LoT 2020 The Tech Talk (COM)

  • As this topic is for sure a very divisive one, I ask all participants in here to remain respectful, and address the topic and the arguments made themselves, and not resort to insults or other things. Please keep posts constructive, and include argumentation for your points.




    So, as I see it, the community is strongly divided between those who fully embrace techs, and those who strongly dislike them (of which the later, I know that many people have quit/are quitting the game over techs being the new norm).


    Please take the time to read the entirety of this post, and address the arguments made in it, before you start posting.


    I have (sadly) given up on rule 1.1 and similar ways to limit teching (and I know TG have too). So instead, I will propose some hard-coded game changes that would limit the usage an account can get out of techs. Techs can still be made and used with these changes, but the benefits will be reduced.


    I am well aware of the arguments that have been made for allowing teching, so first, let me outline some of the issues with techs, and hopefully those in favor of techs will realize/agree that maybe some limitations wouldn't be too bad:

    • People are quitting the game over techs. A dwindling playerbase is one of the things most often brought up by players as an issue. Fewer players, less action, less interest... And so on. This shouldn't be in the interest of anyone.
    • The use of techs fosters passive gameplay and reduces interactability in the game. Simming 10+ WWKs in the boonies with techs means increased safety (both from attacks and ghostings, and even if the WWKs are hit, they depend on other accounts to feed troops and run their queues more so than their own), that there's less action towards the center/border of the quads (i.e. were teams are close to each other), more accounts take on a passive role, other teams will copy the strategy and so on, reducing number of active offensive accounts... A more passive game means that players quit. Defenders hardly ever get any action. There's less reason to do OPs. Another spiral of more passivity and dropping player numbers.
    • Tech and multies are functionally indistinguishable. They perform the exact same task, i.e. raise the amount of resources available to an account artificially. Players who observe others using techs may likely percieve them as multies, and either be encouraged to use those themselves, or be frustrated that nothing is done about it. It's hard for players (and alliances) to know if other players have "legitimate" techs too, or multies.



    With these things in mind, I'd like to discuss the following proposals. Keep in mind that they will both reduce the benefit of techs (though not removing it completely), but hopefully also remove a large part of the incentive to use multies.





    First proposal: Garaging: put a hard limit on garaging. How the functionality I have in mind would work (my thoughts at present, open to tweaks):


    Keep in mind that I distinguish between def and off troops! Def troops can of course be parked freely to not prevent standing defense.


    Firstly, I don't mind people helping out a WWK a bit late game with feeding. Say, you splat a hammer and have a ton of crop. My gripe is with accounts that are made from the outset with the purpose of acting as garages. So, accounts will be allowed to garage 20k foreign off troops, or a similar number. I am open to discuss the exact number (20-30-40k?) or perhaps have the number scale in some way with server day (perhaps the limit can be entirely removed when WW plans spawn?).


    Secondly, of course it's okay to help out a teammate who is under attack/got hit, and need somewhere to keep the troops for a bit. Troops exceeding the limit (20k) will thus only be sent back after a short period, perhaps 24/48 hours - and can then not be sent to the same player again (not settled on when it should be allowed to send them again, perhaps 7-14 days or similar). This allows you to send the hammer away if you have a def-call for your hammer village, or if you get hit. The delay before the troops are sent back will allow you to find places to split out the troops for feeding if you lost your cap or granaries in hammer village, or you can bounce the troops around between team mates for a bit before having to take them back.


    This still leaves room for tech (and multi) use. But the benefit is reduced. It would take a lot more work/many more accounts - let's say the buffer time before excessive troops are sent back is 24 hours, and the delay before you can send them there again is 7 days - then you'd need 7 techs to continually garage your troops - or 5 techs just to park 100k troops. Since it includes all foreign troops, you can't just park 20k from each player, since the cap is 20k total.


    However, if you feed your own troops, you can have them parked anywhere you want. So if you send enough crop to feed 100k troops in a friendly village, nothing will be sent back. This would take into account diet effects too - so if parked in a UD/SD village, you would only have to feed half to keep them there.



    So:

    Can park a certain amount of offensive troops freely (20k, 30k? number is open to discussion).

