Game improvements

    By using our site, you accept the use of cookies to make your visit more pleasant, to offer you advertisements and contents tailored to your interests, to allow you to share content on social networks, and to create visit statistics for website optimisation. More information

    • Consumer IPs are also almost always dynamic, meaning they have a habit of changing, the rate depends on the ISP and can vary a lot. Mobile connections also tend to be NAT'd at the tower, meaning every device under the same carrier connecting to it has the same IP address.

      MAC address can only be obtained by installing native application on the device (and a site asking you to install something like that is a huge red flag), it cannot be obtained via the browser.
      This is a private account and messages posted from this account are of my own personal stance and do not represent Traviangames in any way. / Tämä on yksityistili ja edustaa vain omaa kantaani, viestit tältä tililtä eivät edusta Traviangamesin kantaa millään tavalla.
    • We as a community will never get the detailed answers we want regarding policing of the servers (or fourm). It is at best disappointing, at worst incredibly frustrating. All we can do is voice our concerns, and have some faith they hear us. A lot of what they do or change will be behind the scenes but hopefully we will see some impact on things publicly. Based off the notes from Munich they recognize there are issues and are trying to work on them.

      Excel wrote:

      I'm pretty sure this got brought up in the Munich meeting, but I'd like to see more 2X servers. Including "normal" ones. Pretty much exactly like quals, but on dedicated country domain servers.
      TL:DR - Using 2x servers more often will further split the community and servers are already suffering low player numbers. At the same time the community has in my experience predominantly believed 1x to be too long and at times too slow but 3x is too fast both in length and how it plays. 2x in general plays well but can be a bit short for most 1xer's. The current system of server speeds / lengths needs reform. (details on reform ideas below the fold)

      Display Spoiler

      For me 1x plays too slowly (at times) and takes too long. 3x is too fast both in how it plays and how long it takes. 2x plays well but can feel short to me.

      So there are two ways I see to address that:
      • Reduce total 1x server length, increase base resource production and decrease troop/construction times. Adjust 2x and 3x appropriately based on the updated figures.
      • Eliminate the current nomenclature. Right now there are 3 speeds of Travian, 1x, 2x, 3x. Others have been tested at points but since they aren't regular at all, lets discount them. By increasing/decreasing (as appropriate) the res/training/construction times of a 1x server by 50% and making the current "3x" server nominally called a "speed" server with 2x the speed of the base speed, it would still effectively maintain the current 3x game speed while speeding up the base game. Combine this with adjustments to length and other server event timing would revamp things.
      The second option is more complicated but I like it better. Why? Servers are already suffering low numbers, with certain exceptions being those that have a lot of effort being put into pre-server recruiting / organization of a "championship" style server / luck. By implementing more 2x servers you are going to further split player populations.

      The majority of players I have spoken to think 1x servers are too long. Reducing their length necessitates adjustments to the meta, otherwise the length will begin to have negative impacts on the quality of play. Why is that? Well when does the majority of server combat happen? Post Artifacts. Why? Well at this point the vast majority of offense and defense can mass train troops and have access to fun things like trainers. A lot of the "main" construction will be complete or nearing completion for things like crop fields and the first half of an accounts villages. (I will note I'm talking the top maybe 1/3 of accounts maybe, depending on server size. But they are where the vast majority of alliance v alliance action occurs) The fact is, the first 100 days is a lot of simming and only a little skirmishing. (Some exceptions exist) So there needs to be adjustments to make it easier to complete the necessary account / troop building up in the first 100 days that already occurs in a smaller amount of time so the total server length is reduced.

      I would prefer the meta adjustments exceed the day reduction adjustment because as I said I think 1x plays a bit slowly. I'd like to see bigger battles happening earlier and adjusting various details would help with that.


      Current (1x)Current (2x)Current (3x)
      Artefacts1005034
      Plans20010067
      Natar WW Starts25012594
      Natar WW Ends350175118




      Along the lines of option #2 would look something like this:


      Proposed "Normal"Proposed "Speed"
      Artefacts8040
      Plans16080
      Natar WW Starts16080
      Natar WW Ends210105




      Of course that is just a general outline. By not marrying the "speed" of the game to 3x or 2x, the days / values for the "Speed" version could essentially be anything. How Tournament would operate then would be an interesting question but as it is a limited event, it would be easier to create a special Tournament rule set.

