Posts by arjun-iyer

    The SW of the american server does look interesting.

    Did all the pre-made allies just decide to land there simultaneously? :D

    Recently, one of our member who joined the server recently said that they do not see any extension beginner's protection button on his page.

    Has the rule regarding the extension of beginner's protection has changed?


    Sorry for asking this (I did check the embassy info page, but I still have some doubts).

    Being an old timer, its baffling to see 60 member alliance so soon on servers.

    So, the question is: Has there been any change to the rule on the total no. of players you can have for an embassy level?

    A. Restriction on the total no. of active IP addresses logged in an account.

    What if, instead of *punishing* the accounts that have more than 2 players, we get a restriction put in that limits the total no. of active IP addresses in an account.

    For example, its really difficult to track if the logged in device. There's no certainity that its more than 2 players.

    But, what if.. we restrict the no. of IP addresses logged in at a time in an account?

    Travian can limit that.

    I don't see why any one particular individual would be logging in from 3 separate devices at the same time. Unless, its more than 1 individual.

    The act of limiting no. of online users in an account at the same time could force players to think twice before inviting more than 2-3 players.. since someone will constantly be logged out everytime the limit is hit.

    B. 2 step verification for accounts that are continiously logged in

    Being logged in 24 hrs a day, too isn't a sure indicator. Someone can simply log-in, and just keep it running it in the background.

    For this, they can add a 2 step process.

    1. Identify the accounts that see 24 hrs login-activity.

    2. Add in mechanism to log them out, say.. every 2-3 hrs and force a captcha (this will be difficult for bots, unless the player manually completes the authentication)

    If step A + B are enforced together, they won't stop multi-dualling (3-5 players in an account), but will rather discourage Bots + Teams playing in a single account.

    Am not against teams playing a single account.. but Travian would be a more level playing field, if we can have only 1-2 players in an account, rather than let's say.. 5 in one.


    Hi ELE ,

    Point 2. Auction and silver exchange

    Consider the scenario, where you are about to be deleted.. but you end up out-bidding someone else..

    1. No one gets that item.

    2. The seller of the item ends up with a loss when the trade doesn't go through.

    3. If your account is deleted by then.. who gets the item?

    4. If your account is deleted by then.. who do the other players bid against? (This feature can be abused, to simply drive an item's price waay high.. since the account deleted has no issues giving up that silver)

    A workaround, would be to lock up the silver as part of the player's unique_id, but its against their own rules where if an account is deleted.. it should be completely deleted off the server.

    They can pool it part of some global-entity.. but that again just makes things much more weirder.. like the silver in that entity keeps growing.. or keeps getting items (they'll need to add another management system for this)

    Point 3. Participate in market trades

    Regarding blocking of market trades, I believe the reason could be.. consider the following scenario.

    There's just 1 hour left for the account to be completely deleted.. and you buy something off the market (and vice versa).

    Now, if the trade takes more than 1 hour.. it can create several issues:

    1. Who would the active player's merchants deliver resources to when your account is deleted?

    2. Where would your merchants return to?

    3. (Assuming you are a teuton, and the other player is a gaul), The other player delivers the resources to you.. but your merchants don't.. since during that time.. your account got deleted (there are some workarounds here.. like convert the merchants to Natars.. or something else..).

    So, seeing the tradeoff between how much extra work - special conditions travian need to consider to avoid running into bugs to provide that one feature, I guess the tradeoff.. of blocking the trades/auctions all-together sounds much reasonable for them.

    Also, that could be the reason they have the 72 hrs window for the account deletion.

    They want to make sure that most of the events triggered by the account finish before the account is disposed off for good.

    Sure, this part of the game could use some improvement.

    Not sure what you suggested if the best possible solution.. but travian could do something about it to avoid players literally losing 20+ hrs, on something frutile.

    Maybe something like..

    1. If there's 10+ hrs still pending.. the settler immediately turns back

    2. The player *notifies* his settlers.. and after reaching an appropriate distance from the settling area.. (maybe 40 tiles), the settler turns back

    3. The settler continues the journey.. and the player can choose either the settler

    a) dies

    b) returns back to the home village x2 speed, after dropping all the resources (the initial 750)
    4. From that tile, the settler can be redirected to a different tile (a small penalty of reducing the total no. of resources can be deducted.. based on the new distance the settler has to travel)

    It doesn't force all the other players to play alone either. They have the liberty to invite and get other players and share the account.

    With that being said...

    I believe its a reasonable suggestion. If we get a solution to this.. we could have a bit more level playing field.

    My questions to you or anyone would be

    1. What no. of players would you call - too many?

    2. How would you calculate the total no. of players?

    3. What should travian do, in case that limit is breached?

    This is a solution TG implemented after consulting the best and the most experienced players around. The idea behind it is to limit tech abuse I think and to make the game more appealing for new players (works like a charm from what I've seen :S).


