🗳️ 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? 214

    1. I like it very much (76) 36%
    2. I like it a little bit (29) 14%
    3. I don't like it at all (87) 41%
    4. It doesn't matter to me (22) 10%

    .

  • I like it very much.

    Firstly, the gameworlds have been withering. After this new innovation the gameworlds will be more populated!
    Secondly, gameworlds have been one-dimensional. With reformation there will be the possibility for more variation within gameworlds set up!

    That is just awesome. Really hope that this happens sooner rather than later.

  • When communities are established within a gameworld (alliances, confederations etc.) they seem to work best when they are made up of people who understand not only each other's language, but each other's values and cultural heritage.


    As well as contributing to like minded groups, this also contributes to opposing groups, which can have a huge effect on the war aspect of this game..


    If the game was mixed in a way which meant that the warring/friendly groupings were mixed into such homogenous groups that they lost their individual identities and their meaning for players looking for somewhere to belong, I believe the game as a whole would lose much of its attraction.


    I really enjoy playing with people from different parts of the world - YES (time zones help with strategies), but it is important to me that those players understand my way of thinking and I understand theirs. It is also important to me that opposing alliances feel like enemies i.e. they have different ways of playing the game and need to be looked at in a different way.


    I really believe that if you decide to turn Travian into a big melting pot you will lose its attraction for many of us. In fact, maybe that would be a good way of breaking the addiction many of us have for this game.


    If you have access to ingame messages, read them, and understand the importance of belonging to a group.


    Bilbo Baggins

  • Hi

    I am all for anything that improves the game and the experience, The only thing that I would have an issue with is if the length of time of the game shortened. I love the fact that a Legends game takes circa 8 months and I am quite happy to occasionally play the speed servers when they fit in with the time scale of the other servers but shorten the time scale of the Legends and I would be lost.

  • ok you want my opinion well here it is, this game now is all about making money for yourselves, I dont blame you for that, but with your greed you are pricing yourselves out of the market, many people have left and will not return, not only because of the pricing policy but because of the cheats and the fact that you do nothing about it when reported, look back you closed the UK the us the au servers because not enough people were playing, you started anglospere, to compensate for that. now this is not working so you want to change it again, the only way you can get people back is to sort out the multi accounts,scripts and bots being used, limit gold purchases to 100per week, stop all this stupid troop merging (for gold) people with money to burn win games, people like myself on a pention cannot afford to pay and play, and we sure cant play againsed cheats, so no I do not want more changes,

  • I think you already found the main pros and cons that those changes will have. I do believe that more populated server would be a big improvement, but I also believe that regional/national identity (such as alliances feuds, servers historys...) are big aspect to take into consideration.


    That brings me to consider other option and to take a second look to the way to the situation. I can't avoid thinking to this topic as a fusion to 2 different problems: in-game languages and domain fusions. I'm not a technician but I must say I find odd you can't implement different languages in a single domain. But. If that's the actual situation or, simply, it's an "industry choice" I would propose you this thoughts I've done:

    1) You put this topic as an aut-aut choice. Is it possible to find a more mediated solution? Like the partial, slow, reduction of national/regional servers while slowly increasing the regional/world servers? I think if the process is brought on slowly you have better chances to pick up more precise feedback!

    2) How you think you'd handle stuff like anglosphere domain? I playing there a server and I like a lot the fact that we have people from all over the globe. If you're going to have a specific domain for America and a different one for Eu, the situation I present is going to be a .com-exclusive. That's something I don't quite like.

    3) I wouldn't erase national domains completely. Maybe I'd decrease them, but not erase them. If we're going to have only regional/.com domains I see an additional downside. I'd play my national server and Eu server, because I think I'd find myself better in a more familiar environment and because I play with people I know. Without national domains I'd probably end up having more-of-the-same every time I start. With nationals I have more choices and more alternatives.


    In conclusion, I suggest you to proceed with caution and gradually. League of Legends can easily structure itself in a regional way because the game is the same in every part of the world and playing crossing domain would change basically nothing. I think this situation doesn't directly apply to this game: time-zone have a huge strategical influence and regional/national peculiarity have a bigger role. The idea have hige improvement potentials but I think you risk to burn the opportunity rushing into it.

