🗳️ POLL: New gameworlds set up

🔥 Vote your LOT2020 candidate 🔥
The voting phase ends, Sunday, March 1st at 23:59 GMT+1. ➡️ TO THE SURVEY ⬅️

  • Dear community,

    In the past few months, we did receive some feedback and requests from you to have all languages available in all gameworlds. Together with the Game Center, we started to evaluate the possible feasibility of this request and we came to the conclusion that technically it can be done. But there is a but.

    In order to be able to have all languages available in all gameworlds we will need to change the structure of the gameworlds a bit by having all of them under the same domain.


    The first idea we had, which is NOT the final idea, is to use the same approach other games like League of Legends have regarding servers. To have regional servers, where the region could be something like Europe, Asia, America (still having all languages available everywhere and servers on the same domain) .


    We are aware that as for all ideas, there are various pros and cons for it. And we already started to compile a list.


    PROS

    • The gameworlds will be more populated
    • There will be the possibility for more variation within gameworlds set up
    • The gameworlds will start more often
    • It will be easier to make new international friends
    • The game experience will be spicier and more exciting

    CONS

    • There could be a feeling of losing the national identity as your favourite gameworld name/number won’t be there any more
    • There could be some difficulties to form confederacies if you are not aware in which gameworld your friend will start playing
    • The tournament will need to have a different set up as well
    • Some traditions may be lost

    Before we start thinking more actively about this new gameworld set up we would like to hear your opinion, this is why today we are opening a feedback poll in all the communities.

    If you wish to help us to take the better decision, it is important that besides voting in the poll you also express the reason for your vote in the comments of this thread.


    Please, also ask your friends to participate in the poll,

    Thanks for your help,

    Your Travian: Team

  • POLL: How do you feel regarding the possibility of a change in the gameworlds set up as described above? 79

    1. I like it very much (29) 37%
    2. Somewhat i like it (23) 29%
    3. I do not like it at all (20) 25%
    4. it's the same for me (7) 9%

    .

  • Personally I can see this bringing more variety in servers, those that fit beginners better and those for true veterans or different speed options, small maps, big maps etc. Languages shouldn't be an issue if players of language/nationality X would be directed to certain servers over others, or the map quarters would have flag icons. Or what if the servers would be named after a common element like 'ts.midsummer.xx', telling this server has a long summer truce...

    samisu_sig.png

    Post was edited 1 time, last by Samisu ().

  • We are currently playing nordics.travian.com and have already started there with an international team. Some of our players don't speak any of the Scandinavian languages - but after initial communication problems they are already coping very well. Therefore, the language of the game interface is not the big problem right now. English as an additional selectable language would be a certain innovation, I think.


    To offer all languages on all servers, however, I see critically. Not in the actual gameplay, but rather a certain clustering on the game interface itself. The communication between the players (especially in an alliance) becomes more and more difficult with too many worldwide languages. How does it help to have the game interface in your own language if communication with other players in the alliance is hindered by language barriers? This can lead to a loss of gaming fun.


    For us, a regional expansion of individual servers would therefore be potentially better - for example Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Southern Europe. On which domain this will take place is not important.

  • We are currently playing nordics.travian.com and have already started there with an international team. Some of our players don't speak any of the Scandinavian languages - but after initial communication problems they are already coping very well. Therefore, the language of the game interface is not the big problem right now. English as an additional selectable language would be a certain innovation, I think.


    To offer all languages on all servers, however, I see critically. Not in the actual gameplay, but rather a certain clustering on the game interface itself. The communication between the players (especially in an alliance) becomes more and more difficult with too many worldwide languages. How does it help to have the game interface in your own language if communication with other players in the alliance is hindered by language barriers? This can lead to a loss of gaming fun.


    For us, a regional expansion of individual servers would therefore be potentially better - for example Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Southern Europe. On which domain this will take place is not important.

    Good point(s)!


    To avoid language barriers, there either needs to be a way to select worlds where you can easily survive and communicate using your own language, and those worlds where you can pick a common language like English - or the game needs to offer ways to communicate that break through language barriers, like pre-written messages, pins, calls-to-action. Your idea of separating the game worlds based on geolocation sounds like a smart option as well I think...

  • PROS

    • The gameworlds will start more often

    Why is that considered as a good thing?

    For years people complained just in FI servers that they started too often and that caused people to leave after first bad operations or after they failed to def operations or missed on some key artifacts etc. Because it was just too easy to start over in a new server when there was always starting a new one. This resulted in really boring end games in majority of the servers and for years the FI4 was the only server where people in general tried until the end. (This was more of an issue in 1x speed servers).


    I can see more players per server as an upgrade to the current situation but there should not be servers starting every month or so because that will just discourage people from playing the whole server and actually keep trying after first bad things have happened.


    Maybe having like Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Southern Europe -servers, as Agata said, that start only every 3-4 months would be best because then the servers would have more players and you would be some what limited on the possibilities of jumping to new servers after few hits.

  • I can see more players per server as an upgrade to the current situation but there should not be servers starting every month or so because that will just discourage people from playing the whole server and actually keep trying after first bad things have happened.

