Why I'm Quitting Travian

  • One of the reasons many of us return to Travian is the friends we made on servers. Good alliances choose their players carefully and you have to prove you are a worthy member.



    In kingdoms I am more or less stuck with the people around me . Yes I can kick players out by attacking them but there is still a limit to the influence a king can have so you are limited to people around you . There are some ways one can work with this but you can still end up tied to people you don't want as king or governor .

  • well its not entirely beside the point that there has always been metas, and the reason why they are there is as follows: most contributors in this thread are probably top 20-players, but on an active travian server everyone cant be as active as they. most players log in now and then and just want a peaceful game where they can upgrade their warehouse at lunch and a ress field in the evening, sending troops and ress to their ally now and then and perhaps even contributing to a world wonder or some other stuff. for these players a meta is exactly the shield they are looking for, and if this is led by a few big guns it might even work. its pretty similar to how states came into being through the middle ages actually.


    you cant blame these guys for this attitude. i blame top players for organizing it, though, instead of restricting themselves to one-two wings.


    It makes no sense to blame the top players or any other players. It's the game that allows and actively incentivizes playing that way (even though it's destructive to the game), or course the people who want to win no matter what are going to make use of that.


    What GGdvh is saying isn't true. Metas back then were (on the Dutch servers) maybe 200 men big at most, but the size of the server was 15k+, so even bigger than our TK server right now. That's quite different from having 500+ in a meta like samurai and xtools are doing this server.


    What me and some people in my kingdom did a few days ago was a good example of how unbalanced this game is and how pay-to-win it is, and what will likely stop me from ever playing this game again. A samurai king spawned a village in our kingdom a week ago. The king is far, FAR ahead of us, so his army/possible reinforcements, resources and number of villages was far greater than ours. Partially that's because he's a raider, but mostly that's because he's got an infinte amount of resources through tributes.We know that if we didn't immediately kill his village off, it would become a forward base, with a club hammer, rams, catapults and eventually chiefs. The king had a 3k+ hammer in another village at the time of spawning with rams and catapults, but people in my kingdom were barely managing 1k troops at the time, catapults not even nearly in sight. We couldn't do anything straight away. So, we started building them as fast as possible, gave ourselves a week to prepare.


    By that time, and I'm sure using a lot of gold, the village was nearing 450 pop. The king had already lost some amount of clubs trying to take oases using his troops from his offense village in smaller attacks and had lost all troops from his forward base several times, so he was starting to attack only one oasis as a time, knowing that we cannot possibly stop his full hammer, nor kill any reinforcements to the oases efficiently enough. Luckily, the samurai king has no idea what scouts are so we managed to scout every oasis he tried to take from the village, knew the amount of defense there beforehand as well as in the village, managed to fight more-or-less efficiently for a time and made it hard for him. After the week passed, we decided it was now or never. Time for a desperation move which we didn't really think would work. Fakes were sent, fanmail was received, attacks were sent...The king apparently didn't know for sure where we would land or with how much, as the defense in the forward base wasn't adjusted. We landed on his forward base, crushed the defense there, also started rooting out the defense in the oases so they wouldn't come back later behind a level 20 (or 18, after our first attack) wall, and proceeded to catapult some things. Before my 150 catapults had even returned to my village however (a 1 hour trip), the buildings were already golded back up (easy to do if you just have several merchant waves incoming with increasing amounts of resources, up the warehouse in between waves of merchants). We couldn't properly use waves to shoot the village down because of the restrictions on waves. Croplocking no longer exists (which we knew, so we didnt bother trying). When we returned, 5 heroes blocked our path, stopping most of my hammer. Returning for the third time finally stopped my last few remaining troops. Soon, chiefing is also impossible since the village will reach 500 pop and change into a city with a moat and 200% loyalty. That leaves us with precisely 0 ways of attacking while behind. So there's no point in playing.


    Now let's review and compare with a non-gold T2 version, using this strategy. Let's assume the king had raided as much and was ahead of us in everything still.


    - the king and his governors wouldn't have had nearly as many free resources.
    - The village wouldn't have been this big, would probably not have had this wall. It would also not have been spawned this early. And if it had, it wouldn't have grown as fast nor be a threat as soon.
    - Even if the king is big, the people around him that supplied the defense wouldn't have been as big. Therefore the defense wouldn't have been as big. Nowhere near as big, frankly.
    - Waves would've been possible, croplocking would've been possible, chiefing would in the future still be possible.
    - gold doesn't exist, so instant-building doesn't exist, nor does npcing.
    - The village was defended with about 6+ heroes in total, equalling 1k defense or more. Those wouldn't have existed.
    - Rally point / spyglass ******** wouldn't have existed, making our faking cheaper, leaving more for the army


    This village would've gone down, in all likelihood. If it had lived, it would've cost all of the defense and the village would still have been badly damaged.