  • I prefer Travian to other games for multiple reasons, the biggest difference being the setup for servers. I think that having a translator for igms would be more helpful even though we already use google translate to get the gist. Language is not the only barrier as stated above, cultural differences are also part of the game play. I prefer having a choice on where to expect to be able to find players accustomed to a specific style/ acceptable practices for game play. If I choose to play on a non anglo server, I expect different ways to reach the goal of winning. Combining things in the way suggested leaves out choice and options for players and makes things even more difficult for new players.


    To me, the hardest part always comes down to gold … It is extremely difficult to play and win without paying for features as it is. The new wave builder is wonderful in many ways, but having it cost 50 gold per village you want to use it in limits the game in yet more ways, especially on a regional server in which multiple hammer villages are needed, Add in the cost of all the advantages, the cost of activating more then 1 artifact a day and the cost of merging troops with gold … its a huge hit to the wallet to play effectively and maintain high activity levels.


    The other problem coming out a lot is cheats and bots and the resulting bans. There are many players consistently looking to find cheats rather then actually playing the server. The amount of venom and vitriol coming from these players is mind boggling, combined with the fact that they don't want to understand that not all bans are the result of bots and script usage, or that sometimes there is an error in a ban being received. They have made it their personal responsibility to punish the players both suspected of or accused of cheating to the point of harassment. They have gone so far as to hold other alliance members responsible for assumed cheating and harassing them as well. So, while I thoroughly agree with bans for bots and scripting and mutli accounting, I do believe that a line must be drawn and that those that go to extremes should also be receiving bans. and I am not talking of complaints about bots and cheaters I am talking about the players that start using real life names of banned players and posting things on their ingame profiles and/or alliance profiles about who broke what rule etc.

    s6r2 - Vaultboy ……………………….. currently us20 Beerus
    s19 - Plague Fyre ……………………... us3 Shere Khan
    s20 - C3sar ...............……. uk3 Tantric Ritual
    s1r11 - Asmoti
    s19 - Tequila

  • There have been a lot of changes to this game since I first started playing about 17 years ago. I must admit every change has brought about the loss of more and more players who enjoyed playing the game not only for the challenge but for the new friends they made. Now all that seems to matter to you who want to make the changes is to basically have those playing who are going to throw gold at the game. This will make for a very low 'fan base' playing and the game will die out completely within the next few years if not before then.


    Having multiple languages on a server is going to be difficult to say the least. Even the change from UK servers to Anglosphere hasn't been easy and meant more people stopped playing. For me I haven't been enjoying the game as much since the Anglosphere servers started and if your proposed changes go ahead then I would probably play one more server just to use up any gold I have and then stop playing completely. As usual the opinions of the dedicated fans who enjoy the game don't count for much. If they did there would be no cheats, multi accounts, bots etc on any server. One thing that isn't needed is the gameworlds starting more often. We used to have about 6 months break between a server ending and the new one for that server restarting, now if there is a month or two we are lucky.


    I can't see any pros in what is being proposed not for the players anyway.

  • It appears to me you have already decided to implement these changes by having a very loaded poll. There are 2 categories if you like it and only 1 if you dislike it. Clearly you will then be able to manipulate the poll to your desired result.


    So for what it is worth I have to say I am not at all happy playing a game like this where I may not be able to communicate with my fellow team members. You may well suggest I join a team that is using my language but that may not be possible depending on your strategic location within the game.


    As others have said, a lot better than me, it appears very clear that you are only interested in people that buy gold. In theory I have no problem with this because without those people there would be no game at all. I am happy to spend money on gold if it is reasonable but the amount required to compete with others competitively is way more than I would be willing to pay on just one game. I feel the balance has been overtaken by greed and needs to be looked at if you want to keep the numbers playing. For me I think in the long run you would do much better to have lots of people spending smaller amounts of money than having a few paying stupid money that no one else can compete with.


    I have no idea how much time you spend tracking down the cheaters but I have to say it appears as others have said that you don't care. If you are truly interested in making this a fair game and take cheating seriously you may want to consider advertising your efforts and also consider rewarding those who uncover cheats for you.


