Posts by Deacon

  • Tax fee for European

    While buying gold, just switch from International to any other page, personally I choose UK, then I'm having 19.99 Eur charge for 700 gold, instead of dollars

  • VOTE FOR SMALLER KINGDOMS / MEMBER LIMITATION

    I have no intel on "BM", but please don't be toxic yourself with those comments, there are bunch of kingdoms like that, even communities. Please offer your way of changing current situation or just search some +/- on the current one "Kingdom Member Limitation" topic.

    Some kind of changes has to be implemented for sure, I'm sure we will see what travian kingdoms will choose, at least to easy the tension in their servers.

    Be2-e4

    Quote from Be2-e4

    Also, our critisism is constructive. I explained 100 times, why this is bad. I explained, what would be good. It's nothing to do with being a frog in the well, if I want to prevent you from chopping your finger off, due to a papercut. And yes, you think this analogy is ridiculous, but that's what hyperbolas (no idea whether that's the correct term, in german it's Hyperbel in a linguistic way) are for. To make an analogy which has the same concept, but is ridiculously exaggerated, to make it crystal clear what one means.

    Mr. RIGHT strikes again :facepalm:

  • VOTE FOR SMALLER KINGDOMS / MEMBER LIMITATION



    Current Pros/Cons:

    Pros :

    • Unbiased game due to size restrictions.
    • More competitive. ( Don't be afraid of it)
    • More kingdoms fighting for top spot.
    • More players in leaderships .
    • Easier to manage kingdoms.
    • More room for diplomacy and strategies.
    • More players involved in managements.
    • Players from other versions would actually try this version too, since now it's uninteresting, only graphics looks a bit better.

    Cons :

    • New players will take some time to get recruited in top kingdoms. (True, but large scale of those "New Players" ain't new Travian. So worry about yourself)
    • Hard to find good leaders. ( but since it would be an easier management, due to size, more people would be involved in kingdom management, we could find even random people kingdoms to be good enough to compete @TOP10)
    • Wing Kingdoms helping Main Kingdoms (would still exist)


    --------------
    Be2-e4
    I'm not going to quote more posts on this topic, since I find it worthless after two threads being bullied by the same two guys, who has no arguments on their opinion, defending their opinion with " New players will get hurt" definitions. Plus there was no response from Travian team Georgi ... So we can create topics how this game could be improved, that more players could be involved not only for the first few weeks of any server, but for the whole round, sadly nothing going to happen if Travian developers doesn't take too much time on this version, plus there are limited communication with them.
    I think last message was for me, I'm asking only for a test server, but you're so freaking against it, that personally I find it quite strange. Is there any personal motives on that? Sometimes to evolve things have to step back a bit. Plus you had no hard arguments, as you call them, or at least haven't pointed them out, it's more like "I don't like it, so everyone write that its a bullshit! "


    Snorri
    Wheres your harsh opinion and hard arguments? o.O Haven't replied yet, but you still following this thread



    even so, I can gladly say this version community has some nice ideas how this game could be improved! =) With a pack of those ideas that new upcoming test server could be pretty interesting

  • VOTE FOR SMALLER KINGDOMS / MEMBER LIMITATION

    Quote from Snorri

    So he can accuse us in this chat thread but I can't deffend us in this chat thread?
    I'm just trying to keep the thread balanced. Deacon is obviously fighting for one idea with his opinions, Im fighting with mine opinions. I'd think it's a discussion after all.
    Also there's been many potential risks said during the last couple of weeks - ignored. But pros (even tho you can't be sure it would work like that) are there included. That was my point :)

    Snorri still waiting for those promised arguments, from both sides + / - on your opinion.

    Negative ones especially f

    Quote from Be2-e4

    Scorox, but you still didn't post good arguments to why hard limits are supposed not to be bad game design. And yes, I read your post about PKO (not sure about the abbreviation), but what's the connection of them and hard limits - and to be fair, both of these threads are primarily about stopping metas with limits, not about premade organisations. I actually have thought about them a while after I read it, but there are still some open questions to this, while I still don't see the connection to the actual topic. PKO could be implemented limitless aswell, without real impact on how they work, couldn't they?


