To Munich we go.

    The Tournament 2018 Qualification starts on the 13th June 2018!
    Don't miss Safiren's Corner!

    The video diary of the Legends on Tour Event is now available!
    Don't miss it: Watch it now!
    Comments or questions? Discuss it here!

    • mamba wrote:

      But most veterans are interested to see some beautiful solutions as they've enough wins in their life. Limit this options and most of them will leave
      And any non-tourney players who don't need 1052431 tech accounts to build a hammer of more than 200k will be happy... "beautiful solutions" pff... Don't see how raiding tech/multi accounts is creative.

      Animis opibusque parati

      com8 (F&S beta) and now back to retirement...
    • Well I don't know about all veterans, but what this veteran would like to see is:

      1) More ways to win. Be it VP or another new mechanic, just that the first WW to 100 victory condition is stale in my opinion. I don't think it needs to be removed entirely, just would like more variety.
      2) More variety in WW itself. Could do something like:
      • The higher a WW grows, you get more bonuses but the WW also becomes easier to topple (to a point). Maybe you don't like the sound of it, but I think it could make end-game more interesting, and you're not just running on cruise control after 48h+ on Finals.
      • BPs needed for every 25 levels (meaning you would need 4, not 2. So how to win if your team gets screwed over like in 2016? See 1).)
      • Stronger Natars
      • Simultaneous Natar WW, not after 300 days or whatever. This would also mean the Natar cap, if it holds WW, is without traps, so it can be hittable.
      • Randomized locations of BPs but distributed equally among the quads.
      • Limit WWs since 13 on non-Tourney feels like way too much given the numbers of players these days
      3) For all spikers to fall into a giant sinkhole. So like others, I don't mind the restriction of non-allied reinforcements. The days of hiding PDs and such are numbered with the change in def point system anyway.
      4) More varied maps. Or something like ( to borrow from another game *ahem*), an expanding grey zone with whatever bonuses or penalties that would entail. Just something new would be nice.
      5) Terrain bonuses. Think, like.. you build your cap near a mountain and you get a natural def bonus. Or your cropper is near water and get a bonus to crop production.
      6) New Gaul special building.
      7) 5 Tribes, but balanced.
      8. Stop weekly mass reduction of farms

      Anyway, my thoughts on the merchant resource/troops restriction to official allies only:

      I would like to test it to see how it changes things, but off the top of my head..

      1) you can't spike farms
      2) can't ship res to natars prior to chiefing, build tc and steal arty
      3) Multies can't push accounts in early game or send defense
      4) Can't reinforce frenemies. No hidden allies.
      5) Can't send single troops to reinforce an enemy villa to determine if an arty effect is on, or activity, etc.
      6) Unallied (yet friendly) hammers/anvils couldn't receive aid to defend or otherwise blow their cover.
      7) Embassy build becomes a solo effort.

      Effects due to changes above:

      1) Spiking. Some players and even teams condone this, but it feels more like a cheap ploy because while you might slow the growth of troops an ally has overall, you only delayed it for a very short while, and this is especially evident on servers where merging is allowed. I think overall more players abhor spiking than endorse it so it is a welcome change.
      2) Pre-loading natars for steals. I personally like this tactic because it takes a lot of timing and effort, and if you pull it off with an arty steal it feels pretty great. You can't be as sneaky as before but loading after chiefing is still viable. Just have to hope enemy doesn't notice you long enough. Distance and merch speed become more of a factor in success.
      3) Multi-push. I hate the illegal sites as much as anyone, and one of the offers is free res or troops. As ELE mentions, early game is pretty important and so many players want to take any advantage they can to get that coveted 150%. Maybe you don't need this to be permanent, but perhaps only for first 2 weeks? Others can still sacrifice heroes to clean oases for a teammate. You could still push with resources if under same tag but with the built-in trade restrictions. You just won't get that extra res push for settlers from bots and the like.
      4) Reinforcing frenemies. I understand and agree that "enemy of my enemy is my friend" in most cases, and it is nice to kill an enemy this way, but with the def point system your "help" is visible most of the time anyway. You may as well jump into the ally, send your troops and jump out. On RoA/FnS its different with the 24h limit. While it is frustrating to have to jump through hurdles just to send your troops, you're not completely unable to assist this way.
      5) Single troop Reins. It's a nice tactic, but would be completely eliminated with the proposed changes. Back to guessing and testing through scouting and throwing cheap troops. Or actually communicating with a guy. Loved those igms from bewildered guys (farms) who couldn't understand why they were getting a random troop from me.
      6) I've been in alliances where hidden deffers and plants were used pretty successfully. You can still hide and build a hammer but I dont see it being detrimental as a solo effort. If you're a hidden hammer, you can still hide among various alliances and be planted in other quads, but that is your risk if your cover gets blown. May as well join your true team to get help in that case. If an anvil/PD, it is more limited. Deffers will have to deal with being more visible. No way around it. Def point calculations, + troop restriction means you just can't really hide anymore. You can still be a PD in a confed'd ally, but everyone else will know it too.
      7) Soloing embassy. Don't see this change as too detrimental either. Some accounts gain more res than others, like your top raiders and Egyptians with their hero res boost. They can initiate the embassy, gradually add players who then donate after entry. So one guy gets hampered a little at the start but not a big deal. But if you still think this is too much a negative, then some ideas to mitigate this are:
      • Make embassy not really a building but an internal mechanic. Something like a banner that is designated to a player then others "pledge" to that banner. Essentially the ally grows without the resource restriction.
      • Or keep the building, but any leveling is just for own personal benefit with regards to CP and the ally additions are like above.

