Posts by wishmaster3

    In every "real" war of that period you could not just take a garrison of a fortress or city and lay siege on a well organised defender. You had to raise troops all over your country and make a concerted acting that took lots of planning and organisation. Why is it not the same here?

    Travian is a game. Is it this particular games' goal to be as realistic as absolutely possible? No. Does it claim that to be the case anywhere? No. Why would it then have to be "realistic"? If you want games that try to be realistic, there are plenty out there (though, even they have a lot of unrealistic things most of the time). Or what - you don't think there should be any kind of fantasy games - they're not realistic right? No sci-fi games either, completely unrealistic..?

    I say it is a bug that became a feature, but that doesn't mean it should not be fixed in the future.

    It's a feature that has been in the game since forever. Calling it a bug, just because you dislike it is laughable.

    Literally no one else wants this change.

    So basically, because you don't like something in the game, everyone else has to entertain your idea of changing it.

    So you want TG to implement something no one wants, which in turn would force a complete re-balance of the game (as people have pointed out, the "feature" that you're requesting, would completely break the game), and even when "balanced" it would probably still be completely broken... And taking away one of the most exciting features of the game, that no one except you wants removed - chiefing or 0'ing large hammers/WWKs - which usually involves some of the most complex/organized/creative actions on a server.

    I am completely open to new suggestions in general.. But when it's a weird personal obsession, that no one else agrees with.. Maybe just back down? lol..

    No one thinks there's anything wrong with the current system, except you. Currently you're arguing because it doesn't fit you, it should be changed for everyone else, who doesn't want it to be changed. Yet plenty of people still decided to engage with your argument and explain why, and you ignored them, or didn't present any counterpoints to their arguments other than "yeah but I don't like it!".

    The topic of the next workshop is based on a suggestion originally proposed by the .ru ambassador.

    The suggestion was to allow alliance leaders (or others given the power) to see the troop counts of members of the alliance. So like you have your own troop overview, showing you an overview of the troops in your villages, alliance leaders would have access to the troop overview of their players.

    The workshop is not limited to this specific suggestion though - so I am looking for two things:

    General feedback to the proposed feature: providing alliance leaders an overview of the troops of their members. As well as any specific things you want/don't want to be included in this feature.

    Any other suggestions relating to alliance troops management: whatever features you'd like to have basically. Could for example be that you don't want the feature suggested above, but still other want more stats in the alliance strength overview. Or more information about troop movements in the alliance (for example being able to see if an allied village has reinforcements incoming from the team). (Just as examples, these are not suggestions I'm putting forward).

    Workshop date is not set yet, but will happen in the later half of the month. So there's about 2 weeks time for any suggestions of feedback.

    An obvious issue is chargebacks. Which account gets banned for those? Gifting account, or gifted account? If gifting account (i.e. the one who buys the gold), then how is the gold already spent on account it was gifted to handled. You could exploit this, gift gold from some random 500 pop account, spend the gold on the other accounts, then chargeback and get only 500 pop account banned. Then it would be a lot of work to reverse the gold spent.

    If account that gets gifted would be banned.. Well, that one should be obvious why it's a problem.

    So yeah, nice idea, but not really feasible.

    Mads are you even playing com 2 ? or just decided to check in to support some goats propaganda (happy birthday btw)

    Impressive that you quoted a message with literally two lines, yet lack the reading comprehension to understand them. Guess you were too busy with the autofellation over being able to post my first name, which is known by literally 100s of people in the travian community.

    Nordics have developed their techs well, numbers wise however it's not anything extraordinarily higher compared to metas such as GoW or Gunners

    Straight up numbers still somewhat higher than others, and especially higher than Goats and TEN, no? And again, pure amount is one thing, another is quality of them.

    you supposedly now never even played on the server in the first place (yet come here to argue with me?).

    "supposedly" lol. I got plenty of requests to join, and declined them all, including my former dual. Never said I played on the server. But yes, I'll come and post here when I feel like it, sorry if that annoys you :P still an interesting server to spectate ;)

    There is a lot they can't do and I get that, but also a lot they can other than doing joint opses, just play smarter, use your strengths and spot our weaknessess and use them. This way you also learn. If you just abuse the numbers it does not really motivate you to find new strategies or smarter plans. Your focus is on overpowering and like it seems, com's have a history of rather doing joint opses to survive than focusing on what you already have and making it better. Tho this is just my speculating. Might be there are some masterminds working on plans and optimising your ranks while we speak at the same time.