    In short I understand the game needs to evolve over time but slow down, concentrate on making it a fair game for all at a reasonable cost and then make changes that are good for the game.

  • I like this idea. It seems like it would result in more populated servers and more competition, which sounds like a much better solution than the previously implemented idea of shrinking the maps.


    The only other way to populate servers further is to narrow the gap between gold users and non gold users. Heavy gold users are on a completely different playing field in Travian than non gold users, to the point where it's impossible to compete with no gold use, and very difficult to compete if you're going low gold use. That game setup will result in some folks spending a ton of gold, but for the rest... well, maybe they'll find a cheaper game to play.


    It probably doesn't calculate out in Travian's best interest to solve that second problem. So, if it's willing to implement regionalization of servers to increase the player base on each server, that seems like a good idea.

    1833077558343603260517.png
    Current server: Zugzwang on Anglosphere 4. (For prior servers, see profile.)

    Looking at that account stats, either you don't know how to play, or you've decided to see how bad an account you can make..?

  • I think it's a good idea for the game going forward as it may inject more competitiveness. I think the game has become boring now trying to find the servers which are most active. Too many people have left and not enough have filled their shoes.


    The game has slowly killed itself. The cost of gold on this game has forced people to join together when creating accounts (dual+ accounts), and every time this happens we lose an account in the game.


    Many of us love the concept of this game, that's why we have played it for years. Unfortunately now the most skilled players need to spend literally hundred of dollars per round to compete to be the best. That forces people into dual accounts, and can even force people into cheating. We like the game, but for the cost? 100% not worth it.


    Summary: I think the idea is good due to the decline in the game, however I think that the cause of said decline should be addressed. Seems like an attempt of a quick fix bodge job.

  • I'm honestly not really sure how I feel about this as a whole. However I do know the "pro's and con's" are completely weighted poorly.


    I mean... "The game will be spicier and more exciting" how the hell could that ever be listed as a pro, when it isn't even factual at all. In fact the first 2 con's contradict the "spicier" portion of that pro.


    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


    Is pretty much the exact opposite of making the game experience "spicier"


    This change kind of removes history of server, grudge matches, ongoing rivalries.


    One of the best things in the Travian Community in my eyes was the rivalries and reputation. The pre-game if you will. Finishing a server and already planning the next. getting whooped on one server to come back with a vengeance. These changes sound like it will randomize the community a bit more. The real pros and cons as I see them would be:


    Pro: More populated servers

    Pro: Less game bullying, more chance to play as equal parties

    Pro: More nationalities on a server


    Con: Removal of server history/rivalry completely

    Con: Harder to keep a core team together

    Con: The game will be more randomized like others of its kind.


    There were a couple other posters above that hit the issue right on the head. I can't possibly say it any better than they did. The P2W aspect has been chasing people away for some time now, and it's getting more and more ridiculous. Then taking a break looking around like "where everyone go?" and trying to come up with ways to repopulate servers is ridiculous.


    There are several levels of teams in the game from Casual alliances who just like to have a little fun, bs on discord a bit, all the way up to tryhard elite alliances who feel the need to win. Both of which will spend money on the game as they enjoy the game, and the friendships that come along with it.


    The Travi gods only look at these updates as a game in itself. Just as the strategy of Travian isn't as simple as the game of building resource fields, queueing troops, attacking players. Theres much more involved than just that. Alliances become cores, cores become good friends who prefer the ins and outs of their domain, their dedicated server, the gossips and news there, the friendships they've made. Any moderate Travian player will spend about 80% of their time playing travian.. On discord or skype or whatsapp, the other 20% actually clicking into the game itself.


    Travian isn't losing players because the graphics suck, but yet they are CONSTANTLY changing those graphics to make it more "appealing". They aren't losing players because the english servers don't translate Chinese, or Japanese writing for them. Instead TG games recognizes the lost player base, and to remedy it want to re-populate by making it feasible for players to do so. At the expense of randmizing the game more and taking out longlasting rivalries to do so.


