[Anglosphere] Legends on Tour 2019 Summit - Discussion

We are testing a brand new User Interface, a new background and some other small changes on our PTRx3 gameworld! 🎨
📌 PTR is the acronym of Public Test Realm. PTRs are used to test patches before we release them to the public. Unlike standard game worlds, you’re one of the first people testing a new build which can often be unstable or otherwise non-functional. Accessing the PTR and reporting bugs is one of the biggest services you can provide ❤️

➡️ Join now ⬅️

✍️ ➡️ Give your feedback about the new User Interface
✍️ ➡️ Give your feedback about the new Backgrounds
  • Tbh it wouldn’t be a problem at all.


    Not sure what the US servers were like but from what I’ve heard of the AU servers being desolate and know of the U.K. servers in the past this is only an issue because people that aren’t from these 3 domains have come here.


    On U.K. domains you always got one of two cheating (maybe not the best word as it’s allowed by the admins these days) accounts, often kicked out by their alliance and if not often the first target of any alliance ops.


    But on the very first angloserver the multihunters have allowed tourney rules.


    That’s it. The bar has been set. I don’t believe we will ever be able to get back to good old days now.


    Every player has a choice, create their own push accounts and make garage accounts and run those throughout the server or quit travian. Would be nice if they would allow you to refund your gold stores though because of all this crap

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

    I most likely won't return to the game because of this change (and some other ones), and I only play .com. I already had this discussion extensively with you before.


    .com does not equal tourney.


    But yes, tourney wants their techs.

  • Every player has a choice, create their own push accounts and make garage accounts and run those throughout the server or quit travian.

    But that is multi-accounting and punishable by the multi-account rule. No need for the extra verbiage about playing for ones own benefit to ban those.


    Will some multi-accounters beat the system? Of course - but that is a problem every game faces. Cheaters will always find a way to beat the system.


    That is why changes to the hard coded protections are being discussed, to limit the value individual accounts can get from others - which will hurt both multi-accounters and "techs" aka friends. I'm personally hoping for some stronger protections that what has been discussed up to this point, but that has to be balanced with the impact on legitimate raiders.


    There is also discussion about more severe punishments for multi-accounting and obviously there are big changes coming to the Multi-Hunting/Rule Enforcement side of things. All 3 of these changes together can (if done correctly) drastically reduce the benefits from multi-accounts and techs.


    Skipping to the bottom and working my way up.


    Rule 1.1

    It should be noted that that pop shift to 200 is only the first of many steps. It is something they could quickly implement from a development perspective and didn't require any additional work to flesh out from a design/customer service perspective. More things are being discussed that would more drastically restrict the resources that can be pushed/raided from an account. Its a big topic that needs a lot more discussion to build an appropriate plan of action. Also technically, Rule 1.1 is intact right now and will remain so until some of the additional ideas can be fleshed out and implemented.


    Discord

    There is no plan of action other than it is something that both sides felt was a good idea. Taking over would be helpful because there would be a few k users already in place. It would be more difficult to retrofit to meet whatever guidelines/organization are established however. Regardless of what is done, it needs dedicated staff willing and able to moderate it.


    Endgame

    Technically none of that is official and could be altered a lot (or none at all) before it sees implementation. I also don't expect them "soon". That said one of the themes of the summit was the importance of communication, so I am confident they will be well publicized in advance of their actual implementation. It will also help when the new answers page goes live (another big TBA) - with any luck they will be around the same time. I know the plan drop coordinates was essentially lost in a thread over the last two years and that is something that needs to be avoided happening with these.


    PP Changes

    Since I addressed some of it above I'll focus on the chiefs/arti issue raised - pick/play with people you trust.


    Scout Lists

    I would argue the game isn't automatic enough. It still takes hours a day to play an above average account for most people. Scout lists also have value beyond farming, in particular I'm interested in their use for alliance purposes.


    Automation

    I haven't actually read these notes yet so I'm not entirely sure what is in them. (I noticed that my notes tend to be more extensive than the ones released) For what you mentioned, queuing of parties was a middle ground - the original proposal was to make them just start automatically either when the previous party ended or at a set time. I still prefer the original myself but again compromise as they say - make both sides unhappy :)


    Artwork queuing was brought up due to the new limit on 1 per day. People lose track of when that timer expires, so they wanted a way to ensure the next one is used as quickly as possible. I personally didn't feel it was necessary but I also don't see it hurting anything.


