[COM] Discussion about the 🔥 Legends on Tour 2020 - Summit 🔥

fnx wrote:

and it would be good if there is a time for the wonder release. Like a month to the cps release.

This is more or less exactly what my initial thoughts were. Randomized spawns, but with at least enough time to build some infra and support villages, but not as perfectly as we see now. I am not sure about how the randomization should be done - obviously as fixed as the artefacts will not work. Also, can't be done so randomly that one quad will have a huge advantage just from WW spawn (i.e. one quad has WW in center/on borders, while another quad has in the middle of the quad). Perhaps something like 2-3 WW guaranteed per quad, and then they can spawn within certain ranges. Think this needs a proper discussion with the community at large (as much as it's possible to engage the community at all), and of course the game center.

For UD, I was actually considering if it would be possible to nerf it without making it useless for other things than WW. I don't really like excluding WWs from diet effects - with the large hammers we see these days, I think it's too big of a nerf to the WW defense. I know we have seen some huge WW defs too, but I'd argue it's easier to produce a couple of 800k+ armies than it is to stack 15m+ def (especially without UD). I also like the tactical/strategical aspects of swapping between diets and architects. Maybe reduce UD effect to 40% reduced crop, instead of 50%? or even a bit lower? It would reduce the usage before WW time, but still be better before WW than LDs, and it'd still be worth more than LD (which means capturing it at arte drop, or stealing it is rewarded) at WW time, but less so.

I do not mean that the ww should be excluded from all the large effects. Only excluded from the unique. The UA and the UD are too big of an edge for the wonder. Specially the ramp up of defense that is produced with the UD.

So, either removal of the unique effect from the wonder or else make two of UAs and two of UDs, on opposing sides of the map. This one does not look doable to me either

Ah my bad... probably I should have worded it differently.

"This includes the artifacts, that should be totally random in quadrant vs having fix locations."

I wrote "random IN QUADRANT" meaning that the 1/4th of the total artifacts spawning in the quadrant should be randomly spawning instead of being on fix locations.

I never meant it like having all artifacts be randomly distributed.

Right now we have N artifacts that are split equally (when possible, since some are uniques) in each quadrant, and then placed at fix locations. This allows some not so sportive tactics that take advantage of registering "friendly accounts" at the right time to get out of protection just before the arties are unbanned, thus allowing close catas and giving an unfair advantage.

I just want to get rid of this, and having the 1/4 in a quadrant spawning at any coordinate (minus grey or such) means a clean and fair game for their conquest.

Let me know if it's common opinion that I need a better wording / clarification about that part, and I will edit the intro in the other thread accordingly

Marduk_COM wrote:

This allows some not so sportive tactics that take advantage of registering "friendly accounts" at the right time to get out of protection just before the arties are unbanned, thus allowing close catas and giving an unfair advantage.

For this purpose, I did give another suggestion in the suggestion box too. Let me know what you potential representatives think of it.

(This is besides adding a greater randomness to make the artifacts more fun) Add a wall to the natars. Natars have roman walls, so they come down really easy if a rammer is used with the hammer. But this will, on the other hand, make the snatching with ghost hammers really costly. I'm not talking about a full lvl 20 wall either, but rather a level 10 wall or something to give second thoughts to those who plan ghost hammers to steal cross-quad arties. That above method is an abuse of the system; I do like it of course, but it is an abuse still. Therefore, it should have a higher price

Somehow, fnx, I think that adding an higher wall just means they need slightly more troops. But those troops are expendable... wouldn't be just a matter of a bigger push to the "helping" accounts ?

If you're up to go to the effort of getting an account registered on purpose, pushing it a bit more would be sort of relative.

Personally i would still prefer a randomization of the coordinates, this way if such account is made , at least would need luck to be actually near an arty, thus limiting its usage and purpose.

To prevent account in BP to do cata village... can be easier preventing them from sending attack in BP (only raid allowed). Completely randomizing arties spawn is more to prevent anyone with legit cata village to pick them If this is the purpose I dont like. As well as fnx proposal to build wall to stop ghosts

fnx wrote:

I do not mean that the ww should be excluded from all the large effects. Only excluded from the unique. The UA and the UD are too big of an edge for the wonder. Specially the ramp up of defense that is produced with the UD.

So, either removal of the unique effect from the wonder or else make two of UAs and two of UDs, on opposing sides of the map. This one does not look doable to me either

You don't think it's okay if the UD is just nerfed numerically? I do get that it would still be strong(er than LD), but on the other hand, I've also seen some good fights and OC planning around UD/UA over the years. It would still be more valuable than LD, but less so.

cris@ wrote:

To prevent account in BP to do cata village... can be easier preventing them from sending attack in BP (only raid allowed). Completely randomizing arties spawn is more to prevent anyone with legit cata village to pick them If this is the purpose I dont like. As well as fnx proposal to build wall to stop ghosts

I like the fight around cata points and such. As long as it's actually a fight, and not just accounts in BP. I suggested the same to BB after you pulled the trick on com1; either disallow those accounts from sending on anything but oases, or allow raid only as you said.

