[Discussion] Legends on Tour 2019 Summit!

I have a lot of comments but I'm going to just put a few since I only have a little time right now.

Blaze wrote:

ALSO, please when you ban someone, tell them what the IP was for the device at fault. In most cases, there are multiple duals and no one owns up to it. Only the MH can him/herself tell us who caused the ban to occur. If they dont, we are left clueless and the cheater will most definitely repeat it on the account he/she plays next. Causing another few people to lose their time and money due to his/her incompotence. Its extremely important to get this sorted, as i do understand that there are some specific laws which prevent MH's from revealing IP. Be that as it may, you need to get it sorted.

One way to get around the privacy issue would be a universal account. Everyone would have a single "master" account for the game and forum. Then like Kingdoms you can start individual "accounts" on each server and others can connect to that account as a dual. Have the system log activity of each universal account and then you can more readily identify who is at fault. (not full proof but nothing is)

This would also allow for greater overall security. Bad actors can be more easily tracked from server to server. Duplicate universal accounts can be deleted before they even have a chance to register on a server. Again not full proof to all the problems but it has the potential to make the game and forum a better place. Not to mention benefits in general data collection to monitor various metrics like how often players do X or Y. Those metrics can be used to improve the game + improve marketing. I facepalm each time I get an email about a server multiple times because I've had an account on more than one server on a domain in the recent past - even though they all had the same email. Its a minor redundancy but it has always struck me as unprofessional that there isn't a CRM system in place to avoid that.

Blaze wrote:

No tolerance policy towards FFs. Ive discussed this before here already, so will just quote it.

Confed system update definitely helps as you said but isn't full proof. A rule change is possible but it would take very specific language to make it a "universal" rule aka a rule. This goes back to your earlier point RE: MH. I do think they should be paid as well. Might it mean less of them? Sure. But there could be a complete restructuring of the "support" hierarchy where less MH isn't necessarily an issue. Consistent rule enforcement is absolutely paramount. However what you suggest could potentially open up a ton more work for MH, which as you pointed out they already seem over taxed given the length of responses. Good points thought and definitely something that needs discussing.

That's all for now. I'll be back for more comments soon.

Problems:

- fakings stats still a problem in tournament. I heard (from people who went to previous summit) that TG is in denial that such thing is happening at all.

- Improve gauls trappers.

- MH unjustly bans without trail (been victim of it 2 times 3-5 years ago, they didn't accept my skype logs to prove my "insane" activity).

- Multiaccounts, it seems MH still can't find them on their own.

- Increase limit of being able put markings in map, they are very fun tool to play with and coordinate (flags), but 20 is not enough for an Aliiance, to make full use of flags.

- Give players the same tool as Travian 5 to do 4 attacks in same second. I'm done with these browser PINK system or PINK scripts aka wave builder. You want less people using modified browsers and only catch "real" cheaters, then do something about this.

Though, most of these problems are for the future players. I'm trying to quit travian.

Gotta love strategic,

Dislikes my post, and then repeats its points without saying why he disagrees with the post xDD

Its a discussion thread, discuss why you disagree so we can find and provide the representatives with points which are agreed by the majority

Unless youre just being toxic like always

Blaze wrote:

Gotta love strategic,

Dislikes my post, and then repeats its points without saying why he disagrees with the post xDD

Its a discussion thread, discuss why you disagree so we can find and provide the representatives with points which are agreed by the majority

Unless youre just being toxic like always

I simply disagreed your rant about teutons and whole concept of game balancing, since teutons are underplayed and are excellent defenders, and ww rammers are not a thing in tournament, calling teuts players stubborn for building wwk instead of rammers et cetera. Despite tournament representing the a biggest player base of travian, and not simply something to not consider about.

As for game balancing, I like the current game balancing, since it gives people clear choices. Do you want to sim (being able to sim resources and buildings at same time) and make mid-late game hammers or most efficient def --> romans, do you want to clear your area early game and destroy any romans--> teutons, do you want to counter teutons early game and have fast def --> gauls. Rules do not decide if a game is stale (chess, etc), but players do. Game is quite balanced even if it doesn't seem like so, giving romans a buff while they can sim both resources and building at same time is something I would call unbalanced. Now it's a clear trade off for early troops capabilities, meaning romans start making troops 24/7 at a later date than teutons are able to do. Teutons are not as good as they used to be back when oase raiding was a thing (before they increased animal spawning) and raiding cranny bonus was account wide instead of hero wide and when there were tons of new players who only played 1-2 days and quit, due to travian massive advertising, which resulted into a lot of raiding income. I'm not saying Teutons are bad at all now, they're still the best tribe for making off hammers, especially if you only plan to make medium hammers to splat, so you don't to have to deal with the crop consumption being too big of a problem.