  • I refuse to pay any more for a game that is based on who can spend the most.


    If the dev's want a handful of big spenders and that works for their business model - fine


    But I believe that a broader customer base would better earn a longer lasting/higher ROI


    There should be middle ground somehow- a cool down period for gold use for certain things or something.


  • I totally agree. I had a king spawn his 4th village next to mine and in 3 days had 330 pop in that village. There is no way he did that with less than 3 insta-builds a day. There should definitely be a limit on insta-builds and NPC'ing because they give way too much of an advantage. I get that they need money to keep operating but making the gap between gold users and non-gold users so big really defeats the purpose of the game. And like the above poster said 200% loyalty is way too much. It should be 125% with still the possibility of increasing it with tabs to 150%. The return trips of chiefs would make it so easy to defend a village trying to be conquered especially now that they get like 6-8% loyalty a day and tablets. It would take a few days to chief a village.


    Yea i get that you can cata the city back to a village but with the insta-build power gap, a gold user can keep his city above 1000 pop forever with the right resources.


    This games becoming more of who spends more than who has more skill and I'm about to quit with ya bud.

  • npc and instabuild has been a feature as long as i have played travian, thats since 2007. yes, its gamey at times. but it wasnt introduced with kingdoms.


    it would be nice if one could sign up for a non-gold server for a monthly fee, say 50 or 100 gold. i guess there would be enough players worldwide wanting to participate on that one.

  • I keep hearing complaints about the loyalty in cities. Yes, there is 200%. Yes, you have to have two open expansion slots and CP for two villages to take a city. Yes, it will take 9 or ten chiefs to conquer one.


    It makes no sense to catapult a city with 1500 pop down below 1000 and make it a (damaged) village in order to conquer it. Have so few truly never worked closely enough with a team to conquer with teamwork? Can you not imagine 4 or 5 people working together, faking a few villages, each sending two chiefs to the real target, landing within seconds of each other to avoid a residence being rebuilt, and timing the attacks so the one who intends to keep the village lands last? What has become of Travian if a team cannot do that???


    If a team works together, there is no need for anyone's chiefs to make a second trip. On a T4.4 server where we took over an account for our team, a very small team of 6 accounts, including the account my dual and I play, we have been sending single wave fakes and chiefing attacks taking villages with 125% loyalty two at a time from active enemies. The chiefs we use when we take two could just as easily be used to take one city provided we had CP and an open slot for two in each village we send from. Single waves!

  • I can't imagine them doing that it this point in the server, can you?


    Not at this stage, no. But how much conquering is going on at this stage anyway? What gets me sometimes is people who talk about the game as if they are playing it solo instead of as part of a team - because people are accuistomed to playing it pretty much solo without much regard for a team.

  • Well, some people have already conquered natar villages, I'm assuming with not that many chiefs. They would've perhaps tried a regular village instead if natar villages weren't in the game, but not with 200% loyalty. My point earlier was that there is no way for my kingdom to have enough chiefs any time soon to conquer a city, so it's ruled out as a strategy (and every other strategy except doing nothing was already ruled out).

  • no doubt it will be much more difficult to chief good, active players on kingdoms than on earlier versions. most chiefings on servers players brag about are of inactives or player they made give up, or just player with little skill. a real chiefing of an off village of a top player, thats a piece of art, and that has become much more difficult because of the restrictions to catapult waves, the city system and the hero equipment allowing to identify smaller fakes.
    as has been pointed out by many, very good teamwork has now also become more difficult. you might happen to be king with a bunch of more or less commited governours. the old alliance system easier brought the best players of a quad together. now hopefully the hidden societies can play parts of that role on kingdoms.

  • Well, some people have already conquered natar villages, I'm assuming with not that many chiefs. They would've perhaps tried a regular village instead if natar villages weren't in the game, but not with 200% loyalty. My point earlier was that there is no way for my kingdom to have enough chiefs any time soon to conquer a city, so it's ruled out as a strategy (and every other strategy except doing nothing was already ruled out).


    Amm, you know I am a grumpy old man. Allow me to grump a bit;) It is all honest grumping, I assure you.

  • i generally agree with ammanurt, but what im not so sure about is that the village the top player was settling was meant to give destructive blows. more likely, it was built to get influence over more governors. so if you hadnt a military solution, you had most likely a diplomatic one. therefore your strategy should have been to be he is governors, then develop your accounts and then turn on him. there is some satisfaction to that kind of gameplay as well.