    Starx, sure, it's easier to implement and easier to find a less good solution, but if you don't change any mechanics, but only throw in some hard limits for kingdom sizes, this will be of minimal effect only, if of effect at all - in addition to being the lesser design choice. You need to get the players to want to avoid creating a / being in a meta themselves, if you want to have ten 60 member kingdoms instead of what's the case right now. If you throw in hard limits, especially ones of that kind, they will just be ignored and bypassed. And to change the players' mindset, some changes to mechanics are required.

    Maybe I would think about somewhat accepting the lazy & lesser solution, if it would at least work. This kind of reminds me at the 1k outgoing attacks cap, after introducing it, TG said it would reduce server load, be bad for bots and wouldn't affect more than a handful players anyway. 1 + 3 is a contradiction itself and a bot has less irregular spikes due to more regular sending, so 2 isn't true either.

    Be2-e4 Could you add some clear arguments on negative side or a positive side from your point of view, that we could add them at the topic list.


    - - - - - -


    Nothing personal guys, but please stick with this topic, without going way beyond what would happen if it would happen since that would happen and im pretty sure that would happen since its already happening.

  • VOTE FOR SMALLER KINGDOMS / MEMBER LIMITATION

    I'm sorry, but it wouldn't work from my angle, since people wouldn't make their res villages as "Cities", only 1 or 2 villages max to a city, others would be strictly res village type. You would need to consume every pop number you have, that offensive players would get more, to expand their strength, plus raiders would have a big effect too, they wouldn't settle/conquer new villages for raiding all over the map.
    In other words, if a guy is playing simcity, having 3-4 villages by the 2nd/3rd week and has almost no troops, he would be kicked, just to save pop limitation from happening on your behalf, that guy would still be with you, until the end, in the end, people would destroy their villages, to be able to join their wing kingdom1 and wing kingdom2 members.

    That's why limitation is a better solution, we all would get the same limit, 60 members/kingdom (with union) and you can expand as much as you want, server can be won by 60 members and only by 60 members kingdom, no more no less.

    You like to talk about wing kingdoms still going to exists, of course they're going to exist, but I wouldn't call it a wing kingdom anymore, it would be just a diplomatic relations then. There always some people whose all good with 5th,6th or even lower position, but I'm sure most of people by playing this game, wants to win, that's why all the great players can't fit in one huge kingdom makes rounds interesting again, they would need form second, third, fourth, fifth and i hope even more kingdom to compete in that server until the end for the same goal - 1st position.

    It's a war game after all.

  • VOTE FOR SMALLER KINGDOMS / MEMBER LIMITATION

    At this situation, we're facing in speed server:
    AMIGOS: mostly random guys, not very coordinated
    WiC: Very coordinated, very active
    Immortals: Mostly random dudes too
    BOSS: Not even going to talk about it :D

    So this speed server is not even close to any of Limitation examples, in the whole server there was max 1.5k registered player.
    Like we mentioned before, this topic is mostly for x1 speed servers.

    Files

    • comspeed.png

      (22.7 kB, downloaded 14 times, last: )

  • Kingdom member limitation

    Quote from Jak

    Hmm I beg to differ, yes com8 was low on enemies I agree, but the amount of accounts that joined the server was still around the 4.5k mark, many messaged asking if they could join us & when we declined they decided it wasn't worth them playing & deleted, some were really good players too (I even begged a few to form their own kingdoms and fight us, or talk with the other kingdoms and attack us together, but sadly most just want to join the biggest kingdom on a server) for me the game is about more than just winning, but many don't see it this way.

    As it goes even if it had been more competetive on com8 I doubt anyone would've stopped us winning the server. With the planning we'd done and the setup we had I am sure we could've beaten any team (sorry it comes across boastful, it's not meant to)


    if you get a chance it would be great to see the results of your 2017 stats too :) I feel it's more than a coincidence that the 5 servers we've played we've managed to keep meta's to a minimum, whilst staying true to our core values & finished in 1st place each time


    Renuo#EN if it happens ...... does that mean I can retire then? :D :D

    I think everyone already gets that you're amazing, BM is nr1 in every aspect, but with those limits, there would be more fights in any server even for players like the great BM masterful community super ultra players. Wouldn't you like this challenge?

