Posts by Firebody

The SPIKE-Team wrote:

This game isnt meant to be realistic. This game has its rules and you play by it. Stop crying and get better at the game please. Also, you didnt contact Gubbi Like I told you to, so Im assuming youre only a troll who doesnt actually want to fix this bug.

So I am supposed to do as you tell me?
Who is Gubbi? Why should I contact that person?
Why do you think that there is a bug that needs fixing when in your previous sentence you accuse me of crying and telling me to learn the rules?

Make up your mind, is it a feature or a bug?
I say it is a bug that became a feature, but that doesn't mean it should not be fixed in the future.

Sorry for triple posting but I just have to get this down:

In every "real" war of that period you could not just take a garrison of a fortress or city and lay siege on a well organised defender. You had to raise troops all over your country and make a concerted acting that took lots of planning and organisation. Why is it not the same here?

Excel wrote:

All this because you did not bother to learn the way the game works before you chiefed your own hammer.

Wow, you guys seem to be so focused on the argument that everyone is whining about their personal loss when they are suggesting a change. Perfect attitude.

@world champion
Why would they? The troops are under your command, in your city, you feed them, why would they defect to another general if their general was still commanding them?

There are games that get updated on a regular basis, changing the meta, people adept. Some changes are bad, some are good, the game evolves in time.

This gives these games the chance to improve. Staying with the status quo does not. And if everything was already perfect, we would still be playing T1.0 (if that was ever a thing).

Excel wrote:

In all seriousness, they have tried something similar in some special servers. It's called "troop merging". The first modifications to it they had to make was exempting siege and chiefs from it. Because it allowed you to chief from a single village. And to build the slowest troop types to build in several villages, thereby offering you the opportunity to overwhelm just about anyone from next door with little or no warning. It has consistently been panned as a possible addition to the main game as gold intensive and unfair to the majority of players. So when we say we don't want it, it HAS been tried and found wanting by the vast majority of players that have given their opinions on it.
And I have to say, that if I saw that kind of attitude in a player on these forums with that tactic in place, you would not last very long. Because I DO know how to adapt and change.

Wow, the first person with some real arguments. No sure why it is combined with a threat though??? I am suggesting and wanting to discuss things, telling me I am wrong and threatening me is an attitude that should be punished instead. Telling people that they are wrong is not an punishable offense, at least not were I live. Maybe that differs for us.

I do not think it should be combined with gold usage but be available for the general public. And if combined armies are too strong maybe we should think about reducing offensive strengths and making it the new standard case that in order to have a successful attack on an opponent you need to merge armies. How does that sound?

So what you are saying is that because this could be abused we do not want to change things.

But why don't we talk about how we can change things and circumvent any abuse that could be done with the new system?

Changes are implemented constantly in this game, why not here as well?

It seems like nobody here is really interested in exchanging arguments and instead points at the status quo and is fine with their own little comfort zone. It did not expect this to be the case in a game where strategy and adapting is such a game winning factor.

Sure man, you've got it.

If anyone is interested in exchanging actual arguments, please come here:

Units should not disappear when the villages they are sent from changes the owner or gets deleted

As the title says.

This mechanics makes not sense and I think a new approach is needed here.

We can discuss what that approach may be but please refrain from stating stuff like "no, will be abused and it has always been that way".

Instead of getting simply deleted the units should be allowed to find a new home, in my humble opinion. If you think that makes a it too easy to kill a world wonder, then maybe we should think how to adjust for that.

Why is that in your opinion not an option?

I think that would be the logical way to go. Something different with troops that are currently underway, but we can talk about that too.

Oh my got, you do not get the point.

Sure, I am angry and because of that I want to destroy your game now and make things as easy as possible for me.

You are absolutely right.

Let me state that again, I got chiefed on PURPOSE. I wanted it to happen because I was not going to play on that world any longer. But the game mechanics are broken in that point in my opinion.

And I really think we should discuss about how we can implement a system that is more realistic....!!! And do not tell my I am angry because slowly I really start to get angry about how you telling me I am whining about my village when all that I really want to do is to discuss how we can improve this game. For Christ's sake.

Veritasbrow wrote:

I think what Semir and TheOneBelowall are you trying tell are that if the units didnt die, it could be heavily abused by a bit more veteran travian players

In regards to your hero dying, you can always make him change village before the hit comes and he stays alive. Also there are a few tips to avoid getting chiefed/ or atleast make it tougher for the attacker or even less interressting.

The abuse part is if I could chief my own village/get a friend of mine to chief it for me and the units then stayed in that village - I would then do it constantly.

The reason being i could now optimize the amount of units i make, 5x-7x times better than before, which would make it quite unfair for the remaining players of the server. So instead of me having a bunch of medium hammers i now alreadly have a WW-hammer/massive operation hammer. Now in regards to the money part, without being certain i would assume since Travian players who spend a lot of gold, would have a good advantage over players playing with a low-budget, since it really makes it easier to run a account/ stronger. Always worth to remember skill/teamwork comes before money.

So i can see the logic behind the idea of making the units dissapear. It happens to even the best and its never a good feeling, and sometimes its impossible to avoid.

If you would like tips to avoid getting chiefed i would be happy to share some advice Else have a good evening

Show All

I was chiefed on purpose, but thanks for offering tips.

I see all your arguments but they are only legit because it has been that way for so long. You say that if we implemented something else people find ways to abuse it. I can not let that count as a legit argument.
Why don't we change things to more realistic game play and talk about how we can tackle abuse? Instead you say let us stay with the system we have, even though it is flawed, everything else will be even more flawed.

I do not think that this is the way to go.

It only makes sense to you because you played the game for so long and accepted things as given and reasonable when they are absolutely not.

You developed a strategy to live with it and use it to your advantage when this should have never been an issue in the first place.

Makes absolutely no sense at all that an army gets killed when the last place it was stationed is taken over by the enemy. I can only repeat myself over and over and over again.

NO SENSE AT ALL

My argument is, that the way it works right now it makes absolutely no sense.

Of course we could implement some funny mechanics to have more fun.

But that is not what this game is about and that an army gets deleted without a fight is not a reasonable game mechanic in my eyes.

A, I see, chiefed a roman village, was not used to this feature. Thank you for clarifying.

or should this not be possible?

Two building in my building row and it offered me to add a third one.

I have picture but it seems as if I cannot add it to my post.

What has that to do with money?

Yes, that is what I am saying.

Also, you can defend with armies that originally did not belong to the same village, why should you not be able to attack in the "same" way?

I am not saying that this is not the way the game is set up.

But I genuinely think that this does not make any sense at all.

Even my Hero got killed, killed by what???

And since there is no need to return to that village I can also not accept the argument of Achtung as legit.

My village got chiefed, my troops and hero from that village were in another village and still all got destroyed, how does that make sense?

Red Storm wrote:

My nice friend. Permission to obtain raw materials for killing animals would be okay if the person killing the animals received the raw materials as the hero attacks the oasis with the army and takes the resources to the extent that his army can carry, and here they want the hero to take as much as he kills animals. They want to pay 400 resources for a rat and 1000 resources for an elephant. It's a lot.

The player who kills the and gets raw materials immediately will gain a greater advantage during the protective period than people who previously played on accounts cleaning oases from animals. Will have a greater plunder.

Hey, I cannot follow your argument, what does that have to do with the usage of gold?