Posts by DanielHart_COM

Quote from Georgi

Hi together,
the alliance name was of course inappropriate and was immediately removed as soon as we saw the thread the other day, thank you very much for reporting it to us!
While I'm happy that you guys form such a passionate and engaging community and sure no one meant to offend anybody else with their thoughts on the subject, Arcolithe is absolutely right that the game should be kept free of real world politics so some replies have been deleted from the thread too. Have fun and please don't hesitate to send us a ticket via our Help Center should you see something that bothers you. We will take the appropriate actions as quickly as possible or make sure to explain the situation as best we can if there are any misunderstandings.

Kind regards
Georgi

I don't mind at all that you deleted my post in response to another. I agree that politics has no place here, and feel strongly that religion has no place either. However, the name of a sovereign nation as an alliance name is not politics, and should not be forbidden, as inferred by the user I was responding to. There have been many alliances in this game which were named after the country in which their founders or members reside.

Again, that is too much information to give away for free. To learn how many treasures a village holds, one should have to scout it. Will you be showing the troop numbers on the map next? A list of existing buildings and their levels? Whether the player is online and the last time he/she was active?

As 50C said, the only option I would vote for is not given as an option.

I don't know why I am bothering to comment on this subject again, but I do have a few minutes and a full cup of coffee, so here goes:

I have defended TG's need to sell gold and make a profit. I have pointed out that without adequate revenue, TG could not keep the game going for us to play. However, as in any business, you can quickly price yourself out of the market. The seemingly ever increasing gold cost of premium features in this game has already driven many former heavy spenders from the game altogether, and caused others to play with less gold than before. Simply put, higher prices mean fewer sales and fewer customers. Lower prices, of course, mean increased sales and more customers.

When the new build queue was introduced, I took care to use the free final 5 minutes, used the 1 gold finish now and ran the clock down below 2 hours on higher levels to use it. I also used the finish all now when I had long researches as well as buildings without regard to building levels. I spent quite a while testing the feature, and found that I could spend less gold in the long run (I was a heavy gold user, so I usually spent freely). Although doing so meant taking a bit longer to develop the account, I felt it well worth the effort at the time. We did have the option of finish all now for 3 gold at the time. Removing that option was a mistake. If TG just had to do so, increasing the cost to 5 gold would have been a better option than removing it.

I consider some of the negative comments in reference to TG raising gold costs to be at least somewhat unfair, as I have said before. However, reality doesn't mean nearly as much as perception - look at Donald Trump, for example, or for that matter at both he and Hillary Clinton (I will not participate in political discussion here, just using the candidates to demonstrate my point). The perception is that TG is squeezing the players wallets. In the case of the build queue, I have to say that after removing the option to finish all now TG has made that perception appear much more accurate. What is your normal reaction when someone pushes you? Most players are feeling pushed.

If you want to raise the cost to 5 gold, then at least run an open server with that option to test the result, but put it back. TG, you are losing, and the more you try to replace lost players with higher gold costs, the more players you are going to lose.

Quote from Arcolithe

I think high tax is an aggressive tactic for a player to attack a large city in the early game, forcing the player to become a King/Duke himself, or attack his own city to sack the tribute.

I am not following your reasoning here, please explain. The tax rate is set for the entire kingdom, not individual villages or kingdoms, and the king's villages don't pay tribute - a king can collect tributes in any village he or she desires.

Quote from iribuya

I agree with Gaius.

The tax system is silly. There are no kings that use the high tax, because Governors are not happy and if you are a big king you get TOO many tributes anyway. (But that's a different discussion)

There should an button in the embassy to "collect all tributes in a 5 (or whatever) square radius from this village" With the option of tributes without and with treasures.

I'm not with you on this one. Early server, it makes sense to have medium taxes, until the king has at least two treasuries and had expanded the kingdom a bit by making a duke and taking in governors to build the team up a bit. Then, at that point, the team as a whole can profit more from the 10% resource bonus a low tax rate gives governors. Although I cannot foresee ever setting a high tax rate as king, I am sure there are still some who do and possible reasons they might do so at least on a temporary basis and when a large percentage of a kingdom's governors are inactive. It is a question of which tax rate is most beneficial to the team as a whole - although a lot of kings are going to be ego players who think only of themselves (which is good for no one).

Yes, you always have a choice. My personal choice would be to play as governor on a smaller team in competition with metas. However, when you play as king, you are making a choice for all those governors who follow you. Would it be fair to them, if the majority were playing to win the server, for a king to make a choice which virtually ensures they will have little to no chance to achieve that goal? Winning a server is the goal of most who play through a server - they play to win (sometimes by any available means, as we have seen, which brings us back to the subject of this thread). The game needs to be changed in such a way that only by playing, as we used to do, can a server be won.