I do completely ignore about the "new" travian which has 5 tribes, I have never played it and part of travian Legends yet.

Blaze  

Here you have it, why I disliked your post. You can do as you wish with it, this is just my opinion and I hope it brings you eternal salvation.

Fair enough. But like I said in my post too. The goal would be to make all the tribes appealing to all the audience. And hence not make Teuton 'underplayed'. But underplayed does not mean they are not the best tribe. The tribe, as you said, is still the preffered tribe for all major off accs and 1/3 of def accs lets say (for a pro + golder). Its one of those things like the 1%. There are few of them but they have more than the rest of the world combined. My point is that they need to make it more appealing to the nongolders/newbies as well as nerf it for the progoldhos

What I can agree with is that I didnt keep tourney in mind when I made the point about wwr/k.

To the rest, I disagree. Chess is not an online strategy game mate. Any succesful game these days has constant changes to their numbers in order to make the game interesting or more balanced. Seriously, look into any esports game. Theres a reason, cause it works.

The other thing I can agree with is that I do not even consider the other 2 tribes as they are clearly still broken.

Blaze wrote:

Chess is not an online strategy game mate.

The other thing I can agree with is that I do not even consider the other 2 tribes as they are clearly still broken.

27+ million active players at chess online, just saying (I play it too, with elo system thus ranking system). lhttps://www.chess.com

(most people play on mobile btw, it's top 9 app in play store)

Ahh yess, chess a great online strategy game from the 6th century. If thats your best argument, then im content

Blaze wrote:

Ahh yess, chess a great online strategy game from the 6th century. If thats your best argument, then im content

Isn't it amazing how a strategy game from the 6th century isn't a stale game and now being a very popular online game

Emerik :

I'd like your thoughts on some of the recent balance changes, for reference, we had a discussion of them here:

Balance changes discussion thread

I will quote some of the specific posts too for each point.

Trade office buff:

This was a great addition for the annual special servers with regions, where clusters and villages will be far apart as a natural result of the need to spread out in multiple regions.

However, for ordinary legends servers...

As is well known, your meta pulled off a massive WW defense on last years finals. On the recent com1 we saw some very large WW defenses from both sides too, and of course have occasionally seen the 20m+ on x1 servers (Wild and SNAPFU). Now, all of these were exceptional, and a testimony to the setups and hard work of the metas involved. These massive WW defenses meant that WWKs did little or no damage, except at early levels, or for the very top tier WWKs.

The Trade Office was massively buffed. This should make it significantly easier to pull off the massive defenses at WWs, even for less coordinated teams. This will skew the game towards WWKs having less impact (and increasing the desire for tech/garage abusing WWKs (I know this is normal on tourney, but it's not as normal on ordinary x1 servers)).

What are your thoughts on this?

Also, on a smaller note, it makes the commerce alliance bonus more or less obsolete (even though it was buffed).

Tournament square buff:

It is well known that tourney servers have a lot of local skirmishing, due to the crowded nature of the server, which means DCing works differently than on ordinary servers. Tourney also have the most active and dedicated players and leaders.

For ordinary legends servers, there is usually less local skirmishing (at least after quads have been consolidated), leaders and players aren't willing to sacrifice their real life as much and so on. This leads to some concerns from a DC perspective - i.e. it's a very strong buff to the offensive side of travian, and a strong nerf for DCs. It also gives an even bigger advantage to pre-formed/aggresive/experienced teams, who will now dismantle new players even faster (driving away less-experienced, non-preformed players and metas).

Here are some quotes:

Wulfr101 wrote:

Brewery + Tounament Square buff: The most ridiculous and definitely not a change that was carefully thought through.

2. TS buff up from 200% to 400%. From offensive perspective this just makes it easier to feed army while it is walking. Also makes raiding easier. For deffers, it makes armies faster when answering defense calls. Sounds good, right? Win-win?

Nope. This change is terrible from defensive perspective and makes the game very stressful for DC, Def Coordinators. This is because;

1. There's less time to react to attacks. (attacks would need to be reported 2x faster and DC would need to be online 2x more often to compensate this fully. Also less time to calculate and decide where and when to scout and so on)

2. Defenders, who are going to send the defense, need to be 2x more active to respond in time.

3. Praets will never reach a def call from now on unless close to the defended target and very active to respond in time. (many romans will need to recall def from capital before sending so that slows them down even more. TS doesn't affect this walk of usually 1-5 squares)

4. Hammer trains. In case of a hammer train to zero a village, these two changes stack up pretty badly. Teutons will be incredibly strong (100k axe army can kill 150k def now, straight up), and when we add the reduced reacting time for defenders, it get's quite bad. Given the usual balance, that teams tend to have more offensive players than defensive, any team that has players skilled/motivated enough to do a train can wipe the floor with their hammers because of comparatively low defense levels of the enemy.

