From left to right:
From left to right:
Simple principle: if something is broken, fixing it must cost less than getting a whole new one.
I am not looking for an extra advantage for hospital - whether it needs it or not - but this idea is important.
The cost of the hospital is part of the expense of the "healing". So, we build an extra building, with extra cost (and it takes up a space), to fix or "heal" units for exactly the same cost as building brand new units in barracks/stables???
Repairing or "healing" troops in a hospital should cost less than the cost of producing new in barracks/stable.
This just makes sense: fixing something that is already there should cost less than making new!
Or is this why the environment is a mess?!
I also log on from different locations and I agree that it is not going to be straight-forward to identify "teams" from the same person logging on from different IP addresses, but that should not prevent us trying, if the principle is accepted.
And the principle is: a "team" coordinating continuous play on a single account is unfair to the great majority of "normal" players, who have no chance of keeping up.
If an account is active 24 hours a day (and not in sitter mode) then that should be a strong clue that more than person is running it, rather than 1 or 2 people logging on from different computers/locations.
I am sorry about the point about Gold.
I have been a sitter (and am now) but never used gold and always thought it would be not allowed because it is about spending other people's money.
But my other example about launching cata attacks (just as an example) is valid and nobody said it is not.
Also, another point remains valid: a sitter is nothing like someone who has the password. Fact.
There is a difference between having friends, and between having a team that coordinates an account.
Once, maybe 6 years ago, I started playing a game with a dual. The difference between me playing alone and with someone else was enormous! It was not just a question of someone looking after the account when you are not on-line (like a sitter does) but someone coordinating and pursuing a strategy.
Sitters and password holders cannot be compared. At all. Different worlds.
Also, Travian puts very strict rules on what sitters can and cannot do. Why not have rules for unlimited numbers of people sharing a password, and which gives them powers far greater than a sitter ever has?
So, Travian rules tightly restrict what sitters can do, but there is blank cheque for unlimited password holders to run amok? Makes sense? Fair?
Saying that the response is to "get friends" means that Travian will turn into a game that is only viable for groups of people running accounts. The message is: if you are a single player (or even just a couple) then, forget it. You can never compete. The "teams" will dominate the game, and everybody who does not have a team, has zero chance of winning or even close to winning.
Is this the structure and policy of the game?
I have been playing on and off for at least 10 years and you could have answered me politely without silly names.
I am always in an alliance and have a sitter but, and as you should know because you are obviously very popular and have lots of friends: sitters do not have the same authority as someone who has the password. For example, sitters cannot launch attacks with catas or use gold. But multiple players who have the password have full power in an account.
Part of the Rules says:
§ 1.3 Sharing account passwords is not permitted, except in the case of "dual accounts". "Dual accounts" are accounts played by two or more players. This is permitted as long as none of the players involved either own or play another account on the same game world. If a player wishes to move from one account to another, the ownership of the first account must be transferred and the password changed BEFORE access is granted to the new account.
The word "dual" usually implies two but the rule says "two or more" without a limit. As a result, we are now seeing teams of 4, 5, 6, 7 or more people sharing a single account. They play "shifts" so the accounts are active 24 hours a day and are usually highly aggressive.
This represents an unfair advantage to the great majority of players who are single players and do things like sleep, eat etc.
§3 of the rules says it is forbidden to use external programs and scripts or bots. One reason is obvious: it allows users to keep the account "working" when they are off-line.
I would say allowing "teams" of people to run a single account is the equivalent of using scripts/bots in the sense of the effect it has: the account is active in an abnormal way - abnormal for normal, single players.
A limit needs to be put on the number of people who can operate a single account, to keep things fair for everyone. In rule § 1.3 where it says "two or more", the "more" should be quantified.
Crop=40; Iron=3; Clay=4
If I send reinforcements from one village, and then also send the Hero as reinforcement to the same place, from another village, and the Hero has the right-hand weapon for the reinforcement troops, then does this count? Will the Hero support the reinforcement troops? Or must they all be sent together, at the same time and from the same village?
The X coordinates is the multiplicand of the two numbers
The Y coordinates is made up of the sum of the two numbers and their difference
So, for 9 and 6, coordinates are 54/153
This is not clear.
I am not sure I understand what the question is??
Is the question "are both statements true or false?"
So … if they are both true then Scroll 1 says at least one scroll has the good spell. Scroll 2 says that Scroll 1 has an evil spell. Therefore, if both are true, then Scroll 2 must contain the correct (good) spell.
If they are both false then … Scroll 1 will mean that neither of the scrolls will contain the good spell. Scroll 2 says that Scroll 1 contains a bad spell - but if this is false then does that mean that Scroll 1 must contain a good spell?
Therefore they cannot both be false; both must be true, and Scroll 2 contains the good spell.
But I am not sure because it is not so clear.
Haeduan Lies (HL) on days 1, 2 and 3
Druidrider Lies (DL) on days 4, 5 and 6
Haeduan Truth (HT) on days 4, 5, 6 and 7
Druidrider Truth (DT) on days 1, 2, 3 and 7
For HL+DL = no solution - so they cannot both be lying
For HT+DT = 7 but this does not work because day 6 is HT
For HL+DT = no solution
For HT+DL = 4 and this works because 3 is HL and DT
Therefore, it is day 4: the traveller asked his question on THURSDAY
(which is today!)
Clicking on any square on a map - if it is empty or any other village - gives information that includes distance: how far from you.
EXCEPT if the square is an oasis!
If it is an oasis, there seems to be no way of knowing exactly how far it is. Need to click on nearby squares to guess/estimate.
Am I missing something?
Is there an easy way to find out how far an oasis is?
The 100 point daily quest becomes more expensive, but the prizes are still the same.
Now asking for 6 x 20,000 resources just to maybe get 400 culture points or 400 hero points or 16k or 20k res?
Not worth it.
Prizes should increase too.
Gold is in Red Chest
Only solution where at least one statement is True and at least one is False:
Red statement is True = Gold not in Blue
Therefore Blue statement is True
So this must mean Green statement is False
Therefore gold must be in Red Chest.
Building a wall (I am on ts29.travian.com) has zero population growth until lvl5. Then only 1.
This must be wrong. I am sure there must be some game calculation for this, but … think about it: when a village/town starts building a wall, then, and even before the wall is complete, people will rush inside to seek the protection - and because they afraid of being kept out? So there should be an immediate population push when the wall starts.
I suppose, someone can argue that people will wait to see if the wall is good, before deciding to move, but I say the urge to move when a wall starts being built is stronger, and it is not correct to have zero population growth until lvl5. There should be immediate population growth - at least 2 - and then maybe little or nothing until the wall is serious.
This is a solution (there should only be one!?)
The first statement on the Gold Door is True
The second statement on the Gold Door is False
Both statements on the Silver Door are True
Both statements on the Bronze Door are False
So: The safe path is through the Bronze Door.
Amizi, Bennu and Nefertari are priestesses. Phoeba servers a diety.
Thank you all!
Everything clear now thanks.