    You can park as much as you feed.

    Troops exceeding that limit (20k + what you're sending crop for, including diet effect) are sent back after a delay (perhaps 24 hours).



    ECs and Haeduans will be classified as offence, thought they can be used defensively too, but it won't be an issue. Why? ECs and Haeduans are not used as standing defense (for obvious reasons). So firstly, there shouldn't be any reason for them to stay somewhere for multiple days (more time than the send-back limit) without being fed (of course the WW will be excluded). And secondly, if you're feeding them from the account they belong to, there's no problem. So you can park them in a diet or w/e too.



    For raiding techs (/multies), of course keep limits on raiding those in your alliance, but additionally:


    If an account leaves the alliance, the raiding restrictions that are in place for friendly (alliance) raids remain in place for x days (perhaps 7 or 14) - same as the protection against conquering account who were recently in ally/whom you had sitter connections to. So basically, if you are a tech raider - if you want to defend the tech with more than just its own troops, you have to invite it to the alliance (due to the new confed rules). If you do so, the raiding you can do from it will be limited for 7+ days.


    You can still farm techs, but it's easier for other teams to put pressure on them, and reduce the benefit you get from them.





    Again, these suggestions are open to discussion and changes. Please keept the discussion civil, and address the arguments made.

  • So this topic never received much feedback (though I got some in private too).


    I know this topic is of huge concern to a lot of people though, and I have been trying to reach some solutions to suggest to TG with my fellow ambassadors.


    Quite unexpectedly though, it seems like there's a chance to make revisions to rule 1.1 to help combat teching.



    Here are some initial thoughts that I'd like feedback on - preferably sooner than later.




    Limitations to garaging, more or less as suggested above (numbers to be decided).



    Amendement to rule 1.1: something like adding "an account is only allowed to willingly give away x amount of production (I'm thinking 1/10th or less). This is intended to handle private farms.


    This of course raises the question of enforcement. The RET team have limitied tools to track resources raided and such too, as far as I'm aware. Likewise, they don't have the manpower to track it. However, I believe there's a large proportion of players that take issue with private farming, especially legitimate top raiders. These would also be the first to notice private farms - seemingly inactive/farmable account suddenly being defended, only against their raids, but not against other raiders.


    Keep in mind, being inactive, or being a bad player, doesn't mean punishment under this rule. This is meant to target private farms - i.e. accounts that will be farmed by one player or one team, and then defended against all other teams. Inactive accounts obviously won't be defending against anyone. Likewise, noob players who are being attacked would presumably defend against all attackers.


    There are obviously some drawbacks to this: it leaves the enforcement to the discretion of the RET team. It also requires vigilance from the playerbase itself. As for the later point, as mentioned, I think there are enough players that actually care, that private farms would actually be reported, and generally, I actually think it could be a good thing if the playerbase was given incentive to be a part of reinforcing the rules and fair play.


    Exceptions to the restrictions should obviously be made for WW feeding (or perhaps even outright at WW plan drop?).




    Lastly, this doesn't address the techs clearing oasis for fast village 2. But these should really be addressed separately imo, with changes to oases.



    Let me know what you think, or if you have alternative suggestions.

  • Amendement to rule 1.1: something like adding "an account is only allowed to willingly give away x amount of production (I'm thinking 1/10th or less). This is intended to handle private farms.

    The problem I immediately see is one tiny word: "willingly". This will lead to some accounts magically beeing noobs.


    The weird thing about Travian is that certain people want to play the game a certain way and somehow every side wants to force their playstyle upon everything else.


    If you want to make changes it needs to count for each and everyone while beeing easy. The changes you proposed in April are very complex and not fitting, since it seems you don't want to change how everything works for a portion of the playerbase but target only the things another very vocal portion of the playerbase don't like to play against


    I personally have no problem with a supporting playstyle, as long as those players are real and don't magically disappear after 4 weeks and let themself beeing chiefed. And while we at it I don't support Multies and Bots one bit, but my believe is the game should not be designed to satisfy the top 5% but to fit the needs of the mayority in the middle.

    This means it should be designed to be playable for players who play one account alone, are not 24/7 and are middle of the pack gold users.


