Tokmak How would you implement that?
Because it is a bit dangerous in the sense that big pre-made kingdoms would have all the advantage and may be in a very short time they can win already the server too easily.
Easy. Limit size of kingdom - even if you limit it to 100 people, most of premades would manage to get into that.
Old travian (i think Legends now? idk how its called now) had limit of 60 players per alliance if i remember right. Kingdoms are more society-oriented, so 80/100 should work well
activation of a treasury needs 12h, where the member will be outside borders and not able to sell their treasures to you
your king can attack you for the tributes, to take them, until your connected
Treasures are taken primary from treasury, not from tributes (opposite way resources go).
just self raid and dodge the taxation... deactivating and reactivating makes them disappear btw. Taxes are stored in cellars
But how to take treasures? Pretty sure they dont disappear by deactivation (resources do, i agree with that)
Ok, who are the current developer for Travian Kingdom then?
It would be nice to have them here as well so we can have an open discussion. We discussed this matter of VP / WW / etc.. I don't know how many times but almost nothing significant has ever happened, except when there was a giant abuse of something, only then it was fixed, to give a few examples:
- change of WW holder last minute (xTools in 2015, and there are other examples)
- change of VP stealing limit to same amount of VP (because on a server someone didn't do anything, they put a spy in a kingdom, moved all treasuries to that spy, then proceed to take them and steal all VPs from #1 kingdom and win)
- change of WW bonus (because #1 WW was just the one who would win because it gave too much bonus)
- change of menhiring attack right away (because multiple players relocated next to other kingdom treasuries and destroyed them from 1 square away)
- change of vacation... (because a kingdom had a WW in vacation for 7 days in a speed server)
- change of relocation for 15C/9C (because people would get 15C+150% by just waiting to have better locations)
Sending you back to this (most recent I think):
BM Ideas/Wishes/Suggestions Time Box
And most of these, had been mentioned separately in the previous years, and they are brought back again now.
It would be nice to have a centralised thread where ideas are posted, and they are either rejected or at least we know some schedule or we know what happens to them. Most of them aren't big changes that need insane rework of implementations. It's a beta game and yet there are no significant different gameplay tested in different servers, and a lot of different things could be tested.
Menhiring, vacations and relocations were already reworked.
You cant get duke/king/WW holder in vacations, you cant attack right after menhirs, you cant relocate on 9c/15c anymore.
I guess menhirs should need even bigger rework, but.. some of it happened.
5 of each.
You are catching same amount of all animals in oasis, going from weakest to strongest.
For example: 10 cages, oasis got 10 rats, 20 bears, 20 crocs.
You catch 4 rats, 3 bears, 3 crocs (with one more cage, you would catch one more bear).
As a note some people have mentioned cutting off Menhirs at 30 days.....but as a player....I have joined a server 1 month in......AND some times Travian still lists a 30 day old server as "New".....so 60 days would be good enough
I believe that most of those, who mentioned cutting it at 30 days, meaned 30 days age of account - not of server (so if you join at day 30 of server, you can get menhir until day 60, when you are 30 days on server)
Or disallow jumping if you have rams, catapults or chiefs
Would work just partially. Even lot of clubs/imps and TK/EIs could hurt a lot (for example steal treasures and VP).
But blocking menhirs with some amount of troops is interesting idea - but same limit for all tribes?
Let's leave out the personal attacks and arguments and move forward with some constructive feedback for the game designers.
As Luthien already mentioned, the first steps towards improving this behavior have been implemented and on newly starting game worlds there are timed restrictions which prevent attacking after relocation.
As far as I understand your opinion is that there should be more restrictions implemented to the Menhir system, is that correct? Would it be possible for you guys to come up with some ideas?
I already saw the post saying that avatars older than X days shouldn't be able to use this feature at all and noted it down.
As one of jumpers, i saw first hand how destructive that can be. Change to Menhir era 2.0 is good, but i think not enough.