    Wave Builder

    In regards to the wave builder. I would have preferred no randomize myself but some reps expressed concerns about the loss of sniping from the game and removal of skill. The randomizer was essentially a compromise. Frankly I don't think sending waves is a matter of skill anymore, so much as the ability of someone to find and resurrect an outdated browser and do things with it. The exception would be the tab method but I rarely hear anyone use that so... I also strongly disagree about bringing back allowing more waves by virtue of internet connection - that is the complete opposite direction of making the game accessible and fair. It also strongly disadvantages the growing mobile player population which needs to be nurtured.


    There was also discussion about allowing you to schedule waves X hours in advance - that was nixed. (something I liked because adults shouldn't have to sacrifice their sleep in the middle of the night to send waves)

    Another suggestion was increasing the number of targets per waved - nixed. (had potential imo)


    What I've noticed (and this may not be true everywhere) is the number of operations designed to zero something has gone down dramatically since the old days. While this is in part due to the limit on WPS, it is also about having less attackers, being more risk averse (i.e wanting to avoid split waves) and having less people able to plan / participate in ops due to timing. I had hoped the wave builder could be an avenue towards improving that because death and destruction is supposed to be part of a war game. I'm not sure the current proposal goes far enough to achieve that. There are always concerns about attacker-defender balance but I think a proposal could be built that finds a middle ground.


    I am in regular and direct contact with HQ so if something better can be put together, I can pass it on and try to fight for it. When I get a chance I will also try and put some more concrete thoughts together to contribute toward the discussion.


    My closing remarks on the wave builder have me wondering - should I create threads for certain topics and/or areas of topics? I could create a Game Design thread, Wave Builder thread etc. Let me know what you guys think. The Ambassador Program doesn't have any structure yet, its a blank slate. So now is a great time to give feedback on the kinds of things you'd like to see from it.

  • Why is there still no proper discussion about the main issue for travian: in that it's a dying game because the devs have ignored the problem for far too long. It's a fools errand at this stage. Everything i've read recently has disregarded the underlying principles for people leaving, travian has become pay to win and travian games have basically come out and said techs/multiaccounters are acceptable. i would pay good money to see statistics on how many travian players 10 years ago vs now. We all know it's been a steady decline, precipitous at stages (when t4 came out) and i'm sorry, but introducing things to combat that in 2019 is 6/7 years too late. Please stop focusing on drastic game play changes (i'm looking at you survey) and start focusing on increasing player base and player retention. The majority of players stating on the forum, some of the most active forum contributors, that they are leaving because of the changes being made. Why is this being ignored and you keep theorising further changes? I just don't understand how a company can be so blind.


    The survey was an absolute farce.

    New tribes never played them, doubt I ever will but i can understand that this has been in the works for the past 3/4 years so it's an inevitable change. Can't blame you for trying to make money.

    Confed system only decent change discussed.

    Troop forwarding and merging in Travian pay to win. sorry if this is a fundamental idea of path to pandora (never played it so no idea?) then leave it where it belongs.

    Reverse Tournament Square if you don't properly explain what the change is and ask a room of 1000 people, you're going to get skewed results.

    Game worlds duration your first comment is 'there is no clear preference' on a vote of over 10000 people and then go on to say you're going to listen to the room of 30 people...i need a wall to smash my head against.

    2x speed as regular speed in Travian If i wanted to play speed then i'd play a speed server, simple as, i'm sure this applies to most. Again you go on to further state you're reducing game time so it's irrelevant, good job, why survey at all?

    Removing Grey Zone the grey zone is one of the best t4 changes you brought in. Explaining it was your downfall. You want to make it more noob friendly? Either make the attacks defendable in that it's going to cost me to defend it but it IS possible or remove the attacks at all. Anyone who has read up on it knows that you need to build on the majority of building and survive the attacks with a population granting building, in most cases a stonemason as it's the last building focused. So why punish people with no idea or concept of how to deal with it? regarding culture points, maybe something as simple as 'only the capital does not make culture points' would suffice? I know the reasons I settle in the grey (better oasis and cropper because of this) and I know how to get around the culture point debuff but I am still set back by receiving no culture points for my cap which would be the first village settled.