    Since I got that out of the way, here is my suggestion:


    1. Make support playstyle official:

    This means like a sitter, both accounts can agree and with that they can trade, HR, and garage unlimitly. But only 2 accounts can be connected and with the connection they can't sit each other and can't chief each other for the rest of the game, even if they loose the connection later(can still zero eachother). Yes you can still use tor to be undetectable, but that is why the connection is limited to one per account. And you need to be in the same alliance.


    2. On every other account you can only store troops a total amount of 4 hours per day 6 days in the future, which means you can store them at max 24hours in a row and yes still with the alliance only stuff enabled. This does not take into account the amount of troops, so it doesn't matter if its 1 or 100k defense for example. Not included are artefact villages and World Wonder villages. Bottom line: Standing defense in offensive accounts would be gone.


    3. To really kill bots who are beeing farmed you need to implement a farm hardcap based on the server day or week, but since it is impossible due to player backlash I don't really know how to proceed here.


    A general problem of Travian is, it is a very linear game and most of the time more leads to more (there are very little non linear synergies in the game). This means that it doesn't matter how you change the game, the playerbase will always try to cheat or exploit some game mechanics to push boundrys. The only thing you really can do against this is to hardcode stuff in the game or make the impact of the cheat meaningless. But as you can see at my and basically every suggestion it almost never only affects exclusively the targeted behaviour.


    So you all have to ask yourself. Do you wan't to change the game and at the same time have impacted your own playstyle or do you wan't to stay the game the same more or less and accept that cheating gives you a big advantage and a lot of peaople will either flat out do it or at least exploit the "grey area".

    W6 2020 - Lockdown - Havoc Squad™ - TtP

    W1 2019 - Hive - Havoc Squad™ - PROJECT

    W29 2018 - SCV - Havoc Squad™ - DEAR (Sieg)

  • The issue about techs are only those who are raided by 1 specific account? That is general opinion.


    so why change even garaging? When i want to garage 100k army and someone is fine, it should stay that way. It is called teamplay ;)

    Pushing and raiding alliance and sitters is already limited by hard coded percetages and that is fine and more then enough. So no more limits please!


    Do you really want servers to go into even worse state then they are already? Adding more and more calculations every second, minute or hour will only harm uptime (which already is lousy). That will be result when you ask for more and more controlled situations which need to be calculated and force actions by game.


    but again:

    The issue about techs are only those who are raided by 1 specific account? That is general opinion.


    That should be only point to discuss and solve.

    I'm worse at what I do best and for this gift I feel blessed . . .


    History:

    Dirty! (nl1/de1), Violence (nl4), Avoid (nl7), Bazen (nl4), MUG (nl2, nl5, nl4), Cocktail (nl6), Prandur/Camorra (nl2), Vandalen (nl5), Borgia (nl2) and many more not listed.


    Valhalla, Carpe Diem (t3 .com classics), CS! 2017 finals (Croatia)

    CUP 2018 finals, X3 2019 finals (Russia)


    ~ The special one... ~

  • but again:

    The issue about techs are only those who are raided by 1 specific account? That is general opinion.


    That should be only point to discuss and solve.

    Then you either need to code a raiding cap or develope a very complex algorithm to calculate what a person can raid from one account.


    But I guarantee you, people will find a way around every algorithm because at the end of the day you just can create more accounts to raid exclusively.


    This game is more or less based on the idea that you can raid and chief other accounts, every way I see to restrict it will ultimately affect you and me too .


    I can reopen the authentification process discussion, because lets face it, it is so easy to create a dummy account in Travian. But again, even if you make it harder, someone will go the extra mile to give himself an advantage.

    W6 2020 - Lockdown - Havoc Squad™ - TtP

    W1 2019 - Hive - Havoc Squad™ - PROJECT

    W29 2018 - SCV - Havoc Squad™ - DEAR (Sieg)

  • I'm worse at what I do best and for this gift I feel blessed . . .


    History:

    Dirty! (nl1/de1), Violence (nl4), Avoid (nl7), Bazen (nl4), MUG (nl2, nl5, nl4), Cocktail (nl6), Prandur/Camorra (nl2), Vandalen (nl5), Borgia (nl2) and many more not listed.