      Obviously of course you would need to alter all of the following: T2/T3 item drops, Artwork drops, Field production, troop training time, construction time, unit speed, WW construction time. Perhaps some other factors I've missed. I have put together all of these things in more detail in one of my spreadsheets but I figured I'd save everyone from an even longer post.

      There are also other considerations. The domain system and the number of servers per domain, as well as special servers. All of these factor into player numbers on each server and the experience on those servers. Adjusting server "speed" would have a ripple effect, but it also isn't a cure all. It is also worth noting it is absolutely impossible to please everyone.

      Just some thoughts but I do think there needs to be reform of the status quo.



      iRonik wrote:

      Well I don't get scouting points, it's just too hard to police.


      Spam scouts on an active guys cap oasis and farm the crap out of that due to high res. :/
      The amount of "policing" would vary by implementation method. If done correctly, abuse opportunities would be almost non-existent. (I say this because someone always finds a way)


      KnowToFail wrote:

      Feel free to chip in :)
      I figured the death of defensive scouts would put off some people. It would be a big change with how the game operates. It would also require a new battle formula that is "fair". (as much as war can be) But my thought is, if one of your scouts is dying and the scouting detected, someone had to have killed him no? Which means a battle took place. It isn't like they are magically falling off a cliff.

      It would also provide the cleanest method of measuring scout points. As iRonik pointed out there are ways to abuse some of the alternatives. However having the system only count 1 scout per day on a non-ally (also non-confed / NAP I think) village (I would extend to oasis), would be a good starting point and weed out a lot of possible abuse.

      Scouting is very important and an under recognized aspect of the game. Players should be rewarded for playing in a positive and constructive manner and Scouters are no different.

      While I like the idea of giving points of resources scouted and troops, it does feel abusable. I think leaving it to troops alone would be the least abusable, otherwise you can just target those who produce a lot. Pick a cap and you get 4 targets per day with super resource production. You can also just keep scouting garages and in particular those with a diet arti in play and you will pick up a lot of troop figures.

      Which is why I'd prefer a new battle calculation for defensive scout deaths which I think has a lower chance of abuse when paired with the above bit about non-ally etc. But then it needs to be something that doesn't completely tear apart the ability to defend against scouts. Need a formula nerd to chime in, @kirilloid perhaps? He doesn't usually haunt UK but he is the closest thing to an expert on the current formulas that I know of.

      I think it would also create a bit of balance in scouting. Right now you could send out your 10k scouts, only to lose every single one. What do your opponents lose? Nothing. Defensive scouts don't really die unless they present during an actual attack. This would make it more important for players to be involved in defensive scout efforts.

      On related subject:

      Do attacks against allies count towards Off/Def numbers right now? Oasis and Natar do and if I recall correctly. Eliminating all of those from the calculations would also be useful I think. (Though I am torn on the subject of Artefact clearing and WW defense against Natars. Those might be worthy of an exception, or a separate calculation. The game is ultimately PvP with light PvE elements, so PvP stats should take precedents)
      Veteran Legends Site|Join Our Discord
      Community Feedback | Game Encyclopedia | History Anthology | 3rd-Party Tool Modernization

      Carni wrote:

      God I would kill to have like 4 of you on every team I play

      The post was edited 3 times, last by BlackBlade: Added material ().

    • wishmaster3 wrote:

      KnowToFail wrote:

      Also, I didnt really look it up, but coul you make Travian unaccessible if the device doesnt provide you with an final IP - aka. prevents Tor users from playing?
      I think quite a few use TOR to access while travian would otherwise be blocked (work/school network etc.)
      Is there a way to block Travian from being used in TOR? Like how a few SNS's cannot be used in China but can be used by the rest of the world.
      Yes, I've built my fair share of WWs. Won a few, lost a few. Played far too many rounds for far too long. Made a lot friends and enemies.

      Yes, I've played as an anvil and as a hammer. I'm only playing now because of all the friendship I have built over the past ten years. I love Travian but I love the community even more.