  • 15 cc

    upgrading to city lets you build great barracks and great stable, it means you are capable to have 2 barracks and 2 stable in the same village, it makes your offensive army recruitable much faster and it can be pretty great in off power. Plus even if its not a main village or one of those you're using to create armies, even if its a resource village, that has a task to obtain res during hourly production and send it to other your villages, due to limitation of res upgrade of non-capital villages to lv10, when you upgrade it to a city, max res fields lv is 12lv, so you will be capable to get much more crop in this case during hourly production.

    2 examples of res gain difference, without any oases bonuses.

  • VOTE FOR SMALLER KINGDOMS / MEMBER LIMITATION

    Quote from Snorri

    So he can accuse us in this chat thread but I can't deffend us in this chat thread?
    I'm just trying to keep the thread balanced. Deacon is obviously fighting for one idea with his opinions, Im fighting with mine opinions. I'd think it's a discussion after all.
    Also there's been many potential risks said during the last couple of weeks - ignored. But pros (even tho you can't be sure it would work like that) are there included. That was my point :)

    Snorri Could you point them out clearly that StarX could add them?

  • Kingdom member limitation

    Quote from Jak

    I disagree, limiting the territories helped massively, so much so that a 50 player premade is now very often compared to a meta, just because they have the strength to beat them


    Restricting borders to maybe 250-300 fields max (expanded over time with treasuries as it is now) would not stop any Kingdom recruiting as many players as they wished, but it would mean there was less to be gained from it (so less reason for it) managing a smaller team is lot easier & a lot more interesting overall and stops Govs just being tribute mules for their kingdoms

    All new players will settle their villages in a location around a "stated" multi or one of the "leadership guys" from the main kingdom, he will become a king/duke of a " wing " kingdom to generate tributes for those whose out of the main kingdom territory, not by inviting them to that new wing kingdom.

    1 sec to think of a stupid but still an easy way to gain lots of res from nowhere. I think that would be an easy way to cheat, but that idea still has a lot of potential

    Limitations like for 60 members would make you use your members pros and cons, even if a guy is a newbie, but he really likes this game and hes active, you can always find some ways to make him useful for whole kingdom. Maybe hes a spy hammer? Maybe hes from +12h or -12h zone to your time zone, and he can by one of your key defensive coordinators @ night time.

    Of course, not every " leader " will be capable to make something good, useful and interesting from a bowl of wet clay, which in this scenario is newbie player. =)


    We could find it out @ Test server, I'm still hoping to see this limitation, how would it increase or decrease activity in the whole server, during the whole round.

  • VOTE FOR SMALLER KINGDOMS / MEMBER LIMITATION

    Quote from Neoflex

    Why do you need a kingdom to feed your hammer?


    Last com1 I built a 150k rammer, on the dutch nl2 I built a 160k cata hammer. This as a governor, maintaining those troops on my own account. So no outside help. If i focus a bit more, 200k is no problem (those losses during the game always get me).
    If i have to throw parties at the start to get more cp slots and be able to settle more croppers, is that considered simming? Because then everybody should do it!

    Quote from Snorri:
    People would use these wings to feed their hammers, maybe multis or something else but I'm 100% sure it wouldn't decrease strength of hammers......


    Non-sense about that feeding part.

    Quote from Snorri

    This is what I mean by that sentence.

    You have heard plenty of cons, you consider them replaced by your arguments. You apply double-meter here. Our opinions are dismissed because only you can be the only one telling the truth. But look at it from the other side aswell, maybe we dont consider your arguments good enough? Maybe some players disagree? Maybe it's not the best idea ever? Maybe it has more than just these 2 cons listed there (maybe some added, last time I checked was 2 days ago)? Maybe you should think more about the consequences and wait to hear from other experienced players and their opinions instead of immediately saying that your new rule is necessary?