    Valhalla, Carpe Diem (t3 .com classics), CS! 2017 finals (Croatia)

    CUP 2018 finals, X3 2019 finals (Russia)


    ~ The special one... ~

  • Jip, you are right that it punishes the legit raiders too. But I believe you would not need multies anymore because at least on higher populated servers it would be more or less mandatory to hit raiding cap every single week.


    Since you are so against my suggestions, what are yours? My feeling is that we are way past the time a simple 1.1 change would solve anything, since what is going on is already illegal but can't be proven with the current detection tools.

    W6 2020 - Lockdown - Havoc Squad™ - TtP

    W1 2019 - Hive - Havoc Squad™ - PROJECT

    W29 2018 - SCV - Havoc Squad™ - DEAR (Sieg)

  • The problem I immediately see is one tiny word: "willingly". This will lead to some accounts magically beeing noobs.

    I address this in the very post you quote. If the account is raidable for everyone, it's not really(/as big an) issue. If the account only defends against other players/teams... It's not a noob account.



    1. Make support playstyle official:

    This means like a sitter, both accounts can agree and with that they can trade, HR, and garage unlimitly. But only 2 accounts can be connected and with the connection they can't sit each other and can't chief each other for the rest of the game, even if they loose the connection later(can still zero eachother). Yes you can still use tor to be undetectable, but that is why the connection is limited to one per account. And you need to be in the same alliance.

    How does this address that you can just keep accounts outisde your team, and raid them unlimited? + plenty of people don't like to see WWKs that never raid, park 300k+ troops for free, and put in almost 0 effort compared to non-teching WWKs.




    2. On every other account you can only store troops a total amount of 4 hours per day 6 days in the future, which means you can store them at max 24hours in a row and yes still with the alliance only stuff enabled. This does not take into account the amount of troops, so it doesn't matter if its 1 or 100k defense for example. Not included are artefact villages and World Wonder villages.

    Not much different from my garage suggestion, except my suggestion still allows stuff like some guy splatting his OP hammer and then hosting a few troops from an ally hammer - but not those dedicated garage accounts that serve only the purpose of feeding 200k+ troops from a WWK. Except:


    Bottom line: Standing defense in offensive accounts would be gone.

    Why?? Literally no one takes issue with standing defense. The problem is garaging offensive troops, hence why my suggestion only counts for off.




    The only thing you really can do against this is to hardcode stuff in the game or make the impact of the cheat meaningless. But as you can see at my and basically every suggestion it almost never only affects exclusively the targeted behaviour.

    I was taking the hard-coding path initially, because it seemed like TG would be unwilling to talk about rule 1.1 again. But hard-coding becomes incredibly complex. Hence why I've reverted to only hard-coding garaging, and then addressing private farms with rule changes.



    or do you wan't to stay the game the same more or less and accept that cheating gives you a big advantage and a lot of peaople will either flat out do it or at least exploit the "grey area".

    This equals many many players quitting the game. I'm sure we can all agree fewer players is the last thing we need.




    but again:

    The issue about techs are only those who are raided by 1 specific account? That is general opinion.


    That should be only point to discuss and solve.

    If you raid a private farm for 200k per hour, or park 200k troops in your garage, it comes out to exactly the same. So pointless to only address raiding.

  • If you raid a private farm for 200k per hour, or park 200k troops in your garage, it comes out to exactly the same. So pointless to only address raiding.


    Let me see, most teching is done where 1 player raids 20-40 accounts privately. Some teams get easily to 400-600 of these acconts, just to benefit 10-15 accounts.

    Personal or alliance garage accounts you might find 1 or 2 or not at all as it is easier to park in village holding diet plan.


    You want to debate about techs, but forget that some players actually agree on playing with litttle defense on account and offering free crop to park troops from alliance. If they had to play as farm, they wouldn't even register on a server because they simply refuse to play as farm. It is their choice and it is not forbidden by rules, so no point to forbid them to garage any kind of troops as they choose to do so.