      Envy me for I have everything, Fear me for I have nothing to lose.
    • Lemon wrote:

      Eric Rasputin wrote:

      Is there a way to block Travian from being used in TOR? Like how a few SNS's cannot be used in China but can be used by the rest of the world.
      Yes, you(TG) can block TOR and VPNs, but a lot of people have to use a VPN to play the game, so not sure if it will ever happen.
      Umm.. Why do you have to use a VPN to play?
      Yes, I've built my fair share of WWs. Won a few, lost a few. Played far too many rounds for far too long. Made a lot friends and enemies.

      Yes, I've played as an anvil and as a hammer. I'm only playing now because of all the friendship I have built over the past ten years. I love Travian but I love the community even more.

      Envy me for I have everything, Fear me for I have nothing to lose.
    • Eric Rasputin wrote:

      Umm.. Why do you have to use a VPN to play?
      Most people don’t need to use a VPN, but in some cases the site is blocked for whatever reasons either by the place you work at or in some cases by the ISP...Which means that some people have to use a VPN to play the game.

      I’m all for TG blocking TOR users, but not all VPNs.

    • limit gold horses :P
      daily gold usages limit includes auction excluding plus and bonus means less npc instabuild or use them on uactiuon your choice... 100 per day is my choice it gives 33 npc or 50 insta.. well travian wont earn alot and it will give non golders little equal chances too..
    • BlackBlade wrote:





      KnowToFail wrote:

      Feel free to chip in :)

      Scouting is very important and an under recognized aspect of the game. Players should be rewarded for playing in a positive and constructive manner and Scouters are no different.


      Which is why I'd prefer a new battle calculation for defensive scout deaths which I think has a lower chance of abuse when paired with the above bit about non-ally etc. But then it needs to be something that doesn't completely tear apart the ability to defend against scouts. Need a formula nerd to chime in, @kirilloid perhaps? He doesn't usually haunt UK but he is the closest thing to an expert on the current formulas that I know of.


      I think it would also create a bit of balance in scouting. Right now you could send out your 10k scouts, only to lose every single one. What do your opponents lose? Nothing. Defensive scouts don't really die unless they present during an actual attack. This would make it more important for players to be involved in defensive scout efforts.

      On related subject:

      Do attacks against allies count towards Off/Def numbers right now? Oasis and Natar do and if I recall correctly. Eliminating all of those from the calculations would also be useful I think. (Though I am torn on the subject of Artefact clearing and WW defense against Natars. Those might be worthy of an exception, or a separate calculation. The game is ultimately PvP with light PvE elements, so PvP stats should take precedents)
      How would you work in Scouting artefacts? No other troop has the capacity to be 5x or 10x stronger with an artefact.

      I agree that natar kills and nature kills should be counted separately. I also think that killing your own troops shouldn't count. I've seen players kill off their own troops in oases at the end of servers to get to the top of the attackers table. Not sure how hard it would be to write that into the code though.

      Stand out Award 2017 UK
    • Mercedes wrote:

      How would you work in Scouting artefacts? No other troop has the capacity to be 5x or 10x stronger with an artefact.
      I agree that natar kills and nature kills should be counted separately. I also think that killing your own troops shouldn't count. I've seen players kill off their own troops in oases at the end of servers to get to the top of the attackers table. Not sure how hard it would be to write that into the code though.
      It was discussed in Munich, this being mostly an issue for Tournament.
      LoT18_Game-Design-Workshop-Notes.pdf
      Pleased to meet you
      Hope you guess my name
      But what's puzzling you
      Is the nature of my game

      (Symphaty for the Devil, Rolling Stones, ages ago)
    • Yes, it’s a really old problem that’s been brought up over and over for years. Shame there doesn’t seem to be a workable solution. Taking away points for killing your own troops would be a start. Whilst I appreciate people might team up it would be harder to do. I can’t see why natar and nature kills can’t be tracked separately.

      It’s not just a tournament issue though, lots of players here play to get into the HoF and one of the measures is attack points.

      Stand out Award 2017 UK
    • I think both points made in the opening post have a lot of merit. I would certainly prefer 3 accounts with 3 duals on each in my alliance rather than 1 account with 9 duals. More accounts make for a better game, and of course more revenue for the game developer.



      I would also support the second point regarding farm lists, but only for the first month. I think that would give newbies a far better chance of establishing themselves than they have now. As someone else posted most of us started on T2 or T3 servers where farming had to be done manually. Newbies still got attacked but on nowhere near the scale it happens now. I would cite as an example a single village UK3 account i saw recently, only a few weeks into server and the account had 155 incoming attacks. Removing farm lists for the first month would effectively revert back to T3 rules for that period of time, which would give the newbies now the chance we all had. And T3 was by far the most successful version of travian ever in terms of player retention.