    Changing Wonder of the Worlds spawn just advertise information properly. Anglo6 dominated by the fact building plans were set locations and not known to the majority of players, no offence to mercedes but she spends half her life on this forum, is one of my leaders on anglo6 and had absolutely no idea the plans were set locations. Go figure.


    So yeah, survey was a farce, all you did was cherry pick the results and cross reference it with what your representation people want. Zero explanation for the arbitrary 75% threshold that is ignored on certain questions?


    There has to be simple ways to deal with multiaccounting/tech users for a start. Valve love the old 'attach a phone number to an account'. Why isn't that feasible on a game that is primarily made for phones? I won't be playing dota 2 or cs go on my mobile anytime soon yet it's still a thing :)


    Deal with the real issues please.


    Most of this seems negative. It is. That is the extent of my interaction with travian as a whole in the past year. You punished me for no reason on two servers and wouldn't give me a refund for gold spent on your game, only a worthless apology and 8000 gold. Remember the company we keep paying :)

  • Why isn't that feasible on a game that is primarily made for phones?

    While I don't disagree with phone verification... Travian is far from primarily made for phones. It's made for being played on a desktop in a webbrowser (it still is a browser-based MMO)... Which is an issue and a huge part of why the playerbase declined so steeply. Don't forget, travian experienced incredibly rapid growth while browser-gaming exploded - travian went from only having .de servers, to have domains for 40+ countries or more (and the playerbase to support the expansion!). As browser gaming declined and mobile gaming went on the rise, travian declined too, because it was not adapted properly for the mobile demand.


    That is not to say that there haven't been plenty of other issues - and not to say that it wasn't a huge mistake by TG to not adapt to the changing market situation. But I think you will find that many many browser-based games that were flourishing have either died off, or experienced a very steep decline like travian (it might be removed since it's a "competitor", but veteran browser-game players like me might remember games like Dark Throne, which is probably more dead, if at all still existing, than travian.)

  • Why is there still no proper discussion about the main issue for travian: in that it's a dying game

    This is probably the only part of your post I agree with. There should definitely be more focus on the mobile playing population and to improve the mobile experience. Almost everybody has a mobile phone, but far fewer game/browse on a laptop. It could be a solid source of new players to revitalise the game. GET A GOOD, WORKING APP OUT!!



    New tribes never played them, doubt I ever will but i can understand that this has been in the works for the past 3/4 years so it's an inevitable change. Can't blame you for trying to make money



    Reverse Tournament Square if you don't properly explain what the change is and ask a room of 1000 people, you're going to get skewed results.

    Dont be so resistant to change, you dislike the tribe change for no reason other than it's different


    Question wasn't explained properly because unless you were aware of the difference, you don't know how the change felt and your vote would be pointless

  • Dont be so resistant to change, you dislike the tribe change for no reason other than it's different


    Question wasn't explained properly because unless you were aware of the difference, you don't know how the change felt and your vote would be pointless

    It's not about being resistant to change, if you read my post it's about ignoring the main underlying issue of player retention/influx of new players. Neither of which we're seeing. People aren't leaving the game because they don't like the game as it is now in the majority of cases. People are leaving because of proposed changes and the completely lackadaisical approach travian have taken for the past near decade. They keep taking step backwards.


    Question wasn't explained properly, you're right, if you're not aware then your vote would be pointless. So why does everyone get a vote on it? As i stated, the survey was a farce.

  • It's not about being resistant to change, if you read my post it's about ignoring the main underlying issue of player retention/influx of new players. Neither of which we're seeing.

    The player base has declined due to a several factors:

    1.

    The web-based browser category of games has become far less popular than what it was in the heyday of Travian given the rise of mobile based gaming. To compare the stats between now and then is apples and oranges.

    TG has stated in the past that they need to resolve the current spaghetti code before they can realistically provide a mobile app for the game. They are working on it even if you can't see it.


    2.

    The high learning curve and the poor guidance materials make life as a newb a living hell. You get relegated to life as a farm in a perpetuating downward spiral before you really understand what is happening. The in game tutorial is minimalistic at best, all the forum guides are vastly outdated and don't account for patch note changes and the amount of higher skilled players willing to take in and teach newer players has vastly decreased since their own resource base (farms) have also decreased.

    All in all, this leads to a less than enjoyable experience and yet you wonder why the player base isn't growing.