However, this would still allow those accounts to be set up in time so their protection runs out just when they have to launch... Though at least with the confederacy changes, they have to be in the alliance now to get pushed... Not really anything to do about it, other than teams not exploiting it...

Edit: perhaps closing registration a week or so before artes, and then re-opening after would be an option?

Way more than a week before plans AND normal arties, mads.

There's hardly a reason to join a server 4 months after it started. at that point the registration should be already closed.

Meant before artes, not plans, sorry. I think it's fair enough for it to be open for some time after day 100 for late joiners. But yeah, should be closed way before plans for good.

Marduk_COM wrote:

Somehow, fnx, I think that adding an higher wall just means they need slightly more troops. But those troops are expendable... wouldn't be just a matter of a bigger push to the "helping" accounts ?

cris@ wrote:

As well as fnx proposal to build wall to stop ghosts

how come you guys don't understand what i mean. Marduk, the aim of the wall is not to increase the count for catapults required. It is to require bigger ghost hammers to clear them. While the closer villages will just require a few hundred of rams on top of their own hammer. The ghosts will get affected, nothing will change for the local players.

and Cris, the aim of the wall is not to stop ghosts, rather to make it more costly so that the arti cleaners will become selective, or rather pay the proper price when they capture one. Right now, any noob can build an easy 6k EIs in a village to capture a small arti (even 4 to 5k in a non pre-made server). Or build a 9k and go without a hero (numbers might vary based on servers). But if this cost increases from 6k to 12k or 15k of EIs per arti without affecting the local players' hammer sizes that try to clear with the siege accompanied by some additional rams due to the wall, that'll be an indirect nerf to the ghost hammers required to clear the arties.

I am not against the villages being utilized as closer catapults. That much should be already clear. I am one of the co-founders of this tactic afterall I just believe that since not all the sides are equally strong and at the same levels, it gives an unfair edge to the teams that prepare against the rest. The least Travian has to do is to make the players pay a proper price for it, in form of having one fewer hammer per ghosted aritfact which can happen if the wall is added.

fnx wrote:

just believe that since not all the sides are equally strong and at the same levels, it gives an unfair edge to the teams that prepare against the rest. The least Travian has to do is to make the players pay a proper price for it, in form of having one fewer hammer per ghosted aritfact which can happen if the wall is added.

You seriosuly belive that in a game like travian, planing,experience & commitment shouldnt be rewarded?
Every alliance or player have the same possibilities to create ghosts or cata villages for artifacts so i dont buy the "unfair edge" arguemnt at all im so confused.

However i saw earlier in the thread there was discussions about new accounst to prevent losing catas right before spawn or similar, which i totally agree is a problem & a very dirty trick that shouldnt work but making the arts completely random like Mazzini suggest would just ruin the game completely for people who put time & effort into planning art releases.

I would like to hear from Mentally as well. Cause these proposal might have huge impact on game

I agree with Olof, planning, experience and commitment are factors that make this game interesting, as well as creativity.

I'm a bit scared of the word "abusing" related to game mechanics: the BP accounts to cata natar is a dirty move, never denied it, but can be prevented by simply either closing registration 10-15 days before arties or just not allowing BP accounts to send normal attack. Creating strategies using game mechanics is never an abuse, otherwise we can only play in one way... and it will be boring

Legalizing techs ruined game for many people who were and still are very dedicated to their game. Maybe it's time to shake things up and make it more interesting.

Loffe wrote:

You seriosuly belive that in a game like travian, planing,experience & commitment shouldnt be rewarded?
Every alliance or player have the same possibilities to create ghosts or cata villages for artifacts so i dont buy the "unfair edge" arguemnt at all im so confused.

am I speaking Chinese here? I really feel I might be. Let me give it another go with capitalizing the key words this time... I am NOT AGAINST this strategy. I AM AGAINST IT BEING TOO EASY TO DO. I am saying, that teams "PREPARATION" required is VERY SMALL, COMPARED TO the "REWARDS" they get.

Is it getting any clear? I'm saying that 6k EIs for a small arti has to be NERFED without affecting the local players. The preparation required should be equal to the reward they get. Make it 12k per small arty by adding a wall to them so that:

Planning, experience & commitment get rewarded PROPORTIONALLY.

Now, if you want to argue that the 6k EIs ghost required is not Over Powered by any means, then please go ahead and argue that. I am against this small factor that the ghost hammer required is too small for the reward they get in return.

Also, the suggestion of randomizing arties is a fine one. The game has been figured out, we should make it more unpredictable. And randomizing arties is not going to kill the strategies of the arti steals at all... Rather, it will finally pave the way for some new analysis to get done towards the game. It's not like building catapult villages is not going to be required at all, it'll be more like build them and see what spawns close to that region. You will just need more catapult villages spread out. Through some experience, I'm sure we can find some new hot zones for arties and figure out the new trends. Basically, anything that takes the game out of this stagnant phase of having every single day of the server figured out is fine by me.

fnx wrote:

The game has been figured out,

This.