      Another idea that has been floating around the UK domain lately would be the introduction of a feature that would allow the MH to impose a restriction on any account which shows signs of suspicious behaviour. For example, accounts which are being logged into frequently but which are losing horrendous amounts of res to raids, and are making no effort to cranny up etc. This restriction could be limiting all raids on that account to the same level as raiding accounts within your own alliance. This would have very little effect on the micro raiders and would protect the integrity of the team aspect of the game. And of course the MH could remove the restriction should the suspicious behaviour cease.
    • Mercedes wrote:

      How would you work in Scouting artefacts? No other troop has the capacity to be 5x or 10x stronger with an artefact.
      I agree that natar kills and nature kills should be counted separately. I also think that killing your own troops shouldn't count. I've seen players kill off their own troops in oases at the end of servers to get to the top of the attackers table. Not sure how hard it would be to write that into the code though.
      An interesting question. I actually hadn't thought about how the Scout Arties would impact things. See below the fold for some thoughts.


      Display Spoiler
      So lets go take a look at the present state of things. This is excerpted from Wren's Combat System Formulas post from the golden days and based on the work of @kirilloid which was itself based on other works. (A side note: it is always nice to see what the community can achieve working together on something)

      Wren wrote:

      c. Espionage

      Finally, I will describe simulation for scouts (I mean recon. troops for all tribes). Formula for "combat" between scouts is the same as for common attack (3), except for the defender's losses. It is always 0%. Also, there are no immense battles, i.e. 1.5 is used for K in any battle.

      Instead of offense and defense points, scouting and counter-scouting points are used. Base values are 35 and 20 respectively for any tribe. These attributes are also affected by common formula for upgrades in blacksmith and armory (7). As could be seen from the upgrade formula, Romans and Gallic spies receive greater bonus from upgrades. Combine it with horse drinking trough and Roman's Equites Legatti are the best. For classic servers, Teutonic scouts are considered the best, since speed isn't a great deal for recon. operations.

      Wren wrote:

      Winner's casualties are determined by next formula:

      100% · (loser_points / winner_points)^1.5 (3)

      Wren wrote:

      For raids, the formula changes a bit, losses will be:

      100% · x / (100% + x)

      So let's assume the following:

      1,000 Attacking Scouts x 35 Base Scout Attack = 35,000 Attack
      500 Defending Scouts x 20 Base Scout Defense = 10,000 Defense

      100% - (10,000 / 35,000)^1.5 = 15.27% losses (Attack Formula)

      Of course in the attacking scenario all defending scouts would die. I think that would be entirely too harsh, leading us to the raid formula. (it should be noted that this really can't apply since scouts will fight to the death, if rarely. At least based on my understanding. It is a bit

      100% * (15.27 / 115.257) = 13.25% Attacker losses (Raid Formula)
      100% - 13.25% = 86.75% Defender Losses
      1,000 * 13.25% = 133 scouts killed
      500 * 86.75% = 434 killed

      That too seems to harsh as well. So its time for a new formula. However the basics from the above can give us a foundation on how to proceed.

      One option would be to calculate the Defense losses by using the combat formula for the attacker but changing the ^1.5 to ^2. In this case that would make defender losses 8.16% or 41 scouts.

      Now this can work swimmingly when the defensive scouts are on the losing end i.e they can't stop the scout. Using the same formula to calculate when they win though breaks it. Lets say instead you have 2,000 scouts on defense.

      100% - (35,000 / 40,000)^2 = 76.56% losses

      How do we overcome that problem? Utilize a slightly different formula for instances where the scout defense wins. 100% - (((35,000 / 40,000)^2)*0.5) = 38.28%

      Now that we have a basis of what to work with. How does a Scout Arti impact things? I'm going to assume the Scout Arti simply multiplies the relevant base scout value.

      100% - (10,000 / 175,000) = 1.37% Attacker Losses
      100% - (10,000 / 175,000) = 0.33% Defender Losses

      Using the same formula the Scout Arti would really just reduce losses. It might make sense to calculate the losing side with the base value, giving them the same losses it would be otherwise.

