Anglosphere Ambassador's Open Forum

  • I think that last point is a good distinction for TG to make about any topic. What is the opinion of players who play on:


    1. Casual accounts

    2. Semi-hardcore accounts

    3. Hardcore, 24/7 account


    ...about any specific topic.


    TG has had many random surveys over the years, but I doubt they really took this into account. Certainly not while also taking into account playing style (heavy fighting vs heavy simming for instance). I have no clue about the grey area specifics, but it sounds like Blackblade might also not be taking these distinctions into account...?

  • Something to probably think about and many have actually asked for.



    (No, not this specific example, but the concept of a new/better Gaul specific building.)


    I suggest a new Gaul building, though trapper is a nice addition early on, after a few weeks (1x speed) it is completely irrelevant.


    Teutons Brewery had a boost from 10% bonus to 20%.


    HDT had nothing, but perhaps giving it an account effect would be a nice addition so they also receive an upgrade. (small side-suggestion)


    Regading the Gauls, while you can build the trapper in each village, I suggest the 2nd one would have an account effect so you'd only need one of those in a village of your choice or for it to be capital exclusive.


    I had the idea that it would give gaul defensive units a defensive % boost. It would be something like:

    Building lv10 = Phalanx +5% boost.

    Building lv15 = Phalanx 10% and Druid 5% boost.

    Building lv20 = Phalanx 15%, Druid 10% and Haeduan 5% boost.


    Building prices would be similar to that of Tournament Square, as it would be quite a good bonus, so it should have a fitting price to what it gives you.


    This one isn't meant to be taken 100% seriously as it's just an example of a building. There's likely a million other ideas from other users about it, which I'd like to see as well.

  • So instead of listening to the community they're looking for solutions to problems that do not exist. Got'cha.

  • I've come across a lot of people who would disagree. The combination of CP loss, Natar BS and being in the middle of absolutely everyone makes it so very few are willing to put up with it. Of those very few who do, most don't do it well. I personally would remove it entirely but instead buffing it seemed to be the idea that carried the day in Munich - hence the handful of 18c cropper that will wind up there eventually. I think the grey is one (of many) elements that push most players/alliances out and reduces the overall action potential of the server.

    I think it's the same problem with what Blackblade said about the casual players don't want to put up with the constant fighting that grey area can provide etc.
    It doesn't make the zone bad, it's the same as the brewery buff good players already used it at 10% understood the power of it while worse players didnt understand the beauty of it and just saw downsides.

    Grey area is amazing if you prefer compact alliances with tight teamwork, since it's so many good croppers close to each other.

    I think there is also a distinction that needs to be made with regards to server size.


    The grey gives control over construction plans, unique artifacts and a central wonder. From the center of a quad outwards gives control over large and small artifacts and an outer WW.


    If a server is small enough to only warrant 60 members in an alliance, going heavily grey hard handicaps you with regards to artifacts (Granted in such servers, stomps can come by often with 1 premade against a server of newer players. The argument can be bypassed on such servers). In a larger server where you might have multiple wings to an alliance / meta, you can afford a heavy grey presence because the outer players have an opportunity to grab those other artifacts.


    Of course, if you just want to play a spoiler alliance, the grey zone is certainly a strong choice.

    Nontheless forwarding would make it so easy
    Just put granary villages in a couple of hot areas for the DC to handle and every def acc can just turn on autopilot and que troops.

    I agree. Forwarding makes sense on PtP maps where there are locked regions and having to restart from scratch each time you need to populate a new area would heavily slow the pace of the game.


    On regular legends maps where things are more static, forwarding hubs are likely to tip the scales overly into the hands of defense.

    It also opens up options where a group of anvils way out on the edge of the map can easily sim up and reinforce an entire quad.


    EDIT: Got a bit caught up thinking merging was also involved. Merging stuff now in spoiler tag.

    It wasn't hard to rebuild such damage anyway, just took a little bit of resource distribution management and some extra time. But that makes sense when a village gets CK'd... you'rd supposed to give that person a hard time.


    Second of all, it ruined infra buildings management a bit. So now it's quite a bit easier to rush for lv19 fields pre-arti stage, or anytime you need an extra granary in your hammer village, the marketplace gives you just that while still being able to NPC...

    ^This

    So much this.

    Doesn't even go into that the action is a trade with a non-player character.


    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.

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

  • I started putting a reply together on another computer but the draft seems not to have saved :(

    And naturally all that matters is what you agree with. Some ambassador.

    Of course it doesn't, but being an Ambassador does not preclude me from a personal opinion and engagement in debate with the community.

    Can you get them to bring back hero names at least?

    I would certainly like this back.


    Blackblade might also not be taking these distinctions into account...?

    Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You are right it is important to keep perspective about how different parts of the community view an issue. Using your groupings, Hardcore is probably the smallest group, semi-hardcore larger but casual being the largest. That said the opposite is probably true based on the amount of gold spent. I point that out because from a usual democratic perspective, the hard core and semi-hardcore players would probably lose out to casual interests. But if (as I suspect) they spend more gold combined, that gives them more weight on issues than their pure % of total players would suggest.


    There are other issues as well. The number of players from any of those groups that actively participate in discussions is VERY low. Probably an inverse relationship like gold use, but there is still very few people who engage on the issues and that is a problem. Even among the last poll they did I don't consider the turnout very good relative to the number of accounts and players out there.


    All I'm saying is its hard to get a complete picture - which is part of why the Ambassador program exists now. The goal is to try and gather better information for them to make decisions. As I said above though, I do have my own opinions and will engage the community with them. But if the community is clearly for or against something I will make the known to the powers that be and try and fight for the community. When it came to Rule 1.1 in Munich, the Game Center wanted to just remove it. The majority position in the room was in support. Lotte (Germany) took the lead in fighting against that but I took an alternative route and tried to find a way to implement protections in line with the general purpose of the rule. While not ideal to the majority of the community, it is a far better possibility then the simple removal of the rules "playing for your own benefit" language.