    I absolutely agree with you!

  • One speed server on fix (nordicksx) is good, and i don't see any point having parallel ones. Even now people complain that the break between servers is too short - it should always be at least a month. Problem isn't number of servers, but number of players on servers.


    On fix people have played with people they know, and the actual game might be the secondary thing. If there would not be the same people, they wouldn't play the game. I think that's something important to keep in mind.

  • I think it would be good with larger regions. I see that others commented on regions such as northern Europe, southern Europe etc which is good but I also wish 2-3 times a year start of large regions like the whole of Europe. There will be different challenges and a different dimension. The language could be good if you could choose your own but English can be the basis. I also think that the speed should be revised if any change is made, ordinary can be experienced slow and x3 very fast if you, for example, have a work ;). Why not more servers with x2 or at least x1.5. It makes the game a bit shorter which can lead to more active on more servers.

  • (google translate)


    Hello everyone,



    The problem of lack of players is not in the location of the servers ...



    New players sign up thinking that they will have fun without having to bust huge amounts of money and when they realize how the game works to be successful, they give up.



    There is a big gap between those who blow money and those who play with money.



    The new players think they are playing, but are only playing because they let them evolve and later conquer their villages.


    There is no balance between strategy / time spent on gambling AND spending large amounts of money



    In order not to disappoint the new players, they should immediately inform them of the following:



    Whoever plays with gold can finish the constructions / research at any time they want;



    Gold players can make NPCs and choose the resources they need;



    Whoever plays with gold can magically transform any resource into cereal and feed more troops;



    Whoever plays with gold can automatically withdraw the troops he has in the village when he is attacked;



    Whoever plays with gold can transfer armys from one village to another.


    While the majority of players colonize in new regions, those who blow money manage to cause large armys to appear in isolated areas out of nowhere.


    There is much more ...



    WHO FINISHES GOLD CONSTRUCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FEED TROOP WITH NPC AND VICE-VERSE.


    THE GAME WOULD BE MORE BALANCED.



    In games of regions they don't catch me anymore.


    I am not going to transfer armys to an isolated region to burst gold.



    Balance the game and there will be many players ...



    Do not waste time on ways to earn more money without making fun for everyone ...



    Good battles for all ...

  • My big concern in making it regional (europe, asia etc) is that, their will be more people, and more experienced people, who knows how to exploit the system. An example is the tournament server, where the server is dominated by people with multiple tech accounts and and tech-alliances. This feature is not as big of a problem on the nordic-servers as it is/was on tournament servers. However, my concern is, that if it's made more regional, with more nationalities on each server, the exploitation of the "rules" will become a bigger problem.


    Another fact is, that I like, that I can speak my own language to any of the other nationalities on the nordics-servers. (of course not the Fins lol). I've been away from travian in the last 5-6 years, and began playing again in mid 2019 on a random nordics server. Here I found multiple people whom I've played with 6-10 years ago. This would not have happened if it was with German, english, turks etc. I like how it is setup now - the only thing is, I would like way more people on the servers.


    More people on the servers is a huge problem. Like user E5tr4t3g4 said on the comment on top of this. Newcommers to travian are so so so FAR behind gold-users and experienced people. It's not fun to begin this game, and not know how to get 15c early, not know that it's Pay-to-get-the-best-15c and pay-to-win. Some people use insane amounts of gold. I don't care that they do for a very small early boost for the account. I think a big problem is, that travian games (TG) wants to earn more money. I get it - but it's beginning to look more and more like those pay to win-apps.


    Make pay-to-join servers instead, where all features are enabled. Make it cost around 10-30€ so everybody can join. And make free servers, to lurk in newcommers, so they want to play on the funnier and more serious pay-to-join servers.


    Please, make the game more balanced. Make it easier to be new at the game. Make commercials on facebook, and let new people join with 100 gold, so they have the opportunity to get a good start. Make changes, to get people to continue playing. Make farming more attractive - farming is fun, if it was "easier". New players and not-dual-accounts doesnt have the time to microfarm 24/7 and sending farmlists every 5 minutes. Make more natar-villages, make them random all over the map. Please get a button, so we can send all farmlists at once, instead of having to scroll up and down to send +10 lists.


    Stop making ridicoulus content like the wavebuilder AND make the players pay for this feature, that is easy to achieve through K-meleon, firefox. It's a good thing the wavebuilder, it makes new people learn and enjoy sending attacks. But don't charge 50 gold for a thing, that should be included in the game.


    Please. Learn that you don't have to charge few people a lot of money. If you have 200 active gold users on a server, who uses a lot of gold - it would be much much more attractive as a company, to get 2000 active gold users, who doesn't use as lot money, but overall you will earn more.


