Ah yea sure. Sorry lots of quotes, not surprised I missed that last one.
Under the general proposal as is - yes there would be a limit on how much you can farm from a player. You can certainly still raid it every 30 seconds but you will at some point max out on how many resources you can collect until the amount resets. However based on the discussions so far I do not anticipate many people hitting that limit unless they are one of only a few farmers on that village/player. No limits have been decided on as of yet and I suspect it will require some real world testing to find the right balance.
Sorry but sending waves stopped being a "skill" years ago.
(2) Zero advertisement.
Advertise where exactly? First the audience for browser based games has shrunk significantly with the rise of mobile gaming. Second TG is never going to be able to compete against the advertising of bigger gaming companies.
(3) Mobile app
As has been stated it is currently technically impossible. However the technical issues are being worked on that will allow the improvement of the mobile experience. Playing in a mobile browser with a mobile specific UI will do just fine i.e an app itself isn't required even if it has slight advantages over a mobile interface. Are they behind in it? Most definitely. But Legends was also due to be replaced by Kingdoms (T5) only 5 years ago. T5 has a mobile app and that was part of the development of T5 to begin with. Context is always good to keep in mind.
(4) No regular updates/implementations
This is something that has been steadily improving.
(6) Lack of bot detection
Constantly being improved however the bots are also constantly being improved. It is wack-a-mole.
(3) Farm lists:
There are improvements that were discussed and are under consideration. I would speculate that we will see some improvements in the nearish future.
Sent a key
- You cannot move wood/clay/iron/crop in heroes inventory... annoying.
That is quite annoying. I like an organized inventory and that is not going to help.
Reorganize this reward of task, as it is, and a pure mess, there is no way you can make one and when you complete it you can make the next as well.
My understanding is this is not the final task order and is being worked on for the main servers.
What about if I want exactly go for one of it... from the map or something else ?
You can click the X button on whatever building/menu etc. you go into. Top right corner and that will bring you back to whichever view (field or building) you were in prior.
Why is everything multiplied by 3 except warehouse, granary, cranny (and trapper for gauls)? I started late this evening with a production of 144 and a capacity of 800.
Something I've wondered myself. At the very least 2x of such things would be great, though I'm not sure how the speed community would feel about that.
I would ( and so would everyone I've talked to ) much prefer the development resources spent on a mobile client. This game has been going on strong for 15+ years now. Again... I'm just completely baffled with the no-go decision on a mobile client.. lol
They are working on improving the mobile browsing experience. Right now they are working to optimize the code to work better technically (think things like load speed), as well as untangle and update years of old code that was not at all designed to work in a mobile environment. After that the next step would be to design a mobile specific UI. A dedicated app is completely off the table until that is done and really if the mobile browsing experience is brought up to modern standards, there isn't that much reason for an app. Those that absolutely want something that only an app could provide could likely be achieved by implementing a proper API. But again those are all things that would be much farther down the development line, if at all.
What I do like is the condensed hero circle. However, I miss being able to click on the hero "boot" icon, and instantly be linked to the rally point of the hero
I don't have a current account to check, so I can't think of what the boot is? Can you someone provide a picture?
I think I missed this when you first posted. Seems like a good idea, in particular I like that you've put together a visual aid. I noticed in Munich it can be sometimes hard to explain what anyone means without that addition. I'll add it to my growing list and try and bring it up when we've settled a few of our on-going topics.
Fully agree. It is something I have in my idea database but didn't have an opportunity to bring it up during the Summit in Munich. While I can't be sure, I don't think it would be particularly difficult to implement. I will pass it along as soon as I can (we've got a bunch of topics we are working through at the moment) and get the Game Center's feedback on the matter.
Huh that is interesting. I've never used the in game simulator - I always use Kirilloid. However that is a rather glaring issue I think - though that depends on what purpose the in-game simulator serves. Is it intended to replace third party tools or is it meant as a lite tool for new users / quick use for players who want a quick peak at something related to them?
