dual player being sitters.

  • hi,


    I would like to see a option for duals to be sitters, at the moment only the account holder can be a sitter of another account and I know that there are no plans on changing this.
    but if 2 players start on 1 account why not give both players the same options.


    I think this is something that will be of benefit to a big number of players.

  • Hello Willem948,


    Welcome on our Travian: Kingdoms forum! Up to 5 people (including sitters) are more than enough to take care of an account, so we're trying not to put anyone in an unpleasant situation facing an enemy account played by more than several people.


    Best regards,
    Magician

  • Thanks for the fast response Magician.


    I agree that 5 people are enough for 1 account, but I still think that the account owner and dual should both have the same rights.


    Best regards,
    Willem948

  • Besides, having 5 people on 1 account against you could be unpleasant, but it hardly matters beyond that point whether you have 5 people playing on an enemy account or 2071. It's going to be active 24/7 anyway. Your situation doesn't get 'more unpleasant' from the people added after that first 5. Duals should just be able to do whatever the account holder is capable of doing.

  • willem948,


    The maths don't hold. If each account can have one account holder and two duals, two sitter slots, and every dual can have access via the sitter slot, then you run the potential of having 9 people looking after an account, rather than the current 5.


    From my perspective, one of the ongoing issues that Travian had with player retention was new, solo accounts getting raided 24/7 by accounts that had a million and one people looking after it. This limitation on the amount of people on one account goes some way to trying to redress that situation. I don't necessarily think it will work, but at least it's a step in the right direction.


    Edit - further replies before mine got in.


    Actually, it's not even really 5 - everyone knows sitters don't really do the same job as duals, so you're really getting 3 people with a couple of extra eyes watching it. And as stated, I don't think this will work quite to the level necessary, but it's a start.


    I still don't think that the quests quite cover off how important the ability to defend oneself is - they need to be a little more explicit around crannies, troop count, defense bonus of walls and residence etc...

    The post was edited 1 time, last by VVV ().

  • Hello Willem948,


    Welcome on our Travian: Kingdoms forum! Up to 5 people (including sitters) are more than enough to take care of an account, so we're trying not to put anyone in an unpleasant situation facing an enemy account played by more than several people.


    Best regards,
    Magician


    I think it is not a question of a maximum 5 people looking after an account which is at issue. Those 5 people are more than enough and it is more than fair. What is at issue is that if you are a dual on an account, you cannot sit the accounts the account holder can sit - so unless that account holder on that server is online, no one on the account can tend to the account you are supposed to be sitting for.


    The game demands a great deal of time if it is played effectively. Many people now play only on dual accounts because of the time demanded. Therefore, unless they can play with one or two duals, they don't play at all. When two or three people share an account, one or more misses a day or week being available, and the account is being run by a dual, then the accounts for which the main account holder is supposed to sit will go without sitter coverage. Unless you allow duals the right to sit those accounts. Make the server account the sitter, not the individual main account holder.


    Better yet, make the account jointly held by all three duals. That seems a fair and even handed way to ensure that the players all actually do have a maximum of 5 players tending the account even when one dual (the main holder) is not available.


    I don't think anyone has suggested that more than 2 sitters be allowed, or that more than 5 players per account should have access to an account.

  • willem948,


    The maths don't hold. If each account can have one account holder and two duals, two sitter slots, and every dual can have access via the sitter slot, then you run the potential of having 9 people looking after an account, rather than the current 5.


    like I said, I understand that 5 people on 1 account is enough.
    but don't you think that 2 players who are playing on the same account, sharing the costs and same dedication should both have the same options?

  • Do you really think there's much of a difference between having 5 people on an account or 9? Or 27? The account is always going to be active 24/7 anyway.


    As far as playerbase retention is concerned, this game has the most chance of retaining new players compared to the older versions - at least if you see new players being farmed as a problem (which I don't, I believe getting in attacks actually activates beginners to start thinking about how to stop being attacked. The game retained players just fine in T3/T2 when farming was so much easier). There are SO many things being done to keep new players alive. A week's protection. The kingdoms system, the quests that allow you to rush through the awkward beginning, the chicken boots, etc. Do we really need this?