    I think that was, what I had on my mind right now. I went far away from the topic. Back to the topic. I get, why you want to make regional servers. If you decide to go with the regional servers. Please make some special servers. Some classic servers, T3,6 or T2,5 for the players who enjoyed the game once, and is still hanging around. And maybe, try to make some sort of email-function, so if you enjoyed played with X players and X-alliance, you can have a overview somewhere, where your friends and alliances, are playing somewhere. I can ellaborate this idea if you'd like.


    oh. And... make the servers shorter. not speed servers - but the slow-servers.. Make them "shorter. Like 60-80 days to artefacts etc.

    Moo

  • Very interesting suggestions so far! Thanks for the feedback & comments.


    Fewer servers so more (active) players would join the ones running - is a myth. The number of concurrent servers is based on the needs of the player community per each domain. I know it sounds like a good idea to have only 3 or 4 servers, but having no new servers starting leads to no new players and to no second chances for those who wish to start fresh.


    Newcomers are far behind, I agree based on my very own experiences. I lost all my progress, then I lost it again, and again...
    Newcomers need experienced players to protect them and teach the ropes. Can't do it alone. Beginner friendly server or way to start the game, so you have time to find an alliance for yourself when you know no-one 🤔. What if the game automatically connects you with a neighboring alliance after a set time?


    On entry fee servers, Moo_DK would you like to start a new thread here: Suggestions or even two? One thread for Entry fee servers or limited gold usage servers, and one for suggestions on how the game could support newcomers better? This way we can keep this thread on topic, and continue with the other two topics in a more focused way. I'm sure people would like to hear more of your thoughts and join these topics!

    samisu_sig.png

    Post was edited 1 time, last by Samisu ().

  • Server without possibility to buy gold (or limit it to relatively small amount like 1600/month) would be nice. Now its just p2w. I know TG wont buy the idea, as they want money, but that would be pretty cool. Another commonly asked thing is removal of AH, as it just adds up to the p2w element. Sure, it would need some balancing for the missions, as otherwise it would be just unnecessary RNG. I dont have any problem putting 300€ into the game on first day, but most people wont do it.

  • Fewer servers so more (active) players would join the ones running - is a myth. The number of concurrent servers is based on the needs of the player community per each domain. I know it sounds like a good idea to have only 3 or 4 servers, but having no new servers starting leads to no new players and to no second chances for those who wish to start fresh.

    How can this be a myth when there has been literal alliances hopping from one server to new server after artifacts, bad hits etc. on FI servers in multiple occasions?

    Of course majority of the server might be new players or players who were not playing at the server start on other servers but there has also been whole alliances from on going servers resulting only one actual alliance playing on the previous server for last 50-100 days. This has resulted in really boring servers trough out the history of FI servers so there is no possible way it is a myth.

  • How can this be a myth when there has been literal alliances hopping from one server to new server after artifacts, bad hits etc. on FI servers in multiple occasions?

    Of course majority of the server might be new players or players who were not playing at the server start on other servers but there has also been whole alliances from on going servers resulting only one actual alliance playing on the previous server for last 50-100 days. This has resulted in really boring servers trough out the history of FI servers so there is no possible way it is a myth.

    The myth part is thinking that making servers scarce and "forcing" players to rejoin the ongoing rounds where they already lost their progress would motivate anyone. There will always be people who only join a round if they can start fresh from the start, and not in the middle of an ongoing round. If servers were only created for those who are willing to try again after huge casualties, that would lead to less opportunities for people who join the game for other reasons. Although I do understand how frustrating it must be to see one of the best (if not the only) competition leave to a new server.


    Instead of thinking how limiting the servers / making chances of starting a fresh game scarce - we should be focusing on how to support those who do need a fresh start on an ongoing round. If the round is already dominated by an alliance or two, what's the likelihood of a losing alliance rising and winning after suffering huge casualties already once? It's natural that an alliance moves to where they have a chance of winning.


    Things mentioned in the first post will make servers more populated so there should always be tougher fights and alliances. That's one solution to keep the rounds challenging while letting those who so wish, start a fresh new round.

  • Things mentioned in the first post will make servers more populated so there should always be tougher fights and alliances. That's one solution to keep the rounds challenging while letting those who so wish, start a fresh new round.

    More populated servers is not the same as more competitive servers.

  • You can see the problem two ways:


    TG needs to be able offer fresh server all the time in order to cater players wanting to start the game whenever they want. This assumes players won't wait an extra week or two for the server start, which implies players are not too keen on the game. This also makes it possible for entire alliances to change the server, if they fuck something up too bad on other server. Sure, it might give more players in total, as low motivation players start the server which started 2 days ago, but its just statistics, and will not add anything to the server itself.


    Other way of looking is offering new servers every 3 weeks or so. This wouldnt give as many players in total, as there wouldnt be always just started server, but the ones who actually want to play the game are willing to wait for the extra week or two for the start. These players are also most likely willing to play a bit more than just 1 hour on first day, and they are not just a number on registered players on the server- statistics.


    One player focusing on a single server should always be a better thing than a player making multiple accounts on 10 different servers and playing all super casually until dropping the game.

  • New players sign up thinking that they will have fun without having to bust huge amounts of money and when they realize how the game works to be successful, they give up.

    You can have fun without using huge amounts of money. You need to learn to play.