    As 2nd remark, you only want to limit garaging for WWK. If you think that is only troops garaged, well....


    And if you plan to go to LOT as ambassador and present your personal ideas and vision on a subject only, you better skip it as you should be representing community.

    Your post is 80% about forbidding WWK to be garaged on few accounts where the general tech issues are 95% about massive numbers of accounts set up to be raided. All you write about that is having a limit on raiding in alliance? Wake up, real teching is done outside alliance by creating alliances full of tech accounts so there is no limit on raiding at all.

    I'm worse at what I do best and for this gift I feel blessed . . .


    History:

    Dirty! (nl1/de1), Violence (nl4), Avoid (nl7), Bazen (nl4), MUG (nl2, nl5, nl4), Cocktail (nl6), Prandur/Camorra (nl2), Vandalen (nl5), Borgia (nl2) and many more not listed.


    Valhalla, Carpe Diem (t3 .com classics), CS! 2017 finals (Croatia)

    CUP 2018 finals, X3 2019 finals (Russia)


    ~ The special one... ~

  • All you write about that is having a limit on raiding in alliance? Wake up, real teching is done outside alliance by creating alliances full of tech accounts so there is no limit on raiding at all.

    This just shows you didn't read my latest post on the subject at all. Pointless to have a discussion if you don't read. If you do decide to actually read, feel free to reply again.



    Also, what do you think happens if private farms are dealt with? People will garage instead, to get exactly the same advantage. Again, what is the difference between garaging 200k troops, or raiding 200k res per hour from an account?


    Garaging WWKs is the most prevalent issue in regards to garaging. OP hammers are to a greater degree fed on own account - and again, I think it's fair to offer some garaging just because you have some spare crop. But we're talking accounts that are set up with the primary purpose of being garages, garaging 100k+ troops (an actual, in game example, being a 1m EC WWK, with 230k imps stored in one garage, and 24k catas in another.)

  • Garaging WWKs is the most prevalent issue. OP hammers are to a greater degree fed on own account - and again, I think it's fair to offer some garaging just because you have some spare crop. But we're talking accounts that are set up with the primary purpose of being garages, garaging 100k+ troops (an actual, in game example, being a 1m EC WWK, with 230k imps stored in one garage, and 24k catas in another.)

    This playstyle is not an issue at all. In fact it is what you should do, while using your artefacts. The Problem is that there are sometimes no unique players behind those Accounts which means it is just multiaccounting. Why should you be forced to farm 24/7 to feed an WWK, because other players had to do it back in 1872?


    My suggestion was specifically allowing this support playstyle to a certain degree and more or less make everything exceeding this very hard. If people having fun playing more supportive, why not make this possible? Of course this comes with drawbacks because every change in this range affects all players. Same with restrictions to farming.


    This equals many many players quitting the game. I'm sure we can all agree fewer players is the last thing we need.


    The Players are already gone, I am one of the very very few example who just recently joined this game (in 2017) and stayed. You just need to look at the regional servers even from the bigger domains. It is the exception if there are more then 600 active player after artefacts.


    Maybe I am wrong here, but I think TG has no real vision for the game anymore and they first need to think about what playstyles they want in this game and what they don't want. After that they need to design it properly in that way. Currently it seems they fight fire with fire and the moment they fix an issue they create another. What other games told me is that if something is exploitable people will figure it out and milk the hell out of it, Travian is just a very slow game.


    So before they change anything they need to ask themself, maybe in cooperation with you guys, the following questions (and more):


    1. What playstyles do we want to allow? (Off, Deff, Hybrid, WWK/WWR, Support, Ghost Hammers and so on, plus any variations)

    2. Should farming be mandatory for some of them?

    3. What is an account allowed to do to support his alliance and in that regard other accounts?

    4. Should there be drawbacks if you ignore the server objective?

    5. How many Gold do you need to play a decent account (yes this is important to design the game around and TG should at least internally know this to target the right bracket of customers)?


    And some more, which to a degree are talked about already (Server time for example) or I didn't came up with just now.


    I mean I don't play that long and still start getting tired because in this game specifically, people want to force their own playstyle on everyone else. In my opinion players can do whatever they want as long as they are real unique players and don't use cheats. If I choose to build zero troops and garage my whole alliance why not? Why does it matter that "back in the day" people didn't do that?