I am not saying diplomacy has no place in the game, but I am saying it should not - in and of itself - be the deciding factor. Fighting is what should decide the outcome. Team spirit is so nearly gone from the game because of the hug-fests that make fighting rare and undisciplined. Sure, a player in a meta can claim to be part of the winning team, but what does that mean? what did thy do beyond carry a tag and make peace with everyone in sight?

I would by far rather lose a server and have fun doing so than to win a server while sitting back and watching the clock run out at peace with everyone in sight and making defense for a ww.

I can understand VVV's points here. Currently, it is very difficult to play through end game without becoming involved in some sort of hug-fest with others. The game mechanics make it hard for a small team to compete, especially when the majority of its members are inexperienced in what we used to consider the basics - and it is not possible to avoid having the inexperienced players on your team altogether. Advocating some way to restrict or limit metas is not the same as refusing to participate in them when they become the only feasible way to survive and prosper in the game. That only underscores the need to somehow make life more difficult for metas and more rewarding for small teams.

The issues discussed in this thread are among those in the game which now make playing as a meta so appealing to so many. Perhaps the one king deal will alleviate some of that, but only time will tell. Hug-fests will still be possible, and obviously those who have come to rely on them will continue to try them - but it will be less likely that they will be able to hug their way to a server win. Other steps need to be taken, such as limiting the VP bonus in some way (The highest level WW? Maximum of 100%? One WW per kingdom?) to make end game more competitive. Making smaller teams by making it more difficult to enlist half (or more) of the server, should also promote competition at every stage of a server. We may actually see fighting return as the main attraction. Time will tell.

Quote from darkmatterx

The late switching is okay, I believe, people can get disillusioned if they have egomaniacs leading them.
but Wonders should be owned by kingdoms once the patch comes out, and every kingdom should be limited to ONE wonder.
Goodbye metas and say hello to tons of kingdoms fighting each other for a victory.
Under the current situation, we get cases where these huge metas are afraid to attack each other.

Limiting alliances (soon to be kingdoms) to one WW would be as effective as anything I suggested in making the exploits we are discussing impossible. It has been an end game strategy to take more than one WW so that when one is hit another can be focused on by a team, but there are fewer available WWs in TK, so this might be more fair in the long run,involving more teams in the end game. I would not object to this suggestion, although I would prefer limiting the bonus to the highest level WW a team holds or limiting the bonus to 100% maximum.

There is merit in the suggestion to limit each team to one WW, however it would remove the possibility of defeating an enemy WW by conquering it if your team already holds a WW. I personally don't care how it is achieved, but do wish to see these possible exploits removed.

Moving individual players from a "wing" or supporting kingdom should remain possible at any stage, but moving a WW (over level 50?) is an exploit which should not be possible unless it is conquered by another team. If the WW were a team holding, the individual could be moved, and the WW could remain with the individual locked out. I have suggested before that the team leader could appoint 2 team members to "hold" a WW for the team and it could have 2 sitter slots. If it took two of those four to agree to send defense back (One to schedule it and a second to click an "authorize" button) it would prevent a defector from sabotaging a WW before moving to another team. Yes, it would involve some coding and a bit of work - but it could easily be achieved.

Rehashing who did what to whom in com2 is ridiculous. Those of us who were there lived through it, it is over and done and no amount of discussion will change anything about it. The end result is all that really matters here, and taking a WW from one alliance to another after using another alliance to build, supply, defend and feed it - without one alliance conquering it from another was the end result. No matter what else took place before that, that was and remains a possible exploit which already cost the players who were involved, the integrity of the game and TG (loss of players from an already small player base). Stacking VP bonuses (the subject of this thread), especially by merging alliances in late end game is another possible exploit which has no place in a game so many spend so much time and money playing. The devs could easily correct this and make such an exploit impossible. If they care enough about the game and its future, they will do so.

@50C

When real life gives me the time to play effectively, I will play again. And I do want to play as part of Colony. I am hoping they finalize the one king deal and am interested in playing that test server if time permits.

There are a few things I feel very strongly about that need changing. This thread addresses one of them, or two rather since com2 was brought into it. I sincerely hope the devs will take it seriously enough to do something about it.

