Needs hammers updated from com2, also can anyone fix links for those with their nice screenshots missing now?
You need to take a breather man.
Sounds like a totally different game.
I will get on board and suggest EC might need a slight def boost, but it's not a big issue.
EI is a very cool unit for sure, and speed is perhaps a little too underrated by many here.
Having said that for the best possible roman EGH you would build with ECs.
Far more affordable as a duke or king though, as going pure EC from early is fairly prohibitive and the crop saving only chip in at level 20 HDT which makes it a tougher early to mid-game for sure.
If something has the best possible outcome in one important field (attack per time) it is not under-powered - despite the tougher resource cost.
If you like to farm and attack more EI is far better (personal flavour of course)
Tell me, how will chances of unwanted newbie player improve with lesser amount of teammates? Nobody will want him in top teams where he could learn from the best. And in worse kingdom, he might learn some basics, but more likely will quit because of getting his ass kicked hard even before he learnt something. Just my opinion
In current situation it's all about communication, if any newbie player is trying to be active, talkative, loyal, etc then you shouldn't be worried about him being a spy. If he wants to play a teamgame, he sure will. Majority of us started as no one, without experience and yet we worked our asses of to the higher places, which means it's possible for every single newbie too.
From what I've noticed most kingdoms with more than 100 members do nothing for their bottom 50 players other than tell them when to send def.
They are a resource/tributary.
That is not the same as what happens in kingdoms with 30-60 members.
I understand you wanting to protect at all costs your play-style that you think you require but this is closer to the reality than you might be willing to believe.
Metas have 5 greys in a week and nobody batters an eye lid.
I know Renuo. You won despite the server largely being allied against you too. I simply wanted to state the fact that there was not a 150 man kingdom in either of the 2 servers BM played. I not putting any judgment in this fact all. Just pointing out the different server dynamics that have been.
I didn't take offense just wanted to mention that despite a couple kingdoms losing lots of players we have fought the types of kingdoms you are trying to compare against.
We "punched upwards" too btw
obviously who voted yes for this poll never playd travian legends and have no idea that there were wings cuz of the "alliance limitation". So making limitation won't change anything just a worthless thread and starx who spamming evrywhere trying to get attention.
I voted yes to see this progress to a TEST server and how it plays out. Fully aware of the potential cons but it might play out differently to what we start assuming.
But I guess my records of wins on pre kingdoms Travian and several hall of fame entries means I have no idea.
You can call me anomally, but saying new players are food... I think is wrong, I believe any legends player, who is a hammer builder there, will crush in Kingdoms.
If a legends leader comes King, if he gets a player to teach him the basics and to guide him a little, since our wiki is misarable (we should be creating threads about it), I very much believe, not only we won’t be food but he will also give metas a hard time like me.
I don't really consider classic and legends players new to the game. It's way too similar.
Of course xD it was a comX3 round, the only speed server at the time +1k players
You can private message me and I will tell you names.
Well you are an anomaly. New players are food here. New kings are even bigger food.
We can't base the game around their success.
Is it a different conversation? So what we limit the members to 60 and no new King will ever win a round due to that and it’s a different conversation?
No "New King" will ever win a mildly competitive round.. ever.
And that is probably the right way for things to be. The point of competition isn't to hand out awards to everyone.
Have seen it happen with Natar attacks on a WW too. Technically lose a couple troops but still shows green.
As much as this game has been pushing a casual approach as time goes by, the game is still intrinsically a war game.
There are many passive building games around without war and this is certainly not made to be one, you can be attacked around the clock so pacifism is not a strong card to play.
Can't echo Jallu words enough.
Players are already making significant errors because the game subconsciously pushes them in that direction:
- "Overall rank" & "Village rank" pushes amateurs to believe building for building sake is valuable
- Quests/weeklys heavily promoting simming
"Noob-trap" is a perfect term.
This has been discussed a dozen times before and people just state that then people would use barracks as a cranny. Best way to fix this would be to remove the "default" option altogether and make the user pick of the troops himself.
Option gets cancelled with incoming attack/raid?
this is how I think a server could be interesting
1. it should cost 100$ to join.
( people would be more active)
2. all starts with 7000 gold and can not buy anymore.
( this would make it a more fair game and depend on skill)
3. if you delete you will not get they gold with you.
( this will make it more risky to have multi account and get caught)
I'd play it but probably not enough will join.