Offense buff

  • I traded legends for kingdoms in April so I only know "menhir era"

    Now hold on a second. Just to clarify you've played this game for a total of 2 whole months? And you tell others that they have "little to no experience at all attacking"? Seriously?

    Like... independent if you are right or wrong in this matter... how arrogant does one have to be to come here with 2 months of experience and tell others who have played for years that they do not have enough exp to comment on topics?

  • Now hold on a second. Just to clarify you've played this game for a total of 2 whole months? And you tell others that they have "little to no experience at all attacking"? Seriously?

    Like... independent if you are right or wrong in this matter... how arrogant does one have to be to come here with 2 months of experience and tell others who have played for years that they do not have enough exp to comment on topics?

    Now the true issue is my arrogance ^^ I do realize Kingdoms mechanics are different from legends, but that doesn't imply an Off Buff, and since you're so experienced you should be able to prove me wrong with valid arguments, not complaining about how I conduct myself, 'cause that doesn't concern you or anyone else unless I disrespect you, which I haven't done... Yet... ;)

  • In my opinion telling OP that he just doesn't have enough off experience and/or never played with a competent kingdom is disrespectful. If someone takes the time to write down his thoughts about an issue (or at least an aspect of the game, since you don't see it as an issue) the least you can do is to not assume they are just incompetent about the topic...

    You say you want arguments, but I think we've already told you our problem. But I'll gladly repeat it once more: the menhir changed moved basically everyone's 1st village within influence zones where kingdom members will have a visual indicator/notification thingy about incoming attacks. On top of this, villages are more closely packed together than ever (within a kingdom) so more def can arrive, and sooner too, while attackers must cover the same distance as before. This is a huge nerf to attackers (early game farming mostly).
    ...meanwhile your "arguments" were listing the pros and cons of each tribe which proves nothing. I mean... let's take paladins. They have pros and cons too but you'll never convince anyone they are not a trash def unit

  • Ok, let's dissect this:


    In my opinion telling OP that he just doesn't have enough off experience and/or never played with a competent kingdom is disrespectful. If someone takes the time to write down his thoughts about an issue (or at least an aspect of the game, since you don't see it as an issue) the least you can do is to not assume they are just incompetent about the topic...

    Like you said, it's your opinion .

    Moving on,



    the menhir changed moved basically everyone's 1st village within influence zones where kingdom members will have a visual indicator/notification thingy about incoming attacks. On top of this, villages are more closely packed together than ever (within a kingdom) so more def can arrive, and sooner too, while attackers must cover the same distance as before. This is a huge nerf to attackers (early game farming mostly).

    So back in legends you did not have the feature that displays the incoming attacks when X village is inside the borders of Y kingdom. But, you did had pre-server teams that organized the map so you could work towards a certain WW and you'd organize center, both borders and WW with the different types of accounts/players/styles. Which is kinda the same as being in an organized kingdom, where you don't pack all the Offers under the same treasury, you split them with deffers for obvious reasons... Back in legends you didn't have a visual notification but you did had 2 sitter slots, like you do in kingdoms. And every member of the alliance would be required to have the 2 of them occupied and to sit back other two members. In-game chat would work like that visual feature so we're kinda on the same page here. Menhir simply makes life easier for kingdoms to organize themselves since day 1. Example: In legends if you aimed for a crop at 100 fields distance you'd allow another member that would fight in the border to chief it after you had X villages. Now instead of leaving your 1st village for a border member to chief when you need an extra slot to settle near you cluster you get to keep it by relocating through the menhir feature.



    I don't see how it's a nerf since you wouldn't be farming much from average/decent players with villages outside kingdom borders anyway.. Like I said, this is a war game, your actions have consequences.



    ...meanwhile your "arguments" were listing the pros and cons of each tribe which proves nothing.

    It proves the game is balanced and you should choose the tribe that suits your play style the best. As simple as that.


    You're simply dodging the question here, calling me arrogant and not being coherent at all. You're using previous posts aimed at replying to other affirmations made in this thread. If you read my post again you notice I said "Off doesn't need a Buff" right at the end. Yet you don't see me talking about menhir feature like I did on this one so there you go, you can try again this time since I do talk about the menhir feature.

    And if you don't have nothing worth to add do us a favor and don't waste your time with some random words you put together just because.

  • So back in legends you did not have the feature that displays the incoming attacks when X village is inside the borders of Y kingdom. But, you did had pre-server teams that organized the map so you could work towards a certain WW and you'd organize center, both borders and WW with the different types of accounts/players/styles. Which is kinda the same as being in an organized kingdom, where you don't pack all the Offers under the same treasury, you split them with deffers for obvious reasons...