Personally, I would be fine with the brewery buff alone, or only a slight buff to TS (new cap of 250%, maybe even 300%). These two major buffs together is an unhealthy combo (literally, for the DC it means 10 hours of travian/day, without breaks). I don't think an update that makes strongest teams able to face roll weaker opponents a change towards better community, no?

Show All

Wulfr101 wrote:

Those are not realistic travel times for most cases on basic legends server where attacks are launched cross-quad. Usually most targets are within range of ~100-220 and praets walk only 30-80sq so let's play a few simulations.

Catas:
Range
Time old
Time new
100sq
15:33:20
12:00:00
150sq
21:06:40
15:20:00
200sq
26:40:00
18:40:00

Some basic travel distances for praets (not my main point anyway but let's make a point of it too. The same can be converted to all races and issue is closely related to reduced time for making def calls):

Range
Time old
Time new
30
4:40:00
4:24:00
50
6:00:00
5:12:00
80
8:00:00
6:24:00
100
9:20:00
7:12:00

This is still not realistic because who builds TS20 for praets? I've seen a couple of those for capital and some 18s in 2nd larges def village but usually those don't go above level 15.

Let's start with the absolute numbers and make a few scenarios out of it before adding all the other variables in.

1. OLD:

Catas travel 150sq, praets 50sq: 21:06:40-6:00:00 = 15:06 hours to react.

NEW: 15:20:00-5:12:00 = 10:06 hours to react.

2. OLD:

Catas travel 200sq, praets 80sq: 26:40:00-8:00:00 = 18:40 hours to react.

NEW: 18:40:00-6:24:00 = 12:16 hours to reach.

3. OLD:

Catas travel 100sq, praets 30sq: 15:33:20-4:40:00 = 10:56 hours to react.

NEW: 12:00:00-4:24:00 = 7:36 hours to react.

4. OLD:

Catas travel 100sq, praets 50sq: 15:33:20-6:00:00 = 9:33 hours to react

NEW: 12:00:00-5:12:00 = 6:48 hours to react

In short on paper, the defender has 25-35% less time by absolute measures to send the defenses.

Now, let's add in some human behavior and DC strategies.

1. it takes X hours for attacks to be reported to DC

2. it takes Y hours for DC himself to read the notice

3. it takes Z hours for the defender to read the defensive orders given to him

4. DC requires information on the attacker, in other words scouts are required. Scouts require 2:15-3:30 to travel for 100-200sq.

5. Scouters takes Q hours to send the scouts

So, 5 variables which won't change. Let's give some values.

1. Top raiders usually report within 30 minutes or an hour. For regular accounts, it may take several hours. So let's say it takes 1:30 hours on average.

2. For the first attacks it may take up to two hours for DC team to read if DC team is well set up. A LOT more for weaker teams. Additional attacks will be registered almost instantly. So 0:20 for established teams and 2 hours for new teams.

3. We can distributes defenders to two brackets; experienced and not-so-experienced. Active leadership usually has good sitter system set up for top defensive accounts which are quite active anyway, but weaker deffers are usually on their own and sitters are not so active either. So, 0:40 for experienced and 2:30 for not so experienced.

4. Values given above

5. Scouter accounts are often under DC's sitter access but not everyone of DC team is always online, nor the scouter himself. 0:30 for the scouter.

These are average times which are quite common in DC practice. Most of it is based on what I've dealt with on current com1 on SGR's side. If someone has critique on these, spit it out.

We can just sum up the values and we're dealing with about 3-6 hours of human laziness. On top of that, we must add the time which scouts take to land and the time required to calculate optimal scouting times and the extra delay required to send the scout (advanced level stuff related to hammer trains which is my biggest fear/critique on this update, I can explain more if someone wants to hear). With the additions, we're looking at 5-9 hours of time that is required, on average, between the attack launch and defense sending time.

Now that I explained the DC behavior, let's see what the OC is up to:

1. OC chooses landing time based on his team's online times, strengths and abilities (boots artifacts, armies close to enemies etc. - fast armies that defender has little time to react to)

2. OC wants to time attacks so that defenders have little time to react. In other words, land in the morning around 10am so that the defenders are still sleeping when they should send defenses around.

These two points combined, the previously stated old average time for sending defense (5-9 hours) is not valid anymore. The new real delay is somewhere around the previously stated, plus 3-5 hours due to OC's "strategy" changes (nothing really changed, we still have the same night times). Due to this, the defender has no way to defend against the fastest hammers, which may be sent during the night. Even tho we have "around the clock" activity on international servers, american duals, as well as east asian duals, are always high in demand. This means that there's often very little activity during the hours 00-04 when europe/asia is sleeping. Attacks sent around this time would be close to impossible to defend if the range is below 100 squares (imagine a hammer in grey zone..)