I'll make a note of it the general issue and see if something can be done. The first improvement would be to essentially allow you to simulate combat between third parties, so you don't need one of your villages selected. Perhaps it could include a way to select an enemy player so you can quickly pull up their tribe / account population for the sim?
Any other ideas / issues?
Yawn, nice to see the New accounts registering so they can steal arties in BP again this round.
Was just poking around and noticed this.
One of the things on LoT / my Ambassador's agenda is to shut off registration early enough to prevent this. There was no noticeable opposition when I brought it up, so I'm hopeful it is something that it will be enacted this year. The real impediment is the shear number of subjects under consideration - however since I suspect this is one of the easier ones I will see about moving it towards the top of my agenda.
The raiding losses would be able to exceed the hard cap
That's fair, although I presume there would be different levels of red tape and access to go through to modify travian answers as opposed to certain in-game text, so I'm not sure the two are actually competing from a resource standpoint.
In some regards no there would be no overlap. However once you start looking at it from a multi-lingual perspective there would be overlap in needing the same translators reworking text. There is something like 50 languages supported by the game so any change in text on one version creates a lot of additional work.
That said I do see it as something worth while to do over time
Why would I do it if as result I only return cost of killed troops?
Here is a theoretical example:
- You clear a farm and take 1,000 res in losses
- You can raid 7 days of 10 hours daily production + the 1,000 res you lost
- Production is 100/hour = 7,000
- Res that can be raided immediately = 8,000
So there will still be profit
"Also, we want to remove the difference between raiding an alliance member and raiding anyone else. To achieve this, we will expand a limit to how many resources can be raided to all accounts.
According to the participants of the Legends on Tour 2019 Summit this will increase teamwork, as multiple players need to raid a target to maximise bounty."
Sounds like there will not be a top 10 raiders anymore seeing as there will be a limit to resources raided? Or is this "The person who hits the most farms will have the biggest raid potential"
This is part of the hard-coded protections being looked at to minimize the impact to the change in Rule 1.1.
The major concern is "tech" accounts i.e. those that exist largely to act as friendly farms/garages for players and/or alliances. Right now pushing protections are essentially built around limiting resource flow between connected accounts through the alliance/confed, sitting or IP. IP generally targets multi-accounts and under the proposed Rule 1.1 changes still be against the rules. Current pushing protections don't do anything to target friendly farms outside the alliance/confed. The new "pushing" protections are designed to limit the value of those out of alliance tech accounts.
Some techs are in alliances, though I would say generally they are not. This is because within alliances there are some existing protections that limit the resources that can be gained from them. By having the same rules across the board the goal is to limit the value of tech accounts, which can only be done by addressing raid related protections. We already see the current push protections being worked around by using raiding, this is closing the loophole.
The in-game protections will also be simpler when all is said and done, the current connections / protections table is quite messy.
meaning you will have to constantly change farm lists to make sure you are hitting farms you haven't capped out on.
Under the current discussions it is anticipated that this will only happen in the early days of the server on accounts that have maxed our warehouse/granary i.e fresh farms. Otherwise most players should not hit the cap, especially once players hit the point where they can comfortably farm all farms at once and are competing against dozens of other farmers. Unless of course they are friendly farms, but then you hitting the limit is exactly what we want to see happen.
I understand the premise behind the X's, it just makes me sad to see that it does not have a high priority, yet.
It does have high priority but we knew the topic would be discussed under another - specifically the confederacy rule. It wasn't worth us putting an X on something we knew we would already be discussing. The confederacy rule eliminates the spiking problem and is something we supported implementing on all servers.
It would be nice to see the list of things TG committed to as the result of LoT 2019.
I do want to say that "committed" is a strong word. For example just because Game Design thinks something is a brilliant idea doesn't mean Development will find it easy to do. So even though there may have been positive feedback on a topic doesn't necessarily mean we will see it soon - or ever. I do think however that there will be significantly better communication going forward so if there are significant deviations we will have a much better idea as to why and topics will not simply disappear.