[Anglosphere] Legends on Tour 2019 Summit - Discussion

  • but putting in a randomiser for one or two seconds for the waves - no. Just no.

    If you send with existing methods, there's a chance that waves will mess up = snipes can happen. They want to artificially mirror that even though they automate waves. Which is a good thing. Part of the excitement of launching attacks is worrying about getting the waves out perfectly, and so on. Mindgames between defender and attacker if some attacks are sent perfectly while others are not - and if they are cancelled if not in same second etc.


    As a defender, I would also hate it if attackers had guaranteed perfect same-second waves, with no chance of sniping.

    Why would anyone use this instead of existing methods?

    People playing from phone/tablet. People playing on Mac. People not at home with their usual setup. People with poor internet. I wasn't a fan of an automated wave builder, but I think this solution is good. It's still viable to launch waves "manually", but the people I just mentioned will be able to participate too.

  • It isn't the idea of a wave builder I'm against, I think that's a great move. It's the randomiser dice roll that I don't like when internet connections already do that for you. I don't see the need to simulate what will happen anyway.


    Stand out Award 2017 UK
    illuicons_8_wonder-150x150.png

  • It's the randomiser dice roll that I don't like when internet connections already do that for you.

    No, internet connection won't do that for you. That's the whole point of a wave builder - you click a single button, and it will automatically send the waves for you in the same second. Hence a need to simulate "lag"

  • So when I do this normally, suppose I click the button slightly towards the end of the second rather than the beginning, it won't roll some over into the next second? It won't have any lag? How do you know?


    If this is true, I can see it's purpose and the need for the randomiser to simulate lag, but I don't like how contrived it feels. If it's random then it's removing the skill of getting that perfect timing to make sure you don't get the roll over. It also takes away the need to find ways to get the waves land spot on the second when you're working offline.


    Stand out Award 2017 UK
    illuicons_8_wonder-150x150.png

  • Making a feature directly in-game for sending waves is good but once again it's 50% done. Why the limit is 4 waves ? Just why ? Better stick to some good old script like Wavebuilder when we can get as much waves as we want...

    I heard not all representatives from LOT agreed to this automatization, so they decided to do it and limitate to 4waves only.

  • So when I do this normally, suppose I click the button slightly towards the end of the second rather than the beginning, it won't roll some over into the next second? It won't have any lag? How do you know?


    If this is true, I can see it's purpose and the need for the randomiser to simulate lag, but I don't like how contrived it feels. If it's random then it's removing the skill of getting that perfect timing to make sure you don't get the roll over. It also takes away the need to find ways to get the waves land spot on the second when you're working offline.

    Not sure if I'm not reading your question correctly, or if you misread what they have planned. The "simulated lag" is only for the waves - i.e., it's randomized with a certain percentage that the one or more of the following waves will not be sent the same second as the first one. The numbers they have put up right now is:

    82% chance that all 4 waves will be in the same second

    8% chance that it will be 3+1

    6% chance that it will be 2+2

    4% chance that it will be 1+3.


    In regards to getting the timing, I imagine that it works just like it does now. The artificial lag is not that you click the button, and then it randomly takes up to 2 seconds for it to start sending the waves. So it'll be your normal delay (i.e. the time it takes the command to travel from you to the server), just like it is now - except that you're sending 4 waves with one click (and then they are sent in accordance with the randomizer).

  • Funnily enough, I know probability fairly well so I don't have any difficulties understanding a few percentages. What I don't see is the need for these if there is still going to be the issue of the carry over the second timing - i.e. if you send right towards the end of the second some waves may carry over, if you get it right at the beginning they are more likely to be same second. Lag is something we all learn to live with. What concerns me is that the randomiser will take away the celebration and "wow" factor of that moment when you get all your waves bang on and know you can't be sniped and that it is down to you - not a randomiser giving you an 82% probability - but your skill getting your timing spot on.


    Stand out Award 2017 UK
    illuicons_8_wonder-150x150.png

  • Funnily enough, I know probability fairly well so I don't have any difficulties understanding a few percentages.

    Re-read my post again, that is not at all what the point of it was. I will try with different wording below too though.


    - i.e. if you send right towards the end of the second some waves may carry over

    No. That is exactly what won't happen. Only way that some waves may "carry over" is if the randomizer decides that they should.


    Let's say you click the button at 11:24:59.

    Like now, it might take a second before the input reaches the server.

    This means that waves launch at 11:25:00.

    However, if the randomizer rolls 3+1 waves, 3 waves will be sent at 11:25:00, and the last will be sent at 11:25:01. Clicking "early" at 11:24:59 won't prevent this from happening. The whole point is that you have no agency in whether the 4 waves succeed or not - it's decided by the randomizer.