TG should focus on making the game less predictive instead of making it easier to implement well established strategies.

Thanks for the mention @cris@ .

I feel like there is not much you can randomise about the artefacts besides the small spawns, without it getting unbalanced. The Uniques gotta be somewhat close to the center in order for other quads to have proper steal attempts, or they're fairly 'safe'. Whereas smalls could be varied a lot more ye. But I do agree that making them more random than they are rn would allow for a fun twist.

I kinda like how theres several hammers that are to be made for different purposes. Ghosts specifically for quick small pickups and proper hammers for the rest etcetera. Allows for more coordinated planning and therefore a higher skill ceiling. The EI ghosts do go through the Natars like butter, but they can always tweak and add a bit more cavalry def.

I think closing registrations shouldnt be a thing. Have had many times where I invited friends to join a server at late stages, just for them to get a feel of the game while I can protect them because of size. Making it that BP players cant do normal attacks would be an easy fix for the BP artie 'abuse'

My main focus is less on little tweaks. I think this game is balanced pretty damn well. The one thing we gotta work on is spicing things up, keeping it fresh, being creative and bringing in new players. I'm not very bothered with needing 5k EI or 6k EI for a small arti.

Ok guys, so this is my final question. What are your thoughts on the below suggestions? This suggestion which got ignored, I had suggested before they introduced their confederacy system of reinforcements in order to stop the spikes. Still though, there are some good suggestions in here.

Everyone agrees that multies are bad,so I want TG to implement this. First, I'll mention the benefits.

1. Techs will be distinguishable

2. Personal farms will be distinguishable

3. The incentives of having personal farms will reduce

How to implement:

Whenever an account goes 5 days inactive (no logins), the rally point of that player gets reset. All the troops elsewhere is pulled, all the troops parked goes back. And this account, starts making 2x(or more) the resources. Reinforcements for this player gets stopped.

Advantages:

(Let's call the inactive, account D. And the multiaccounter, "M". )

-An account D goes inactive for 5 days, now he's a better farm with the boosted production. The raiders will have better incentives now.

-A player M, wants to multiaccount to get an account D inactive and personally farm the boosted production. "Everyone" on the map can also now raid this account M, and if he wants to defend it, he'll have to log there to turn on the reinforcements. And then defend it. This will mean that the account is back to producing 1x resources, and the raiders who notice this will report it to the mh for further investigations.

-This leaves with the players that continue to go with the 1x multi accounts. For that we require a re-definition of that infamous 1.1 rule:

"An account is solely allowed to play for his own benefit."

Here, we re-interpret the "own benefit" and ask the MH to take actions in the below cases after investigations:

*Reinforcements

-When you reinforce someone with permanent defense, you're doing it for your own benefit (and team's benefit) since you open up more crops to replace defense. When someone feeds your permanent defense, he does so for his own benefit too, to protect himself from intruders.

-When you reinforce someone with offense, you do this for your own benefit. When someone feeds your offense, he does "not" do it for his own benefit. So, this should be bannable. (with a warning perhaps)

*Market Place

In ww servers, the market capacity should go back to what it was. Both the trade office and the commerce bonus should get back to half their value. Doing this, would allow the limited cheating of being able to trade route with the marketplace. However, it will again get limited to the market place size and it will not become a valid strategy to move the capital resources. This should not be removed, since during the servers, occasionally, there comes a requirement for boosted push to a neighbor who just suffered a hit to crop fields or something like that.

*Raid

This bit can only work with report & investigation. If the MH notices that the players are pushing and moving more resources than 1hour per week times 7, they could ban the account. But if the Raider is moving the resources towards a team project such as the wonder, or an arti. Then it gets allowed.

Disadvantages:

Nothing comes to my mind. Unless multiaccounters quitting is considered one.

And people who do not want to raid? or using the farmlist is mandatory?

fnx you're obsessed with parking, none in a proper state of mind will park troops on a multi. If it is team work you want to prevent, dont forget travian is a team game. Moreove with confed system you cannot reinforce outside alliance/confed, but every decent leader seeing enemies raiding their member will do something to stop this, Without warning enemy raiders.

I will think and write more later, but I can start with one thing.

I don't see the merit of doubling the production of an account going inactive, because that would just encourage people to make extra accounts, grow them a bit and let them go inactive to have a farming base.

Sorry, someone stops playing / has problems of any kind and goes grey for a day or a month, should simply produce the same amount is now producing.

Moreover I don't feel right to have someone playing for months, reinforcing maybe the ww or a wwk, then vanishing ( we all experienced this situation caused by personal issues of some player at least once in our gaming time ) and that resulting in all his team effort ( troops sent to defend someone ) being removed on auto.

I can agree if, due to the current changes, he is removed from the wing/confed... but I don't see a reason otherwise to punish his efforts to help the team.