- If you conquer it from another player, you have to destroy residence, ww and palace, if existence
No player can build a palace in a WW village (I tried) - only residence and WW need to be destroyed for conquering it.
(The description actually is correct - or otherwise it would be feasible to make the WW your capital and build mason there for extra defence)
Oh, I totally disagree! It's no-one's business who are my sitters and who are my duals, and "the spy menace" is integral part of the game. Making this information available to the king or anyone else totally changes the dynamic of the game which is - in quite some part - built on the possibility of treachery, treason and deception.
On the other hand, I totally see where you come from. And as king or one of the governing circle of a kingdom, I dearly would love to have such insight. An option to share this information selectively via opt-in would possibly be nice, though (like [x] share my current sitter). But under no circumstance should any history be made available.
Abdicate?
Fancy word for "I step down as king".
King or vice king, both can kick players from kingdom borders by attack
Each aristocrat (king, vice king and duke) is entitled to one "free" treasury in the game. For every full 10k treasures, the kingdom is allowed to open one additional treasury. The treasuries must be evenly distributed among the aristocrats (e.g. the king cannot have 3 active treasuries when there is still a duke who only has one). The king assigns the new treasury slots in the kingdom management window.
As the 10k threshold is true regardless whether we speak of a united kingdom or not, it's clear that it's much easier to get additional treasuries when you are in a united kingdom with king, vice and 4 dukes than in one with only king and 2 dukes.
You can nicely add people to your list of friends - but what use is the list of friend when a server is over and you are not on the same server? How do I contact a friend?
There's 1 big problem with this. Non-standard 6C and 7C would all be gone. This would probably be a major problem, as they are very useful in most scenarios. And the amount of 150% 15C that would exist would be way too much with this. Of course not all of them would have the total 150% because of the way oasis bonus works but it would still be too many.
I wouldn't say that the race to 15C is a problem for new players. From what I see at least, most newcomers settle in a 6C or 7C. Only the ones that have already played Legends or are willing to spend a lot of money go for those 15C. And some players that are dualling with more experienced players. I really don't think it's much of a problem because it's not that hard to be impactful without a 15C.
I don't think the problem is getting a 15C and relocating to a kingdom. The problem is that you can make a terrible 15C into a a 150% 15C. If you look at the map, there are specific areas with 15C and 9C between kingdoms when the server starts. These areas usually have 2 oasis at max, and those croppers are, at max 100% (at least I've never seen any higher and the 100% is 2*50%).By moving them into a kingdom you are more likely to have 50% crop oases or just more oases in general. You can also relocate them multiple times, and get in and out and destroy treasuries really easily. This is the biggest problem.
There's a few points:
"only 4446 on all other tiles":
yes, that changes the map and gameplay a bit - it removes the component to choose a good ressource site with appropriate oasis. Not sure it's a big loss, as there's more to a decision about a village location than that, but it's definitely a competitive factor. It could possibly be re-introduced somewhat by changing gameplay in that respect that players can modify a tile. E.g. similar to "additional build slot" there could be cards like "convert to 3456" and similar, or possibly it's a hero-action which lasts 24 hours to landscape a village....
"race to 15c":
I believe it's a problem for all players, new and experienced. The experienced just know that it's important, so it gives them an edge in this race. This race adds spice to the game start and rewards the active ones. So... I guess that's fair.
Alternative suggestion for handling the map: have a changing map: Every day at change of day, modify at random a certain percentage of the un-occupied tiles to another tile. This would give everyone a chance to grab one, even later in the game. For instance, the "change tile chance" could be like 1/50 and when a tile changes state it could be distributed like
50% 4446
30% 3456, 3546, 4356, 5346, 4536, 5436
13% 3447, 4347, 4437
5% 9c
2% 15c
"relocating 15c":
There I do believe both is a problem: having your 15c inside the kingdom gives you a great advantage in developing the village itself (or possibly giving it as supply village to a friend / ally). And upgrading it to a better 15c with better oasis coverage is also a problem - both is not nice and give a unfair advantage.
I totally understand the frustration - and such behaviour of a king is a complete game and fun killer for inside that kingdome and possibly for the enemies of that kingdom as well.
Yet I'm not sure there *can* be a solution as it's a social problem, less a technical one:
* a king should be able to kick both, dukes and governors. And it should either be able, say for case of vacation or absence and urgent need to act: Treason is not unknown in this game, actually it's a core component, for good reasons. But this means one has to be able to get rid of traitors quickly, thoroughly and soundly as well. The other side of this is, that such power *can* be abused, actually rather easily.
