Tech = unpunishable multi accounts.
Then we don't talk about the same stuff.
I talk as I stated not about multies. For multies it doesnt matter if they store or build def or whatever the fk, they need to be banned.
But if I myself would decide to support our WWK, I can't see any reason why I shouldn't be able to do that? Why do you want to restrict my gameplay? Im not a bot, I don't play two accounts (would probably be a sitter tho). A lot of players do this or did this in the past. They just didn't call themself "techs". They just called themself defensive Players. But after a certain point in the game they also just stored troops for the WWK. Because people figuered out it is beneficial to support even earlier to get the queues rolling and make it in general easier for the WWK account you oppose this?
As far as I am concerned you need to ban multiaccounting ( I know this is problematic with tor/proxys used) and everything else is just smart usage of gamemechanics.
But then again, since travian is a very linear game it will always be full of cheaters in its current state.
Because a tech player means you have more then one account. And the number of accounts is directly related to strenght, even beyond linair, 2 accounts are more then twice as strong as 1 account.
I mean you can't compare it to one Account. You Need to keep in mind that you loose one Account who would otherwise build troops. So you basically need to compare it to two Accounts.
Again I don't speak about multi accounting.
Techs nullify personal dedication, game knowledge and skill. Any personal effort is invalidated by tech users achieving the same (or even more) with minimal effort and no risk. That is what a lot of players take issue with.
How so? I myself never played with a tech or was one myself, but for example in my current world we have one player in my alliance who holds unique diet and settles a village in every def/off cluster from us to feed mainly our defensive units (but off as well). Why shouldn't this be allowed for players who don't hold an artefact but want to support their offensive players? Why is there minimal effort? A tech account needs to develop their villages too. Why is there no risk? Because this may lead to a an easier manageble WWK but less over all defense since those tech account could just build tons of defensive units instead of feeding the hammer, equals higher risk of getting nuked.
Maybe I should again clarify, when I talk about a tech player I talk about an active alliance member who just choose to support the WWK players a lot, not a tor based dummy account. I can understand if the playerbase is angry when they see some accounts with like 20 bots around them which they can exclusively raid and chief full developed villages, because thats cheating. Garaging parts of Hammers is not.
I probably wasn't clear enough in my posts above and if thats so I wan't to apologize. But I believe that not the tech playstyle is the problem, instead TGs tools to determine if those players are real and legit.
If I would decided right now that, because of time issues, I just want to support our WWK. Why would you deny my playstyle? Because I don't play for the benifit of my account you probably say. But what is the benefit of my account? Trying to win with the World Wonder race with my alliance!
Garaging WWKs is the most prevalent issue. OP hammers are to a greater degree fed on own account - and again, I think it's fair to offer some garaging just because you have some spare crop. But we're talking accounts that are set up with the primary purpose of being garages, garaging 100k+ troops (an actual, in game example, being a 1m EC WWK, with 230k imps stored in one garage, and 24k catas in another.)
This playstyle is not an issue at all. In fact it is what you should do, while using your artefacts. The Problem is that there are sometimes no unique players behind those Accounts which means it is just multiaccounting. Why should you be forced to farm 24/7 to feed an WWK, because other players had to do it back in 1872?
My suggestion was specifically allowing this support playstyle to a certain degree and more or less make everything exceeding this very hard. If people having fun playing more supportive, why not make this possible? Of course this comes with drawbacks because every change in this range affects all players. Same with restrictions to farming.
This equals many many players quitting the game. I'm sure we can all agree fewer players is the last thing we need.
The Players are already gone, I am one of the very very few example who just recently joined this game (in 2017) and stayed. You just need to look at the regional servers even from the bigger domains. It is the exception if there are more then 600 active player after artefacts.
Maybe I am wrong here, but I think TG has no real vision for the game anymore and they first need to think about what playstyles they want in this game and what they don't want. After that they need to design it properly in that way. Currently it seems they fight fire with fire and the moment they fix an issue they create another. What other games told me is that if something is exploitable people will figure it out and milk the hell out of it, Travian is just a very slow game.
So before they change anything they need to ask themself, maybe in cooperation with you guys, the following questions (and more):
1. What playstyles do we want to allow? (Off, Deff, Hybrid, WWK/WWR, Support, Ghost Hammers and so on, plus any variations)
2. Should farming be mandatory for some of them?
3. What is an account allowed to do to support his alliance and in that regard other accounts?
4. Should there be drawbacks if you ignore the server objective?
5. How many Gold do you need to play a decent account (yes this is important to design the game around and TG should at least internally know this to target the right bracket of customers)?
And some more, which to a degree are talked about already (Server time for example) or I didn't came up with just now.
I mean I don't play that long and still start getting tired because in this game specifically, people want to force their own playstyle on everyone else. In my opinion players can do whatever they want as long as they are real unique players and don't use cheats. If I choose to build zero troops and garage my whole alliance why not? Why does it matter that "back in the day" people didn't do that?
Jip, you are right that it punishes the legit raiders too. But I believe you would not need multies anymore because at least on higher populated servers it would be more or less mandatory to hit raiding cap every single week.
Since you are so against my suggestions, what are yours? My feeling is that we are way past the time a simple 1.1 change would solve anything, since what is going on is already illegal but can't be proven with the current detection tools.
The issue about techs are only those who are raided by 1 specific account? That is general opinion.
That should be only point to discuss and solve.
Then you either need to code a raiding cap or develope a very complex algorithm to calculate what a person can raid from one account.
