think we are telling friends to join this? Or try to convince people we play with they should stick around? No. Why would we let a new person even waste time getting invested?


    I do not plan on playing another server. I even tinkered with the idea of starting to code a similar game up with a group (there are others interested and discussions have happened so be careful). I've been addicted to this game on and off since like 2008. It is the only game I play, literally. Not a gamer. But I enjoy the strategy as do others. That is why we put up with the nonsense. Our complaints are because we actually want the game to improve so we can enjoy it. If I ever come back, it will be to legends. I hope this clears up what you can do. I did try to make it constructive but it is too frustrating at this point.

    Well, the good thing about all the game worlds, no matter the domain, they all have English available, so you can play with on any, including DE2 and FR2.


    So we have options to play any type of speed we prefer. :)

    Thank you for making quitting so easy. I genuinely appreciate you sticking with the "our management sucks and we don't care" attitude long enough that I can just visit the forums to be reminded why I shouldn't play and that there are better things to do and spend my money on. :)

    I do like the idea very much leo#EN(19), thank you!

    What concerns me is that probably such a project would require an immense quantity to planning, coding, testing, etc time.


    Don't you think it would be a better option to use that time for game improvements, updates, changes, bugfixes, etc?

    Getter has existed since at least T3. It could have been planned to be incorporated since then. It's up to Travian Games to decide what is important enough to spend time on. Your last line is a bit confusing. In my mind, this is a significant game improvement. And would be an update to the game. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by that line.


    The point of the poll was to see if others agreed that it was important enough that TG prioritize it. I have like 5+ polls I'd like to create similar to this to see how the community felt about what should be prioritized but I wanted to see if they would be popular and it does not seem like people were interested enough.

    We see a lot of ideas mentioned on the forum, in discord, and in game. But after browsing the legends discord, I think there is a far more efficient way to get to the bottom of ideas and priorities. I wanted to start the same way of discussing suggestions that they have. Create a poll! I encourage others to post atomic ideas. Let's see what ideas have the most support and don't. Not just through text discussion, which is important. But through the polls too.


    Suggestion: Include the functionality of external tools that everyone uses (getter, kirilloid) in the game.

    Current behaviour: For a strategy game, I have to go to external tools to plan an operation against other kingdoms. I have to use external tools to calculate army size over a week or production of fields at certain levels.

    Suggested behaviour: Players should be able to do these things that they rely on external tools for in game.


    Benefits: It makes playing easier. It requires far less friction when player don't have to sign up for a separate service. The tools could be enhanced a ton given direct access to the backend (because they are part of it). Much better integration with roles in game. Reduces the risk of using illegal tools since external tools are not necessary. Updates are immediate. Data is guaranteed to reflect game data.


    Comments are open for discussion too.

    Because that would make a king going inactive even shittier.

    If this is the only reason then I don't think it is enough. There are far more pros to making kings a larger commitment and this can be addressed in other ways. The duke with highest treasures automatically becomes king. Or the Duke has an option to specify a new king. My thoughts at least. As I've pointed out before, what are the statistics of players being effected by an inactive king vs the number of players taking advantage of the game mechanics to set themselves up in a better position about being king.


    We can also look at the lore and story aspect. A king/queen is a birthright. It is something the account should be born with. And lives with until they die. If a king/queen steps down they are banished. The only way to become king/queen historically without being born is to usurp/revolt. Which requires winning a war. To me, from the mechanics/strategy aspect or story aspect it doesn't make sense for the kiing/queen decision to be so light and inconsequential. Jax worded it better. At the very least you should have a reputation/prestige to a certain point.


    I think it would provide a ton more strategic decisions and opportunities in the game if kings were set at the beginning. Players have to settle wherever the king starts, no menhiring to a WW. The number of kingdoms is fixed in a server. The number of players per kingdom is drastically reduced. Right now at the beginning most large kingdoms have 3-4 wings to fit everyone. Instead, you have to plan differently. Your region size is smaller and planning to connect regions become more of a task. It becomes more enhanced when dukes are set.

    I agree with you that it's NOT needed to set the options in stone at the start of the server. If experienced players turn to king halfway or duke that's totally cool.

    Can you elaborate on why? What good reason is there for this? Why would this be a strategy that happens or should be allowed to happen? From my experience it only happens to take advantage of the game mechanics. Not because of strategy.

    That would be very restrictive and wouldn't allow different strategies on how to prepare for a kingdom union. I hope there is another way to keep the sandbox feeling for strategies as open as possible.

    I'm not sure what exactly you mean here but I believe you are illusioned on how this game works in practice.


    Quote

    Do I understand you correctly that you wouldn't want a quest about using the menhir feature alone? I also would prefer to keep the quest more generic as "join a kingdom, no matter how" so that a player can also join the kingdom they spawn in. Or did you mean a menhir quest for kings, like: "Invite a governor via menhir"? That would definitely be an interesting idea as well.

    I mean the quest writers need to mention the word menhir in the quests. There is no mention right now. No new player has any understanding of what it is. If it is for new people...it should be very easily mentioned to new people."Join a kingdom. In order to be successful in this game, join a kingdom. The larger and more experienced the better for you. If the kingdom around you isn't good enough, feel free to menhir to a kingdom elsewhere. Simply message the king of that kingdom and request they set a menhir."

    Thanks for you help! At what point in your opinion you are ready to start with catas? 3d village, 4th one?

    There is no right or wrong answer to this. It will depend on your surroundings on the server, your progress and goals, and your kingdom.