      This does remind me I've always thought the Scout Artis are too powerful as is. I would make 2 changes:
      • Apply SA bonus like a Smithy bonus, travels with Scouts wherever. This would increase the value of the SA for defensive purposes and take a little wind out of the offensive side.
      • Reduce the bonuses. I'm thinking Small = 3x, Large = 2x, Unique = 5x. Given the way the formula works it might even be worth reducing further.
      There should be some difficulty in the scouting game. It is very hard to stop serious scouting attempts (though I have seen it done but I would consider a rarity). There is not nearly enough emphasis on this part of the game in its current state. Making alterations like scouts dying on defense would make defending against scouts more active and making it easier to kill scouting parties (in particular those with Artifacts) would encourage alliances to do so.



      NE Fan_UK wrote:

      I think both points made in the opening post have a lot of merit. I would certainly prefer 3 accounts with 3 duals on each in my alliance rather than 1 account with 9 duals. More accounts make for a better game, and of course more revenue for the game developer.
      As an alliance leader I completely agree. 3 accounts is far superior to 1. And as you said it is more revenue. That said, I have yet to see that many duals on an account outside anything except the 10x on Org years ago. Out of my current alliance on COM1 out of 210ish accounts, to my knowledge there are no accounts that exceed 3 players on an account. Even those are relatively rare, probably representing less than 10% of all accounts. Even two person accounts added in would make for less than 1/3 of all accounts.

      Since I came back in 2016, I think I have come across 1 4/5 person account. The rest have been 3 or under. So while both of your points are valid, its such a small part of community that it would be more trouble to try and enforce than the value gained from it.


      NE Fan_UK wrote:

      I would also support the second point regarding farm lists, but only for the first month. I think that would give newbies a far better chance of establishing themselves than they have now. As someone else posted most of us started on T2 or T3 servers where farming had to be done manually. Newbies still got attacked but on nowhere near the scale it happens now. I would cite as an example a single village UK3 account i saw recently, only a few weeks into server and the account had 155 incoming attacks. Removing farm lists for the first month would effectively revert back to T3 rules for that period of time, which would give the newbies now the chance we all had. And T3 was by far the most successful version of travian ever in terms of player retention.
      Another thing to keep in mind that the biggest issue for raiding at the start of the server is a lack of troops. Raiders lists start small and aren't sent as often but over time that increases. Those who really want to raid efficiently will simply utilize a spreadsheet, and those with that ability and commitment are a smaller number of the community than those who utilize the raid lists. While that means less raiders overall, it also means more resources in the hands of those who do raid. More resources = being able to expand quicker. Its an exponential sort of thing. More resources = more troops = more resources = more CP and so on and so forth. The players who have trouble handling raiders would at best get a temporary reprieve.

      Retention is good but taking out raid lists for any amount of time is not a good way to do it.

      NE Fan_UK wrote:

      Another idea that has been floating around the UK domain lately would be the introduction of a feature that would allow the MH to impose a restriction on any account which shows signs of suspicious behaviour. For example, accounts which are being logged into frequently but which are losing horrendous amounts of res to raids, and are making no effort to cranny up etc. This restriction could be limiting all raids on that account to the same level as raiding accounts within your own alliance. This would have very little effect on the micro raiders and would protect the integrity of the team aspect of the game. And of course the MH could remove the restriction should the suspicious behaviour cease.
      An interesting thought but it sounds like a legal nightmare and just as ambiguous as Rule 1.1.
      Veteran Legends Site|Join Our Discord
      Community Feedback | Game Encyclopedia | History Anthology | 3rd-Party Tool Modernization

      Carni wrote:

      God I would kill to have like 4 of you on every team I play

      The post was edited 1 time, last by BlackBlade: Added content ().

    • So many players complain about dwindling player numbers but when someone puts forward a good suggestion to try to encourage new players (like, stop the raid lists for the beginning) so many big raiders cry about it.

      We've been saying for years that raiding is killing this game. In the first week, veterans ALREADY have enormous advantages over newbies just through experience.

      Newbies have massive disadvantages, like not really understanding how critical an alliance is. So they're alone. Then of course they get slammed with raids the moment BP ends. Yeah yeah, it's a war game, cry me a river, boo hoo, they are our enemies so why should we care? But we make their lives hell, and most of them quit. We know this, think about how many inactives we find even before BP is over!