    W6 2020 - Lockdown - Havoc Squad™ - TtP

    W1 2019 - Hive - Havoc Squad™ - PROJECT

    W29 2018 - SCV - Havoc Squad™ - DEAR (Sieg)

  • The Players are already gone ... If I choose to build zero troops and garage my whole alliance why not? Why does it matter that "back in the day" people didn't do that?

    A lot of players are gone. More are leaving right now over tech issues. I seriously don't understand why some parts of the playerbase are so self-destructive that they won't acknowledge this, while at the same time complaining about dead servers.


    Techs nullify personal dedication, game knowledge and skill. Any personal effort is invalidated by tech users achieving the same (or even more) with minimal effort and no risk. That is what a lot of players take issue with.

  • Techs nullify personal dedication, game knowledge and skill. Any personal effort is invalidated by tech users achieving the same (or even more) with minimal effort and no risk. That is what a lot of players take issue with.

    How so? I myself never played with a tech or was one myself, but for example in my current world we have one player in my alliance who holds unique diet and settles a village in every def/off cluster from us to feed mainly our defensive units (but off as well). Why shouldn't this be allowed for players who don't hold an artefact but want to support their offensive players? Why is there minimal effort? A tech account needs to develop their villages too. Why is there no risk? Because this may lead to a an easier manageble WWK but less over all defense since those tech account could just build tons of defensive units instead of feeding the hammer, equals higher risk of getting nuked.


    Maybe I should again clarify, when I talk about a tech player I talk about an active alliance member who just choose to support the WWK players a lot, not a tor based dummy account. I can understand if the playerbase is angry when they see some accounts with like 20 bots around them which they can exclusively raid and chief full developed villages, because thats cheating. Garaging parts of Hammers is not.


    I probably wasn't clear enough in my posts above and if thats so I wan't to apologize. But I believe that not the tech playstyle is the problem, instead TGs tools to determine if those players are real and legit.


    If I would decided right now that, because of time issues, I just want to support our WWK. Why would you deny my playstyle? Because I don't play for the benifit of my account you probably say. But what is the benefit of my account? Trying to win with the World Wonder race with my alliance!

    W6 2020 - Lockdown - Havoc Squad™ - TtP

    W1 2019 - Hive - Havoc Squad™ - PROJECT

    W29 2018 - SCV - Havoc Squad™ - DEAR (Sieg)

  • Because a tech player means you have more then one account. And the number of accounts is directly related to strenght, even beyond linair, 2 accounts are more then twice as strong as 1 account. The additional advantage of skill decreases after a certain point rather quickly and every advantage (rounding up and down mainly) only give a marginal advantage similair to scouting and calculation production/village. Something rarely done nowadays since bots do it for you.


    1 player can win against "n" number of players, given the one player can create and (artifically) manage more then n accounts. Travian is a game without barely any skill and it's almost soley based upon activity and number of account working together. And this is comming from someone who knew every formula about this game for over 10 years, and how to take advatage of every single micro mechanisme. I am just wondering how I could craft a better game and revive the genre, so that someone likemyself would like it.

    Gebruik jolijt wanneer gij zijt in uwe jonge jaren

  • I myself never played with a tech or was one myself, but for example in my current world we have one player in my alliance who holds unique diet and settles a village in every def/off cluster from us to feed mainly our defensive units (but off as well).

    A UD holder doesn't feed the units in his diet villages himself. The players parking troops there do (or used to at least, before teching). I know how holding UD/LD works.




    Why is there minimal effort?

    I can play an account 12+ hours per day, using all my knowledge of efficient farmlisting and macro raiding, account building (CP production + res focus) etc... And still be outperformed by an account logging in less than 5 hours per day, with two techs. And no, it doesn't take a lot to set up two tech accounts to provide 200k+ res per hour - heck, with minimal effort, you can have them set up by artefact time, and then not have to worry about them for the rest of the round. Whereas a raiding, or expert simming account, will have to exert the same level of effort, or more, through the whole round. Thus, effort and dedication is invalidated.

