What is the point of the inability to destroy a capital of a player that has been inactive for days? Waiting around for days on end for it to dissapear.
Inactive capitals
-
For us to suffer.
We're not doing quality of life improvements. We're just doing fireworks and other stuff nobody asked for.
-
I think an active village that has been 0 popped should disappear.
Player can start over if they want.
Been too many servers where some douchebag fast settles a cropper just to keep it occupied for the entire server without actually playing.
-
I understand the possibility of what you mention, having a 15c occupied is not fun when you would like to have it.
But we have an issue with this mechanism, because when ever we make a change we have to think about the honest new players as well.
When you have an avatar in a game world, even if your only account is left at 0, you may still want to keep on playing, rebuilt.
Yes, granted, most will not do it, but some will, and we cannot take away their possibility to do so.
So, again, it is finding a balance between the normal players and the ones that may not be playing with the best of intentions.
But we cannot just act thinking about the abuses without thinking about the consequences for the rest of players.
Do you think there is a good balance to find in that respect?
How would it affect the game play if we change the mechanism of how it works?
-
Display More
I understand the possibility of what you mention, having a 15c occupied is not fun when you would like to have it.
But we have an issue with this mechanism, because when ever we make a change we have to think about the honest new players as well.
When you have an avatar in a game world, even if your only account is left at 0, you may still want to keep on playing, rebuilt.
Yes, granted, most will not do it, but some will, and we cannot take away their possibility to do so.
So, again, it is finding a balance between the normal players and the ones that may not be playing with the best of intentions.
But we cannot just act thinking about the abuses without thinking about the consequences for the rest of players.
Do you think there is a good balance to find in that respect?
How would it affect the game play if we change the mechanism of how it works?
I understand that this was based on the idea that some might come back and rebuild, but if we're being honest here, a village that has been 0popped, not part of a kingdom and hasn't been visited for more than 3 days has less than 0 chance of rebuilding. A new player that has lost interest asinmuch as not to visit for days will not be motivated enough to rebuild facing tremendous odds.
I mean this for inactive players, not active players who are being attacked. I have been with many kingdoms, and I don't know even one that tolerated their players to be inactive so much as to go grey, then come back and 'rebuild'.
I doubt it would be unfair to anyone, but to make it sure, put it to the vote.
Incidentally, how much do I have to wait on speed servers for a village to dissapear?
-
Display More
I understand the possibility of what you mention, having a 15c occupied is not fun when you would like to have it.
But we have an issue with this mechanism, because when ever we make a change we have to think about the honest new players as well.
When you have an avatar in a game world, even if your only account is left at 0, you may still want to keep on playing, rebuilt.
Yes, granted, most will not do it, but some will, and we cannot take away their possibility to do so.
Nonsense excuses so you can remain lazy.
You absolutely 100% can take away their possibility to do so.
Force the newbs to restart in such cases. It will be better for them and better for the rest of us.
QuoteSo, again, it is finding a balance between the normal players and the ones that may not be playing with the best of intentions.
But we cannot just act thinking about the abuses without thinking about the consequences for the rest of players.
Do you think there is a good balance to find in that respect?
How would it affect the game play if we change the mechanism of how it works?
FORCE THE BEST OPTION. FORCE IT. It is ALWAYS better to restart than to try and build up a 0 pop village.
We've been addressing fundamental issues since the first open beta. Stop being so lazy. Stop making excuses. Most importantly you got to stop LYING. Most of these issues are no brainers. It is a problem and there is a fix. Stop pretending that you have to consider "balance" or whatever other buzzword you like.
Someone settles a 15c and makes it their only village? Cat it to 0 and they go back to the intro of the game with a message "Your final village was destroyed. Your hero and the last of your men found a new village about to be overrun by robbers. Perhaps here you can start again.".
There did your work for you. Even thought of a nice story with it. Now stop making excuses for keeping broken mechanics that are being used to grief the honest players.
-
Can someone tell me how long do I have to wait on the speed server for a 0pop grey to vanish?
Once grey it takes 21 days for a village to disappear regardless of size.
If the target is banned it might be faster but that feature might be exclusive to Travian Legends, I don't remember.
-
Display More
I understand the possibility of what you mention, having a 15c occupied is not fun when you would like to have it.
But we have an issue with this mechanism, because when ever we make a change we have to think about the honest new players as well.
When you have an avatar in a game world, even if your only account is left at 0, you may still want to keep on playing, rebuilt.
Yes, granted, most will not do it, but some will, and we cannot take away their possibility to do so.