Reading your posting, it reads like "the account was hijacked". Which is something entirely differently and which should rather be dealt with at administrative level, from Travian staff. And to be fair: such behaviour as you describe should IMHO be worth reporting... but what should be the consequence for that player?
Maybe it is an idea to add something like a petition (e.g. if 2/3 of the players of a kingdom (including those who were in it in the last 3 days) vote for "demote king/duke and replace by X", then it will be done when also the other king or all dukes agree. Things along these lines have been suggested before, though...
I would believe that robber spawning is completely unaffected by re-location. At best the robber hideouts move along with your village being re-located (unlike when you move your main village to another village).
*meld*. Sowas interessiert mich auch.
While the difference in tributes is not tremenduous, there is. And indeed being king gives you the kingdom in your hands, gives you the last say; you make the rules for how your kingdom is internally governed and you are mostly the primary contact for anyone, especially from the outside. And with the choice of unions you have a big strategic choice at hands in the early midgame.
Forcing the king to open even more treasuries than now, would give them a *disadvantage* as it means that village placement needs even more and better consideration than it already needs now.
The current distinction between kings and dukes works well from my perspective. Giving kings more ress via tributes and / or more treasuries is definitely not needed - nor desirable IMHO.
There is no correct answer which suits anyone and all circumstances - it really depends.
Generally it's good to build up your production base as quickly as possible. Yet you need to secure your production base as well - no point in building up anything which then is taken or destroyed by the enemy short time later.
Moin,
zur Zeit sitte ich zwei Accounts, die in Urlaub sind, so dass ich häufig kurz hintereinander in drei Accounts reingucken muss - und ich
bin genervt:
Die wichtigen Elemente der Lobby laden am langsamsten - und das in in letzter Zeit mit der Einführung der Werbung für die Travian-App deutlich schlimmer geworden. Grundsätzlich sieht das Besuchen der Lobby für mich so aus:
* als erstes taucht alles unwichtige auf, wo ich mich nicht einloggen kann
* dann tauchen die "Kacheln" auf für die Accounts, die ich sitte
* dann taucht nach 1...2 Sekunden die Kachel auf für meinen Account und die gesitteten Account-Kacheln verschieben sich nach unten
* dann wird die Werbung für die Travian-App nachgeladen (wieder 1-2 Sekunden) und das Layout ändert sich wieder, die Sitter-Kacheln werden weiter nach unten geschoben.
* dann wird die Kachel mit dem Werbe-Video für die Travian-App geladen - und Klicken auf die Login-Buttons ist während dieser weiteren 2-4 Sekunden deaktiviert.
Diese Lade-Zeit-Erfahrungen sind nicht auf einen Netzwerk-Anschluss zuhause beschränkt, Latenz und Bandbreite der Netzwerkkomponenten auf meiner Seite sind nicht der beschränkende Faktor; getestet mit diversen Versionen von Firefox (52, 61).
Bitte nehmt als Quick-Fix wieder die Werbung für die Travian-App raus - sie erhöht die Ladezeit für die Lobby von "mäßig" auf "nervtötend", so dass ich inzwischen die Tabs einfach wechsel und woanders weitersurfe, weil ich nicht jedes Mal auf das komplette Laden der Seite warten möchte.
Mittelfristig wäre es wünschenswert, wenn sich das Layout der Account-Kacheln in der Mitte nicht ändern würde, man also nicht dauernd durch langsame Ladezeiten in die "falschen" Accounts einlogt.
Langfristig wäre es wünschenswert, wenn die entsprechenden Datenbankabfragen schneller liefen oder die wichtigsten zuerst (Account-Zugang) und der optische "Zucker" später, wie Anzeige, ob Angriffe kommen etc.
Vorschlag der das Problem komplett anders umgeht: Macht ingame den Accountnamen (oben rechts) ein Drop-Down-Menü, das alle Zugänge für die ich ein Login besitze auflistet, um schnell zwischen ihnen zu wechseln).
It's likely also a matter of geography. It's easy and probably advisable to exercise the 'tight control' approach, if you happen to have a treasury which are far from your enemies. you then then build those - and it's easy to re-inforce with a lot of defence in case of incoming attacks.
If all your treasuries are close to the enemy... then it depends.
The problem is, that building treasuries takes time. And if you loose the buildings due to catapults, then you loose potentially a lot of victory points - even if you save the treasures in time.