    "BUILD THE WALL!!!" :D :D :D

    I'm sure you will agree that we both will disagree with each other opinions. That's why this discussion is still open, check another chat, not like the last response, but the whole discussion, please.

  • VOTE FOR SMALLER KINGDOMS / MEMBER LIMITATION

    Quote from Snorri

    People would use these wings to feed their hammers, maybe multis or something else but I'm 100% sure it wouldn't decrease strength of hammers. If you are saying that there would be lot more fighting, the I can also imagine deff players overflowing with crops pretty often if their deff would be constantly reduced which means shelter fro WW hammer (same with non WW hammer building off players). Also do you really think that top players dont build troops and manage kingdom at the same time? Because tbh that's what I usually do and I believe many other players do that aswell. But I guess not everyone is capable of doing that :D

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Suggestion agreed by 60 players is now "necessary". All the negative arguments were repealed by your dreams which you have absolutely no idea if it could ever come true.

    So please give at least a bit of respect to people with other opinion and don't consider your opinion as the only right one.

    Same situation with multi's are now, I think you forgetting diplomacy, you can have allies you know. Not sure what you're talking about with this building troops and managing sentence, good boy that you're capable to manage it.
    I'm respecting other people opinion if it has at least one argument, it's not only white or black there.

    Let's be honest, I'm sure this question is open there for like 5th time, players can discuss it and nothing will happen, like it was with PT domain merge question vote..

    We did our best, to take this Kingdom Limitation to the day light again, now everything depends on Travian Kingdoms Team decision.
    Georgi

  • VOTE FOR SMALLER KINGDOMS / MEMBER LIMITATION

    Quote from Neoflex

    Com servers are bigger for a reason. More players, more off armies, more def units. If you set limits to the amount of players in the kingdom and somehow prevent the use of wings to work together, then you will end up with servers like the smaller ones who have just been deleted. Fewer def units while off armies remain the same size. I played several of those servers, and def leader is not a nice job. Not enough def to defend everything you want, so you need to make hard choices. And we all know what happens if you guess wrong: your server is all but over. Months of time invested wasted with only a bunch of "ifs" and "maybes" to look forward to. Players will start deleting to start on another server, and then you lose even the if and maybe.
    Furthermore, it will destroy the thing I love most about TK: that every player can contribute in his or her own way. Not everyone wants 15 villages and 200k+ in troops. These small players will no longer find a place in the top kingdoms (due to the limit) and will not play anymore. This will drain the player base and be the end of TK


    Give me the servers like they are now. Make a test server with restrictions or start a special world about it. But definitely DO NOT add this feature to normal servers.

    What do you mean Neoflex , by saying com servers are bigger for a reason? o.O

    You should understand that it would be much harder to recruit a WW hammer of 200-300k crop consumption with those limits, since you would need actually to manage things around in your kingdom. Not just raid and build troops, plus park them of course in semi-active members.

    And now about your hard choices, maybe just use some kind of strategy, if you think you can manage something for your kingdom. Basically now meta kingdoms is a big problem, but not everything comes around this meta thing, we're heading for increased quality over your so wanted quantity.

    Server is not over when you lose all your treasures and troops by the few months you have played in it.It's lost when you're trying to carry everything on your back by yourself.


    Quote from Mads#EN(1)

    It's golden this should be suggested by the one person I have met in this game who push the rules and work with every little crack and flaw this game have to give him an edge (and have kingdom members repeatedly banned for multi-accounting, as encouraged by you). Ideally it's not a bad suggestion as such, but the implementation is next to impossible, we both know that if anything similar to this were to be implemented, you would be the first to abuse it and create a ton of wings and use those wings to boost your treasure count past what a "normal" kingdom would be able to do (Just like you normally do, with alt kingdom's robber camp spawns). To top it off this is exactly what should NOT be done, if a game wish to have new players introduced and hooked. It won't take long before every kingdom have a core group, and won't invite anyone into the kingdom UNLESS they have played previously and/or are known friends of the people already in the kingdom, it would turn the whole game into one big "I rub you, you rub me". AKA this "idea" would literally kill the game. (Like how you killed the interest your own kingdom members had for the game, by rotting them in a giant server wide alliance, that ended up loosing big time anyway).


