Posts by BlackBlade

    A few observations I posted in the COM discussion thread.

    • I'm hearing that the "security" to prevent multiple votes is easily bypassed. Nothing can be done about it this year but hopefully a more secure process can be implemented next year. I have some thoughts on this that I will put together for the powers that be. The general gist is they need to leverage multiple measures to prevent and detect multi voting, rather than the one or two that appears to be the case currently.
    • Tournament definitely needs its own slot for a representative
    • Given the international nature of COM it might make sense to assign it 2 spots (in addition to the Tournament specific one)
    • There should be a limit imposed on how often someone can go. While COM is competitive, many of the other domains are very likely to send the same people who went last year. Sending so many of the same people will diminish the value of what can be learned from the representatives.
    • I would suggest next year they include a "free" day of sorts after all of the workshops. A day where the representatives can explore Munich. Using this years schedule as an example, people would start flying home on Sunday the 12th instead of Saturday the 11th. Why? See the above regarding the diversity of representatives. From an outside perspective it would seem a limited number of qualified candidates applied (despite the large number of applications). A day in Munich could be an additional incentive to get others to apply. Yes we all love Travian but in a lot of ways this is like a "work" trip, a little more fun might help convince qualified people to apply.
    • The process as a whole is an improvement over last year, it is important that the community has more of a say in who goes. There are still other modifications I think can be made though to further improve the process.

    These are just some early things I've noticed. Like I said this year the process is an improvement, but there are always things that can be improved on. This is a learning process and to be a bit cliche, perfection is a journey not a destination.

    But spiking inactives shouldn't be allowed/possible. It adds nothing to the game, apart from giving free medals early game and pissing off raiders. Correct me if i'm wrong (this is my 2nd round since i stopped aaaages ago, when T4 came out so I'm used to T3.6) but spiking only seemed to be a thing on T4 when def points went to the person with def troops, not the players who owns the deffed village. That, and overpowered heroes early game (#pay2win), so also free xp via spiking.. Shame Travian didn't see that issue coming tbh.

    A few notes:

    1. Points to defenders was only added in 2017 if I recall correctly, many years after the T4 release. Points going to defenders actually makes it easier for spikers to be found and dealt with. Though obviously some are in it for the "glory" (medals), it was something that seemed to be a thing well before then.

    2. There is a slight nerf to heroes coming with T1 items being less effective. Its on all new servers as of Jan 1st.

    3. They did test only being able to send defense to confeds only in Path to Pandora. That eliminates the spiking of farms and leave only chiefing related spikes to deal with. However it is hard to say whether it will be rolled out to vanilla legends servers. The balance changes announced for Jan 1 would have been a good opportunity to add them. However it is possible there are some technical hurdles, they have gotten negative feedback or are trying to tweak it. I wish knew something about it, though maybe there is something in the last couple Ask Travian videos - I'm behind on watching them.

    The new layout has been in use on PTR since May or June. Getter was contacted, as was the admin of Travian-Reports. Getter attempted to make the adjustments but seem to have been unable or uninterested in seeing it through to completion. The Admin of Travian-Reports has not responded to emails. So they were given the opportunity to update, they have simply failed to do so, which is not surprising since I don't think the owners of either site play anymore.

    That said a replacement is under development from another third party. It is functional but undergoing some additional adjustments and there are some logistical questions that need to be worked out. There is no timeline for general release to the public at this time but I am hopeful it won't be too long before it will get a nice official announcement and general release. It is possible you have or will see it being used as friends of friends have seen/used it and word of it will likely spread, but again not completely ready for a general release.

    I think KTF summed up the general points of opposition to the auto vacation. I do appreciate your suggestion though and I get the intention behind it. I just don't think it is one that would end up being positive for the community.

    To counter the loss of villages to chief maybe a counter measure could be introduced, maybe a quicker automatic deletion process than at present, with a higher proportion of villages being turned into Natar villages.

    This however is something that links into ideas I have about revamping the Natar presence. In general I think more Natar villages would be beneficial. The rate at which farms are deleted for one reason or another have serious negative impacts on raiders. But Natar are also an easy way to blow troops so ideally there would be some modifications to how they operate.

    So Anglosphere seems to be the choice. A couple of questions:

    • What will the web address be? is an option. Though that is a bit lengthy. (see below where AS comes from)
    • What are we going to abbreviate it as? I.e servers are almost always referred to in the context of being US1, UK2 etc. AS1 ? Though AS could be confused with American Samoa. ALS1 ?, though that could be confused with American Sign Language I suppose. But in the context of Travian either would probably work just fine. Just needs to be agreement and ideally official pronouncement.