It's nice to have 1/3 of the kingdom's treasures stored 24h cata distance from the enemies:
Now, there's some new ideas I like a lot.
Currently wars are focused heavily on treasuries and one can create few big treasuries per kingdom which are defended heavily and which are very hard to attack successfully. Further, treasuries are opened slower, yet the growth of kingdoms is still exponential and a bigger kingdom has a more than linear advantage over a smaller kingdom - which leads to and favors concentration of power - which in turn leads often to two or three large metas dominating the server. So pretty please: make victory point generation less than linear in kingdom size and treasure amount. I'm optimistic it would help to level balance and reduce the need for big metas.
The current set of rules are not stated anywhere and 90% of the new players are un-aware of lots of them. For example the reduced stolen VP per WW-level, and that the kingdoms get locked at lvl 50 WW. Only people who know about these rules either have read them from the changelogs or heard about them from other players, but sadly most are unaware of them.
One change i would like to suggest for the current VP-mechanics is this: only allow vp to get stolen if the kingdoms are at war. (and make announcing a war have a cooldown or something so that it can't be cancelled instantly after the treasures swoop)
Agreed, tThis is one or another of the problems. There is no place anymore where the game rules are explained. The wiki is so old that it's 95% useless. And all other information are sprinkled around in various places, in different forum threads and blog posts and guides on 3rd-party sites. That's very unwelcoming to new players.
As to making the declaration of war something useful and with a cooldown instead of just a nice way of saying "you are bad": I like the idea!
It was a bit of a spitball idea rather than something I've put a lot of thought into but I was thinking of maybe something along the lines of having a VP value similar to how there is a culture point value for each building.
So if you completely knock out a level 20 building you get the VP value for all 20 levels, but if you only knock a building from level 20 to level 10 you get the VP value for each level you knock out. Same if you only hit a smaller level building, you only get the lower level VP values. Does that make (enough) sense?
But like I said above, bringing in an approach like this could easily encourage abuse through multi accounts and/or metas - I'm not sure how you would restrict it to prevent this.
This is an interesting new concept, too. This would involve more all players. Currently, as "small governor" you have good chances of being rather safe from attacks, unless you prove to be an easy and good farm. Generating victory points from successful attacks would certainly spike the interest in attacking "normal" players. Combined with the need to declare war for that to be effective, this could give nice gameplay dynamics, but possibly slow abuse by multi accounts.
König und Vizekönig haben mitnichten die gleichen Rechte (und Vizekönig sollte vom Funktionsumfang eher Erzherzog heißen):
* Nur der König hat Zugriff auf Diplomatie
* Nur der König hat Zugriff auf die interne und externe KR-Beschreibung und -Benennung
The main problem with this is: TK has a more or less positive feed-back loop: the more players there are in a kingdom, the faster that kingdom will grow, thus it invariably creates a sort-of runnaway effect, or to an oligopol. This is true for both, victory points and treasures (of course, one is generated by the latter). The game misses any negative feedback which comes with size like increasing difficulty to earn new treasury slots or dimishing network effect e.g. by reducing robber camp and hideout profitability or adjusting somewhat relative combat power.
Travian: Beschreibung Tribute - Nimbus Note
Die Beschreibung kann mMn verbessert werden und der Mechanismus etwas besser erläutert:
Dörfer innerhalb eines Königreichs und ohne eigene Schatzkammer generieren - zusätzlich zur normalen Produktion - Tribute. Diese Tribute können vom Besitzer der nächstgelegenen Schatzkammer eingezogen werden (Herzöge bekommen weniger und Könige gar keine Räuberlager und müssen Schatzkammern bauen - sie brauchen die Tribute also). Du kannst Die Zahlung der Tribute verweigern, aber der betroffene Spieler wird darüber informiert. Sei also darauf gefasst, dass ein Verweigern von Tributen unangenehme Folgen haben kann.
Das ist schon länger so. Und sehe ich auch als nervigen Bug an...
Ich fürchte, dass dafür die Antwort ist "not a bug, but a feature".
Es ist in Travian durchaus ein probates Mittel, eine Off dadurch zu besiegen, dass man ihr Heimatdorf erobert. Denn durch Eroberung eines Dorfes werden alle dort beheimateten Truppen automatisch und sofort getötet. Adelt man also das Heimatdorf einer Off bevor sie einschlägt, so kommt sie nie an.