    That is totally unreasonable, and while sure it might help populate the servers a little bit, it's going to cause the game to become yet a little more undesirable to seasoned vets who have been around for 10 or better years. The game has become soft, easy for anyone to win with a wallet.


    The biggest updates have been counters to people using 3rd party software to get an edge on the game. Rather than spending anything on security to prevent it, what have the biggest updates been since T3?


    People using farm bots for raiding = For the low price of 100 gold a server ($6 usd) you can now have a farm list for easy raiding

    People using illegal wave builders to time waves = Hey we now have a legal one of those, hurry up and buy!

    RoA servers updates have been the biggest cash grabs in Travian history, with the troop merging.

    Remember when you had to train a troop to be a hero and level him the good ole fashion way? Why not Implement a system to make people spend upwards of a 1600 gold package for a gladys helm as they are racing their #2. Not even counting all those 15,000 silver 5stack cages on day 2 to hurry up and raid.


    We can't even quit BP early any more, because that would mean there wouldn't be as big of a silver boost on cages so early to oasis raid, as we would be able to raid each other as an alternative.


    Quit looking to patch things up with bandaids. You want the issues fixed.. ^^^^^ theres the issues. Make the game fun again, and people will show up. Almost every single server I play conversations of "the good ole days when..." is a topic more than once. In fact I can go back in my discord and see several people bring those same topics up probably at least once a week if not more. Good ole Days TG, bring those back.


    #endrant

  • whichever option was least for this. I think everyone else has touched on the main topics.

    We can all use translators to speak with others of a different language. Putting one in-game is an approvement.

    But killing old rivalries to further populate less used servers would lower your veteran players that keep returning. Please dont do that.

    I didnt mind the creation of smaller servers. If 400x400 is a ghost town and 200x200 is too crowded sometimes(opinions I've heard) then try 300x300.

    I buy one package per server tops usually when its on sale if I can but ive always told myself that's max. Start making it more of a P2W where that's not enough I wont find the game as appealing anymore.


    Not wanting a huge rant but I see those issues and im not for combining servers anymore.

  • Where did you guys learn how to gather information that isn't bias towards the option you want to happen? Two options for liking the feature yet only one for disliking?


    I can literally already the create the statement you will give after the poll ends.


    Nice to see Travian have a full team of clowns running the show.


    If you actually care about getting a correct view of the situation remake the poll with one option for liking it and one for disliking. Those who don't really care if it changes do not matter to the view of the poll.

  • I think you are asking the wrong question. Travian used to be a great game. Once upon a time, it was huge. You've made changes along the way, but your numbers continue to decline.

    Ask yourselves the following:

    Why are people leaving the game?

    Could it have something to do with the ever increasing need for gold to be competitive at this game?

    Would a subscription based model (similar to World of Warcraft) be more effective?

    Given the game has a steep learning curve, would it be beneficial to have an intuitive Game Mechanics guide to answer questions?

    Would testing out a mobile/client app be worth the time and money?

    I remember when Travian was at its apex in 2008. Servers were massive. What drove people away then?

  • Where did you guys learn how to gather information that isn't bias towards the option you want to happen? Two options for liking the feature yet only one for disliking?


    If you actually care about getting a correct view of the situation remake the poll with one option for liking it and one for disliking. Those who don't really care if it changes do not matter to the view of the poll.

    It appears to me you have already decided to implement these changes by having a very loaded poll. There are 2 categories if you like it and only 1 if you dislike it. Clearly you will then be able to manipulate the poll to your desired result.

    :thonk:


    A few quick points about polling -- TL;DR, these two objections are garbage.


    > Someone who dislikes the poll will select the dislike option. The fact that Travian is asking how strongly someone who supports the idea is in support of it doesn't change this fact. Like, if the question was "Do you prefer pepsi or coke" and the options were "prefer coke," "prefer pepsi a little," and "prefer pepsi a lot," this poll wouldn't naturally skew towards preferring pepsi. That's because everyone who prefers coke will still select that they prefer coke. This objection is just......... plainly mistaken?


    Imagine that there are 20 people, 2 of whom strongly want the change, 10 of whom want it a little, and 8 of whom do not want the change.