Regardless of the differing opinions, I think it fair to say the majority of us agree that the possibility of such exploits as those we have discussed here do need to be addressed by the devs and removed from the game. I believe the majority of us also believe that only fighting should determine who holds a WW. Plainly, the game lost players as a direct result of com2 - and the loss of players is something TG can ill-afford. Whether by instituting the suggestions I have made myself or by some other means, these exploits need to be addressed.

Something as important to a team in end game as a WW should never be as vulnerable to exploit as it is now. I read many posts complaining about the lack of fighting in TK (It is the same in TL now, on a smaller scale), and yet here we have examples of one team stealing a WW by subterfuge and another adding to their bonus by "merging" with other WW holders - negating the need for fighting altogether. If end game ends up being a competition to determine who is best at organizing a hug-fest, why fight at all during any stage of the server?

One excuse I still hear, repeated by Jallu above, is that somehow the fact that BZ's manager rights were taken indicated some sort of betrayal on United's part. If you will bother to read the thread I cited, you will see in BZ's own words that his intention was to remove all kings and disband United if it looked like United was going to win. That is why manager rights were taken, to prevent such treason. As far as I know, no one in United suspected that the WW holder intended to defect after using United to build the WW to within minutes of level 100. Jallu has said that was planned by xTools all along, as others have said also.

This is history. The past is written in stone, and no attempt to reinterpret it will ever succeed in changing what happened. Let it serve as a lesson for all, including the devs, and move on. I was there, as were others, and in my opinion steps need to be taken by the devs to ensure nothing like it can happen again. If those steps are not taken, the game is broken and will remain so.

50C, I like and respect you, but implying that this was or should be seen as normal deception or as a normal and acceptable tactic is going a bit too far. No WW should change hands by any means other than conquest (speaking of alliance here) using combat - the tool of war.

This thread was about the unfair bonus system, and the principle is the same - no alliance should be able to add WWs (especially in higher WW levels) and benefit from increased bonuses by merging alliances. In fact, I have said many times that only the highest level WW held by any alliance should give a bonus - or, there should at least be a 100% limit on VP bonus. Either way would make the end game more fair to all and less subject to exploit. I have also said many times that the WW should be an alliance holding, and should only change hands if conquered by another alliance. The only possible ways to win this game SHOULD be by playing it, by fighting. Until the devs see that such exploits should be taken out of the game, then it is a mess.

Wow, you certainly have a malleable memory there, Jallu. "A free WW", you say? Of all the things you misrepresented here, I will respond only to this one. We built the WW with resources we sent, we defended it against countless attacks (some from xTools, by the way) with troops we trained and sent, we fed those troops with crop from our granaries. Heartagram represented himself as a loyal United team member - we had other hammers with which we could have taken the WW. So what was "free" about the WW we took, built, fed and defended? Your claim that it was planned and desired earlier than last minute only reinforces the fact that it was intended to cheat us of the win. The information I was given at the time was that it was planned by xTools leaders to occur exactly as and when it did. Whether it was in violation of any rules is not the point - it was an exploit, and remains a possible exploit which has absolutely NOTHING to do with playing the game. It cost TG players, and some of them were xTools. It cost xTools any respect the tag might have earned before com2 and the possibility of ever earning more. As far as I am concerned, and as far as many who played that server are concerned, United won fair and square. xTools stole the credit, but United and those of us who supported them did the work.

I said after that server, and repeat here now that the possibility of such an exploit needs to be removed from the game. The subject of this thread concerns the same principle. No team should ever be able to take a server win by simply adding players in end game, nor should a WW be allowed to move from one alliance to another by any means other than conquest.

Most of the forum discussion was in this thread: http://forum.kingdoms.travian.com/com/showthread.php?t=1332 Read it from the first post

Quote from Jallu

Wait, what? Loyal to BadZone? Swordy was the one who removed BadZones manager rights. We used BadZone as a spy to see Uniteds troop movement and WW at all times, i were sitting him myself. Also, a lie can not be truth to anyone. If one breaks a confed and blames it on us it is not a truth but pure propaganda against us. Swordy stated that we broke the confed as a fact and hoped we could not prove him wrong, but i did. Only few people know the real truth about the server, you only know what you heard or felt. I and few others were the only ones who really experienced it.