    3.

    The accessibility of information. You touched on this yourself when you said someone that has been around forever didn't know about one of the core tenets of the game; i.e. plan spawn. I was also there when a member of your team asked about artifact spawn on the half-sized maps (in one of the staff rooms). I gave the answer then as I could have about plan spawn if I had of been asked.

    How about we pin the real issue which is accessibility of information? Update the FAQ, ensure there is ample coverage of support members that can respond in a reasonable time-frame with accurate, current information about the game and encourage users to post and update their guides.


    People aren't leaving the game because they don't like the game as it is now in the majority of cases.

    You're only speaking from the viewpoint of more experienced players. Most people leave the game because they can't be bothered to get past the first week. Be it either too slow, joining a round that is far too advanced in game time, or lack of information on how to play well leading them to be caught up as a farm.


    For the more experienced players that the status quo suits, they stay for the relationships they build; at least from my own personal experience and for those who I surround myself with. The game itself is mediocre but the people themselves, the teamwork and the strategy provide for an experience greater than the sum of its parts.

    Without the newer players coming in people are left to the same relationships. So, as people eventually leave for their own personal reasons there is no one new to fill the void.




    As for the survey, I do agree it was poorly handled. I gave my recommendations on how it could have been improved to the LOT rep.


    Jonothan Crane wrote:

    Patients suffering delusional episodes often focus their paranoia on an external tormentor. Usually one conforming to Jungian archetypes. In this case, a scarecrow.

  • People aren't leaving the game because they don't like the game as it is now in the majority of cases

    Maybe in your circle but the majority of friends and people I know from the game quit because of how the game is. Their complaints include:

    • Time factor - the game requires a lot of time daily in order to play well. This is especially hard on people who have to play as best they can and for them playing at a lower level is boring. Others want to be able to actually walk away from the game for a day without all hell breaking loose. Not to mention maintain their relationships, S/O don't like their person setting alarms to go off at 2, 3, 4 am to send attacks/defense etc.
    • Stale game - the game hasn't changed much and there are only so many times people want to sit through 200+ days trying to get their teams WW built.
    • Repetitive nature - there is a lot of rinse and repeat of actions and it can grow boring, especially as you complete more servers
    • Less leaders - this relates to the time factor but those will both the ability and time to organize and lead alliances is dwindling. This is a team game and if you don't have an interesting team that increases the likelihood you will want to quit.
    • Cultural shifts - to some degree this isn't the game per say but the clash of communities that grew up separately slowly coming into greater contact with each other. Two of the biggest issues from this is spiking and techs, two practices that vary widely in their acceptance across communities
    • Dwindling friends - there is a clear snowball effect , as friends leave that encourages more to do so.

    completely lackadaisical approach travian have taken for the past near decade. They keep taking step backwards.

    5 years ago this game was on its way out, to be replaced by what was originally T5 and became Kingdoms. My guess is that the Legends team was significantly cut back in anticipation of the games closure. It takes time to rebuild the staff and build company processes to manage the game after planning to get rid of it. They also have to contend with ancient spaghetti code which stymies changes like a dedicated mobile interface. They also have to contend with a competitive labor market, major companies that can pay significantly more operate all around HQ. An Amazon office is only a few hundred meters away - different industry but there are overlaps particularly in the development space. I expect there is also turnover, so when a dev working on one particular project leaves it might not be possible to salvage the work etc. Yes these happen to other companies, but in a small company like Travian it is more challenging.


    I would say that over the last 5 years there has been steady (if slow) progress regarding game design, development, customer service, UI/UX and community management. The last 2 years in particular have been very busy and especially after spending time with them at HQ I can see that they care about the game, they have ideas and they are working towards improving the user experience in every way. This is a game where a normal server lasts 8 months, it shouldn't be a surprise that things take time, especially as a small company.


