Discussion: Adding New Tribes to All Servers / General Game-balance

  • Add Huns & Egyptians as "standard" on all new servers

    I favor the immediate addition of Egyptians and Huns to all new servers. I do not think it is fair to players who commit to 230-350 day long servers to have to wait until their next, next server to use them. I say this with the assumption the tribes will be rolled out universally at some point. Not doing so would likely foster more frustration and anger in the community. I do understand the decision to utilize them only on "specials" currently, i.e the Birthday Special that ran in Sept and the "New Years Special" that started last month. Doing so increases the amount of players on those servers, increasing the competitiveness etc. which should result in greater gold expenditure ("revenue"). It can also be seen as an additional opportunity to test the new tribes in a WW setting. (Though given the fact the Beta server was not used properly by the Devs, I have doubts as to how much such a thing factored into the decision making process)

    However I also recognize that there are concerns about the balance of the new tribes on their own, within the context of WW servers and of the general tribal balance when all 5 are present. Below are some thoughts on addressing tribal balance.

    Here are some figures I pulled for tribe distribution, comparing NYS servers to other active (and relatively full) servers within the same domains. I got them from Getter so I don't have info on Hun and Egyptian %, since the tables currently don't reflect the new tribes.

    Note: Since I started drafting this post, Travian has released overall NYS stats from across the domains.

    The Data

    To better address the question of game balance I've begun an analysis of the tribes, looking at different things from Attack Power, Effective Defense, Raiding etc. I am by no means done nor is it all necessarily original. I have seen various threads address different aspects that I am looking at, but I think my work is a bit more comprehensive. I hope that it aids in the discussion. Since I lack an organized draft, let alone a final draft, I will keep things as simple as possible, opting for highlights of the data. (usually through graphs) Since the work is incomplete I will note that everything I say in relation to the data is part of a "working thesis". It could be entirely wrong, but based on the information I have now, these are my thoughts.

    Since its incomplete I'm also missing a lot of categories for data that I haven't gotten to yet, nor have I had a chance to find real world data to compare to "textbook" data. But I think its important that this discussion start sooner, rather then later.


    Offensive & Raiding Hierarchy


    It is important to remember that these are simply options. They do not constitute anything that must be done but they may help address various community concerns. The addition of the tribes across all servers is the thing that I absolutely 100% support.

    Note: This post has been added to all English language domains. I will try my best to respond in all threads, but depending on the depth and quantity of the responses this may prove difficult to keep up with.

    What I have written here is in part a derivation of work I began 10 months ago with a simple list. The list asked a basic question, how can Travian be improved. Over time this list has grown to become a project devoted to proposing and advocating for things to improve the game. Right now I call it the "Veteran Legends Project". I hope soon to have a dedicated thread on the subject but the project is rooted in the same concept as my original list and the sentiment that I have expressed above. I am looking for people to help with this project, I have be accumulating a list of community leader names who may have both the ability and willingness to aid the project. That list likely won't be enough as the project is ultimately a reflection of the community's answer: "How can Travian be improved?". More voices and more hands will improve the efficiency and value of the project. I also understand that this game is something we do for fun and this project involves a bit of work. I also understand that game communities worldwide have done things above and beyond for their games, regardless of the cost in time or money.

    If you are interested in learning more, or aiding the project in some way, please send me a PM. I'll be happy to chat.

    A note on the data: I used incorrect training times for lvl 20 b/s, so the values are incorrect for offense. I've updated the AP graph to reflect the actual numbers, made them reflect lvl 20 upgrade and added in the Marks combos. I'll get to the other graphs in a few days, they are linked to my sheet so they will update automatically.

    With the updated numbers and some points from others I've determined that the Merc suggestion isn't necessary. I also think the Romans need a buff more than before, as they are further down in AP rankings. For the cost, they should certainly have more power.

    In general I think the changes proposed make the Huns less OP and make Romans, Gauls and Egyptians more relevant offensively. I don't think it reduces their individual character, and given other characteristics remain preferential to certain play-styles over others. Some tweaks on defensive infantry might also be order, but I haven't looked at that closely yet.

    Update #2 2/27 @ 04:30
    An additional error in the data was pointed out to me: I neglected the HWP/HDT. Which is clearly absolutely essential to a Roman hammer being effective in AP per day. Based on that I would withdraw my suggestion about increasing EI AP. I would however still advocate making the EC 185 AP. While they don't "need" it, I feel like the EC should still be the most powerful attacking unit.

    Also would a mod be kind enough to merge this post into my last.

    Former Anglosphere Ambassador 2019-2020

    Post was edited 3 times, last by BlackBlade ().