    Poll 1: "want the change but only a little" is an option -- 2 vote want a lot, 10 vote want a little, and 8 vote no.

    Poll 2: there is no option to express the strength of preference -- 12 vote to want the change and 8 vote no.


    I'd argue that while Poll 1 and Poll 2 both polled the same audience, Poll 2 actually makes Travian more likely to make the change than poll 1 does. 12-8 seems like a majority. But when you know that 10 of the 12 only want the change a little, maybe you don't make it.


    > One poster said "those who don't really care if it changes do not matter to the view of the poll." But this is also uh.... wrong. Imagine there are 30 people, 10 of whom like the idea, 10 who don't care, and 10 who dislike it.

    Poll 1: "don't care" is included -- 10 people choose an option to like the change, 10 don't care, and 10 choose to dislike.

    Poll 2: "don't care" is not included -- 10 people choose an option to like the change, 10 to dislike, and 10 don't vote.


    Poll 1 -- "a third of players can be said to want the change."

    Poll 2 -- "half of players can be said to want the change."


    That's uh... very material.

    1833077558343603260517.png
    Current server: Zugzwang on Anglosphere 4. (For prior servers, see profile.)

    Looking at that account stats, either you don't know how to play, or you've decided to see how bad an account you can make..?

    Post was edited 1 time, last by The Burninator: Typo correction ().

  • I do find this funny. In some ways this is an over complication of two suggestions I've given based on feedback I've received:

    • Allow transfer of gold between domains - the only issue with this is the fact there is some regional pricing differences. 8 domains use either the USD or Euro and get it at a discounted rate relative to the "base rate" on COM/Anglo. There are a few other currencies used by their exchange rates make them roughly equal to the USD/Euro rate. That leaves 19 domains with essentially the same gold rate in use (for those interested I have a table).
    • Allow the selection of any UI language on any domain - this suggestion wasn't liked due to the above issue (at least in part). They don't want to encourage those with more buying power to play on other domains.

    The disparity in buying power for players is certainly important. It has been noted time and again by the community the importance gold plays, for better or worse.


    Things I think are important to consider:

    • Skill/Ability - Frankly Nordics have some groups that are just way too good to play against Anglo teams, let alone those from some other communities.
    • Values/Ethics - We've learned from the "tech" debate that the values/ethics vary across communities.
    • Buying Power - see the rest of post for details


    Things I think are not important to consider:

    • National Identity - Connecting ones identify to a domain name seems silly. It is about the players you choose to play with on your team.
    • Rivalries/History - These won't cease to exist. You can still choose who you play with, who you play against. You'll have the old history and you'll make new history.
    • Time Zones - After spending 2 years on Anglo with a more diversified team set than US, I don't see this as much of a concern anymore. If anything it makes the game more dynamic.


    I've identified (broadly) the following groups of communities:

    • "Powerhouse" Communities - Think Nordics, Germany. They tend to have stronger and more cohesive teams who also benefit from stronger buying power.
    • "Normal" Communities - Think Anglosphere. Teams in this group tend to be not as strong or cohesive as powerhouse domains but generally the playerbase has good buying power.
    • "Casual" Communities - Think Hispanio or Lusobrasilliero (spelling bad I think). Teams in this group tend to have the weakest teams relative to the other communities and have low buying power.
    • Tournament - They are their own breed. It is a mix of players from around the globe with large teams from players with unlimited buying power to those with none. They tend to have teams of the same quality as the powerhouses, just with on a larger scale and with players from other communities.
    • COM - Again is on its own. Similar to tournament in that it plays host to a mix of players, it tends to not reach the extremes of Tournament in team size or buying power.

    The most insurmountable issue is buying power. You just can't balance that if everyone is in a single community BUT you can utilizing a hybrid regionalization approach. Mentioned in the original post is essentially purely geographic and while to some extent that works, what happens to Anglo? Geographically we are global. Tossing the US in an "Americas" would have both a buying power and team strength issue. (as one example). However regionalization does tend to work better in some areas, such as South America and Asia. (though there are some buying power issues there with some countries).


    Right now there are the 27 communities (including tournament separately).