    Bad decisions have been made, but TG is hardly the one game company (or company in general) to have ever done that. I would say that in general they are moving in the right direction, even if I vehemently disagree about certain changes. (I'm looking at you Tournament Square). They are also working on being closer to the community so they make better decisions. This also highlights the culture clash of trying to build a game that players from all 28* communities agree on. (including Tournament as its own community / after all the recent mergers). The thing is no decision will ever please everyone, there will never be unanimous support for a change. Those opposed to a change also tend to be the loudest, making them seem like a more sizable portion of the community than they might in fact be.


    in that it's a dying game because the devs have ignored the problem for far too long

    Has the game population decreased? Absolutely. The game has gone from 50+ communities and millions of accounts to 27 communities and hundreds of thousands. That was always going to happen, even long running games like WoW, Everquest and Runescape are far from their peak. Yet they continue to operate much like Legends. Why? Because the game still makes the company money. Not as much as it used to be the amount seems to have been fairly steady over the last few years from my interpretation of their management reports. So I wouldn't say dying anymore, its just moved to a different phase in the product life cycle.


    Specifically which problems are those?


    pay to win

    This is patently false. While paying more money grants more advantage to an individual account, there are diminishing returns. Spend up to a reasonable amount and you get the most benefit per $ and you remain competitive individually. You clearly haven't seen games that are truly "pay to win". Unless you call spending ANY money as pay to win, in which case I ask how are they supposed to pay developers to fix the problems you see?


    techs/multiaccounters

    Technically two different things:


    Multi-Account - An second (or more) account controlled by the owner of another account to support the primary account

    Tech Account - An individually controlled account owned by a player with no other accounts on the server. Operates to assist friendly players/allies with resources, garaging and defense.


    The first has been and remains against the rules and will be punished.


    The second is more controversial but goes back to community culture differences. In many other communities these have always been viewed as perfectly legitimate, both ethically and legally. The Anglo tradition has always viewed them as ethically wrong and to some extent there has been enforcement as them being illegal.


    The fact is the game needs a single set of rules, equal global enforcement and equal global punishment. Had that been in place from the start this particular issue could have been avoided entirely. Sadly we cannot turn back the clock but they are working to improve the rules. The line between a tech account and a "regular" player has and remains dubious.


    Am I a tech account if I send resources for pushes, store 30k of a WWK and send defense to players? Establishing the line in which those actions go from legitimate to illegal would be arbitrary at best - hence the change in 1.1 It is too dubious a line to try and enforce equally globally. This is why I've been pushing for changes to the hard coded protections that would put in hard and fast automatic protections. In some sense they would be arbitrary but they would be automatically and universally enforced. Easy to understand and abide.


    I will post a draft of what I put together later for public feedback.

  • Agreed i was coming from a skewed perspective of an experienced player but i was also being vague in my points. We could list dozens of reason why the game is dying from the awful tutorials for new players to the shambles that passes for customer service but the fundamentals are that we're seeing more people leaving than coming/staying in the game. I wouldn't be surprised if these new changes proposed or being included are some hidden attempt at trying to converge the three games into one @ legends, kingdoms, path to pandora.


    What are the unique selling points of the individual games if we start to cherry pick ideas from each one and add them to them all? Why would I want to play PTP if all the features that make it PTP are suddenly included in legends or kingdoms?


    I know the difference between techs/multi's but are you telling me they're not often one and the same in that I could create a multi via tor and pass it off as a tech if questioned, who can prove it isn't my 12th cousin on my fathers side of the family? As far as i'm concerned they're two sides of the same coin, multiaccounting breaks the rule of playing more then one game account per server and tech's break the rule of playing the account to your own benefit.


    When i say pay to win, do you see many awe-inspiring hammers or 100000's of def troops coming out of 50% 9c's or 25% 15c's? No you see the majority coming from the accounts that settled the 125/150% 15c's enabled to them by the 800000 silver they spent on a glad helm. Is that not a pay to win aspect for you? That's not me saying it's impossible to settle a decent cropper without a glad helm but it really bloody helps if you have one. Troop merging/forwarding is another one, i stated travian has become pay to win but maybe becoming would have been a better term.


    As for the lackadaisical approach, it's just taken way too long for them to get to the stage we're at now where we can see travian are trying to move forward. The blog and such, the increased traffic of information from travian to the customers, the changes they're trying to introduce to stop the game going stale have all come too late.

  • Anglo6 dominated by the fact building plans were set locations and not known to the majority of players, no offence to mercedes but she spends half her life on this forum, is one of my leaders on anglo6 and had absolutely no idea the plans were set locations. Go figure.