    On the subject of the grey, I'll skip the quotes because its a PIA to get all the individual quotes I want on a laptop. I'll try and sum up what I've heard + what I think about the grey being bad:


    • Lack of CP really cripples you
    • The grey pushes out initial spawning - reducing early combat
    • The Natar attacks make it so only a small amount of players can even attempt to settle there
    • Oasis bonuses aren't really that enticing
    • Being smack in the middle over time makes you a huge target and support is minimal because most alliances settle out and are concentrated far from the grey
    • The grey is usually underutilized - most alliances/players ignore it, with some servers there being only a couple or even no players in the grey
    • Grey WWs are worthless

    I think that contains most if not al of the arguments I've heard. Personally I don't like the Grey but it's also not something I really care about when compared to a lot of other issues. In Munich I argued to give it a buff of some kind and we ended up with adding some 18c to it... which was not at all what I had in mind but I don't think it's a "bad" option. Obviously based off those commenting here, outright removal would be unacceptable and so far there is support for leaving it as is. I don't expect additional changes beyond the 18c plan at this point.


    I will say one thing though, based on what I said earlier - there is a very small number of people engaging on this issue. I would also argue those who have commented would fall into the hardcore and semi-hardcore groups. So it would be nice to hear from both more people and from more casual players.

  • Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You are right it is important to keep perspective about how different parts of the community view an issue. Using your groupings, Hardcore is probably the smallest group, semi-hardcore larger but casual being the largest. That said the opposite is probably true based on the amount of gold spent. I point that out because from a usual democratic perspective, the hard core and semi-hardcore players would probably lose out to casual interests. But if (as I suspect) they spend more gold combined, that gives them more weight on issues than their pure % of total players would suggest.


    If I'd give an estimate for the older Travian versions, the playerbase distribution would consist of something like 60% casual, 30% semi-hardcore, and 10% hardcore players . Kingdoms went over the edge on purpose and had perhaps 90-95% casual players. I don't know what TL is like these days, but I'd expect the numbers to be closer to the old (T2/T3) versions than to kingdoms. It's important to maintain that distribution if TG wants to keep its playerbase intact. Go too close to the casual side, and you get boring servers without any gameplay value. You lose the hardcore and semi-hardcore players, so basically, you get Kingdoms and won't attract any new players. Go too far to the hardcore side and with this game (as opposed to an actually hardcore game like Leage of Legends) you'll lose the casual and most of the semi-hardcore players, meaning your playerbase will drop. In summation - TG should want to maintain a good distribution over the three groups. In the past however, every decision was geared solely towards new players (i.e. casual players). I fought against that for nearly a decade, lol, but nobody was listening. I hope that with this ambassador program they'll finally hear enough feedback to base their features off of all three groups.


    As is usually the case with pay-to-win games, 10% of the playerbase will likely be paying for 90% of TG's income. I'd suspect most of that 10% would be hardcore players, although I could easily be wrong. Either way, TG needs (high quality) feedback from all their groups. But as you state:

    There are other issues as well. The number of players from any of those groups that actively participate in discussions is VERY low. Probably an inverse relationship like gold use, but there is still very few people who engage on the issues and that is a problem. Even among the last poll they did I don't consider the turnout very good relative to the number of accounts and players out there.

    Yes. Even when a lot of feedback/participation is generated, the quality of that feedback will likely be extremely low, most of the time. Especially when ill-thought out polls are used. You'll have to sift through the garbage, the downies and the trolls to get anything useful on top of the probably non-representative data you'd get out of those polls. Good luck :P

    Since a vastly bigger number of players is typically participating in Discord/Skype alliance chats in comparison to this forum, a good approach could be to try and engage (say the top 30) alliance leaders on any server if you ever need specific feedback on something concrete. Have them talk it over in their own chats and report back, or try to get them on some specific secret supercool subforum or something if you want a continued discussion. Either way, getting useful information out of casual players would be hard. Casual players are usually casual for a reason, they typically don't care that much about the game, hence they don't know much about it. It seems a little inconsistent to get a player who barely plays the game heavily invested in giving high quality feedback. :P


    Either way, I think it's cool that this ambassador program thing now exists and I like the amount of effort you're obviously putting in. It almosts makes me want to play again. Now if they'd turn Kingdoms or Legends into a slightly more - but not too much - hardcore game, I might actually do just that...

  • I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already, but if TG is thinking of expanding/improving the crop finder, I'd like to see the ability to search for any combination of fields and oases (ie 5/4/3/6 with 50% wood, or 3/4/4/7 with 50% iron + 50% crop, etc)

  • Another idea: Add the ability (either rally point or village overview) to see, in one page, all of your troops currently defending a certain village. This would be very helpful for anvils trying to keep track of defense they've sent to other players.

  • This was actually rejected by HQ :P

    There are users in places where they need a VPN or TOR to access the game at all.

    Why would Trav allow the game to be played in countries where the game has been banned? That desperate?


    If it is like that, then .IN should never have been deleted and merged with .AU. I bet there were thousands more in .IN that there are in places where the game is banned.


    It's hard to understand their thought process in this. If a game is banned in a certain region, give up on it bruh!

    Dead. Everyone's dead.


    As4 - Apocalypse

  • If it is like that, then .IN should never have been deleted and merged with .AU. I bet there were thousands more in .IN that there are in places where the game is banned.

    .IN had more players then .AU i agree but most of the .IN players were non-golders i think that's the main reason why they decided to close down that domain ..