    I've been thinking about this topic for well over a year and there is no perfect solution but here is one plan I had put together:

    The plan has issues. "Poland" would be put with domains with a higher buying power, as would Turkey and several Asia region communities. I had asked if they could tie the payment amount to the address information of the transaction. That is if you use a credit card associated with the United States you pay X price and if you use a card associated with Poland you get Y price. To some degree I think that would solve the buying power riddle. But that didn't seem to be an option, but my idea my have just been lost in translation.


    If buying power wasn't an issue that still leaves values/ethics and skill/ability. I think values/ethics can change and what is ultimately most important is that you play with players who share yours. Your enemies don't need to have the same sensibilities. If its outright cheating, they can be dinged for it by Travian.


    Skill/ability would then still be a consideration. This is already a possible issue so it isn't new. There have always been teams of different qualities on servers and within communities. Players have always played across communities to some extent and while increasing regionalization can result in more of that, most good teams don't want to play bad teams (why else would Bitfrost go back to Nordics). They will seek out the better competition. Under a new system teams could stake out certain servers as being places they can call "home" and certain ones over time would become more competitive by default and others less so. It will initially be bumpy, there will be new faces and there will be change. But at least for me the Anglo rollout has proven these kinds of changes are okay and things do settle down over time.


    Travian has already been working on regionalization over the last decade essentially, Nordics, Anglo etc. were created recently but after reaching peak account numbers in 2009 domains were slowly closed and merged. Did you know South Africa was a domain once? So was India and while unlike South Africa it wasn't English speaking it was merged into AU/NZ which I think were also at one point separate. Even Canada was!


    I think some regionalization is both inevitable and desirable. I think the company created too many domains to begin with and they've been paying the price ever since. I don't think there is a perfect solution but the current community/domain system has been broken for a decade. Having a conversation about what to do is where it starts. The larger issues of why there are less players go way beyond this re-organization and while slightly helpful to that problem it obviously doesn't address the core issues. It shouldn't be sold as a cure to that problem, it's just a treatment to ease the symptoms until they hopefully fix the underlying problems. (that are within their control, shifts in consumer habits / market forces are not)


    That said I have low confidence in Travian's ability to pull it off properly. This announcement/request for feedback was poorly written and lacks sufficient detail and that speaks to the core problem. The company is not able to communicate well with players and they often do not understand what we say. Even when they do they move at a glacial pace. That is the root of every other problem. They need to understand what we want and they need to be quick and agile getting things fixed and changed.


    (It's ironic because they practice "agile" development)

    Con: Removal of server history/rivalry completely

    Con: Harder to keep a core team together

    Con: The game will be more randomized like others of its kind.

    1. See above

    2. I would argue it is easier. You play with whom you like and when. You'll have more server options and everyone can use the UI that suits them best.

    3. I'm not sure how it would be more "randomized"

  • Regarding point 1: You are making the assumption that everyone who votes that they like it a little would also vote that they like it a lot. That is a completely false assumption as is proven by the fact there are so many votes for the like it a little as opposed to like it a lot. To me if they have thought long enough to realise they dont like it a lot I wouldnt expect a majority to flip and say they like it a lot if offered a straight poll. If we did have a 3 choice poll including i dont care, i'd imagine a large number would instead flip to this option.


    Secondly, if you have chosen that you do not care about this change, that means either way you are likely to stick around and play. Travian does not give a sheet about this part of its audience. All they want to know is if 90%+ of those polled hate the idea then they might consider scrapping the idea they've already spent many dev hours on. That is why I think a simple 2 way poll would've been best.


    It's pretty clear on this poll result the change is coming.


    Travian has already been working on regionalization over the last decade essentially, Nordics, Anglo etc. were created recently but after reaching peak account numbers in 2009 domains were slowly closed and merged. Did you know South Africa was a domain once? So was India and while unlike South Africa it wasn't English speaking it was merged into AU/NZ which I think were also at one point separate. Even Canada was!

    The only reason (essentially) India existed as a domain was because everyone transferred there from the UK forum after an 'incident' that was famously well managed by Travian HQ. Before that each server was running with numbers that would still have been laughed at in 2020. This would be a fun fact to bring up next time you're in Munich ;).