  • This just shows you didn't read my latest post on the subject at all. Pointless to have a discussion if you don't read. If you do decide to actually read, feel free to reply again.

    Pointless to have discussion with you, as you seem to know it all and only focus on your opinion.

    I'm worse at what I do best and for this gift I feel blessed . . .


    History:

    Dirty! (nl1/de1), Violence (nl4), Avoid (nl7), Bazen (nl4), MUG (nl2, nl5, nl4), Cocktail (nl6), Prandur/Camorra (nl2), Vandalen (nl5), Borgia (nl2) and many more not listed.


    Valhalla, Carpe Diem (t3 .com classics), CS! 2017 finals (Croatia)

    CUP 2018 finals, X3 2019 finals (Russia)


    ~ The special one... ~

  • but my believe is the game should not be designed to satisfy the top 5% but to fit the needs of the mayority in the middle.

    This means it should be designed to be playable for players who play one account alone, are not 24/7 and are middle of the pack gold users.

    This is a very flawed kind of thinking, that makes no sense at all. A competative game should never cater it's focus on the casual player, because the nature of a competative game is that there's competition, and playrs strife to be better then one and other.


    People want to be the best and therefor you should make sure that there's something elusive about being the best, an incentive to become better, because this sense of improvement is what drives almost anything in game and in live. People like the feeling they are learning, because it's progression, even if it's learning in a very abstract sense what other might call "playing" or social interaction. I belief if you use this as a model, e.g. that every kind of joy is a sense of progression, you can describe human behaviour in a very detailed way, you just have to be very very creative with what you call progression.


    Ofcourse you can design the game that's more friendly to be played alone, and not 24/7, but as long as spending more time, and thuse playing with more players hold an competative edge, players will opt for it. There will always be a top percentage, even if you design it in such a way it's to be played alone, which is actually much more healthty for a game. And you have to spend most of your resources whatever you do in to those who are most competative because they will seek out the limitation you impose, be it balancing wise, or trying to have an additional account etc. The game design for the average player is an average job.

    Gebruik jolijt wanneer gij zijt in uwe jonge jaren

  • Because a tech player means you have more then one account. And the number of accounts is directly related to strenght, even beyond linair, 2 accounts are more then twice as strong as 1 account.

    I mean you can't compare it to one Account. You Need to keep in mind that you loose one Account who would otherwise build troops. So you basically need to compare it to two Accounts.

    Again I don't speak about multi accounting.

    W6 2020 - Lockdown - Havoc Squad™ - TtP

    W1 2019 - Hive - Havoc Squad™ - PROJECT

    W29 2018 - SCV - Havoc Squad™ - DEAR (Sieg)

  • Tech = unpunishable multi accounts.


    Comparison is one account with everything the same e.g. Two village vs 2 accounts everythimg the same but 1 villages. Villages are identical.


    Not that it matters at all. Just the point is, more are accounts is a huge advantage.

    Gebruik jolijt wanneer gij zijt in uwe jonge jaren

  • Tech = unpunishable multi accounts.

    Then we don't talk about the same stuff.


    I talk as I stated not about multies. For multies it doesnt matter if they store or build def or whatever the fk, they need to be banned.


    But if I myself would decide to support our WWK, I can't see any reason why I shouldn't be able to do that? Why do you want to restrict my gameplay? Im not a bot, I don't play two accounts (would probably be a sitter tho). A lot of players do this or did this in the past. They just didn't call themself "techs". They just called themself defensive Players. But after a certain point in the game they also just stored troops for the WWK. Because people figuered out it is beneficial to support even earlier to get the queues rolling and make it in general easier for the WWK account you oppose this?


    As far as I am concerned you need to ban multiaccounting ( I know this is problematic with tor/proxys used) and everything else is just smart usage of gamemechanics.


    But then again, since travian is a very linear game it will always be full of cheaters in its current state.

    W6 2020 - Lockdown - Havoc Squad™ - TtP

    W1 2019 - Hive - Havoc Squad™ - PROJECT

    W29 2018 - SCV - Havoc Squad™ - DEAR (Sieg)

970x250_5Tribes.png