    If you read the first line you would know I was aware of the other thread and that Sommer is looking into it. However in the event that the answers that are brought back are unsatisfactory I thought I would get a jump on making sure HQ knows where some of us stand on the issue. It wouldn't be the first time (however rare) that they have changed course due to community feedback.

    While we are still waiting for clarification as to when the unified language pack will be added, I (and others) are of the opinion it should be added sooner rather than later. I think it is important that this be made clear to the powers that be that this is important to us.

    I took a gander at the embassies ("game world" forums to use the new forum nomenclature) and counted a combined 36 threads that have been active since August across the 3 domains in the 1-7 forums. ( I ignored x3 because that is rather messy) Those are the only sections of the forum where they is any conflict of adding the new combined language pack. About 1/3 of those were active simply because someone was dumpster diving into old and otherwise dead threads. (This is a big issue with the x3 threads and hence why they were left out of my count)

    I believe it is entirely reasonable that those threads and the few that might be created over the next 5 months can co-exist relatively peacefully on the single language pack. All other sections of the forum will have absolute no conflict. Either an official tag can be created (not sure on the ease of adding on the tech front) OR a simple [US] [UK] etc. added to a threads title (and enforced by the Mods)

    The only reason I can see that can delay this is the technical implementation of the language pack and the work that the staff will need to do to move the threads. However I suspect working on these threads will be infinitely easier than it was in the merging of the forums last year.

    We the people ask that the new EN language pack be added ASAP.

    (P.S I would personally request we see more archiving of old threads. Are there any guidelines as to when that function is utilized?)

    (P.P.S The HoF is another issue but that needs a lot of effort to organize and rebuild it any, though less so the UK. They have down a pretty good job with it.)

    I think Travian should be careful not to have too few servers, as this could make numbers dwindle further. There needs to be regular restarts, as 2 months is just too long imo.

    I'm more concerned with too many servers than too few but I do see your point of concern. From a business perspective it also does pay to have more servers starting to both attract players and bring in that early to mid game gold windfall. That said if 1x servers were a bit shorter it would make it easier to run more per year without negatively impacting player numbers per server.

    For arguments sake lets say each server is 8 months currently. Obviously they can go longer which would screw this scenario up but there are too many What ifs (also some easy solutions to make it more full-proof) to address initially.

    Under this model in the first year there would only be 1 month without a restart of a 1x server. With effort put on spacing that could essentially be eliminated, making no extra large gap of no server. You would also have the (2) speed servers doing their usual thing and equally split apart.

    Now on to the issues & solutions:

    • A server decides they want a Natar win: Easily solved by changing end game pacing. Make the Natars finish sooner. (Day 250 would work)
    • A server can't get a WW to competition within 240 days (the assumption of the 8 months): Change the Natars to completion at Day 250 and you tack on only 10 additional days which wouldn't modify the schedule that much.

    An even more radical solution as I mentioned earlier would be to completely change the duration of a 1x server, something I fully support. I think 1x is just too long and a bit too slow (and no 3x is not the solution Lem/Mia :p ). Below is a one of the ideas I had on that. In order to ensure a similar level of account size, troops etc. (and with a little bump up) I have also included modifications to field production, troop training times and construction times. I'm not married to the precise details, but I am very much behind the intention and general direction of what I have outlined.

    This would allow servers to end in 5.5 - 7 months and probably 6 months on average. A smaller range than current servers have and obviously shorter, making it easier to have servers starting more often without increasing the total number of servers.

    Servers starting more often could also help prevent burnout. One of the bigger issues the community faces is players simply getting too run down. Some of it is self inflicted with players playing multiple servers. But I see it even with those who only play one server. The servers are so long and tend to drag over the last couple of months. Faster servers would be better for the health of players. Add in more frequent starts and you enable players to actually take a break. No more "Do I start this server with only 1 week break or do I wait 2 months for the next one?".

    This is largely speculation however I believe they want to avoid the confusion of running the combined language pack at the same time as existing AU/UK/US ones. I don't think there is any real technical challenge, rather the issue is in how to handle the currently running servers on those language packs. There are 10 active servers I think that share the same domain number. The only real work is in moving over all the threads, which shouldn't be that difficult depending on what the Mod tools look like. (simply various levels of time consuming). Though I suppose there may be some technical issue in making all the current AU/UK/US language users also users of the new language pack.