    What you say is true but how is it relevant to the discussion?


    Quote

    Back in legends you didn't have a visual notification but you did had 2 sitter slots, like you do in kingdoms. And every member of the alliance would be required to have the 2 of them occupied and to sit back other two members.[...]


    I don't see how it's a nerf since you wouldn't be farming much from average/decent players with villages outside kingdom borders anyway..

    My bad. Farming as a concept can not exist in this game since everyone is playing with 3 duals + 2 sitters, and is online 24/7. I don't even know what I was thinking, sorry for taking up your time.


    Like are you serious here? Maybe you won't farm active players okay. But have you never seen offline accounts during your 2 months of gameplay? I mean I understand you. Saying that "active players were unfarmable before, and are unfarmable now, so there's no issue here" and ignoring the less active accounts is convenient for you so why wouldn't you do that right?


    Quote

    Like I said, this is a war game, your actions have consequences.

    Again how is this relevant?


    Quote

    It proves the game is balanced and you should choose the tribe that suits your play style the best. As simple as that.

    It does not "prove" anything. It is literally not a "proof". How about removing stables from teutons? They'd still have their early game advantage over other tribes. The con here is that... well they can't produce cavalry. So they'll have pros and cons, must be balanced then! Let's do this! Remove stables, who is with me?

    Now I understand what I've just said is a pretty extreme example, but surely it illustrates what I mean when I say listing 3 "keypoints" for each tribe is not an argument neither with nor against what OP said?


    Quote

    You're simply dodging the question here [...]

    I'm pretty sure I've reacted to every point you've made so far. Have I missed something? Please tell me what "the question" is that I'm avoiding, I'll gladly address it.


    Quote

    I said "Off doesn't need a Buff" right at the end. Yet you don't see me talking about menhir feature like I did on this one so there you go, you can try again this time since I do talk about the menhir feature

    Sorry, could you rephrase this please? I'm really not sure what you mean.


    I feel like there's a bit of a confusion between us. Please do say if I'm wrong but I think when you read the word "off" you think of an organized attack from 20 off players, on another kingdom. If that's true then allow me to clarify:
    so far I've been talking about early game farming oriented attacks. I've literally said this. Multiples times already. Maybe you missed it? OP was kinda meshing up the 2, but surely when

    • he talked about clubs' carrying capacity
    • his proposed teuton buff was a move speed increase on clubs and axes
    • and movement speed increase on TKs too

    you must have realised he was not asking to buff his WW hitting siege attack?

  • What you say is true but how is it relevant to the discussion?

    You're not even trying :rolleyes: but: as in legends we had organized alliances, in kingdoms we also have kingdoms that are organized so it's the same level of difficulty to attack here and there with or without the attack notification feature. That being said it is indeed relevant to the discussion.



    My bad. Farming as a concept can not exist in this game since everyone is playing with 3 duals + 2 sitters, and is online 24/7. I don't even know what I was thinking, sorry for taking up your time.


    Like are you serious here? Maybe you won't farm active players okay. But have you never seen offline accounts during your 2 months of gameplay? I mean I understand you. Saying that "active players were unfarmable before, and are unfarmable now, so there's no issue here" and ignoring the less active accounts is convenient for you so why wouldn't you do that right?

    There are two separate points in my argument: one being the kingdoms organization (talking about WW contenders here, not top15 kingdoms) and second, what prevents you to raid those "less active players" like you call them ? The fact that they are inside some random kingdom borders ? Spiking was also a thing on legends... So no, it's not inconvenient for me to talk about those players since they are also easy targets with visual attack notification or without it. You can be spiked even without visual attack notification.


    Again how is this relevant?

    It's relevant since you're saying menhir + visual attack notification feature are buffing defense and they aren't. With or without visual attack notification you can still get spiked so I your argument doesn't makes sense. But generally speaking your actions have consequences because when attacking you cannot be 100% sure you'll have Green Swords since Spiking is as old as the game is. So visual attack notification has 0 to do with that and isn't buffing defense.



    It does not "prove" anything. It is literally not a "proof". How about removing stables from teutons? They'd still have their early game advantage over other tribes. The con here is that... well they can't produce cavalry. So they'll have pros and cons, must be balanced then! Let's do this! Remove stables, who is with me?