Now we can put these two together. I won't take in count the fact that hammers will be sent late in the evening/during the night here. Those are nearly impossible to defend if part of a bigger operation, at least in my book.

1. OLD:

Catas travel 150sq, praets 50sq: 15:06 hours to react. With the old required time of 5-9 hours, can be defended easily

NEW: 10:06 hours to react. With new times of up to ~13 hours, defending may be hard

2. OLD:

Catas travel 200sq, praets 80sq: 18:40 hours to react. With the old required time of 5-9 hours, can be defended easily

NEW: 18:40:00-6:24:00 = 12:16 hours to reach. With new times of up to ~13 hours, can be usually defended

3. OLD:

Catas travel 100sq, praets 30sq: 10:56 hours to react.With the old required time of 5-9 hours, can be usually defended

NEW: 12:00:00-4:24:00 = 7:36 hours to react. With new times of up to ~13 hours, defending is close to impossible

4. OLD:

Catas travel 100sq, praets 50sq: 9:33 hours to react. With the old required time of 5-9 hours, defending is hard

NEW: 12:00:00-5:12:00 = 6:48 hours to react. With new times of up to ~13 hours, as well as old times, defending is close to impossible

Show All

wishmaster3 wrote:

Tournament square buff:

Wulfr101 covered it above mostly

What I will add is - please don’t compare special servers to normal servers. The TS makes sense on the specials. Those servers are meant to be scrappy - you fight inside small regions with other teams. You have local defense that is sent/forwarded more or less as soon as incomings show up. Capitals aren’t as important as on normal servers (people might not have taken their final cap until later in the server, and might not even go for good 15cs, but rather 15c with no oases or 9c in strategic locations). Small cata armies are used, feeders are hit, troops are merged to hit with short duration, OPs don’t necessarily have the same landing time, and are done more battle group style.

In normal legends servers, apart from the early game skirmishes with in-quad opposition, you’re fighting cross-quad wars. Feeders, unlike in specials, have little value. This means large-scale OPs involving 10+ sizeable hammers, with a specific landing time.

Cluster settling will not solve these issues (and will make it even worse for defenders to get a proper cap). Having two defenders settle poor caps next to an offensive account, purely to protect that account, won’t make that hammer safe against 2-3-4-5 hammers, nor a full hammer train. Defense will still be required from elsewhere.

It also seems like you’re basically encouraging tech accounts. Just make every offensive player have 4-5 defensive slaves that will only defend him, and do this for your whole team. Screw collective alliance defense -> boring, stupid, encourages multi-accounting, and why not raid those techs at the same time too, which is even more dumb.

I will also elaborate a bit on why comparing praets at TS20 speed makes no sense. Yes, the most experienced and dedicated anvils will probably have TS level 18-20 in their main anvil village (typically cap). But you will be producing defense from multiple villages, and those other villages won’t have level 20 TS. Typically, it will be level 10-12, if any at all. Romans are forced to produce praets in multiple villages, due to the nature of their cavalry, otherwise they make no sense defense wise. Now, that is for the more experienced anvils… But what about the less experienced, or just less dedicated defenders? Those who are typically the greatest in numbers? They likely won’t have TS20, not even in their main anvil village.

Show All

fnx wrote:

Tournament Square= I'd like to mention BlackBlade idea that he mentioned in our spam room. He'll post it himself in 2 days with more details - but I'd like you mods to include it in your reviews please. As Wulfr mentioned in details about the def players struggles, but on the contrary I liked this idea since it can bring into play off ops against players in boonies who sim their wwks and park them in wwks. So BlackBlade mentioned a compromise, the TS affects 200% till 50 or 100 blocks (70 better imo), and onwards it gets buffed to 400%.

So, no TS by 20, 200% till 70, and 400% onwards.

Comparison:

Old System of 200% catauplts travel time of 100 blocks = 6.6hrs + 8.8hrs = 15.4hrs

Suggested System of another checkpoint for TS: Catapults travel time of 100 blocks = 6.6hrs + 5.5hrs + 2 = 14hrs 6mins

New being implemented System of 400% catapults travel time of 100 blocks = 6.6hrs + 5.3hrs = 12hrs

This is change is more pronounced when we go further out. But all the catapult attacks up to the 70 fields will be the same time of: 12hrs 10mins and then get buffed onwards. It's a great to have two checkpoints instead of 1.

Show All

Brewery buff for teutons:

Teutons were already the strongest off/time of all tribes (even without brewery, and even more so with brewery, even at level 10). Adding another 10% on top if obviously a huge buff. From TG's perspective, they're buffing teutons because they're not as played as the other tribes. But playrate does not equal balance. Typically the less experienced, less active and less gold spending players will pick other tribes - this doesn't mean that the tribe is underpowered.