So, again, it is finding a balance between the normal players and the ones that may not be playing with the best of intentions.
But we cannot just act thinking about the abuses without thinking about the consequences for the rest of players.
Do you think there is a good balance to find in that respect?
How would it affect the game play if we change the mechanism of how it works?
Then how about a player can chief if it but has to trade a normal 4446 village in exchange for it with 250 pop? I don't think there's any active player trying to get those 15c that's not willing to trade...
-
Then how about a player can chief if it but has to trade a normal 4446 village in exchange for it with 250 pop? I don't think there's any active player trying to get those 15c that's not willing to trade...
I don't understand, what do you mean trade a normal 4446?
Do you mean that someone can conquer the 15c and the original owner of the 15c gets a 4446 instead automatically while the 15c goes to the conqueror?
-
if the owner of the 15c is a grey player yes
-
The issue is that inactive accounts, until they are deleted, could be reactivated by the owner... let's say the owner goes to hospital unexpectantly and has a time of sorrow, but luckily comes out of it and is eager to back to the routine and the things that give him/her joy... like his/her Kingdom's account... how do you think that person would feel if his precious 15c is now a 6c?
I understand that in some edge cases it is a bit of a pickle and that the person is never coming back... but even if just 1% does come back, we must make sure we do everything possible to ensure they have the avatar ready for them to come back to the game (while the game world doesn't finish).
-
they are getting farmed and shot to zero in their absence anyway so that argument holds no valid point.
You could perhaps think of one... but this is not a good one
-
♫stop talking bs♫
It was embarrassing at first but now you're just trolling.
Seriously your pathetic excuses for "arguments" are just offensive at this point.
The issue is that inactive accounts, until they are deleted, could be reactivated by the owner... let's say the owner goes to hospital unexpectantly and has a time of sorrow, but luckily comes out of it and is eager to back to the routine and the things that give him/her joy... like his/her Kingdom's account... how do you think that person would feel if his precious 15c is now a 6c?
I understand that in some edge cases it is a bit of a pickle and that the person is never coming back... but even if just 1% does come back, we must make sure we do everything possible to ensure they have the avatar ready for them to come back to the game (while the game world doesn't finish).
You should really make sure that when someone comes back they can instantly start over. No wait. They are FORCED to start over.
Besides, of the 1% that does come back, 90% come back to prevent their account from being deleted. You know why? CAUSE IT IS A GRIEFING MECHANIC.IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED. NOT A SINGLE ACTUAL PLAYER WANTS THEM TO STAY. NOBODY! YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE DISAGREEING WITH THE REQUEST.
So seriously, shut up and do your job. Players want something, relay the request.
-
Pink Guy speaks the truth here. Inactive capitals are a huge issue in the game today. Unfortunate if someone goes to the hospital and ends up being back in the game, but this is highly unlikely.
-
I have the same issue that a lot of inactive villages remaind for quite a long time.It occupied somewhere in your kindom and the king cannot menhir the ohter active players in kindom border.
I think a job script to clean gray village is necessary.
eg, 5 days to clean gray village which population between 0 and 20; 7 days to clean gray village which population between 21 and 50.....bla bla bla
-
The issue is that inactive accounts, until they are deleted, could be reactivated by the owner... let's say the owner goes to hospital unexpectantly and has a time of sorrow, but luckily comes out of it and is eager to back to the routine and the things that give him/her joy... like his/her Kingdom's account... how do you think that person would feel if his precious 15c is now a 6c?
I understand that in some edge cases it is a bit of a pickle and that the person is never coming back... but even if just 1% does come back, we must make sure we do everything possible to ensure they have the avatar ready for them to come back to the game (while the game world doesn't finish).
Sorry but got to agree with others on this one. If life gets in the way and you become inactive, your account is gone. Usually the kingdoms leadership will try to reach you, probably worry and if you have sitters/dual your account could go one for some time, but at a certain point other people can't play for you (you made sure of this by removing even duals if the owner doesn't login for 21 days). Then the account gets cleaned up, troops killed, village conquered and so forth, because there is no other option.
If you then can get back you would have to start from zero, but without quests rewards, few adventures, and maybe only a 15c with an abismal resource production, so the only move would be to launch the delete, settle another village, have some ex-kingdom member to chief the 15c and then restart or delete for good.
If the village gets deleted automatically instead you could be back (if you wanted) instantyl with a new account.
-
And that is already what happens... I guess the times we have now in place is what you want to shorten, right?
What do you think is a good enough time frame for the player to be able to come back to his/her account?
Why?