    Nordics are in a strong position. Gunners are still in a decent position. Clearly, given the quality of your accounts, experience, probably a decent DC team and your setup with all accounts close by, you'd have a very good chance of defending well against any single team. At the same time, you've made enemies with three metas even before the confed announcement. Doing joint OPs is a very good way to minimize risk and casualties for each of the metas participating - none of them are interested in throwing all their hammers away at you, especially not while Gunners are still a contender too. They minimize risk + hit someone who has been hitting them from early in the server (and in the case of GOATS, someone who backstabbed them).

    Zergs do happen on .com sometimes (seems like they do on nordics too btw, I've seen so much whining on the forums there about it :P), but mostly if one team is very strong. Some form of coordination in OPs happening is not uncommon either, but doesn't necessarily mean that teams are meta-ing up (same as is the case here I guess).

    What each team is doing besides joint OPs, I can't say.

    Amazing how you can quote me, where I literally say I'm having a discussion about the "explanations" over the zerg rather than the zerg happening itself,

    First off, I was quoting your reply together with AFKi's reply, to set up the context of how you thought yourselves a lot strong than any other teams. Secondly, it might not have been intended as such, but this does seem like complaining:

    We know what kind of players you are but I have to admit, even I didn't expect this level of desperation.

    and thirdly, I was replying and participating in the discussion of why the joint OPs happen. I simply point out that you set yourself up for it completely - by hitting three different teams, backstabbing one team (which means Goats would probably join in on OPs just out of spite), having a pre-server confed - and being a strong team, who is seen as a big threat by the other teams - so much so, that teams don't fancy fighting you alone and risking throwing away their endgame chances.

    Four metas spread across every quad together vs. two other metas whom are not working together however, is just a whole different level of desperation, and is without any reasonable doubt an unexpected, massive zerging.

    hmmm so, is a 3 vs. 1 (as the reports Loffe posted indicates - I only see GoW, Goats and TEN there), or 4v1?

    The discussion has always been about what circumstances you are bringing up to motivate a 4v1,

    or is this official confirmation of Nordics + Gunners confed? :P Or setting up for justification of such a thing at a later point?

    (^ mostly teasing, if that wasn't obvious).

    Though again...

    As to the matter of actions leading to consequences, Nordics aren't at all surprised to see every quad meta going for them. To do so in the way of joint ops, sharing def and artis however, again - a whole different level altogether.

    Are you with Gunners or not? Because wasn't def sharing and artefact sharing done against Gunners and not you? ;)

    Don't even try to explain away Nordics position as a result of teching. Literally every meta techs, some went so far as to pay real money for it,

    ? Surely, you'll admit that Nordics teched to a level that no other teams did, in terms of both amount + quality of techs. And I said teching was a part of it - I commended you on your planning too, but I guess you're too upset to see the compliment.

    your own (previous) team included.

    Pretty hilarious by the way for you to make a re-entry after all this time to this server forums after deleting as early as post- Goats/IKEA NAP breakout. I guess zerging gets you that boost of confidence needed to show your face again.

    I didn't play on this server, at any point. Never logged in anywhere. Hence why I requested this:


    I know where the confusion stems from though - my former dual did play on this server, but I didn't join her. Solace is her account name. I dualed with her under that name on a few servers, hence why some people know me by that name (and why I keep it in my skype name), but haven't done so since com1 2018.

    I only played a single server with CWL many years ago now (2016), and didn't like it too much. I do have a lot of friends from other teams who play there though. Though, to be fair, I'd probably have quit the team if I was there too, because of the multi buying.

    I have posted in these thread whenever I felt like it, and I haven't stopped doing so at any point, lol.

    Anyway, since you seem to be very annoyed, bringing up what I did ingame (on a server I didn't play), completely unrelated to the discussion.. Maybe a meme will appease you


    The thing is that we are in this situation because we had better plans, strategies and played better than others and that is something that ANY of the teams in here could have achieved with more commitment & skill. Instead of trying to learn, adapt, work on your weaknessess and embrace your strengths you decided to take another way. Joint opses were your answer to this situation, where you could actually learn something and become better. It is what it is, sad part is that you can't challenge us with better or more advanced game play and trying to be smarter, rather do something that we can't counterplay, because of pure numbers. We did nothing that you could not do, but you decided to do something that we can't do.

    I mean... Kinda too late for the other teams to arrange a secret pre-start confed, and do an early game NAP backstab.. When it's already past arties :P

    I don't mind fighting several fronts at the same time, even cooperation between enemies to some extent is fine tbh, but when you bring the game play to a level where your opponent does not have a chance to compete, that makes me feel sorry for you.

