Posts by Mailman#EN

    I am planning to play as a defensive king this game and then join up with a larger active kingdom much later in the game. I will be spending lots of gold, which means lots of cages and as a def player I will be building lots of def troops, which means your treasures will definitely be safe.

    these are the reasons you should join me:

    + maximum crop bonus for your stolen goods
    + be part of a top kingdom late game

    + you don't want to be super active (but it's okay if you are)

    + you want to build a massive later game hammer

    these are the reasons you shouldn't join me:

    - you want to attack other kingdoms before late game as part of a massive offense operation I will not be organising these.
    - you want to play as king or duke.

    - you want to speed settle on the best cropper in the game in the first 12 hours of the game.

    so basically unless you are an experienced player who already has a team you should join me. if you are interested and/or have questions feel free to message me and don't forget to tell me what nickname you will be using.

    I'd love to see finding special units during adventures

    bonus stats...special skills...maybe even a retinue that can change village locations like your hero.

    tbh I would prefer all units can change village locations, I know this would mess up the balance of the game though.

    yes I couldn't play for the first 6 hours without restarting my browser every time I made an action, as a result my early settlers bounced 3 times.

    so if anybody here is part of a defensive kingdom who has settled near the edges of the map please menhir me and you'll get 2 villages.

    I do disagree with you here. Pay-to-win like you actually win (or are very likely to) when paying is just a very poor implementation of pay-to-win. In generell, I'd consider a game pay-to-win if you get a significant advantage and this is the case for Travian. Wikipedia does agree with me here.

    don't even bother trying to explain, Be2-e4 is trolling. i was very clear about what I meant by pay to win in my first post. and i tried to amend my language for him but he still doesn't get it. everyone else here understands that pay to win is common parlance for pay for a significant advantage and arguing definition isn't even the point of the discussion.

    For the last time....this game is NOT pay to win!

    It doesnt matter how much money you drop into this still does not ensure a win....again, this is a TEAM GAME. You can have the biggest hammer....500k worth of animals...all the best gear you can buy off the raider/attacker ribbons weekly....finish number 1 in every category.........still wont buy you a win!

    ~End Thread

    if you read properly I already said yes this isn't pay for a literal win. it is pay for a huge advantage though which is enough to stop people from playing. please read what other people and myself have to say instead of just shouting at the first post in the thread.

    actually i just reread my first post and I was very clear that it was paying for an unfair advantage is what puts people off.

    I agree with you that Travian is pay to win. You get an advantage over other players by paying real money. The difference between Travian and other pay-to-win games is the team part. In a 1vs1 situation, gold gives you a clearly unfair advantage. But unlike other pay-to-win games, you never really have a 1vs1 situation in Travian. And when you play with a decent kingdom you can have a great round while spending no gold at all. Sure you probably won't be Top 10 unless you really try hard, but that does not prevent your kingdom from winning. So overall I'd say Travian is pretty fair compared to other pay-to-win games.

    most pay to win games (or should I say pay-for-unfair-advantage-games, since some other people in this thread just want to argue definitions) are team based games. you are right that a good team is more important that paying lots of money. but that doesn't stop people from dropping the game because they feel like it's unfair. which is my original point. travian is one of the worst games in this regard, I personally can't think of another game that offers such a large advantage for people who spend a lot of money. I challenge you to name three other pay to win games that are more unfair than travian.

    Yes, obviously you pay for an advantage

    thanks for finally admitting it. that's why people don't like this game. read my posts more carefully next time and maybe you won't sound like you lack basic communication skills.

    also I'm not a farm, I'm a top ranked player, because I spend money on the game. but its too expensive so I won't be playing again.

    its funny how you can challenge me to spend 10k but I can't challange you to spend no gold because thats a suddenly a silly argument. sounds like you're too scared to try.

    it still gives you an advantage.

    and you focused on one single weak example I came up with off the top of my head, ok so the game doesn't spawn that many animals, it's still a huge amount of free defence. what about that fact you get 25% more resources for using gold? you can level your hero up twice as fast with gold, you can buy bandages for 30% more troops. that's not some small 1% incremental advantage. that's pay to win. I could go on, but I doubt you will bother explaining away all those harder examples. and you have yet to come up with one single good reason why this isn't a pay to win game.

    I can't believe you think this is a fair game.

    instead of coming up with unrealistic tests of proof like paying 10k gold, why don't you play a game with no gold and see how that works out for you. why don't you start a game right next to me and ill spend some money on gold and we will see who catapults the other to population 0?

    you know what, so that I don't have to waste my time with you, I'll accept that this game isn't pay to win if you can reach top 20 consistently during a round without spending gold.

    spoiler warning: you can't unless you quit your job to play all day and a have a whole load of incompetent farms surrounding your starting village.

    here i googled it for you and these are the top results all people who like travian type games but don't want to pay hundreds of dollars to be competitive:…8-non-pay-to-win-edition/…_one_time_paymentmonthly/
    SERVER REGISTRATION FEES (No Gold Server)…-where-travian-is-headed/…com_that_isnt_pay_to_win/

    so stop trying to argue this game isn't pay to win it makes you sound really stupid.

    thats a good start horor.

    also if you don't think travian is pay to win... then what is pay to win?!?!?! maybe you guys aren't so good at english. I don't mean you pay money and automatically win the game. I mean you pay money for more than a small advantage. straight up you produce 25% more resources if you pay. so without even accounting for buying free defence with cages and bonus troops with bandages it should be obvious this is a game where the more money you pay the stronger you get. therefore it is pay to win. try googling pay to win if you don't get it. try googling "is travian pay to win?" the answer is a resounding yes, and its one of the main reasons people don't play the game.

    are you guys being paid by the travian team to pretend this isn't a pay to win game?

    thanks guys. btw I think the main reason romans are generally favored for hammer building is because they get more attack damage per crop (although like you say the brewery probably makes up for it)

    also maybe because a roman hammer won't die if it gets intercepted by a another hammer a quarter its size?

    Why do people include rams in their WW hammers? assuming you are attacking into overwhelming defence, doesn't this mean that your rams will all die before they do anything? wouldn't it be better to just have an extra 15k troops instead of 5k rams? or do people just build rams because they are the next best thing if you have maxed out great barracks and stables? I understand catapults are included because they deal a little bit of damage even if they all die, are rams the same?

    I have recently started playing and I would like to mention that part of my reluctance to spend gold on travian is due to the fact that other players may simply spend more gold on travian and still have an unfair advantage over me. I'm no statistician and so this might even be a bad business idea, but if you assume everybody has the same reasoning as me when it comes to spending gold, the game would make more money if there was a limit to gold spending. yes at the moment im sure some players might spend $1000 on gold. but I think it is at least worth finding out if its not a better idea to place a limit and see if 10 players spend $200 on gold instead. also... the game would be more fun. maybe this could be tested on a server? I think a good limit would be $100 a month. many people spend about that much on gaming every month (between membership and purchasing the game and dlc etc)

    the only problem is that this sort of system would need time to build a player base. I'm afraid too many players have already been scared off by the gold costs. I know I was when I first found this game 9 years ago. (I was still in school so I had no budget). It makes me wonder why travian didn't start with this strategy (since it is less risky) and THEN offer unlimited gold spending as a test server.

    I'm sure I'm in the minority when it comes to this forum, but I think a majority of players don't enjoy pay to win, but would still be happy to pay a large premium to enjoy their favourite game (I mean people bought the xbox 360 and paid yearly membership just to play halo 3) what I'm saying is the limit can be high but there needs to be a limit. otherwise players will just think to themselves "what's the point someone can still spend more than me. I'd rather just play a fair game."