But I guarantee you, people will find a way around every algorithm because at the end of the day you just can create more accounts to raid exclusively.
This game is more or less based on the idea that you can raid and chief other accounts, every way I see to restrict it will ultimately affect you and me too .
I can reopen the authentification process discussion, because lets face it, it is so easy to create a dummy account in Travian. But again, even if you make it harder, someone will go the extra mile to give himself an advantage.
Amendement to rule 1.1: something like adding "an account is only allowed to willingly give away x amount of production (I'm thinking 1/10th or less). This is intended to handle private farms.
The problem I immediately see is one tiny word: "willingly". This will lead to some accounts magically beeing noobs.
The weird thing about Travian is that certain people want to play the game a certain way and somehow every side wants to force their playstyle upon everything else.
If you want to make changes it needs to count for each and everyone while beeing easy. The changes you proposed in April are very complex and not fitting, since it seems you don't want to change how everything works for a portion of the playerbase but target only the things another very vocal portion of the playerbase don't like to play against
I personally have no problem with a supporting playstyle, as long as those players are real and don't magically disappear after 4 weeks and let themself beeing chiefed. And while we at it I don't support Multies and Bots one bit, but my believe is the game should not be designed to satisfy the top 5% but to fit the needs of the mayority in the middle.
This means it should be designed to be playable for players who play one account alone, are not 24/7 and are middle of the pack gold users.
Since I got that out of the way, here is my suggestion:
1. Make support playstyle official:
This means like a sitter, both accounts can agree and with that they can trade, HR, and garage unlimitly. But only 2 accounts can be connected and with the connection they can't sit each other and can't chief each other for the rest of the game, even if they loose the connection later(can still zero eachother). Yes you can still use tor to be undetectable, but that is why the connection is limited to one per account. And you need to be in the same alliance.
2. On every other account you can only store troops a total amount of 4 hours per day 6 days in the future, which means you can store them at max 24hours in a row and yes still with the alliance only stuff enabled. This does not take into account the amount of troops, so it doesn't matter if its 1 or 100k defense for example. Not included are artefact villages and World Wonder villages. Bottom line: Standing defense in offensive accounts would be gone.
3. To really kill bots who are beeing farmed you need to implement a farm hardcap based on the server day or week, but since it is impossible due to player backlash I don't really know how to proceed here.
A general problem of Travian is, it is a very linear game and most of the time more leads to more (there are very little non linear synergies in the game). This means that it doesn't matter how you change the game, the playerbase will always try to cheat or exploit some game mechanics to push boundrys. The only thing you really can do against this is to hardcode stuff in the game or make the impact of the cheat meaningless. But as you can see at my and basically every suggestion it almost never only affects exclusively the targeted behaviour.
So you all have to ask yourself. Do you wan't to change the game and at the same time have impacted your own playstyle or do you wan't to stay the game the same more or less and accept that cheating gives you a big advantage and a lot of peaople will either flat out do it or at least exploit the "grey area".
NhokZunK it depends on server activity. Low activity server will not have high prices on auction. It might take a while.
I just now read this. From my experience this is not true at all and most of the times the other way round. Low populated Servers with a lot of inactive players have always those 20-50 high gold Accounts who now compete over much much less available items.
Sometimes Gold Club can be bought if you just sell your ointments in the first week. On the servers I play on 10 ointments go for about 8-12k silver in the beginning and so on. If you drop a Shield for example its 45-100k silver.
Keep in mind I only speak for 1x Servers and the prices depend on the server phase.
speaking about com2, do those competitive Alliances/Metas generally recruit in the beginning or do you have to expect getting destroyed immediately if you settle a 150 or 125% in one of their corners if you don't have any contacts previousely?
Kinda fed up about my region currently, but obv. don't know anyone on com.
Maybe unpopular opinion but I think the decline has more to do with game design decisions then ban waves. I mean tell me, why should a new player without prior game knowledge or any contacs to veterans start this game?
Yes they need to improve the ban system (e.g. stop triggering automated bans), yes there is a need for better and faster communication. But even if they archieve all those things, still very few new players would join this game.
There is also no confirm button when you click it. So the potential for sending a reinforcement and unintentionally spending 50 gold (per village) is very real.
I arleady posted this in the german Forum. This Button needs to be removed and put somewhere else or at least needs an confirmation button so you don't spend unintentionally!
Well to be honest, the primary function of Carriage is to boost farming and secondary function as defensive unit. Thus make the farmer player relatively safer than before.
No, this unit is not close in resembling egyptian resheph chariot. Its actually based on settler.
Moreover the Egyptian Carriage will hv camels, not like chariot
I am just saying that your numbers are very similar to the egyptian unit, even if you based the capacity on settlers. Currently you can farm with Resheph, Paladins and Marksman if you play defensive (don't say these are the best units for farming but you can do it). Other than that I think making a defensive Workshop unit is worth thinking about.
I know this ist sort of a Design for Farming but the way I See it, it is a defensive workshop unit. The Idea is not that bad in my opinion.
But in some way this unit already exists within the egyptian resheph.
It's a fun idea but in travian you need to make choices what to build in your village, this would completely take away from it.
Agree, I would even Take this further and introduce more buildings so you can specialise more. A Bit Like in my beloved civ4. But alle personal taste.
You can have a lot more in one second but from different villages of course. There were Bugs apparently caused by Updates so sometimes 6 waves were sent. But normally its capped at 4 from one Village in the Same second Server side.