I did claim that Swordy were lying on old threads and i believe i proved it to DanielHart and others in skype. 50 Calibre and others were also on the skypechat that Swordy just pushed his lies on. I know it's not cool to have someone change alliance in the end, but that's the only bad thing xTools ever did. That is nothing compared to the backstabs or other coward moves that happened on that server. I even got death threats during the ww-phase

Jallu, the only thing I can remember you proving to me was that Swordy was a liar. (I will say here that Swordy helped me deal with a different situation with an overreaching king who happened to be in the same alliance with Swordy at the time, and that Swordy kept the agreement he made with me as to non aggression afterward. He did not lie to me about that.) I changed alliances a few times during that server, but was in United for most of it. As a king, I ended it disgusted and feeling I had led my governors into failure like lambs to the slaughter, thinking they were minutes away from a server win when their heads were chopped off. There is no way you can dress it up to make it palatable.

The WW you are saying you spied on during end game was the WW brought to your alliance with about an hour left on level 100, right? And when the holder defected to xTools with minutes left on level 100 - after the members of another alliance had built, defended and supported it to near completion of the final level, you are saying that is the "only bad thing xTools did" and that was "nothing" compared to what was done before by others? I am sorry, but there was no mention of "death threats" by you at the time or even afterward until this time.

There was a great deal of discussion in the forum about the way that server ended, and all those threads should be available in archive. Nevertheless, all that is history. That server showed that steps needed to be taken to ensure the same thing could not happen again, however the devs did not see a need to take any of the suggested steps - and so TK lost players because of it. Some of those players were, in fact, xTools players who felt as strongly as I did that the alliance which actually built and defended that WW were cheated when their WW was stolen away at the last moment. One answer I kept getting after the fact - though I don't remember whether you told me so yourself - was that it had been xTools' plan to take the WW at the last minute all along by having the holder join xTools. Which part of xTools leadership made that secret plan with the traitor? Since the rank and file had no knowledge of this plan (as evidenced by attacks from xTools) who, in the new leadership was the plan passed along to when the original leadership deleted? Who was it who kept arguing that, since it didn't violate any rules, that was a valid and legitimate way to win the game?

You cannot change the facts, you cannot change history. Let it rest.

Jallu:

I don't know whether you are attempting to rewrite history or simply accepting a version of history rewritten by someone else. In the end, it doesn't matter either way. The archived forum threads from that time period tell the story as it happened. And then there were those of us who were there and experienced it first hand.

Quote from Captcavey

It's not so much the merging of the alliances but more the point that it now effects the percentage gain by the merged alliance. For example, going from 50% at first place to suddenly having 175%... that is substantial. For it to be done with hours of the server left just leaves a really sour taste in the mouth so any new players might look at that and say "well what was the point in playing that?!"

You need to balance tactics and "technical knockout" with keeping the game playable for the long term. Yes we all play to win a server but we also want people to keep coming back right?

If a WW was an alliance holding, instead of being held by an individual player, then that bonus would not change so dramatically from day to day with a player leaving one alliance and joining another, king or no king. The WW would belong to the alliance which conquered it, and could not change hands unless conquered. (Not saying that could not be abused, but it would be costly).

Mayo: As I have suggested, only the bonus from an alliance's top WW should give a bonus. If you held, #1, #3, and #5, in other words, you would get a 100% bonus only. At the very least, the bonus should be limited to 100%.

A couple of comments come to mind here. First, I was on the com2 brought up here. That situation was different from what you are suggesting, however at the time the server ended I and several other like minded veteran players brought up the need to prevent a WW holder from defecting, especially late in end game. This has not been done, nor as far as I know, has any discussion among devs taken place which might lead to any action. I still say a WW should be a team holding and no holder should be allowed to switch alliances taking the WW with him/her.

Secondly, on the subject of "merging" alliances, although it is done differently in TK, it has always been a part of the game. Players who support an alliance faithfully and with dedication deserve to be recognized as part of the team when a WW is completed. We often added players to the alliance who had fought along with us and supported us, no matter which alliance tag they carried during the server - even if it meant booting less deserving players. The principle is the same here.

As to leadership, no one who has not been in leadership can understand what a burden it is (if done right). It is quite often the exact opposite of fun, and it is very seldom that one is appreciated for even the best leadership qualities. I cannot blame anyone who sees a chance to hand over the reins to another capable leader for doing so - and I feel certain that no one else with leadership experience in this game can blame them either.

I play no blame game. I am only stating facts. Newer players (not talking about the simmers we always had) have not learned to play as team players, nor have they developed the skills needed to successfully plan and execute major operations against opponents. The average age of modern players is much lower (again, showing that they have not always been around) and the attention span of the average player much shorter.

