Posts by Cerebore

    just for the future 5525k wood = 5.525.000 wood. k is short for kilo. the prefix kilo means thousand. for example: 1kg is 1 KiloGram where as 1g is 1 Gram. and 1 kilogram = 1000 grams. k means thousand.


    if the scenario you are trying to prevent is the accidental training of the wrong type of troop, a confirmation box (which could be toggled off) that prompts you if you meant to train this type of troop would be a better fix than transferring resources into a second troop type.


    you also left out the details about what should happen if there is extra resources remaining from the conversion? do you lose them? are they added to your village again?

    that is correct. if there is space in another treasury you own they will automatically move there. otherwise they will sit in overflow in the treasury they were brought to until space opens up somewhere and will not earn you points

    I black and white checkered line around the area's border. It will look gross but should stand out against any and all map markers that are placed.
    Alternatively the only person that NEEDS to see the area is the king (or vice-king if he can also menhir). I'd even recommend you remove markers for everyone except this most important individual.

    People may complain and be confused. But most people listen readily to advice given and they can always turn the mist back on to see the zone. Though for these people the mist serves no functional purpose as they can't menhir themselves.

    the more complicated a feature request. the less likely it will be implemented. this is why although something more complicated to solve this might be better, we would like to keep it simple

    I'll add those to the list, thank you :)
    And yes, there probably are other, more serious issues than that but this topic is about the mist and we have to start somewhere so let's discuss the matter at hand here :)

    If you insist that an indicator MUST be there regardless if images are there or not. Renuo's suggestion of a white box outline is good. additionally, keeping the highlight when you hover over the area means that only the wwMist map markers need to be removed. the highlight code does not so this makes the change easier.

    Hi guys :)

    as be2-e4 explained, modifying the UI even if only to remove the mist would be against the game rules. But worry not - we hear you :)
    The ability to toggle the mist on/off is a recurring wish. It's purpose is mainly to serve as an indicator for where you cannot menhir to.
    We are going to think about a turn off feature but what would be your favorite way to still indicate that this area is only for settlers?

    Best regards
    Georgi

    I hope this full feature request answers all of your questions.

    Name

    remove world wonder mist

    Problem

    In the last update there was a mist graphic added around the WW to indicate this area cannot be menhir to. While we (the players) like the restriction that it is no longer possible to menhir next to the WW, we are unhappy with the new mist graphic that has been added to the game map. A lot of us find it annoying and/or visually displeasing.

    Requested solution

    We would like an option "remove world wonder mist" added to the game graphic settings (Settings > Sounds & Graphics > Graphics) which would toggle the WW mist graphics. Ideally this would be placed underneath the option to reduce game animations.


    How would this work

    When "remove world wonder mist" is toggled ON the mist graphics on the map view, resource view, and village view should all be hidden.

    When "remove world wonder mist" is toggled OFF the mist graphics should be visible again.


    By default this option should be OFF and the mist graphics should be visible.


    Manual changes to make to achieve the desired results (to help the game devs understand what i am trying to describe)

    To achieve the visual results of what i described the "remove world wonder mist" setting should do, you can manually do the following things


    In the village and resource views, the difference for villages in the WW mist area is that in their view divs they have the additional "Misty" class attribute. removing the misty class attribute gets rid of the visual mist. visually this is the desired result.

    In the map view, there are map overlay markers that are class="wwMist". adding the visibility:hidden or completely removing those nodes from the DOM seemed to produce the desired results. However, even with those markers removed when you move the mouse over those areas they still highlighted. Ideally the "remove world wonder mist" feature would also remove this highlighted box.


    Why is this being requested

    Those of us that want to turn this option ON and hide the WW mist graphics are doing it because we understand the menhir rules and do not feel that we need to be reminded that this area cannot be menhired to all server. To answer your question above, we do not want another indicator. The point of this option would be to hide the mist indicator, not replace it with a new one. If we would like the indicator back, we can simply turn the option to OFF and the mist will be visible again.