      We need to coddle and protect newbies to make them stay long enough to enjoy it for a while and learn how to play. Then they might hang around long enough to be proper opponents to make the server worth playing on. A few days of beginner's protection or "invisible cranny improvement" behind the scenes are not solutions, they still end up with all those horrible red swords. I would suggest either "no farm lists" should be a month long, or no raiding of single-village players, or another option is that your farm list page automatically unlocks the moment you settle a V3.

      No newbies = no good players next server to join your alliance and help you win... so what would you rather have, more players, or your precious farm lists and a boring server?
      ~ The Maestra of Mediocrity ~
      FairyFloss UK2 R8 ~ OopsyDaisy UK1 R10 ~ Real Doll UK5 R9
    • @BlackBlade

      The first two people to reply to this post both objected on the grounds that they have multiple duals on their accounts. Certainly the last account I saw Blaze play on UK29 had 8 duals until they all fell out with each other and the account crumbled.

      I think your point that they don’t exist because you haven’t seen any is just your experience and not necessarily the experience other people have had.

      Stand out Award 2017 UK
    • He said that it's such a small part of the population, that it doesn't make sense to police - not that there weren't any. Anecdotal evidence of a single account with 8 duals does not mean that it's a common occurence.


      That aside, in regards to farmlists being deactivated for the first part of the game:

      As I said already on the first page, this could lead to an increase in other unwanted "playstyles" - private farms, or just everyone having garage accounts for their hammers.

      Apart from that, as was already pointed out several times - the most dedicated and active players will raid with spreadsheets like it was done before - and accounts with more duals would probably be more likely to do this. As was said, this will actually make the gap between the most dedicated and active accounts and the rest even bigger.

      I know many players who are less active, who will send out their farmlists 10-20 times per day, and update it once every 1-2 weeks... These players are most likely not dedicated and willing enough to maintain a farming spreadsheet/send out raids manually to each farm 10 times a day. These accounts will be at a larger disadvantage than they are now... While accounts with many duals with high activity will be even more important and dominant. Another point is, sure, no one were raiding as much as people raid today back then. But the game has evolved since then. I don't think there's any way that we'll return to anywhere near the (low) levels of T2/T3, just because farmlists would be removed. It's a different game, and it's simply being played in a different way now than it was back then.


      (I also don't think that there's anything intrinsically wrong with the most active and dedicated players having an advantage... That's just how it works (in other games too). So I think the issue with newbies being farmed mercilessly should be separated from some accounts being stronger than others because of activity and dedication.)


      I am, however, not against helping newbies. I've discussed it with other people, and we had a brainstorm of various solutions: a special newbie zone where they can learn the basics of the game without being attacked, and then they can settle outside the zone when they feel ready (making the whole account open for attacks), something like what Elisa suggested with either a 2 or 3 village limit (or alternatively, if they chose to attack someone before settling 3rd), a special beginner's server and much more.


      I think the very best though, would be a mentor system. I think newbie players, as it is now, get by far the most out of being picked up by a decent team, with leaders/other players who can help them learn. Having some arbitrary limit, whether it's farmlist not activating until later, or players being under beginner's protection until village 3, does not solve the epistemological problem. Sure, they can sim up a bit more than they can otherwise... But is that going to teach them any actual valuable skill or knowledge? Not really.


      Animis opibusque parati

      com8 (F&S beta) and now back to retirement...
    • Any experienced raider would not quit even if farm list was banned for a month. Hell, I have no problem in farming from my spreadsheet, its just nostalgic. There is absolutely no way for any war game to accommodate newbies by being partial to them. It defeats the purpose of a war game.

      The newbies must figure out how to deter raiders and there is only one thing they have to do. Cranny up. If they came into a war game, expecting kindness, then they are sadly mistaken. When someone pushes you down, you get back up. You don't cry and run to your mommy saying life is unfair. Because it is.
      Yes, I've built my fair share of WWs. Won a few, lost a few. Played far too many rounds for far too long. Made a lot friends and enemies.

      Yes, I've played as an anvil and as a hammer. I'm only playing now because of all the friendship I have built over the past ten years. I love Travian but I love the community even more.

      Envy me for I have everything, Fear me for I have nothing to lose.