I'll again pull some quotes:

Wulfr101 wrote:

1. Brewery buff up from 10% to 20% -> teutons become even more rammer oriented tribe. That would be fine if this was left there. But [in addition to TS buff]

4. Hammer trains. In case of a hammer train to zero a village, these two changes stack up pretty badly. Teutons will be incredibly strong (100k axe army can kill 150k def now, straight up), and when we add the reduced reacting time for defenders, it get's quite bad. Given the usual balance, that teams tend to have more offensive players than defensive, any team that has players skilled/motivated enough to do a train can wipe the floor with their hammers because of comparatively low defense levels of the enemy.

Jofke wrote:

Teutons were OP before the change, now they will be even more OP. Maybe for solo play it doesn't have much impact, but when you are making mass attacks to zero pop enemies capitals/non cap hammer villas it gives enormous boost for cleaners and since you are going for zero, who cares which target you should chose. Now with 20% bonus, it would have even bigger impact. Not mentioning that teutons are the best off/time producing tribe overall as well. Unfortunately I don't have enough time to get into more details, so I will leave it at that.

wishmaster3 wrote:

Brewery buff:

I don’t like it. If you want more people to play teutons, it’s the wrong way imo. Teutons aren’t underpowered as it is, so looking at their play rate is the wrong indicator for balance.

Teutons already have the most off power per time, paired with cheap units = the best tribe for smashy OP hammers, that are meant to be used often. Teutons don’t need more power.

Yes, it’s true that launching solo as a teuton, you had little incentive to activate brewery, if you wanted catas to hit specific targets. But paired with multiple hammers on OPs on the same target, there’s little reason not to run brewery and have the teuton be the first hammer.

If anything, this is pushing the metagame towards teuton OP hammers almost exclusively building rams, leading the attacks in front of other hammers with catas (I have already seen this be applied in some instances, tournament, comx and that is with only the 10% brewery bonus) – I doubt TG considered this when deciding the buff. I’m not saying this is necessarily bad, but it’s likely not the intended outcome by TG.

Teutons are also far the best WWRs, no contest whatsoever. This will just make the difference even bigger - and tbh I don’t think it’s really needed to buff WWRs. I can see a buff to WWK/WWR be needed on the tournament server, but imo not on normal servers. 20m+ WW def is still not common on normal speed servers, and I think teams should be rewarded for achieving large defenses too. A 600k rammer can still take down the wall from 20 to 14 or so if the WW defense is at something like 15m with LA, I don’t think it needs to do more damage than that.

It also changes the balance with UA/LA - I don’t think UA needs an indirect buff - it is already important enough.

Show All

fnx wrote:

5. Brewery:

Sadly, this makes teutons the primary choice for attack players. While rammers were buffed already - now with the increased 20% off power to help in zeroing enemies, even Romans economic hammers might not beat it.

at max capacity of 100k crops consumed troops (below calculations are at lvl 0 troops from kirriloid and considering Eis to eat 2, and Ecs to eat 3 to fill up the total 100k consumption)

Imperians + EIs hammer: 8,195,738 off power (107 days single buidling, no helmets)

Imperians + ECs hammer = 8,100,561 off power (99 days)

Clubs + TKs = 5,167,283 off power (65 days)

Clubs + Tks with brewery 20% = 6,865,645 off power

Axes + Tks = 6,933,538 off power (85 days)

Axes + Tks with brewery 20% = 8,320,245 off power

(brewery 10% value for comparison = 7,626,891)

In other words... Axe + Tk is the best economic hammer too. With a lot faster rebuild time specially when you consider that teutons rams and cats are gonna be stronger too.

Show All

I know there's a lot to read - I look forward to hear your thoughts when you have time. I hope others feel free to join the discussion too - Blaze ?

Blaze wrote:

A reminder again, keep playing around with the numbers until you find the perfect combination of numbers

No, it does not work like that. Finding perfect combination of numbers is boring. Constant change is the fun stuff. Make stuff overpowered for some time, then remove power from them there, put it somewhere else, make new stuff viable. Rinse and repeat. We need change for sake of change and something happening, rather than perfect balance IMO. Tho it might be hard with 3 tribes, having 5 makes it possible.

Well, in my person experience. When there are a lot of servers/game modes in games. Each server has lesser amount of people, since everyone has their own preference. Travian is not relevant enough to have multiple speed servers for one domain and still have them filled with accounts.

But yes, perhaps a 2x, which is not tourney, would be a good idea. Maybe a 5x server twice a year too.

Wolkenengel wrote:

I'll give some suggestions and ideas when I'll have a bit more time, but for now....

Nordics is 4 domains, which reduced four 3x servers to one.

Balkans is 6 domains, which recuced six 3x servers to one.

Hispanic is 4 domains, which reduced four 3x servers to one.