    Some personal thoughts

    When i first read the rule changes i could not accurately picture in my mind just how big this area was. When i loaded into the game and looked at the map on the next server i started, i thought "oh ok, no one can menhir in that area, that is a good change". But after a few weeks into the game when i started to plan settling around the WW with my kingdom, the mist was still there. I asked someone in my kingdom when it will go away and they told me it stays all server. This is what i found annoying. It was a good visual until i settled my second village. After this point i wanted it to go away.

    Just a small reminder, that it's technically forbidden to modify the game's appearance in any way, as you may only play using a unmodified browser (and ublock origin being a modification). I doubt it will be an issue, but I figured letting you know won't hurt.

    I think you are misinterpreting this rule. I think the rule refers to modifications to give you an unfair advantage to the game. not unrelated addons for general internet usability or cosmetic things.

    An unmodified browser being a browser with no add-ons at all? Every player is breaking that rule. This would mean no adblockers, no youtube extensions, no amazon plugin, no security adons. Most antivirus softwares (like norton) come with browser addons now for protection. A user would not be able to use Color Enhancer addon from the chrome store which automatically adjusts colors on the screen for color blind people.


    No addons at all does not make any sense.

    Hi guys, a quick fix until they implement this feature. if you happen to be using ublock-origin you can do the following

    open the dashboard, go to my filters tab, and add this line

    *worldWonderMist.png$domain=kingdoms.com,image

    it will prevent the mist from loading on the game map.

    You can, first Saturday of the month. You only have a 6 day variance. If you're running the server twice a year you've got enough time between them.
    Like many of our public holidays (not easter, that's all over the shop).

    oh i see. peg it to a day of the week in the first week of the month rather than a specific day (like 1st) in the month. yes. this could also work. as long as it is consistent such as all servers start on the first saturday in the month they start.

    This is the first server that the mist has been on the map and a lot of players in my kingdom on com2 (including myself) have found it visually annoying on the map and would prefer if it were able to be hidden.
    Can you please add an option to hide the WW mist (visual only) next to the reduce animations button in the settings? (Settings > Sounds & Graphics > Graphics)

    Some basic exploration into this shows that simply adding visibility: hidden; to the style for the wwMist class based on the setting of an option switch would be sufficient for this feature.

    I like the idea that a server starts on a weekend. Then I can ignore my time zone limitations and stay up SUPER late to get the same start as everyone else :)

    I know this doesn't work for everyone, as some people work weekends. But I think it will suit more people and allow more of us the opportunity to fight for prime real-estate.

    you cannot be consistent with start date if you limit to weekend. it would be no different than current system


    BridgetB I think this is also something you should give feedback on in addition to Georgi

    Georgi please reconsider this method of announcing servers for the next month in threads on the forum

    Servers rarely last more than 150 days. Some day limit could be implemented and kingdom that has the most VP at the end of 160 days is the winner.


    A maximum server length means you could start each server twice per year, a total of 6 servers per region would mean 1 new server starts every month. It does not matter which day in the month as long as it is consistent. the 1st of each month is probably easiest. In this model a new server would start at the first of every month and players could plan ahead when they want to play with their teams.


    This would be much better than randomly announcing servers in forum posts

    I prefer the idea of VP limit as that is easier to track than days passed on the server. Before you know it 125 days have passed.

    Maybe the kingdom needs to hold the lead for a couple days. Gives others that last minute chance to smash some hammers on them haha XD

    I would actually like it if it lasted longer.

    Maybe there should be a limit on number of treasuries you can build. But you can capture as many as you like ;)
    So now it becomes territorial. VP generation is based on how many fields you own too, treasures become a smaller part.

    You are changing too much at once to accurately test the effects of each change being made. You wouldnt be able to attribute a better or worse gameplay experience to a few features if you change so many as you are suggesting.


    They shortened server length in kingdoms because in legends they last many months and this was boring and annoying for people.