  • m

    no doubt it will be much more difficult to chief good, active players on kingdoms than on earlier versions. most chiefings on servers players brag about are of inactives or player they made give up, or just player with little skill. a real chiefing of an off village of a top player, thats a piece of art, and that has become much more difficult because of the restrictions to catapult waves, the city system and the hero equipment allowing to identify smaller fakes.
    as has been pointed out by many, very good teamwork has now also become more difficult. you might happen to be king with a bunch of more or less commited governours. the old alliance system easier brought the best players of a quad together. now hopefully the hidden societies can play parts of that role on kingdoms.


    How many catapult waves do you think are needed for a chiefing? Take out the residence, don't damage anything else. And send fakes to cover - that's how you hit an active account - if they cost more, pay the cost. Many things have changed, but the basics are the same. The more targets an enemy has to defend, the better chance your real attack will get through.


    If a king can't get his team to work together as a team then he or she has no business being king.


    Chiefing inactives is no more than simming. however, if an inactive village is in a desirable location, is well developed (>550 or 600 pop minimum), especially if it is a cropper in a good location, it is worth chiefing. Doing so certainly does not carry bragging rights. I gave the examples I did above, not to be bragging - although each enemy was an active attacker - but to show that a team can do the job even with single wave attacks.

  • Grump all you want Daniel (L), as long as I get to grump back occasionally :D


    If I wanted several waves of ops over a couple of days, my hammer would've been easilly halved if I had faked properly (and I really don't fake overly much). I guess we can't have early extended wars, huh.


    @mouthofthegr: It may have been meant purely to get the tributes, but that's not what any war veteran would assume. And since it had barracks and stable level 10 and was putting troops out at a reasonable rate, it's an easy assumption to make that it'll have a workshop too in the not so near future. It's a strategy I've seen (and used!) so many times that I can't just ignore it's potential. :) Also, I dislike joining my enemies even if temporarily. I'd rather delete than play like that.

  • Grump all you want Daniel (L), as long as I get to grump back occasionally :D


    If I wanted several waves of ops over a couple of days, my hammer would've been easilly halved if I had faked properly (and I really don't fake overly much). I guess we can't have early extended wars, huh.


    @mouthofthegr: It may have been meant purely to get the tributes, but that's not what any war veteran would assume. And since it had barracks and stable level 10 and was putting troops out at a reasonable rate, it's an easy assumption to make that it'll have a workshop too in the not so near future. It's a strategy I've seen (and used!) so many times that I can't just ignore it's potential. :) Also, I dislike joining my enemies even if temporarily. I'd rather delete than play like that.


    well you gotta machiavelli up your attitude then ;)


    John hart, i didnt mean to imply that you were bragging, but i meant it as a general statement.



  • "It makes no sense to blame the top players or any other players. It's the game that allows and actively incentivizes playing that way (even though it's destructive to the game), or course the people who want to win no matter what are going to make use of that." I wanted to say the exacct same words!


    Let's state that 500 people of an alliance now includes a lot of inactives nows, but as you said yourself, in the "old days" you had groups of people up to 200. That's atleast 4 alliances combined and look like pretty much to me. I never liked it.
    The point was, someone said it didn't exist prior to 3.5, i said it did, and so do you. But yes, kingdoms can and will grow way too big now, I won't dispute that.
    But i'd have to agree, There's absoluut no fun in most gold features. I always hated the instant builder since it ruined the game tactical. Likewise for paintings (these are my biggest issue i can deal with peoples heros) and buckets and actualy all new T4 hero features that works unlimited and instant. The charm when i started playing was that people, plus-coupon users or not, had equal chances, I belief this is mandotory if you wish to create a stragety game. I think Travian should gave paying users more vanity/convenience advantages (like plus and goldclub). Which is why i think the master builder is good.


  • Let's state that 500 people of an alliance now includes a lot of inactives nows, but as you said yourself, in the "old days" you had groups of people up to 200. That's atleast 4 alliances combined and look like pretty much to me. I never liked it.


    200 people in 3 wings when there are 15k people on the server is very different than 400 on a 2k server.

  • This happens with everything; it has been happening since the first console, the first handheld device, the first phone, the first movie. Companies adapt to try and invoke a wider audience. It's such a shame how companies like this feel they have to meet the immediate demand that society poses on them. Why can't they go against the grain, and forget what the selfish, mass-influenced majority needs and satisfy its true fans instead? Stop trying to increase your profits and be happy with what you have, with the knowledge that you provide something that money cannot - a service, a game, that is not only loved, but admired by people.