There's also Chinese, Lusobrasiliero and Baltics, but you get my point I suppose.

I think this is a thing worth discussion at least, since 2x speed is something that still allows users to not resort to finding duals or constantly relying on sitter help.

Show All

As a speed player on .us, I would like to state that we all asked for more speed servers when the merger of .uk, .au. and .us was announced. So our 3 options was reduced to one like many other merged domains. And some speed addicts like to play on multiple servers at the same time. There needs to be more options for speed addicts.

Blaze wrote:

Okay. So first I'd like to talk about the introduction of rewards(gold) based on accomplishments. Almost every online game has a currency, just like travian. The only difference is that Travian has only one way to get, by purchasing it. Will quote myself from my initial post on this topic as I'd like to not type it again

"the simplest way to look at things would be to see how newer players interact with the game. With such a steep learning curve and the pay to win aspect, its extremely hard for a newbie, with little to no gold, to actually survive the initial stage. Perhaps gold could be used as an incentive (like most mobile games have gems or such being awarded). So if you complete a daily task or an overall achievement (for example killing 1k troops) you get a little gold to aid you. To people buying 1600 packages every 2 weeks, these rewards will be pennies, but to the average non golder, it would do wonders. If the game is more playable to new players and non golders, we will eventually see the 'irrelevance' of the game fade away. As it stands, new players never stick as they dont find it appealing enough to spend hours and hours to eventually end up getting owned by high skilled golders, with the older players growing tired of the stale game and retiring too"

Now lets move on to the next few points. 'Game balancing' to be more speccific. Like I said, game is stale af. And one of my friends Danilo had advised this to me, and I'd like to forward it to you as i completely agree with it. Almost every game in the world has constant balancing of weapons/money/etc. For travian this applies to the troops. For as long as I can remember the troops off, and deff stats have been the same. Making the game stale. If there are constant buffs or nerfs, it will allow new strategies with every update and allow people to explore things not possible rn. Maybe eeven a new type of arti once a year or something. Who knows. Be creative. It also ends up being appealing to veterans as it gives them something new to do, and not play a game they've already mastered.

Moving further into game balancing, here are a few ideas for each tribe.

Nerf Teuton. Everything is simply OP for a teuton. The only real downfall I see is their cavalry off being [Less than ideal]. Which honestly isn't that big of a downfall either. Crop consumption is not an issue due to their superb raiding. And Mace very well make up for the [bad] cavalry off. Spears and paladins make teuton a worthy def tribe too. Wall is good too. Everything is good. Needs nerf. Either make the wall less usefull (like huns) or some other balance

Buff Gaul ffs. Their special building is absolutely [horrible]. Trapper? really? Lets compare them to other tribes' special buildings. HDT for romans which provides them 20% faster training time in stable as well as reducing crop consumption by 1 for each cav (at lvl 20). Teutons get a 10% buff to their off while brewery is active. No there is no downfall to a brewery unless youre stubborn and wanna go for a wwk instead of a wwr. Now lets go to trapper..... Nuff said.

Their off as it stands I'm satisfied with (as its supposed to be heavy deff favoured tribe), but not their deff. Teutons almost match them when it comes to def/time, and gauls consume a lot of crop too. Perhaps a buff to their wall. (So maybe a trade between the gaul wall and teuton wall iirc how each tribes' walls are)

Romans slight buff. As it stands Romans are mediocre in each aspect. In most servers roman lose to Teutons in farming due to sheer mass of mace. Def/time is worst, even below teutons which is supposed to be an off tribe (see why teut need nerf). The only thing they excel at is Low crop consumption and solid off/time and raiding aspect from their cav. Which sadly imps lower down to, oh, make it mediocre once again -.-. I do realise there are other appealing factors too, such as multiple buildings at once and scouts. Hence why I say slight buff. But they do need it. Their infantry and merchants are slow af too. Perhaps a buff to imperians, or prets. Either. NOT BOTH or you'll make another OP tribe like teut.

A reminder again, keep playing around with the numbers until you find the perfect combination of numbers. Its not balanced right now. Also if I understand it correctly, most new/non spending people go with roman/gaul. Due to them being a relatively strong tribe for newbies/nonspenders. While most pros prefer to go teuton (as an off player, and some with def). Make all the tribes appealing to all the audience. Don't have 35-40% of roman and gaul in every server, and only 25% or something of teut.