A big part of the reason for much of this is that so many of us left in disgust and these newer players have few truly knowledgeable veterans to teach them and instill the values needed to be team players. Part of the reason is that the game (mostly T4) itself changed drastically so that it rewards individuals more than teams, I grant that, but in TK the team can and should be the focus of the players - for the majority it is not. Failing to develop the skills needed to coordinate with team mates in timed attacks with adequate faking is a failure of the player, not of the game. It takes time, effort, and at least some degree of dedication to develop what we would have considered basic skills in the old days. And it takes experienced leadership to teach these things to new players. Those of us who played in the "old days" should be leading the teams and teaching these things, but the sad truth is most new players seem unwilling to learn.

So yes, players need to change. Until we do, there is little the designers can do to correct those things most wrong with the game. However, if incentives can somehow be added for teamwork and for learning the basics, for following through and developing the skills I mentioned, then perhaps more players would put in the time and effort needed to become good team players. You want incentives for combat? Start with the real issues and go from there, Give incentives for teamwork, for coordinating with team members and learning to time attacks, to properly fake (with enough troops - last server I played I was still seeing attempted fakes without a catapult, with single infantry units, etc and on less than worthwhile targets). Once players started working together with a team and learning what we used to consider the basics, developing the skills (not all that difficult to learn) then you would see a lot more fighting and a lot fewer hammers splatting - as well as a lot fewer players deleting.

Quote from Jallu

Instant building costs the same on speedservers even though the building times are 3x shorter. You're much more likely to get instabuild for 1 gold in speed than on normal server, which makes playing it a bit cheaper (not considering travian plus etc).

Do you guys think instant build should be working differently on speed? I mean i love the discount, i just don't think it's fair to get higher buildings built cheaper than on normal servers. Server populations are already lower on normal servers and if i can manage to play speed with less gold spent i need to think twice before playing normal servers.. Please share your opinion on this matter, especially if you disagree with me

After playing out a server with the new build queue, I have to say removing the 3 gold instant complete covering all buildings and researches was a bad move on TG's part. When there is a single building level you need completed, then I can see the benefit of being able to do so for 1 or 2 gold - In the end I actually used a bit less gold than I would have otherwise by completing higher levels individually and taking advantage of the free 5 minute clock. I believe this would hold true on both normal 1x and speed servers.

That said, I do not believe any changes in the countdown should be made on speed servers. The servers are much shorter than normal, true; in fact, I will reiterate my statements that the servers are too short. However, the only change I would support would be to bring back the option to pay one time to have all active building and research queues finished instantly for one set price, without regard to the time left on the clock.

Let me add that the server being so much shorter means spending less gold, even though it is spent faster.

Quote from FabianF

Feature Idea: Troop Redeployment

The second idea is concerned with giving those large armies sitting in the middle of big kingdoms, far away from the frontlines, a purpose again. You have the possibility of permanently relocating troops to a new home village, as long as it is “younger” (i.e. was founded or conquered later), than the original village of the troops. Redeployed troops will be merged with any existing troops in the target village.

Of course we have to implement a few limitations to prevent exploitative strategies and also huge undefeatable hammers from forming. Firstly, in the target village you will need enough “free crop” = crop production – crop used by buildings – crop used by troops (wherever they currently are). You can only redeploy as many units as the target village’s free crop value allows you to supply. Also you obviously cannot redeploy settler or chief units.

On top of that, to not incentivize quickly building up new villages within enemy territory without giving the enemy sufficient time to react, it will not be possible to immediately deliver resources (via the respective premium feature) to villages that are not within your kingdom’s borders.

This seems to me to be a poorly disguised version of the merge troops feature TL tried in special servers. Although, with the restrictions you mentioned it may work out better and cause far fewer problems.

Getting players to send troops on long marches has been a problem. It seems that any offensive troop movement over 2-3 hours appears too long for many players now, and few understand or wish to learn how to adequately fake opponents so defending has become much easier and simpler (and not just in TK). Skill has become far less important than luck. However, the answer to having a large offensive army too deep in friendly territory to send attacks short distances is and always has been to send them on longer marches, covering the real attacks with fakes in equally valuable targets and coordinating timed attacks with your team. In other words, the answer is to develop and use the skills needed to successfully attack opponents at a distance in concert with team mates. This is not a problem the game designers can address - as the fault lies not with the game but with the players.

I have to say I have some reservations about having any troops at all surviving. I feel the same way about bandages, however. Like so many other things, I would want to see it played out on a server before making a final judgement.

Again, as with much of what has been introduced in TK, I believe that what started as an interesting and exciting new version of Travian which needed a few tweaks has become an over complicated and too heavily edited mess. Sorry, devs, but that is what I see and think. You have taken a Piper Cub and tried to make it fly like an F-16.