As told before, avatars older X days (30 should be fine) can be excluded. Or maybe limit number of menhirs per player (10 maybe? That would allow enough chances on start, but later you cant jump so much). But i believe one of those will be enough, primary account age.
Excuse me Bukka, do you seriously think player #3 and #4 can be normal player and NOT multiaccounts of #1 and #2?
Why any normal player should play like #3 or #4?!?!?!? Is it funny to play reck that way?
I believe thats partially what he meant. Why would you do that? Majority of people who have it are multis, they wouldnt get anything for themself. And rarely you found someone who will sacrifice his whole account right on start just to boost someone else.
This has been fixed for new servers but wont be changed for older ones.
I would say partially fixed. But definitely better option not to be able to attack after being menhired.
I think that main problem is that it allows to jump later, when you can have big armies. In first 30 days you cant have such big army (and if there were no menhirs for accounts older then 30 days... it would be better. Combined with 2.0)
Teuton clubs? They are weak. Get them at least to lvl 10.
And i guess there is some wall/residence there then
Villages have some "automatic defense", which can kill weak units.
Also, if there is wall or residence/palace, defense is bigger even for no def units.
Upgrade your units or send more of them to avoid losses (and destroy wall and residence in that village).
How many people are spiking and how many players use farm-bots? Is that a big problem for 200 farming people with great hammers destroy 1-2 people who are spiking and lose every troop in grey villages? Are you serious?! I remember days when people who were defending grey villages were kicked from alliances right away and were destroyed to 0 population in few hours. But now TOP players are lazy to cooperate, they are just crying to the forums. Bring back good hardcore players who want to cooperate and actually do something about it.
Well, here goes problem of finding WHO is spiker.
You can read all pages of defender points to try to find who spiked, but other than that, you have no chance to find spiker. Even then, sometimes you cant be completely sure you found right player.
Build palace in some other village. There you have option to switch capital city.
But be careful - all fields in first capital (now ordinary village/city) higher then 10/12 will be reduced, and you will loose stonemason if built.
4. Rework the Victory Condition. This is a very crucial one. Currently if one kingdom gets a large enough lead they may simply be able to secure the victory before the server is over by hiding away their treasures and preventing other kingdoms from stealing VPs to catch up. It is in the final 2 weeks of the server a huge opportunity for the game to deliver an exciting strategic planing and amazing turn of events, both militarily and diplomatic. It's such a shame to everyone when a server ends in an anti-climax. Something needs to be done to keep both the mid- and the end-game exciting without one making one part exciting leading to that the other suffer. Personally I would like to see 3 completely separate victory conditions that when achieving either of these a kingdom win a server. For example:
a) Having a World Wonder at level 100
b) Having 10,000,000 VP
c) Building a Imperial Palace
The "c) Building a Imperial Palace" is an example of a new victory condition that would be of a "hidden information" style. Basically this is kind of the WW level 100 but it's existence and its current level is unknown to everyone except the owner. This would introduce a kind of a imperfect-information game aspect to the victory condition of Travian Kingdoms. It's just an example, but for example say that this building could only be built by they King, and he would in order to afford it be forced to use close to all of this tributes to be able to construct this building. It would introduce a lot more diplomatic and politics of the server, as other kingdoms would need to act when they see a World Wonder being close to level 100, or when some kingdom is expected to be able to reach 10,000,000 VP before a WW can reach 100.. OR when some secret rumors (true or false) leaks out that the King of Kingdom XYZ are building an Imperial Palace and will have it finished at day X. More plotting and excitement will follow all the way to the very final moment of the server.
Just addition, VK should be able to build Palace too (not just king), otherwise when attacks start coming - kingdom will simply delete Kings village as only possible place.
But current VP setting should be reworked too... in order to win, you have to be big. Or rather, being big makes win much easier.
Got same problem as you.
Hopefully its just some bug, not change of visualization
wy i need the email? i dont no the email of the person
You need emails only in cases you are setting someone who is dual on account (since avatar name is putting owner of acc there)
Canceling trade offers should be excluded from it. Its more like sending wrong res by missclick (i think everyone did it at least once on every server :D)