Now lets move on to MH's omfgasdfghj....
Pay them, please. Make them think that if they dont do their job properly they actually have something to lose. We've not been replied to for up to 40h on 3x servers, equaling to 5 days on a 1x server. Thats 1 reply, not the amount of time it took to solve the matter. That would be about 2 weeks. Not to mention unjust bans. Yes, it happens, no matter what people say. We've been banned on comx unjustly and then told "sorry, youre right, it wasnt a just ban" after 4 days or so (again, equal to almost 2 weeks on a 1x server) with a little "heres 20 gold for compensation, rules state we dont have to compensate you, but we felt bad" as a cherry on the top. And it wasnt a one in a million occurence as it happened to many others that very server. This was just an example, of the state of the MHs. I've had pleasant encounters with MHs too, but there is an inconsistency which shouldnt exist. ALSO, please when you ban someone, tell them what the IP was for the device at fault. In most cases, there are multiple duals and no one owns up to it. Only the MH can him/herself tell us who caused the ban to occur. If they dont, we are left clueless and the cheater will most definitely repeat it on the account he/she plays next. Causing another few people to lose their time and money due to his/her incompotence. Its extremely important to get this sorted, as i do understand that there are some specific laws which prevent MH's from revealing IP. Be that as it may, you need to get it sorted.

No tolerance policy towards FFs. Ive discussed this before here already, so will just quote it.

" Personal farms are indeed a game changer. As a regular on comx myself, this has been one of the key aspects which seperates high skilled players. Whether they have been friendly farming or not. TG has taken 1 step towards fixing that, by making sure you cannot reinforce people who are not a confed of yours. Preventing those main accounts from defending their multis/friendly farms(ff). But then agian if the alliance is not a meta or if the player simply makes an alliance of his/her own, he/she could simple be in confed with the embassy filled with those tech accounts, and counter TG's step.

The main issue as it stands is with the rules. So perhaps a no tolerance policy towards accounts which are simply garages or are meant to be farmed would help. Im sure MH's can sort through the reported accounts to determind which is being used be specific players to simply farm. Im guessing this would raise concerns as to which farm is considering a ff, and which is considered an ordinary farm. In order to determine that, MHs could simply check if they are in confed with the player in concern or not. If they are, and are being farmed and then deffed against other incomings, its an ff. If the acc is outside the confed, then let it remain as they are open to enemies to raid, and the account in question cant reinforce it. A constant in and out of confed would also result in foul play and a ban. Hope it makes sense.

Another way would be to set a low limit to how much can be raided from a player in confed. Forcing players to have their tech accounts outside of confeds, and hence opening them up to the rest of the server to farm or 0, as they cannot be defended. "

Broken Def Point System. I had created a thread about this before. SO will link that here. The Broken Def-Point System

There are a bunch of other gameplay aspects I'm probably forgetting, but these points are my main concern. I'm sure the other wonderful people will fill you in with the rest of it. My wrists are also starting to hurt, so i'll stop.

F's in the chat Schmitz' Katze

Show All

Game is perfectly balanced. If you want to be 1st simmer you can do it with all 3 tribes

If you want to be best attacker - you can do it with all 3 tribes

If you want to be best defender - you can do it with all 3 tribes

If you want to build ww - you can do it with all 3 tribes

If you want to be top raider - you can do it with all 3 tribes, and specially this one. people who know how to farm don’t mind the tribe, no tribe is better then other, there are just players better then other players, and you can’t change that.

When it comes to what is “easier” to do with some tribe, its all empty talks. Everything is balanced enough, it’s up to you what you can take out and create out of that balance that is currently here. You can do anything with anything in this game, and that’s the balance.

When it comes to new players, most of us started playing years ago (me myself 11 years ago) while servers were populated with 10-15k players. If someone wants to play he will find a way to play, if someone is meant to be a farm, let him be a farm.

Very interesting discussion thread - but who was read last years report?
And what TG doing after that? Notging or same with nothing? So I have bad news to all of us - TG doing the same in this year.

In great part, I agree with you.

Yet, we started as a single 1 wing team, versus the server.

We had the quality, not the size/quantity.

As said in other threads before by many other fellow players, highly skilled players can and will kill the game for newbies. Some would say, survival of the 'fittest'.

It's not like we wouldn't have wanted to encounter resistance or so. We did see North unite in a zerg 5 wings (in NE) and SE unite in another zerg with 5 wings - which also, is - especially for inexperienced players - trap on its' own - as they can never coordinate themselves properly.

We were waiting to restart a round since 2017, since we last played previous com4 as Warriors (2017) and com2 when we played inside a non preformed group 2017/2018. We were there, in the background, waiting. Meaning, 5-10 of us were there, playing, with our main team waiting and constantly asking when to restart.

We basically had to forcefully start a round, as our crew waited more than a year to restart either under CWL or Goats tag.

When com4 started, us the leaders - in some cases, had 3 servers in parallel including com4 (I was on com2, so was Brezzok and many others, also on com1 along with many others...). Quite late we ended up with 1 round, when com2 ended, we were post artefact release. When com1 ended, we had maximum 1 month left in server of com4 - not to mention, many of us like to play in Finals too - helping and working with DACIA - in the end, Emerik is family for us, so many from CWL / Goats are also there somewhere.