    Now I understand what I've just said is a pretty extreme example, but surely it illustrates what I mean when I say listing 3 "keypoints" for each tribe is not an argument neither with nor against what OP said?

    There you go talking about nonsense... Not even wasting my time here :sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:


    I'm pretty sure I've reacted to every point you've made so far. Have I missed something? Please tell me what "the question" is that I'm avoiding, I'll gladly address it.

    More of the same, I gave you a chance to give direct replies but you kept mumbling around :sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

    Sorry, could you rephrase this please? I'm really not sure what you mean.


    I feel like there's a bit of a confusion between us. Please do say if I'm wrong but I think when you read the word "off" you think of an organized attack from 20 off players, on another kingdom. If that's true then allow me to clarify:
    so far I've been talking about early game farming oriented attacks. I've literally said this. Multiples times already. Maybe you missed it? OP was kinda meshing up the 2, but surely when

    he talked about clubs' carrying capacity
    his proposed teuton buff was a move speed increase on clubs and axes
    and movement speed increase on TKs too

    you must have realised he was not asking to buff his WW hitting siege attack?

    You keep making this "conversation" shift from one topic to another without giving proper answers... You were the one talking about the "menhir era" and how it affected the aggressive players raiding. Have you seen top robbers of the week charts ? I see they keep raiding even with this "huge buff" on defense that is the visual attack notification 8|

    Off/Offers = Offender; Def/Deffers = Defender

    Again, clubs are the best raiders of the 1st week of the server, after that they lose to TTs and EIs, but that's common sense, you want to buff Teutons because they have the cheapest units yet they are frail and have low speed comparing to Gauls and Romans ? That would simply break the balance, not "balance" the game.

    you must have realised he was not asking to buff his WW hitting siege attack?

    By boosting clubs attack it would definitely be doing that :rolleyes: You are giving more attack to THE attack/time go to unit... Meaning you would have a buffed "WW hitting siege attack" it's math :D

    Was waiting for a decent answer but you kept saying nothing about nothing, will stop replying on this thread now since I'm clearly wasting my time and I'm pretty sure I've proven my point.

    If you want to find me in-game I always go by VIOLENCE and am currently playing com1nx3 and com2nx3. Will also play on com1x3 with same alias. See you around :S

  • You can be spiked even without visual attack notification.

    Yes. You can be. BUT where is it more risky to attack an AFK player?

    • On T5 where his whole kingdom will see that he has an incoming attack on their map? And in the kingdom menu? And also in the bottom right corner of their screen?
    • On T4 where (if he is offline) noone will know he is under attack?

    Geez I can't choose. Seems like the same things to me. T4 can be spiked. T5 can be spiked. There's literally no difference.


    Also LOL at:
    - "you avoid answering!!!"
    -"okay repeat the question you want an answer for"
    - "see? you are just mumbling again :cursing::cursing::cursing::cursing:"

    It is probably best if we both stop commenting here because this is going nowhere like this

  • Looking back the old responses, I cannot tell why people think this is the big balance we have right now. People just unaware of the expression "perfectly imbalanced game", which I think travian suits the best: the players and their behaviour, how they use tribes should determine the balance. Like now, 50% of the players use gauls for a reason, BUT travian team has not made a change for 10 years to bring the number of teuton or roman players forward. It's not because it's balanced, it's because no one cares from the game designers to analyse gaming data and make updates.

    I'm bringing this thread back in order to emphasize how important data is in 2021, and how you, Travian Team could use that in order to gather or keep more players in game.

  • Attack is just too difficult to play, even for the most experienced players. This is the reason why most people don't play attack and attackers are HIGHLY valued in kingdoms. Defenders get a huge advantage because they can stack troops and when you add wall + lodge (yes it gives a huge defence boost) its impossible to break through. I think Kings and Dukes should receive less tribute, of course this would weaken attackers more but I think governer attackers should be buffed in some way.


    Changes I would like to see

    - Increase Ram and Cat speed
    - Increase Siege bonus and speed

    - No more moving treasures and hiding treasures. This function is abused like hell and turns attackers into a joke.

    - No more stacking treasures, we need to distrubute the defence to prevent stacking


    I think those changes would fix a lot.


    RIP Ottomans, I've never seen so many hammers dead in a single attack <X

  • These are just great points. Great ones. Maybe treasuries should have higher capacity (10k), but only one should be allowed to be built in a village? This would also increase the vulnerability of a treasury village, because if that single treasury falls, there would be no other active treasury holding that area.