    If there wasn't this randomized factor, the 4 waves would always be the same second, no matter when you clicked the button. They might then take 1 or 2 seconds before being launched, depending on your latency to the server... But they would never be split.


    What concerns me is that the randomiser will take away the celebration and "wow" factor of that moment when you get all your waves bang on and know you can't be sniped and that it is down to you - not a randomiser giving you an 82% probability - but your skill getting your timing spot on.

    Yes it will. But this is meant for the people I mentioned above, who otherwise have no way of participating with multiple waves.

    People playing from phone/tablet. People playing on Mac. People not at home with their usual setup. People with poor internet



    Launching the old fashioned way is still viable... because you won't have to deal with a guaranteed average failrate of 18%.

  • If you dont roll the 82% 4-0 just immediately recall the attacks, this entire process would only take 5 seconds, which is a very small window for the enemy to pickup. Rinse and repeat until desired result.


  • When are these changes to be implemented? And on what servers?

    What we reported is what was discussed. There are not final concept nor a development plan so far, therefore we can't say yet when they will be implemented, but obviously you will be informed if and when they will arrive in the game.

  • What we reported is what was discussed. There are not final concept nor a development plan so far, therefore we can't say yet when they will be implemented, but obviously you will be informed if and when they will arrive in the game.

    Thanks for the response.


    The 18c idea is interesting and would finally provide a good reason to settle grey.


    The rule 1.1 change just encourages 'tech' (they are essentially mutlis, lets be real) accounts. The MH update says that employees/enforcers or whatever will monitor the 'suspicious' pushing cases, but if there is no rule to ban them under then what can be done?

  • Thanks for the response.


    The 18c idea is interesting and would finally provide a good reason to settle grey.


    The rule 1.1 change just encourages 'tech' (they are essentially mutlis, lets be real) accounts. The MH update says that employees/enforcers or whatever will monitor the 'suspicious' pushing cases, but if there is no rule to ban them under then what can be done?

    There is a rule for multiaccounts ... it's rule 1.

    If someone wants to play to support their alliance why should we punish him/her?

  • There is a rule for multiaccounts ... it's rule 1.

    If someone wants to play to support their alliance why should we punish him/her?

    Because there is a difference between supporting your alliance and playing to push another account. It is a fine line, but one that a very large number of Travian players have determined for themselves on different domains. Tech accounts are generally set up to push other accounts and give them an advantage over accounts which don't and are solely played using their own resources. It is also very well known amongst players that a large proportion of these so called "tech" accounts are actually multi accounts run by people who know how to get around the rules. This is why they create such strong bad feeling in smaller domains where generally players don't have the time or money to invest in playing several multi accounts and the majority of accounts are played by a sole person, not duals.


    Some domains like to use them and obviously they are a big part of the Tournament servers, but a lot of the smaller domains really don't like them, a fact which TG seems to be oblivious to. If you are going to go to the expense of flying in representatives from many domains then you should listen to the views of all the players represented, not just the ones from tournament servers. My understanding is the vote regarding removing this rule was split between the representatives.


    Stand out Award 2017 UK
    illuicons_8_wonder-150x150.png

  • And the fact that we have an Anglo player agreeing with me and a Com player advocating techs completely illustrates my point!


    Stand out Award 2017 UK
    illuicons_8_wonder-150x150.png

  • Because there is a difference between supporting your alliance and playing to push another account. It is a fine line, but one that a very large number of Travian players have determined for themselves on different domains. Tech accounts are generally set up to push other accounts and give them an advantage over accounts which don't and are solely played using their own resources. It is also very well known amongst players that a large proportion of these so called "tech" accounts are actually multi accounts run by people who know how to get around the rules. This is why they create such strong bad feeling in smaller domains where generally players don't have the time or money to invest in playing several multi accounts and the majority of accounts are played by a sole person, not duals.


    Some domains like to use them and obviously they are a big part of the Tournament servers, but a lot of the smaller domains really don't like them, a fact which TG seems to be oblivious to. If you are going to go to the expense of flying in representatives from many domains then you should listen to the views of all the players represented, not just the ones from tournament servers. My understanding is the vote regarding removing this rule was split between the representatives.

    Yeah, there is a difference between an alliance supporting eachother and an alliance creating ~100 extra accounts to hard push one or two.


    The scope of the multi rule is too narrow and doesn't do enough to promote fairness


    Nobody can counter a 60-account push on day 3 or produce a better account as the game goes on without using the same 'tactic'