    Regardless if you didnt find it on the forum or not you didnt create any cata villages for the plans, i mean if they werent fixed you should have old cords saved and have an general idea about where they would spawn?
    Getting pretty tired of you bunch blaming TG/the forum for you not doing the research needed for such things.

    Did not any leader from AR/RA play the game since 2017?
    If this was the case it's more legit thing to blame since it's farely new feature.

    I do agree that they need to fix their answers & be more clear about the change but it was just as much your fault for not doing proper research.
    Even if we knew the fixed locations we had made accounts on several different domians & servers + asked people we know about artis/plans spawn+def & calced average etc etc etc so we would be as prepared as possible.

    TT final 2015 - Das Båt (SE)
    TT Qualify RU 2016 - Das Båt (Cerber-DD)
    TT final 2016 - illicit Ping, Pong & PangPang (Def&Dest)
    TT Qualify RU 2017 - Chip&Dale #1 off (CerbeR)
    TT Final 2017 - Chip&Dale (CerbeR)
    TT Qualify RU 2018 - ChipDale #1 pop (CerbeR)
    TT Final 2018 - Chip&Dale (WW BP release) (CerbeR-I)
    SE3 2017 - Krokodil
    Se1 2017-2018 Garbage Bag #1 Def (SKRÄP)
    S6 Anglosphere - Mimer (Bifrost)
    Active -
    TT Qualify RU 2019 - Chip&Dale (PoweR)

    Post was edited 2 times, last by Loffe ().

  • I wouldn't be surprised if these new changes proposed or being included are some hidden attempt at trying to converge the three games into one @ legends, kingdoms, path to pandora.

    Given how much money they have sunk into Kingdoms and the fact it is one of the larger games in terms of company revenue I don't see that happening.


    Path to Pandora (and the other Annual special iterations) have one unchanging similarity - the Victory Point / Region format. There has been no discussion from anyone at HQ about implementing that into core Legends. From a business perspective it also doesn't make much sense as part of the value of the Annual Special is being different and being limited - driving up demand and potential revenue. That said it has also been an incubator for new ideas, whether the ideas were developed with only the AS in mind isn't clear but I would suspect that some ideas were thought of with the wider game in mind. The Annual Special (and NYS) provide an opportunity to test new ideas that can have value in the core game. Some ideas are just good ideas that also work well in the core game format.


    There has been and will continue to be crossover because it makes sense. The specials will continue to iterate, some elements will be forever kept in the specials, others will move over in time. The new tribes moving over to the core format will be about 2 years from their launch, despite calls from some asking for them immediately. In my opinion the slow approach to the changes from the specials to the core format are well balanced at keeping the specials unique and valuable, will trying to improve the 15 year old core game format.


    I know the difference between techs/multi's but are you telling me they're not often one and the same in that I could create a multi via tor and pass it off as a tech if questioned, who can prove it isn't my 12th cousin on my fathers side of the family?

    Yea that can happen, you'll never catch every cheater 100% of the time. The Rule Enforcement Team (RET) is one in a series of steps being taken that will improve staff's ability to find and punish multi-accounts and those benefiting from them, with punishments becoming more severe. We don't get to see all of the analytics they use to identify multi-accounts (and script users, botters etc.) but they have been improving those tools and I think they are pretty effective. Having a dedicated team who actually get paid to do the work will be more effective. They will have better training, accountability and be required to put in more time than the current volunteer structure.

    tech's break the rule of playing the account to your own benefit.

    Well that rule is being removed. Even then it has always been interpreted differently by the customer service staff of different domains and even within domains. The people who write the rules aka the Game Center have said tech's don't break that rule. People might not like it but that is the reality we live in. Should they have clarified this sooner? Definitely. I don't even know how long that part of Rule 1.1 has been in place but I know it has been a source of controversy since I got back from retirement at the end of 2016.

    Is that not a pay to win aspect for you?

    I would argue no. Is it pay for an advantage? Yes. But that is how they make money and it is VERY difficult to build a game where revenue is generated solely from premium content that doesn't impact gameplay. Do you think Travian can generate 10-15 million Euros a year from selling hero, UI and village skins? The monthly fee model for MMO games has essentially broken down, with most going free to play or requiring one time purchases of the core game / DLC. That also wouldn't work for Travian.

    As for the lackadaisical approach, it's just taken way too long for them to get to the stage we're at now where we can see travian are trying to move forward. The blog and such, the increased traffic of information from travian to the customers, the changes they're trying to introduce to stop the game going stale have all come too late.