  • I don't think OFF players have any disadvantage what so ever, like yes, deff players can build troops in 15 villages, but that is OFF players fault, why did they let them expand like this? Why did they not sent their armies to prevent their expansion? Everyone says that playing OFF is hard. Yes, If you let the DEFF player expand however he wants to, then yes, you will most likely lose, but if you will keep him under pressure, destroying some buildings, walls, that will, in a while break his spirit and he will delete or he will start to lack behind, that means, the kingdom will lose +- 200k deff units in the end. I think deff players can expand because off players are just too passive, too afraid to lose portion of his army, if you will keep on attacking soon or later you will get caught, yes, that is clear, but if you will make a party with some active players like 8 players together and choose 1 player who will make some plans for your party then you can change it. Attacking every day, destroying slowly but surely everyones warehouses, granaries, barracks, stables, MB, and you will see how your numbers will became supperior. The game isn't bad here, the players are. The deff players will get their bonuses with the amount of villages where they can build troops. So if you will lower this number of villages, you will have deff player with 1 racks and 1 stables and that's all, off players can easily change it but simply, they don't want to because they are scared. OFF doesn't need any improvements, everyone here says that "playing off is much harder then playing deff" then why every kingdom has problem with low number of deff units? Why everyone has problems with defending more then 2 or 3 targets? When almost the "half" of the server are gauls with deff? Why is everyone so scared of OFF players? I don't think OFF or DEFF are easy or hard to play, both has their pros and cons, but it all ends with, how much time that player gets for his preparation? For how long can he keep on expanding without any threat?

  • I don't think OFF players have any disadvantage what so ever, like yes, deff players can build troops in 15 villages, but that is OFF players fault, why did they let them expand like this? Why did they not sent their armies to prevent their expansion? Everyone says that playing OFF is hard. Yes, If you let the DEFF player expand however he wants to, then yes, you will most likely lose, but if you will keep him under pressure, destroying some buildings, walls, that will, in a while break his spirit and he will delete or he will start to lack behind, that means, the kingdom will lose +- 200k deff units in the end. I think deff players can expand because off players are just too passive, too afraid to lose portion of his army, if you will keep on attacking soon or later you will get caught, yes, that is clear, but if you will make a party with some active players like 8 players together and choose 1 player who will make some plans for your party then you can change it. Attacking every day, destroying slowly but surely everyones warehouses, granaries, barracks, stables, MB, and you will see how your numbers will became supperior. The game isn't bad here, the players are. The deff players will get their bonuses with the amount of villages where they can build troops. So if you will lower this number of villages, you will have deff player with 1 racks and 1 stables and that's all, off players can easily change it but simply, they don't want to because they are scared. OFF doesn't need any improvements, everyone here says that "playing off is much harder then playing deff" then why every kingdom has problem with low number of deff units? Why everyone has problems with defending more then 2 or 3 targets? When almost the "half" of the server are gauls with deff? Why is everyone so scared of OFF players? I don't think OFF or DEFF are easy or hard to play, both has their pros and cons, but it all ends with, how much time that player gets for his preparation? For how long can he keep on expanding without any threat?

    I agree on some what you say but on some aspects I also have to disagree.

    While I think you are right in pointing out that there are a lot of ways to weaken deff players as an offer and offers are more feared than deffers, also the fact that defending multiple targets is almost never possible is correct.

    But I think your analysis and thinking is partly wrong. In my opinion offers can be stronger than deffers and it can be very balanced but that is only because those, playing off are mostly experienced players with a high level of activity, while new and less active players tend to play deff, simply because its easier to do with less time or knowledge.

    On why its always difficult to find enough deff players in a kingdom: I think this also has a lot to do with activity. Most of the really active and good players just play off instead of deff because, lets face it, its more fun and rewarding if you know what you are doing (but thats not the point here). One good player is worth more than 5 average players in my opinion, maybe even more. So thats the reason why there are so many deff gauls and deff players, but deff is always needed. Most deffers just arent as good players as offers, since most of the good and active players start playing off, once they know what they are doing.

    And the ways to harrass defensive players that you are pointing out need so much more activity and are way harder to execute than just playing defense. I think off and deff is in reality balanced (cause of fake attacks etc.) but its only balanced because off players are more likely to be highly active and experienced. If we look at the roles as facts and not as reality is often picturing them, deff is definitely way easier and more effective than off.

    Especially the demolishing/transporting treasury tactics are way too OP and need to be removed ASAP!