    Add to that that I don't know if they can create forums for specific languages only, they don't want to create a ton of sub-forums for each of the existing servers and clutter up the Game Worlds tab for every user regardless of language. (Obviously individual users can shut them off manually but it would still be a downside)

    That said, I think it is entirely possible to create the merged language pack now. The troubles of servers with the same number can be avoided through something as simple as having Mods (I know extra work sorry) add an identifier to each thread name in the Embassies. I.e [US1] Random Chatter or [UK1 BR Thread.

    I think it can all be done relatively easily (growing pains to be expected and a little work to do it) but Travian moves at its own pace. So even if the staff on the ground are capable of doing it, they may well need to wait for word on high to actually get something done.

    Hence why I asked for clarification though. I want to be sure my understanding of the timing is correct and get an understanding as to why. Then we can merrily raise our concerns and fight for a better solution if need be.

    It is for now but a new language pack will be added at some point in the future. I didn't find the announcement that clear as to when the merged language pack would be added. I think we won't see it until all existing game worlds end from AU/UK/US... which won't be for at least a few months. I think Us1 was the last start on Aug 7, which would put a new language pack around March 23rd. (230 days later)

    It is suggested something will happen when the first joint server is up but it doesn't specifically mention a new language pack (which is what we need)

    Could we get some clarification on this? @sommerfuglen_NO

    I played speed for a couple rounds a decade ago, as well as the 10x server they did, that was more than enough for me in a life time. :p I like to be able to sit and enjoy my life. 1x takes too much time per day as it is. :whistling:

    Well I suppose 2 can be tried with relative ease, it isn't hard to eliminate one if it became necessary. I guess my real concern is the slow pace by which decisions and changes are made. That is to say, if 2 are tried and prove to be excessive it could take them a while to make the decision to nix the 2nd one.

    I think if 2 are tried, they should be planned around the COM speed as well. I.e Month A English 1 Starts, Month B COM starts and Month C English 2 starts. I doubt they would start both English's in the same month but I don't think it makes sense to start both a COM and an English in the same month.

    Speed is what roughly 90 days?

    What crazy people play more than 1 speed at a time? 8|

    I am less networked with speed so you might have a point. But is there usually that much cross over between AU/UK/US speeds at a given moment?

    And can say 2 speeds maintain sufficient population to be interesting? I suppose it depends how many play multiple speeds / total speed population.

    There are also other domains that will have speed servers running. Roughly 10 seem to restart each month if the last 2 are any indication, including of course COM which is in English.


    • The merged domain should have (1) Birthday Special, (1) New Years Special, (1) Speed Server and (6) 1x T4.4 Servers.
    • Suggestion for numbering convention: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 until all the current low number servers are complete. Then cycle them down to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. (Though the announcement suggests something is in the works it doesn't hurt to chime in, whatever the numbering scheme is should be simple!)

    Anglosphere Domain. "the countries where English is the main native language, considered collectively."

    Anglo domain sounds better but it is more easily defined as restricted to white native English speakers. Anglosphere seems to avoid that connotation. But it is also a bit wordy.

    That said it may simplify things simply to call it the Native English Domain or Local English Domain (in contrast to the International English Domain of COM).

    Regarding internet domain name / address. I see 2 options.

    1) Use .ORG

    2) Use a sub-domain of .COM. Like

    I prefer option 2 because I think ultimately every domain should simply be a subdomain of .com as part of a larger global restructuring.

    I fully support this move. It should be noted that this isn't the only merger occurring, the Nordics are officially moving together as well (and maybe others, I don't have contacts for every language :p )

    That said, I would have preferred they take a much more aggressive merger plan globally (among other changes.) To me this feels more like packing a massive wound with lap pads instead of actually using surgery to fix the underlying issues. Could I be wrong? I hope for the sake of the game I love they are doing enough, otherwise it will go the way of Toys R Us or House of Fraser. (at the very least Legends, perhaps not the entirety of TG. Though it should be noted many bigger and better game studios have closed in the last 2 years)

    Why archive the gold purchase messages? :huh: You can just open the gold buying menu and click on pending orders to see how much gold you have purchased :)

    That is fascinating, I never knew that. Considering those aren't "pending" it is a little surprising to see them there. Maybe the addition of a "completed" orders page might be in order? Or rename the current to Pending & Completed orders.