    You could do nothing but rush catapults from your first/second village so you can clear out enemies before they have too much time to grow.


    You could build a few as you get your second, third, or fourth just to be able to help your kingdom with ops.


    Or you could wait entirely until you have 6+ villages and can support building them 24/7 because you don't need them and they are a hefty investment.


    It's all going to depend. And might change for you from server to server. Same with when you should get chiefs and many other decisions. Part of the fun in this game is that it is strategy and you will likely (hopefully) never play the same exact server twice. That would be boring. In my opinion the game is already too formulaic in some aspects. As much as you might want to try to do that for "optimal" play, never forget that you have to be able to respond and make dynamic decisions based on many other factors unique to that server.


    I would also highly encourage experimenting across a few rounds, particularly in early-mid game decisions and how they effect things. Does your play style allow you to go straight to a city after your second village for the CP advantage that brings? Or is it not worth it for you and your style? Do you enjoy having multiple villages with raiding troops or is it too much effort? Microfarming greys vs breaking through active farms for higher risk and reward? By trying out things you become more flexible when something unexpected happens and can learn what's optimal for YOU, though other players may not agree because their style is different.

    1. Find pre-existinig kingdom to start with.

    2. Start on day server starts.

    3. Speed settle (guides exist) best 15c you can close to your kingdom.

    4. Depends on gold usage, time, raiding, and many things. Either:

    4a. Build a raiding army that will continue growing as you spam the map. Build capitol/cropper to a city asap, then focus on its fields.

    4b. Only build 1000 legos + 1 ram for seiging robber. Otherwise focus on economy (cap to city and build fields).


    In a strong kingdom, you'll be pretty safe. Have a few scouts at each village. Build crannies. use trade routes to keep resources low on any village outside of kingdom's influence. Roman offense the goal is to start building catapults as soon as possible 24/7 WITHOUT slowing down your economy. Don't waste time building defense when you have defensive players to do it.


    If you get bored, as I do, doing 4a allows you to have an army to hit people with earlier in the game. To help in ops, steal treasures, clear farms, etc. But romans are expensive and you don't want to be (stupidly) aggressive and lose all troops. It is much better to build an engine that allows you to consistently build troops than to put all your eggs in the basket of relying on them to have an economy.


    EDIT: I don't have any advice for non-gold usage but you shouldn't settle a 15c and probably not even 9c early on.

    If you have a very good case for a change to it, I would advice you to open a suggestion thread but making a very good case why the change is needed and how it would benefit everyone, all the community.

    This assumes it is the same time each new opening. It would make sense to rotate to ACTUALLY not provide an advantage. Right now, as an American, I can see the complaint from non-Americans. I love being able to do things all day.


    What is your opinion everyone? It would be good to know what you all think. :)

    Did you make any decisions based on the com2 start? Were the comments here enough to re-open the discussion of moving it back a week? Or is it still going to start on Dec 28th?

    I'm also a fan of only allowing kings and dukes to be assigned at registration. It makes the decision heavier and also limits abuse. And means no menhir for kings and dukes, I think, which adds more strategy and diversity in locations of people throughout the game.

    Yes making a "Join a kingdom" quest reward sounds interesting with maybe some hero items as a reward?


    also A few rounds ago (1 King, 4 Dukes system) new players joining a server used to spawn inside the current borders of a kingdom, not all were recruited, but we found some new recruits this way & combined with menhir feature the player also has options to move if things don't work out with their spawn location.


    But also make it harder to be King/Duke only allow a player that has finished a server to become a Royal, so that there is more chance they will have some experience around the commitment involved in doing so. Hopefully making a more stable Kingdom for the new recruits to join.

    I don't think menhir is mentioned at all in quests but if you do have this quest, please mention it as a possibility. Maybe a warning too that by not joining a kingdom, you will be at a great disadvantage. And having a bonus amount of resource income for kings from players with lower prestige (though this will certainly have to be countered with some way to de-incentivize Govs creating new accounts).


    BridgetB that thread also got me thinking more. And I have an idea that I'll post once I flushed it out more about an official "mentoring" feature. I know a lot of kingdoms have players who offer this. But with sticking with the theme of "kingdom", maybe having a "lord/lady" title that permits players to see account, without interacting, so they can offer advice. Basically provide the lord/lady an incentive that if the new player (yes this player must have lower than a certain amount of prestige and the lord/lady must have higher than a certain amount), plays a certain amount of time then the mentor gets gold. Or you can have resources similar to king/duke.


    There's more to flush out but just a teaser for an incoming post.


    Edit: a potential reward for a "join a kingdom" quest could be 3 treasures or something. It lines up with the game mechanics and doesn't ruin the early game by further mechanizing speed settling.

    I assume since you are attacking with cats you should use Offensive units to protect cats? or is Def units better

    During an attack, only the attack strength matters. So you should almost always use offensive units to protect catapults or completing any attack.


    There are a few strategic exceptions. If you are a defensive player, you might only have defensive units. But might use catapults to help your kingdom. In this case, you will be following waves of offensive players so it is not bad to use defensive troops as escorts.


    During early game, if you have close to enough offensive troops to siege but not quite at the 1k limit, including some defensive units to get over that for robbers can be helpful. Just check the simulator first to make sure it is worth it.


    Those are the only two examples I can think of where attacking with defensive troops is acceptable. Of course, it is subjective and a simple cost-benefit analysis. Combat simulator can help you to understand whether the lost resources and time (time is just as, sometimes more important) are worth the attack.