    It destroys the whole point of an off operation if the enemy kingdom can just pull 90% of their treasure out of the treasury in a few hours, making the attack pointless. Even loss of victory points while doing this is rare and not a good argument to make! And yes, again, there are tactics to beat this tactic but they require way more knowledge, skill and time to organise than the defensive counterpart.


    And we havent even talked about the amount of work you need to put into feeding your army in just one village... (basically impossible to handle without travian+)


    Tl;dr: In reality off and deff is somewhat balanced (apart from the possibility to move treasury away fast with attacks with or without destroying own treasury) but they are only balanced in reality because off players are on average way more experienced and invest way more time into the game, than deff players do. If you would look at the raw facts without this higher amount of skill and activity, I think deff is way easier to pull off and so much stronger with less time investement.

  • You're right when you say that off players need to be active and better be experienced and that's it looks easier to play def ("looks" because creating a great def account needs also a lot of experience).


    So it's balanced. Players can choose the role they like. They have to play with constraints, and that's the fun of Travian. Starting as a deffer is not that easy, and an offer risks his troops. What "balance" would be that an offer does not risk that ? He would just be farming def accounts.


    Moving treasuries has an impact on victory points. Defending all treasuries needs a lot of def and a good op can steal a lot of treasures. Even if you don't steal treasures immediately, destroying treasuries prevents the kingdom to generate victory points

  • You're right when you say that off players need to be active and better be experienced and that's it looks easier to play def ("looks" because creating a great def account needs also a lot of experience).


    So it's balanced. Players can choose the role they like. They have to play with constraints, and that's the fun of Travian. Starting as a deffer is not that easy, and an offer risks his troops. What "balance" would be that an offer does not risk that ? He would just be farming def accounts.


    Moving treasuries has an impact on victory points. Defending all treasuries needs a lot of def and a good op can steal a lot of treasures. Even if you don't steal treasures immediately, destroying treasuries prevents the kingdom to generate victory points

    Yes later in the game once a kingdom has a lot of treasuries filled with treasure, what you are saying is correct. But for example: Im playing a server right now and we are roughly on the 60th day, so kingdoms have about 1-2 big treasuries, depending on the size of the kingdom.
    So every time you want to make an op and steal some treasury, they simply destroy their treasury and/or take out most of the treasures in less than 2 hours.
    And yes, maybe, but just maybe you lose one day of victory points. But thats well worth it because you secured your treasures for many days to come...


    I just really hate this mechanic because it prevents real fighting to take place because every time you can just clean your treasury and dodge the attack. Especially in the early/mid game up to day 60-80 where catapults arent around in masses, you can just avoid an attack and lose nothing by moving your treasury if you chose not to try to defend...

    And all that why the attacking kingdom planned an op for hours and sent their troops away for up to 24hours.


    It just sucks, especially in early game!


    I feel like this is the main problem right now. It gets better in late game because then its more difficult to move away all your treasure and attackers often have so many catapults, that you have no choice but to defend otherwise your village will be chiefed/destroyed.. But as I said, for about half the game this is such an annoying feature! It just actively stops fighting and using of troops!

  • It's a question of tactics, and the early-mid game does not make the victory at the end. So maybe having an "end game" strategy and ops at the beginning of the game is wrong ?

    You must be joking xD?!


    Are you seriously telling me that it is a matter of "tactics"? Its just a good tactic to not fight at all for the first 80 days of the server??


    I want to use my troops, fight, plan, and play the game also in the first 80 days of every server and not wait till the last third just because thats better in terms of tactics.


    The fact that you are right, yes it is better to wait till endgame, just proves my point. The mechanic sucks! End of story. A mechanic that prevents fighting and promotes a tactic, after which fighting earlier than day 80 is useless, is just BAD!


    You literally proved my point. (please note that "day 80" is only used as an example and not meant as an exact date")

  • I'm confused xD

    Where did I say not to attack ? You spoke about not being able to steal treasuries at the beginning of the server. Totally different.

    That's the point of tactics : what do you target at each step of the game and what is important or not. It's not staying at home farming your off. The most offensive at the beginning, the bigger you are at the end.

  • I'm confused xD

    Where did I say not to attack ? You spoke about not being able to steal treasuries at the beginning of the server. Totally different.

    That's the point of tactics : what do you target at each step of the game and what is important or not. It's not staying at home farming your off. The most offensive at the beginning, the bigger you are at the end.

    Yes I have to admit I understood you partly wrong. My point still stands in my opinion. It doesnt seem very well thought through if a tactic is in existence that stops the ability to steal treasures at basically no cost in the first half of the game...