      Other thoughts:

      I personally think the greatest motivation to cheat comes in two areas (3 for Finals).
      1. Early game and getting that great 125%+ cropper.
      2. Attaining medals - even when it is a team game overall, many players love to be the top spot, love their medals.
      3. Getting a prize (from Finals)

      So, I would propose some things:

      1. No oasis raiding in BP. After BP - fair game. I have seen random, unallied bots sending heroes on oasis for people to then raid the oases but I cannot think of anything to restrict these bots without hurting players who actually sacrifice their heroes.

      Another idea, more extreme, is oases give NO resources until annexed.

      2. One or two-week restriction on non-allies pushing in the beginning when it most matters to gain that little edge. Not much incentive, imo, once the cropper rush is over. Allies can still push, just limited to the restrictions.

      3. Natar troops give only 50% points. Pretty self-evident.

      4. Make troops combat points determined entirely different: For example, with current system 1000 clubs reinforced in a village will give the defender the same points as 1000 phals or 500 DRs even though defensively they contribute far less to the combat. Conversely, defending against something like 1 imp + 500 EL gives you 1001 points when it really should net you whatever the attack strength of that imperian is.

      5. Submit medals at end of server or more drastically, remove individual medals (besides 5,10-yr ones, etc)

      6. Expand top 10 lists. Something like a link at the bottom of each type that will send you to an entire list of all. Personally, for me, seeing which farms are in high-negative would be very interesting and would generally point out techs more easily, since as you many here keep saying techs/multies are mostly raided.

      7. No more big prizes. Or rather nothing individually rewarded but rewarded on an alliance scale. Gold vouchers maybe or choose to donate money to something in the represented winning country as charity. Maybe have Travian's version of the Stanley Cup (Champions get the winning team and some players' name etched on it.) If individual, perhaps something like your account added to a Hall of Fame that is maintained. I'm sure there are more ideas, but my reason is just that once you put monetary incentives in play for individual accounts, it opens the door to a lot of shady shenanigans that is really against the spirit of the game.

      I think that's all i can think of at the moment. Feedback is welcome.
      ..And that is the Final Word.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Final Word ().

    • wishmaster3 wrote:

      And any non-tourney players who don't need 1052431 tech accounts to build a hammer of more than 200k will be happy... "beautiful solutions" pff... Don't see how raiding tech/multi accounts is creative.
      It seems we speak about different stuff. If we draw a conclusion that multi/tech accounts are the greatest evil in the game, then I think the best solution is to restrict all kind of pushes, everything except the market exchange. It will solve the problems with bots selling resources too, but not with the multi/tech accounts. Then the fair solution is to restrict all raids and feeding own troops outside the account except in villas with diet or sending deff in case of attacks from enemy ally/confederation. I think this is a fair enough solution for all players. And I could accept it, because from my point of view it is a better solution, than partial measures like restricting only early pushes, or restricting pushes to only confederation members. Both kind of solutions will kill the spirit of the game if the majority of players are restricted because some players bypass the rules.
      I have no any statistic, but my feeling is that the push restriction inside the ally some years ago escalated the problem with the growing number of multi/tech accounts.
      By the way, when speaking about hammers bigger than 200k what is the optimal hammer crop in crowded and popular servers like TT with 60-70kk and over deff troops in WW according to you?
      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
      Edmund Burke
    • New

      Final Word wrote:

      1. No oasis raiding in BP. After BP - fair game. I have seen random, unallied bots sending heroes on oasis for people to then raid the oases but I cannot think of anything to restrict these bots without hurting players who actually sacrifice their heroes.
      I thought exactly the opposite - make it easier. Now it is barely possible to clear oases solo, but with less animals it would be fair effort to get more resources. Why oases were make unraidable is a mystery for me in the first place, forgot to ask this question.