    Just my thoughts on it. =3

    We already talked about your "wings " theory, actually it's like that now, with these limitations it wouldn't be like that. Check the other topic, where we mostly discussed it in and out, or check Helpful comments.

    Please pay some attention, what is this idea, how can it work and why its necessary. All negative arguments were repealed by a positive one, over and over again.




    This game is OLD, very old, probably you started to play it or just tried it when you were a teenager or a kid, probably you didn't liked it very much, but now you do.
    Those new players that you're talking about, can take much more then they are getting in this version, since no other version of the game was so generous in help for the new players.. with resources and stuff.. tributes.. stolen goods.. chicken boots and more.
    So please give at least a reasonable argument which wasn't mentioned before and crushed into peaces or just stop getting behind those "new players" backs for your own benefits.

  • VOTE FOR SMALLER KINGDOMS / MEMBER LIMITATION

    Due your response, it think you should check current kingdom structure, they have there. It's not the same as it used to be.


    It's even written @starting server tutorial, that new players should prefer governor status, only more skilled ones should go as a kings.
    King's and Duke's are only objects to extend the kingdom, basically it's structure, to get more influence, and more active treasury villages..
    With those kingdom limits we would get more active people in any server and less passive people - its tested in bunch of games.


    Please don't hide under "New Players will get worse experience" statement, since you just wrote another statement that you won a server as a KING, as a new player there... Plus this statement to beat metas with metas is even worse, I already wrote it, I'm going to repeat my self, that its fighting fire with fire.

    Quote from ruipiresc#EN

    Well I am not a new player, although I won 2 rounds in a row, I am around for more than year after that, just spectating tho.


    Sorry guys but my thinking always goes to the new players and this will not be good for them at all.

    I do understand, that some people was busting their asses to become nr1 in this game, as a team or as a community with a bunch of people, but let's be honest:
    1.without it, this game is dying... since its just uninteresting anymore. In the first few weeks there are like 2 kingdoms at top10, one with 150 players and 3-5 wings, and there are 2nd kingdom with 100 players and 2 wings. They will fight only in the end, so they are smashing the smaller ones first few months, then just simming... .all this scenario is killing players activity, since it becomes uninteresting for the bigger part of them, a lot of those people are newbies, but not only for them. In that moment most of deletion starts, not because it's hard, but because its boring.
    1.1. it's a war game, so lets make a chance to make wars in this game!
    1.2 Let's try to keep the players active not the first week of a new server, but the whole server.
    2. To win a server, it would be a lot harder, if that server is active enough, since if there is top10 kingdoms that is walking foot by foot, it could end up no-one knows how. So to be nr1 in the end, you need to manage your whole kingdom as a computer, everyone has do their part in it, every Bit is needed.
    2.1 Diplomacy would work at last again, those wings you're calling now a problem, would become a separated kingdom, with a diplomatic relations, since they would know from the start, two kingdoms with 60 member each (120 members) can't fit in ONE kingdom. Plus don't forget that after WW Lv50 you can't join or rejoin any kingdoms, it would mean every kingdom would be more independent even if a stronger kingdom has some vassal based relations with small kingdom near their main core.

    While writing this post, i even forgot what i wanted to say, so the main aspect would be:

    if you're voting NO or MAYBE, please write why, with at least one argument on your decision.




  • Kingdom member limitation

    Quote from Starx#EN(1)

    Firstly, I don't really see it as radical change as Mehnir or Dry Worlds or others. Secondly, with almost 20 years of experience in game designing I am pretty confident that Travian team are capable of implementing that limit , bug free , if they want to.


    Call me ignorant but I cannot envision any bugs on implementing 60 members limits on kingdoms. They already have cues from Legend too about it.


    Also, test worlds are there and justifiable for more new ideas of such as Mehnir and others in all fairness but I believe this is something it can get away with.

    Bug free is easy for limitation @kingdom members.

    Only few new variables are needed to add for this limit to work without any bugs...