    Would it have been nice years ago? Certainly but its not like the game is dead. It still has value to the company and is still enjoyed (if grudgingly) by a lot of players. Would you prefer they simply say, "We are shutting down the game. All servers will continue as normal but we will not be starting any new ones." That is really the alternative.


    Travian history (game and company) can be broadly organized in (3) periods.


    2004-2009 the game grew from a hobby into a massive global game. It rode the rise of browser games by being one of the best. Peak success was reached in roughly 2009. In order to keep up with market demand the company expanded rapidly without establishing a consistent operational culture and procedures. They iterated as fast as possible to capitalize on game growth - this is how we saw the game move from T1, T2, T3 and T3.5 so quickly. In doing so that cut corners which haunt the game today (hello spaghetti code). The company relied on Legends for 99% of their of revenue, with I believe only 1 or 2 games being developed toward the end of this period.


    2010 - 2014 marks the period where the brothers become more serious about the business. They generated 55 million in revenue in 2009, with a lot of that as profit (I don't remember how much off hand). What to do with this? Expand the company! Become more than just Legends, put in all those lovely business processes, hire actual business people, buy other companies etc. They buy Bright Future Games and Northworks adding to their stable of games. They build and launch other games trying to capitalize on their early success. Part of the problem? Browser games are dying with the rise of mobile gaming. The hit Legends revenue is dropping just as company expenses are drastically increasing.


    T4 is launched, it takes longer than the previous version updates as its one of the larger updates. They are also hindered by the rapid growth of Legends and what they did to get there. Naturally after T4 they look to T5 and end up going too far for most of the community, requiring a spin off. The T5 update was designed to revolutionize the game and even add the much request mobile app. The level of change would naturally see T4 wound down over the next couple of years. The over extension from the previous years, changing face of the gaming market and poor reception to T5 result in big layoffs as the company seeks to stay afloat.


    2015 - Present This period marks a turn around for the company. There are a ton of changes at all levels of company over this period but it starts with change in CEO. The company works to stabilize revenue, rebuild the Legends team that they had only recently expected to shutter. The company enters the publishing game to generate more revenue at lower cost. In 2017 the new tribes debut, a community request 10 years in the making. 2018 sees another major community request in PtP. 2018 also sees the start of major community outreach through the Legends on Tour event, which is built on significantly in 2019. They finally begin the undertaking of untangling 12 years of code to improve the user experience, enable mobile functionality and open up new possibilities. In short the game and wider company undergo a major transformation, one that is still in progress. You can't just pull out of a hat the right people, build the right culture and wave your hand to fix code. It is a marathon not a sprint, especially in a game that takes 8 months.


    For a game that 4 years ago they expected to shutter they have made remarkable progress. Not to mention that as a company it has matured into a founder led startup to a real gaming company. You have to keep all this history in mind because it has great impact on our little corner. The game will never replicate the old experience, even if they gave us the exact same game as it used to be. But they are working hard on giving us a new but similar experience, one that we can enjoy. Making everyone happy isn't easy but they are doing their best despite the challenges the game and company have faced. The community isn't what it once was but it still exists and it has potential - that is reason enough to try.


    If you really think it is too late, why are you here? Why play? Why take the time to post?

  • 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.

    I have a 750/750 Mbps internet connection, this should guarantee 100% same second waves every single time.

    I can tell you: it does not... it's more like 70%, so no: it's not about internet connection anymore.

    It's how fast your pages are loaded, and this is hugely browser dependant.

    Light browsers load them faster than big browsers like Chrome.


    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...

    Because many years ago, TG limited same second waves to 4 per second because we could level an entire village in a single second without the possibility to snipe.
    This was way overpowered, and the knowledge to send such waves was secured pretty tightly, to keep it in the elite groups. So newbies weren't able to retaliate either.
    So they added forced lag into it to make sure no demolishing wave was unsnipeable.


    Now external programs like your "good old script like Wavebuilder" are bypassing that built-in lag, making it essentially cheating.

  • How fast your pages load is completely irrelevant lol


    On my old busted up laptop the pages can load 10 mins later and theyre still same second

    Post was edited 1 time, last by playingwithfire: removed swear/pushing Crunchie off the stool at the pub ().