      Final Word wrote:

      2) Pre-loading natars for steals.
      Natars can be excluded from restrictions, they are not part of other negative things. Also, for anonymous strategic villages an option not to show affiliation can be added and solve this problem.

      You still can defend frenemies if you keep open confed slot or drop it temporary.
    • New

      ELE wrote:

      You still can defend frenemies if you keep open confed slot or drop it temporary.
      And if you drop one confed temporary all trade routes to diets/WW gets deleted :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:
      TT final 2015 - Das Båt (SE)
      TT Qualify RU 2016 - Das Båt (Cerber-DD)
      TT final 2016 - illicit Ping, Pong & PangPang (Def&Dest)
      TT Qualify RU 2017 - Chip&Dale #1 off (CerbeR)
      TT Final 2017 - Chip&Dale (CerbeR)
      SE3 2017 - Krokodil
      Se1 2017-2018 Garbage Bag #1 Def (SKRÄP)
    • New

      Oasis being unraidable early game = horrible idea. There'll be a fix pattern to settling that everyone could then start to follow - for the most efficient one. And the helmet of cp's price will shoot even more than right now.

      Removal of Bots = horrible idea too. Bots are the reason we can afford items on auctions. If TG wants to remove bots, they should give us what the bots were providing through their spawns. Which are:
      1. More in-game items being sold by bot (oints/books/Cages)
      2. More in-game System-Generated items. If there are 2k accounts in server, the system will generate items considering 2k players - if there's 7-8k, system will generate more items early on too.
      So that I do not have to spend 14k silvers to get a stupid random weapon for hero so that I can clear a hard adventure. Not sure why travian thinks that the less the items, the more gold they gonna receive. Since it's the exact opposite. We started simming due to the auctions being super expensive for us to afford. But when the God Blessed bots appeared, we saw a glimmer to afford 10 oints for 100 silver instead of 2k. So we spent over 400 gold and bought oints - and so did a lot more accounts adjusted their strats for simming and clearing oases.
      So - please. If you want to remove the bots, do these:
      A) Add a lot more system generated items - at least 10 oints per minute. At least 1 book per minute for the first 10-15 days. and ofc Weapons every 10 to 20 minutes. Your revenue is not going to decrease - since instead of 10 player doing the buying, 2k players will do it. We spent 400+ gold on auctions after the prices dropped, and my co-player spent 1k gold. And there were a lot more such players.
      B) Farms!! They make great farms too - so have your own system generated bots to play. Or change the mechanics for natars so they don't spawn troops but instead make more res per hour.

      And regarding multies/techs - Maybe you're just taking the wrong approach? Why would someone use multies/techs IF using it doesn't have enough incentives? For instance if farming gives you more, people will start shifting towards farming. You don't need to find techs/multies if their reason for existence is taken away. Like why not inactive accounts make 2x the resources? Since they cannot be defended, they'll be fair game to all quads. Something that goes like this:
      1. If a farm is not active/banned for 5 days - all troops get sent home.
      2. Reinforcements are "off" only for inactives (solves spiking).
      3. Resource production of such accounts becomes 2x.
      4. Natars also will get 2x productions
      The 4th line will make the coding real easy. A small re-code for natars, and make all the players that go inactive to be treated like natars (reinforcements sent back + undefendable + natars will also become farms since no troops productions there + our inacives will sim their fields too once a while)
      You might ofc think of one short coming that this might have - So let's analyze that.
      A Player builds private farms for himself, to get it inactived for higher production:
      Such accounts can be raided by all - if he wants to use the production bonus.
      And if others join in - and owner decides to log there to defend it:
      - the multi loses res 2x production
      - you know this is a tech, and next time the reinforcements are turned off, you send real attacks to 0 it.

      AbounA wrote:

      i just want u to know i have no prob with u not knowing good English but don't act smart and use stuff i said that u don't even understand to try to hurt me bro