Annual special servers duration

  • What duration of annual special servers should be? 36

    1. Shorter (30) 83%
    2. It is fine as is (6) 17%

    Dear Travian Games,

    We, the players, hereby ask you to reduce the length of the annual special servers.

    The current 200 days duration is way too long. Most, if not all, servers are decided within 3-4 months, a majority of the losing team then start to delete and the winner struggles to stay engaged with the server for another 60 days or more.

    Shorter servers will allow you to run one more server during each year. We believe such a change will make the game more dynamic and interesting and increase players base.

  • Noted for myself in order not to lose thread. Also, I've forwarded that.

    Ameno.png
    When you contact me via PM, please, send your messages in English.

  • Is the problem the length or lack of competition? On ts19.com (not the English one), there was only one team that had it together. Another team seemed to have a chance that didn't really materialize. I think most deletions started about 2 months before the end. So that server was particularly bad, it was over around the 100 day mark with 100 more days to go. Had there been 2 good teams, it would have been more competitive, and would have been enjoyable for longer.


    Although 120-150 days seems more appropriate. After about 6 weeks the majority of players have accounts they can prepare to war with, war for a couple months. Shortening the server length seems like it should help, but won't really resolve the issue of only one team having a game plan and running away with it.

    WILD: Always Ready, Already Loyal, Always WILD!

    "For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack"

  • My reasoning for choosing not to mess with the server length is because it doesn't fix the problem. It just becomes a scenario that Ele says only with the days adjusted to happen sooner. If it is one team running away with it, they would naturally want the server to end sooner, but what if you're 2nd place with a chance to win, your team would want more time. The tweaking should instead be in finding a proper balance on the map with VP values, and maybe even do some other mechanic where maybe VP doubles or something, or a second winning condition, thus allowing teams that are behind to catch up somehow. But there really is no beatng a team with a solid strategy from start to finish and more gold users than their opponents.

    ..And that is the Final Word.


  • Yes, very good point that a one of the main problems with region servers is the unbalanced distribution of VP points. This would help keep the game competitive for longer. It would at least give less competent teams the illusion for longer that they could perhaps win. However, the length seems too long. 200 days? 5 or 6 months tops seems like a good length.


    2nd win condition you say? Wonder time!

    WILD: Always Ready, Already Loyal, Always WILD!

    "For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack"

  • I would never propose including wonders lol. I like Special servers especially because they are non-traditional. However the VP system of winning is 3-4 years old now? Maybe time to go back to the drawing board for another unique winning condition.

    ..And that is the Final Word.


  • Quote

    "I would say 300k vp or when the deadline is passed" but I also like the idea of having an alternative win condition in ptp servers

    Posted this on discord server about Fredeg suggestion there.

    Is it so far from madness to wisdom?


    COLLECTIONS.png

  • pfff... Let me see. I'm not an ROA player, haven't played it either. But I have gathered the way to win is wining over regions, those regions gives you points - and the team with more points on day 200 is the winner. Just like capture the flag basically. Except that the flags gives you special powers.

    First, regarding the first post - Shortening the server is not a solution you are looking for. Instead of game getting decided later like day 100, it'll get decided even earlier due to lower time of catching up.

    The solution you should be looking for is, keeping others interested longer + avoiding deletions. One of the cons of the current system is that once you take a lead, those points cannot be lost. Calculations are open for everyone. Smaller players will not spend money or play the game for fun of it when they can't win it. That is one problem now.

    Medium to larger players will definitely quit, for the same reasons above that server gets decided. Unless maybe for some personal vendetta.

    And your own team's players will also likely quit, or go inactive when the competition is done or others quit.

    And not to forget, there's also this problem that Capture the flag servers (abbv. CtF servers) is not too friendly towards random players. If there's any good random startee, by the time they adjust and find a non-noob coalition also made from a bunch of random starters since pre-mades got 60 already, they're already at a disadvantage since the points are given from a lot earlier. And then there's also the cases of disputes with leadership etc, Like an alliance not living up to your expectations (or the leader blows a fuse and kicks all out and deletes - or he gets busy and wants to quit without wanting to hand over powers), and you'd want to start a new one (happens a lot for random starters) that kind of completely removes a side out of the competition. Basically, in current CtF servers you either go with a meta or you just try to make a server interesting for other metas.

    300k Vp or server's done is not a good solution either. Changes nothing. If you cannot catch up with an alliance in 200 days, they're likely to hit the 300k VP sooner too. Maybe it further shortens a server (I don't really know how the point distribution is. 300k is more or less or what. But still I'm sure it's not a good solution).


    1st Solution: (alternative win condition/Tough to implement)One of the solutions is of course wonder as mentioned above, but its implementation is tough. So, I'll go to the next one. But someday I would love to see that happen.


    2nd Solution: (Easiest to Implement. I can do it even from map.sql if borders of regions are defined) This is more realistic, and honestly it should always have been like this. In CtF servers, the points shouldn't be given to the alliances, but rather to the players. That way if a player deletes, points are gone. A player gets zeroed (total pop = 0), points should be gone. Players changes alliance = points gets shifted.

    Benefits => Allows time to adjust to the server. If a server goes to day 100, you can still stand a chance by gathering players from the other alliances with more points. New statistics tab for players points should be implemented. Gives another dimension to the server. Care about the artifacts, about Points. In short, more strategies.

    Smallers players who have lend their players to bigger teams can also work with them now to share victory - since confeds will also mean something now. There's also the factor of Espionage resulting into some dramatic shift of points which some people might enjoy.

    Math for Points:

    Region Alpha = 200 points per day

    Alliance A = dominates the region with 60% population, total 4,000 pop. (I would have suggested total points that goes should also be 60% which results into more fight but it'd be too brutal towards all the new learners of the game).

    Player A = 600 population presence.

    Points to player A from region Alpha = 600/4000 * 200 = 30 per day.

    Total Player A points = Summation of All the points from all the presences in dominating regions

    Alliance points = Summation of all player points present in alliance. With a 72 hours cooldown upon joining. So that if a spy shifts, you have 72 hours to deal with him.


    3rd Solution: (Medium difficulty of implementation) - This is just a lot more fun. Solution 2 would somewhat solve the problem where an alliance cannot lose points, but that loss of points would come through betrayal. This one, however, solves that issue too. But Travian should've implemented the above one, and this below should've been the solution to the shortcomings to the above.

    In CtF servers, points should go to the Villages rather than players or alliances. Player total points =Summation of Village points, Alliance total points = summation of player points (or villages. it means the same). Win goes to the alliance with the highest points by day xyz.

    What it means: Village destroyed = Points gone. Village chiefed = points shifted. Player deleted = points from all his villages gone. Player shifted = his points shifted. Basically, a third dimension to CtF servers.

    Players can start mid-server, and still play a role by capturing some high point villages.

    Players that go inactive, his villages could play a role.

    Players can donate their villages to other players to get them to higher points.

    Smaller players can play huge roles too now. No server can get decided till the final day of the server. Just imagining the slaughter of final server day makes one dream.

    Math for Points:
    It's same as the 2nd solution. Instead of player, it's Village.

    Village points in a winning region = Village pop/Alliance regional pop * Region Points

    Player points = Summation of points of all the villages

    Alliance points = Summation of all Village or player points.

    (more friendly for Espionage haters. You can destroy closer villages of the spies to remove their points).


    Anyways, that's it. I'm too tired to go over it and fix anything that I overlooked. Again, I'm not a CtF player. So it's also possible I am missing something here.