    The discussion has always been about what circumstances you are bringing up to motivate a 4v1, which as explained previously are all just badly formed excuses to cover up the fact that you simply aren't good at this game. This you fail repeatedly to admit and will say anything from past server events to "well you are zerging too since day 0" and I have no problem pointing it out. It has never been about the fact that you actually are zerging. The zerg was to be expected which is why we hid Duat/IKEA until arti release because if you can't handle 100 accs you definitely won't be able to handle 180 accs - despite being more than us just with 1 meta. We know what kind of players you are but I have to admit, even I didn't expect this level of desperation.

    So, the claim is that all other teams are utterly crap, and Nordics would wipe the floor with them if they didn't cooperate... But now you complain that they cooperate against you? You executed your plans, pre-game secret confed, backstab NAP, good artefact setup. Your plans put you in a position of power (and as was mentioned above, you were making enemies with a lot of teams through your plans and actions, even before the confed was made official) - and now you complain that other teams react to the strong position you're in? I am sure a lot of the teams will bring a large amount of techs to the next servers they play, do more with artefact planning and so on, like your team did - but that isn't gonna help them on this server.

    so....... Brezzok mixes up his words and he mixes up his ideas.... And Packie is a fool for not understanding what he meant and for correcting his points? So whats your point? Ignore Brezzok and let him ramble?

    To be fair, Brezzokish is something that anyone playing in Goats will have experienced firsthand plenty of times.

    I'm looking for some community feedback on the topic of the next meeting between us ambassadors and TG. The topic is Endgame

    More specifically, we are discussing the proposals that last year's ambassadors and TG came up with (to be discussed further, including with the communities). I didn't see much of a reaction to it when the notes were published last year, so I'm looking to see if I can get any more community feedback, so I can tell TG what the .com community thinks of the proposals.

    If you are too lazy to look up the notes from last year, here is the short form of the changes:

    • WWs spawn 30 days prior to plans, and they are spawned pseudo-randomly (on two circles around the center of the map, one close, and one further out). Number of WWs in each circle (and total numbers of WWs) is up for discussion too - for example, lowering WW numbers might cause direct competition over controlling areas around the WW.
    • WW building plans lower WW building time. To be more exact, each WW plan the alliance of the WW holder has, beyond the first two needed for level 100 completion, lowers WW building time (with diminishing returns). So if you have 3 plans in the alliance, your WW builds 10% faster, if you have 4, it builds 19% faster, 5, 27%... and so on.

    Full notes are available here, with specifics to the proposals:…World-Map-and-Endgame.pdf

    Please provide any feedback to the above changes, or any other endgame proposals, in this thread or in private.

    I know CWL are still active and playing, are there many other good pre-mades around on the com servers?

    GOATS, along with most of the good ones, are playing com2 atm, as said ;) On com2 you have GOATS, TEN, Gunners, GoW and DnD (former Villains), who are all fairly decent .com metas (I'm leaving out Duat and Ikea, who are both good teams, only because they can't really be called .com metas per se).

    You also of course have SGR on com1 - who have been playing every single com1 for like... 12(?) years now. SGR is generally a decent team too - depending on what parts of leadership/playerbase happens to be playing each round or busy on other servers.

    That's about it for decent quality returning metas dedicated to .com I'd say. Of course .com is relatively often frequented by teams from local domains too.. And you have new metas forming from time to time too, out of old players from various teams.

    Where are you playing at the moment, if anywhere?

    I'm not playing anywhere at the moment - if I was, I'd probably play with SGR on com1 (but I'm not, I'm a honorary spammer in the team chat instead :P)

    If there is no fighting in the village during an attack (i.e. no troops lost), it won't show up in surrounding.

    I do not think, that he has same production for every resource (crop should be a bit smaller, because there are 3 troops)

    You scouted 5 hours apart - depending on res production in the village, that's plenty of time to go from 4k to 8k crop (to be exact, he'd only need about 750 crop production per hour in the village). Since he was already above the warehouse cap, it makes sense that those are full. Also, he could very well have taken some levels off of his own granary and warehouse - you'll notice that he increased cranny capacity, so he might have demolished some levels of storage, to ensure that it would be below cranny cap.

    There are plenty of decent metas around these days. But they are nowhere near as dominant as e.g. Wild was. In part, I think that's mostly due to a much broader field of decent metas - i.e. it's hard for any single meta to dominate, since there are plenty of decent metas. For example, I'd say a lot of the teams on com2 would have an easy win 1v3 on a server with no pre-mades/low tier pre-mades, yet they're really scrapping it out on com2 instead, with no clear favorite and ever evolving diplomacy.

    Wild was so far above the peers back in the day (i.e. smashing IM in a 1v3½), the same is not the case for any team now. But metas now are playing about as good as Wild was - simply because the overall level of the game has increased (I do think that if Wild came back with same leadership, playerbase and commitment levels as back on the last server, they'd be the best .com meta again, because they would adapt to new tactics and circumstances).