Posts by Aeneas

    but if there are a decent amount of scouts within the protected troops (especially with t2 or t3 boots), its annoying as hell to have no real way to get rid of them.
    yeah i know, you could trigger the evade mechanismn and scout right afterwards, but thats quite uncomfortable ^^

    That wouldn't work anyway. Don't scout chicken players - it's unnecessary.

    I have an idea that may make it more attractive to Travian. The rules would be thus:


    1. Every player has to have X Gold in their lobby to join the server
    2. Joining the server will deduct Y Gold, but give you the starter and plus packages
    3. You will not be able to carry any gold forward
    4. You cannot spend more than Z gold per week


    This would guarantee Travian an income of at least X times the number of players and yet limit the spend for each player.


    Whether this would attract many players I do not know.

    I see the same happen in Firefox. The game eats memory and I find I have to close and re-launch the browser. Sometimes I get notified of a script error, so I wonder if this is behind the problem.

    2. Everyone fighting over one WW. I fear the game would only end when sufficient people had given up in disgust to allow the remaining strong players to form a meta. Besides you can still get a lot of fun with a WW even if you know you're not going to win. Not convinced by this unless you can expand on the suggestion.


    3 & 4. This is going back to TL. Can't see it happening as if you want those things you play TL.


    5. You may be right about Gold Whales. It's certain that although these guys contribute most of the money to the game, if the game is not attractive to free and 'gold minnow' players then they will leave and the whales will have no-one to beat. Seen it happen before. Whether free gold is the answer I don't know, but I agree Travian have to do something, because you're right, despite what has been written in these pages before, gold makes a big difference and it's gotten bigger, e.g. thanks to the card game.

    I don't think #3 is true. My last game I saw only 1 building ground in my cards the whole server; yes it was in the other 4 cards, but then there's 4 times the chance that would be the case.


    I do suspect that it's not decently random though. I seem to recall similar work being done on the loot from adventures and it showed evidence of the streakiness associated with some RNGs.

    Unfortunately I rather suspect that you are right. I'm hoping that by constantly hammering the message it might eventually penetrate!


    No, it's certainly not enough on its own, but what it does is (assuming a maximum size of 60, say, on current Com servers):


    1. Stop Metas. You can't be a Meta with 60 players.
    2. Prevent the extremes of VP abuse for pretty much the same reasons as above.
    3. Create more opportunities for conflict - and real diplomacy! If you can't merely all join up together, then you can't just sim to the win.


    Yes, there's more to do, but limiting Kingdom size is the best single thing that can be done to ensure better play and a fairer result. You still need to severely tweak the whole VP mechanism, but this is an easy, and to my mind obvious, first step.

    Troop forwarding like they have in the birthday servers. If someone sends you reins you should be able to forward them to another village rather than having to send them back home to be sent out again.

    It's logical, but it does move things even more the defender's way. I'm not sure that's a good thing right now, I feel 99% certain that defence has too much of an edge currently. If that was corrected I wouldn't be opposed to your suggestion.

    Besides the increase in roles for members of a Kingdom and the restrictions to be put in place to stop VP giveaways, I would like to re-mention something that I suggested some while ago in yet another thread at the start of the Alliance change:


    Limit the size of Kingdoms. If you couldn't go over a certain number of people in a Kingdom, then some of the dodgy diplomacies would no longer happen. Limiting size would increase the number of Kingdoms, which would encourage aggression. The only possible downside I can see is that weaker players may be booted out to make way for stronger, but I would argue that this will push players to be more active (and spend gold, eh Travian?).


    Make it so.

    I suggested new roles in another thread, without putting names to them at the time. I'll flesh them out here.


    General - Coordinates attacks; can see all Kingdom attack and raid reports on villages/cities
    Cardinal - Coordinates all defence; can see all Kingdom defence reports
    Chancellor - Coordinates trading; can see all Kingdom resources and trade routes (too many trading reports)
    Spymaster - Coordinates Scouting; can see all Kingdom Scout reports on villages/cities


    These roles would be restricted to Governors and would carry some sort of 'stipend'.

    In this case we do have a problem with the game. However, this is merely indicative of an underlying problem. Even without these specific instances we can still have these problems:


    1. Kings who are not active enough
    2. Kings who never consult with their Governors on anything (which covers a wide range of things from endgame strategy to constantly inviting people you're farming into the Kingdom)
    3. Kings who appoint poor Dukes because they know them (either IRL or through the game), rather than because they are active and know how to play


    And I've both been a top 4 King (in TL) and been a winning Duke (in TK) where I was the King's sitter (and where he became very inactive in the endgame). I know that if you do it right it's a huge amount of work, probably especially now there is only 1 King and 4 Dukes (even more important to pick the right Dukes!).


    I'm saying that this needs to change. Maybe there should be more Dukes; maybe there should be some new position(s). In the game I used to play before Travian you could set a War Leader, a Trade Leader and a Diplomacy Leader, for example.

    No-one is denying what happened is within the rules. What is being said, if I may borrow the words of Charles Dickens, is that "The Rules are an Ass", i.e. that the game should not be capable of being won in this way. Travian have been too slow in closing this exploit and now need to do something as a matter of urgency.


    I think I speak for most players when I say I don't want to play a game that is capable of being won in this way. Indeed I, and many others in ToughTek, feel cheated out of the gameplay experience we expected. All the effort put into defending our WW felt wasted. I understand that the plan was to pass the VPs back; I worked that out myself. I'm actually glad that didn't happen as I would have received a medal that wasn't earned. I have as strong a desire to win as the next person, but the means is important.