We had voted we would not start com1 as Goats, as we wanted to fully respect SGR and allow them to continue keeping the legacy going - I was main voice saying we don't start com1 - yet 10-15 of us did start com1 anyway, to be there for our forever friends in SGR.

sadly, a noob round started, com4 which we heard of late and had no idea who would join.

We chose usual quad, that we usually have - unless we play non-standard (e.g. com1.) South West.

Next up - if we ignored com4, was com3, which currently in 118 looks equally bad.

We have literally nothing to chose from. Com7 apparently disappeared - we were residents there 3 years, until we moved to com1 and com4. We regularly moved to where we can find challenges.

Sadly fewer and fewer quality 1x servers exist. Usually on com6 we had Immortals as residents, they retired. Then there was The Wild (which retired in it's current format and part of them regrouped as Ruthless are working with friends from various metas - be it Villains, SGR, Goats or any others. ), Gold retired, GRID doesn't exist anymore, AoW retired long ago, ULTIMA same, PANTHEON also gone, Infamous, EximuS, PFtF, GoDz not around anymore.

So, if you bring any experience 50 player team to a noob round, normally they should crush any oposition, if they want to.

We ran against 12 wing zerg (4-5 NE, 4 SE, 2 NW, 1 and a half in SW) and got few dents in our ranks.

Only apparent competitive round, seems to be com1 - which sadly will probably loose in quality now, since it is forced to start so soon. after it's end.

I don't know where 1x servers are going, but I don't think they are going down a good road.

Hence why I said I partially agree with you, Wolkenengel .

I would keep in 1x servers only com1, com2, com4, com6 and com7 maximum - anything extra is overkill. But with more predictability in restarting of rounds so that teams can start and not hope for their usual home grounds to appear and never reappear

In our history we played and won com1 as CWL 2014; com2 twice; com4 - won it 4 times; com6: 2 times; com7: 2 times / 1 time lost.

We hoped com4, would be interesting, based on previous experiences, but none of interesting crews reappeared...

But - do look at history, for us it is no accident what happened on com4. When we are up for the game, we do the same as we did there.

Some examples:

2011 - com7: https://gyazo.com/1db987845331ba1727493b40e821b503

2012 - com4: https://gyazo.com/c9c233567dfb5f6801923de6e65aed09 & https://gyazo.com/687777fc581ac3d94340e396af2d0cd6

2013 - com7: https://gyazo.com/f9754501e7972a26fa17e480115e98df

2014 - com4: https://prnt.sc/53fugm (we almost did it https://gyazo.com/71400ea4b0731b72ad4a99dd72c18312)

2016 - com2: https://gyazo.com/b37e02c1c46161c04bce9a0b2ec020ed

2017 - com4: https://gyazo.com/4d6eaf4c9e0c72f20f56492a2afe1f5f

2018 - we helped friends in SGR win and they did gloriously finish 2 WWs at same time at level 100 - kudos for them

2018 - com4: https://gyazo.com/455b5d9540c118cac76895e57b877c01 it is what it is ...

Again, it is something CWL & Goats does to most enemies it encounters - we are 80-90% Off alliance - we exist to have fun and attack

I'm sure plenty out there, including Emerik ; Marduk_COM aka mazzi ; fnx ; ELE ; Shammybear ; wishmaster3 ; @[ cwl ] Brezzok ; Raelag ; La Mala Ice or Galaxysong_COM can confirm my words.

Only break from CWL or GOATs we took in 2015 when we helped SGR in com1 win and The Wild win in com5.

@[ cwl ] Brezzok do you have anything to add?

Some would say we were the residents of com4, while it still had quality; were residents of com7, while it still existed before we moved to com4 and so on.

Wolkenengel wrote:

Reducing 1x server amount would also minimize this type of thing: COM4: Won by GOAT Z (July 2018 - February 2019)

This is a very serious issue on its won I believe too. I have nothing against team GOAT&co, it's just an example what happens when you have one decent sized team play on a less active server. Less servers would mean the remaining would potentially be much more active, thus much more competitive.

I'm sure Hear_No_Evil [CWL][GOATs] and @[ cwl ] Brezzok would also prefer a much more interesting competitive server themselves, rather than something that's decided shortly after artifacts spawn.

FYI - just for reference, com5 2015 - The Wild vs Immortals versus others

http://i.imgur.com/3v4uT3U.jpg  La Mala Ice - very competitive and fun round also.

Kudos to you for kicking our ass once back in 2009 or 2010. You helped us understand we should not be only OFF oriented

Back to this thread topic, there are a lot of improvements that need to come, to avoid spiraling more into a point of no return.

I honestly hope this year, with Legends on Tour Summit, and after, we will see a plan at least - for real improvements