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.
and very, very different types of players
/me walks into the line of fire. I will start by saying I have friends on both sides and have opted to skip this round. I also have a very short history playing on COM, so a I have minimal baggage. That said I don't see the types of players as very different.
- Both sides have good people, both sides have bad people
- Both sides have cheaters, both sides have honest players
- Both sides have drama queens, both sides have reasonable players
- Both sides have players consumed by hatred for the other side
- Both sides are willing to waste time on the forum and use that hatred to rage at the other side
- Both sides generally don't understand the concept of friendly banter & competition
The greatest threat to this game beside under-investment by TG is the players themselves and Com1 is a great example of that. Just thought that was worth pointing out.
I have a lot of comments but I'm going to just put a few since I only have a little time right now.
ALSO, please when you ban someone, tell them what the IP was for the device at fault. In most cases, there are multiple duals and no one owns up to it. Only the MH can him/herself tell us who caused the ban to occur. If they dont, we are left clueless and the cheater will most definitely repeat it on the account he/she plays next. Causing another few people to lose their time and money due to his/her incompotence. Its extremely important to get this sorted, as i do understand that there are some specific laws which prevent MH's from revealing IP. Be that as it may, you need to get it sorted.
One way to get around the privacy issue would be a universal account. Everyone would have a single "master" account for the game and forum. Then like Kingdoms you can start individual "accounts" on each server and others can connect to that account as a dual. Have the system log activity of each universal account and then you can more readily identify who is at fault. (not full proof but nothing is)
This would also allow for greater overall security. Bad actors can be more easily tracked from server to server. Duplicate universal accounts can be deleted before they even have a chance to register on a server. Again not full proof to all the problems but it has the potential to make the game and forum a better place. Not to mention benefits in general data collection to monitor various metrics like how often players do X or Y. Those metrics can be used to improve the game + improve marketing. I facepalm each time I get an email about a server multiple times because I've had an account on more than one server on a domain in the recent past - even though they all had the same email. Its a minor redundancy but it has always struck me as unprofessional that there isn't a CRM system in place to avoid that.
No tolerance policy towards FFs. Ive discussed this before here already, so will just quote it.
Confed system update definitely helps as you said but isn't full proof. A rule change is possible but it would take very specific language to make it a "universal" rule aka a rule. This goes back to your earlier point RE: MH. I do think they should be paid as well. Might it mean less of them? Sure. But there could be a complete restructuring of the "support" hierarchy where less MH isn't necessarily an issue. Consistent rule enforcement is absolutely paramount. However what you suggest could potentially open up a ton more work for MH, which as you pointed out they already seem over taxed given the length of responses. Good points thought and definitely something that needs discussing.
That's all for now. I'll be back for more comments soon.
A few observations:
- 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.
One good thing they did was add an option in your settings to "Don't display images in reports." This removes that big image at the top but leaves the rest.
That said I think many of us would appreciate other settings to modify the appearance. I'd love to be able to turn off Images of the Attacker / Defender, leaving just the colored bar saying Attacker and Defender.
- Add ability to turn off image of Attack / Defender on the sides of the report
- Condense Attack / Defender bar height - Decrease "ATTACKER" font size and pixel height of the box around it (for when images are disabled as above)
I have a few more things but the general idea is to allow players to toggle different elements to create more streamlined and basic (graphically) reports. I would also extend this to other elements of the UI but one thing at a time.
With the new report format being rolled out to servers today I have noticed an uptick in chatter about them. A lot of people were taken aback at the sudden change and didn't even know they have been in trial on PTR and PtP for several months now.
In an effort to bring those Skype and Discord conversations public I'm making a thread for people to make their feelings known.
The fact that we don't have an answer about this is rather disturbing. This is certainly something that should have come up when coding the new map size, so there should be a readily available answer to copy and paste.
First it is impossible for the original spawn spiral to function as is since some go beyond the 200 mark.
Second if the spawn on the edge simply condenses with no other changes they will be a lot of Arti depth in the "boonies" and encourage people to settle out there, which begins to defeat the purpose of a smaller map.
So today I was cleaning Getter and making a list of accounts that need to update. Next step was to IGM all of them, there were many that needed messaging so I utilized the function to IGM more than on person at once. This got the first batch done but then I had another couple of batches + a few odds and ends IGMs to send out regarding duplicate accounts.
Easy right? Well not at all. After I sent the first group, I got hit with a 10 minute no IGM spam notice when trying to send the second. Eventually got that one out, then sent a single IGM to another person a bit after and less than a minute later went to send a similar message (personally tailored) to another. Again got the spam message. What should have taken 5 minutes has instead eaten up over 30 minutes of my time.
So my question is what is the criteria for when this spam protection activates? Right now the way it is set up makes it extremely difficult to personally IGM people to conduct alliance business. Obviously I think it needs alteration but to craft a better suggestion for alteration it helps to know a bit more about how it works first.
I may need to poke a MH for an answer (assuming it isn't covered under the ever expansive NDA) but figured I'd start here.