    You cant just do a VP limit, you would also need a day limit because on smaller servers it would take a long time to reach some uniform VP limit because VP numbers are higher when there are more players due to robber hideout mechanics.

    If you are asking about Travian Kingdoms: Conquest, the game should ideally last about as long as a server does now. roughly 130days. it might be possible to shorten this a bit. So you would want a VP limit or day limit in this range. I have played multiple servers of kingdoms. For all of the COM worlds i have played 10 million or something close to this VP is about where kingdoms end when WW finishes. But country servers are smaller than COM servers so you might need to get an average winning score of the last year or two of rounds for that group of servers and then deduct 50% from the winners (WW Bonus), add them together and average it. The problem with this is large teams registering on smaller servers and getting all of the wins easily. This would be boring but some people might do it for the trophy/achievements/prestige.

    So if i were to implement it... It would be first kingdom to 10 million VP or kingdom with most VP at the end of 125 days. would be the winner. Whichever comes first.

    I don't think we should change how game works, because end game is most interesting part of the game for those who play seriously.

    The win condition (team with most VP) would not be changed. Once WW comes out a lot of pvp activity falls off. this decline of pvp activity isnt my opinion, it is measurable statistic in the game. The issue is that there is only 1 way to win (unless the server is completely 1 sided). This limits gameplay creativity and ability to develop new strategies.

    I am playing COM2 here are the kingdom points right now.

    1.GGG 10,425,170
    2. Trinity 10,394,547
    3. GBB 9,052,675
    4.Linden 6,789,011


    I am a duke in GGG. I am building my kingdoms WW. It is about level 40 right now. This was a fun and interesting server. but the winner will be entirely decided by WW ranks on game finish. The team in the top 3 that gets the WW to 100 first will win. 4th could win if they finish first and a lot of damage is done to the other top 3. However, damaging a WW uses a lot of hammers that have a lot of cattas which are built by players who typically did nothing else all server except build them. I have made a WW hammer before, it is very very boring all server. just queue troops and wait. It takes a bit of skill and strategy to know when to use your WW hammers and on who to give your team the best chance of winning but ultimately the strategies are very limited. There are only 2-3 correct ways to build the WW that gives you a strong WW with minimum build time.

    Adding something like a Conquest server that doesnt have the WW but instead has either a set number of days or first team to reach X vp would be a good test. Conquest servers could also possibly bring back artifacts that are in Legends. If a conquest server is implemented i dont think artifacts should be added right from the start (too many changes to evaluate at once). they would have to be considered later.

    I do have a rough outline of what a Travian Kingdoms: Conquest server would look like if enough people are interested in this idea. It wouldnt change anything about the tribes, just changes to a few other aspects to the game. I can write a full post about this if requested. I think this could be implemented in another game mode just like how Night Truce is a Kingdoms game mode.

    Hospital idea is garbage but OP is right. end game is boring. Im playing the account on com2 right now that is building the WW and it is zzzzzzz.

    The WW affects who wins the round too much. One of the advertising points for kingdoms was, "you dont need to build the WW to 100 first to win", but a lot of the time you do because the bonus is so high that unless one team absolutely dominated the entire server the WW bonus will determine the winner.

    There was another version of travian legends i played one round of (with egyptians and huns) that was more focused on controlling territories and that was a lot more fun than the WW objective. Im not saying add egypt or the huns to kingdoms (huns were OP) but the VP and win conditions needs to be changed a bit.

    something like zone control or most VP after 100 days, or first kingdom to X VP wins would be better and more involving for more of the server than building the WW. it would encourage more player attacks and a wider array of strategies. Another issue is kingdoms with more players gain treasures faster because of robber camps yet all of the treasures still get concentrated down to a few treasury villages. So doing any one of the 3 new win conditions i mentioned earlier in this paragraph (zone control, most VP after 100 days, first kingdom to X VP) might also require adding a limit to the number of players in a kingdom. running a test server would shed more light on if this is needed. if a limit were to be put in place, 50 players per kingdom (100 with union) would more than likely be sufficient without also being limiting