  • Yeah, I'm being a touch on the pedantic side, it's a character failing of mine. I haven't played Kingdoms before, I'm back after a longish sabbatical, but I'm thinking of a few ideas around player retention (like daily quests, and a card game!), but I'm trying to get a feel for Kingdoms first. To be honest though, 3 duals with 2 having limited rights/functionality to get to 5 versus 9 people watching an account probably isn't going to feature...

  • Please revamp the whole dual sitter thing. to have 4 players play one account is ridiculous and not fair to the majority of players who play their own accounts. The sitter thing should be limited to a week or 2 for people on vacation or ill. otherwise you are giving players 2 account or more to play. why not just allow people to have unlimited accounts. Thats about how fair it is now. You can see worlds like US3 where this rule is being exploited like crazy and keeping everyone on that sector from having a fair game. some people pay a lot of money to play this game to have it ruined by accounts played by 4 players

  • Please revamp the whole dual sitter thing. to have 4 players play one account is ridiculous and not fair to the majority of players who play their own accounts. The sitter thing should be limited to a week or 2 for people on vacation or ill. otherwise you are giving players 2 account or more to play. why not just allow people to have unlimited accounts. Thats about how fair it is now. You can see worlds like US3 where this rule is being exploited like crazy and keeping everyone on that sector from having a fair game. some people pay a lot of money to play this game to have it ruined by accounts played by 4 players


    You propose that neither sitters nor duals be allowed in a game which runs 24 hrs a day for 6 month or more (a year or more in TL)? I am afraid that will not be a popular suggestion among most of the people I have played with. I don't get where you find "the majority" of players play strictly without sitters and/or duals. In my experience, the opposite is true. In fact, in the older versions we (alliance leadership) required each player to have sitters (within the alliance) as a condition of alliance membership, and I did not hesitate to boot a player who refused.


    Without sitters and duals, accounts are left untended for many hours each day, while the account holder is sleeping, at work, out of town on business or vacation. As an attacker, I have in the past taken advantage of those offline hours - I freely admit that. However, such uncovered accounts are not common - for the entire server to be open to offline hours on every account would remove any real competition from the game. You could just catch all your targets sleeping and wipe them out while the account holder is sleeping - that is, provided someone hasn't caught you offline and beaten you to the punch. Imagine having a 100k hammer in a cap with GB and GS, all level 18 fields and several feeders close-by at bedtime only to wake up and find several months work destroyed while you slept.

  • in US3 only one player is piloted by 5 players take a look at the stats its a ridiculous exploit of a horrible rule. Everyone should play their own game. If you are not active you deserve to be attacked.

  • Chicken boots need to go in my opinion. Same goes to few other features, but duals and sitters.. Those I would keep. Another option would be sitters and vacation mode. Vacation mode would be x days long. Its same as playing in protection but, with few more restrictions.


    1. No barons, adventures, attacks to oases or ability to collect tributes.
    2. -50% res production (crop is normal)
    3. You cannot keep troops in oasis.
    4. You dont receive reports or messages (Alliance, society, kingdom or other.)
    5. After you return from vacation you cannot enter one in a week. Vacation lasts minimum 3 days


    Incoming attacks hit immediately after support/trapped units return to their owners.


    If its something like this then no one will go to vacation to safety, but rather because of a good reason. + If you have available sitters its still better option. Vacation still allows you to leave game for 1-2 weeks if needed and not to be in complete stop. BTW Much less harsh vacation rules work in many other games. So it shouldnt be a problem

  • Soooo... In a nutshell.... Some people want all duals to be able to sit for player the account hold sits for. This basically turns a solo account holder into a power house with 3-4 players sitting account around the clock. That would give the few powerhouse accounts even more power.

  • What about then if each dual could sit for one account only? The way it is now, the owner of the account might be responsible for watching his own plus 2 accounts he sits for, which can get time consuming and tiring, while his dual/s play their own account only.

  • What you are saying is possible. 3 accounts and everyone sit for each other. 24/7 coverage. Duals on an account allows 24/7 catas and that's why I don't want them to have more power/ access to def accounts.