    I have highlighted the same in all of my above posts.

    Respawning is a good idea / thing - it encourages player-to-player interaction, rather than abusing oases.

    The point and the crux of the issue is - the implementation i.e. How can you better implement/improve the experience of all players while still sending a message.

    The suggestions is to do the exact thing they've been doing, and to improve on them ;)

    There has to be some room for skills and game knowledge in the game.

    If travian expects to bring in new players (this should be one of their curx on increasing their overall base), they should consider improving or at the least improving the game experience.

    Abruptly seeing all of those EI (even after almost 10 yrs experience has left me shocked - I still am livid that this happened).

    Now consider, the following 2 scenario's

    (A new player who has just joined the server)

    1. Abruptly and suddenly loses almost all his army

    2. Loses some, and sees animals spawning

    In both the scenario's, the player is forced to re-consider raiding the oases.. but scenario 1, is lot more extreme and can drive people away.

    We need to consider ideas that try to send a message, and at the same time doesn't push the players away.

    At a certain point, you have to adjust to the game. Not ask for the game to adjust to your preferred play style.

    Fair point.

    But isn't the whole point of this thread to discuss idea's that can improve the game?

    Between the 2 scenario's mentioned above, am pretty sure no one would be comfortable with an abrupt and sudden loss of their army at the very start of the game*, and we + travian should explore idea's to improve the experience.

    From my perspective it should be as it was before 2014 or 2013,

    You mean the v3.6 to v4 change?

    To some extent it has improved. It used to be 1600 res. per oases before, afaik and 4/8k seem to be better and compensates to some extent for your losses.

    There are many reasons games like travian are losing popularity, and one of them can be attributed to it being PTW (but it needs to be modelled the way it is, to keep the servers and employment running)

    The only improvement they can do at this point is to update certain rules and look up ideas to improve the game experience (this includes finding ideas to avoid noob-bashing)

    Making the oasis to never respawn after it's been cleared would be even better, but I doubt TG is going to do something like this. Auctions prices for cages are insane on some servers, especially early.

    Beats the purpose of re-spawn. From their perspective, they are correct. They want more player-to-player engagement. Respawning animals does exactly that.

    The issue I see with that is - the way they've implemented the concept. For a late game, you can have an aggressive re-spawn system. At the start of the game, it simply kills the mood (am still in a shock =O)

    The recent Confed + Sitter + Reinforcement changes seem to be awesome and were un-imaginable a few yrs ago.

    Thus - we need to identify the points that can damage player morality and find ways for a better engagement of players and ideas.

    Check the suggestion pt.3.

    I used to believe the same, i.e. the respawn depends on the no. of players trying to raid/attack it.

    That doesn't seem to be the case (I've been playing the new ts3 server, that started 5 days ago)

    The respawn started about 90 mins before the Beginner Protection ended, and wiped out about 75% of my offense force (losing 28 EI's at this stage is as good as GG for me ;()

    Yes and that's the whole point.

    Turning off, is great. For the first 4 days, there were no respawns - this helps players who want to build army/raid build-up.

    But when the *respawn hard* hits, its really off-putting.

    The idea is to do it in a phased out manner, to give a smoother experience and move them away from depending on the oases.

    To start it of,

    I understand the reasoning for spawning troops in the oases i.e. encourage players to interactively play one another than abuse the system.

    Its a good strategy, I get that.

    I would like to suggest is - why such an aggressive spawning of animals in the oases, so early in the server?!

    For example, in the recent ts3, the animals in ALL the oases spawned suddenly and aggressively - killing almost 75-80% of the troops, which is Insane and really Off-putting (I cannot stress that enough)

    It is really frustrating to see so many troops, worked so hard to train over the past couple of days, die just under an hour!!

    This is god-damn frustrating, not only for me but each and every player (especially the newbies).

    The idea to incorporate and encourage players is not by triggering something that destroys all they have been building, immediately at the start of the server! ( Consider the player experience when you make such designs! )


    1. Reconsider spawn rate, at least at the start of the server. Players are really vulnerale at this stage (think about them - How would you feel, if you brought a house, and right before your payment, you lose your job or get a salary cut!)

    2. Respawn in only a percentage..and gradually increase it over time. Once players realize that oases have started re-spawning.. they'll eventually drop abusing it.

    3. Focus on increasing the spawn rate, depending on the number of attack/raids an oases get (I used to believe it depended on that, but the recent experience in ts3 says otherwise)

    Any good alliance in NW?

    Am looking for one, seems even the well experienced guys are teamping up with the meta :D

    Would be great to find a small rag-tag pre-made team as well, as long as they don't plan to invite everyone above a certain population rank and confed with every other ally in the server.