Posts by 50 Calibre

Spaceball_COM wrote:

to be able to compete with ww building you need to have 70 - 110 ppl.

That may be true in most cases but we played a server with 34 members and we were the 1st to build out to level 100 and won the server too.
We had no pacts with anyone else on the server and we supplied all the resources ourselves. In the closing days we did have some outside players send defense to our WW but that was it.
One other thing I am proud about that server. We lost no troops in our WW to starvation. The team was epic and all played on till we took home the win.

I think the main thing is to have active members on your team and also be ready to fight at all times. Strategy still plays a part in the end of a server as sometimes you have to plan and launch hammers on almost a daily basis towards the last days. If you are a small team (50 or less) then you have to build your accounts and armies for quality and use them smartly.

I have spoken about this since alpha testing and again will state that the hero should always return with something.
He/she is a hero and if I can step out my door and come back with at least some rocks or dirt, then the hero can come back
with at least some bandages or resources.

Let's do away with "NOTHING VALUABLE FOUND"

You guys forget about 1 thing here.....

After every server is over there is a crush of posters who post about how the winning team won by lesser then honorable ways.

Instead of congratulating the winner, more just want to explain how they cheated or circumvented the rules.

If it is not a rule then it is allowed and just another action players are allowed to use to win a server.

When I first began playing Legends (back when version 2.5 was rolling into version 3)

The big bad word back then was population and how it was used by most all alliances to gauge a players experience in Travian.
Then it became the bad word because emphasis was put on troop counts.

As we all know back in those days you needed a large group of players to win a server and so the 60 player alliances soon became 3-4+ wings and was normal game play.
Then those who like to complain about losing started the whole "ZERG META's" and soon every server winner was belittled with this title to try and diminish the win. The zerg tag last for a couple years before being dropped and now just the word "Meta" is used to try and diminish the winning alliance. In Legends you need more then 60 players to win a server by most accounts. In Kingdoms a win can be accomplished by smaller teams of players.

I left Legends after playing just 1 round of the 4.2 version of Legends as the cheating was way too much and if you won, no one came to offer congratulations, only accusations.

When they rolled Kingdoms off the table it was cool again but then again the players who lose a server started again with complaining and accusing any winning team and to this day I still cannot wrap my head around why people cannot accept losing as well as winning.

XTOOLS played the switcheroo with a ww and they were condemned. NO RULES WERE BROKEN
Jallu played around with the treasures to win and again the tactic is being diminished. NO RULES WERE BROKEN
2 other servers were filled with accusations of cheating directed at the winners but with no actual proof. NO PROOF GIVEN ONLY ACCUSATIONS

I do know people do break rules and it happens in Kingdoms as well but not every player who does well or alliance that wins a server is a cheater.

No matter what rules you put in place there will always be a winner and of course someone has to lose.
Even on our last server we ended up in 2nd place and we played a pretty good game but we were duped in the end by false information.
False info is not against the rules and used in war all the time yet we were the only alliance to come out and congratulate the winner of that round.
We did not cry about it or throw out accusation of the moral high ground and fairness of it. We did discuss it at length in our skype chat and was just another lesson for us as we move forward to another server.

So you can dislike my posts all you wish but if you really wish to enjoy a war strategy game then accept all that goes with it that is legal by the rules and enjoy it for what it is....A GAME

I am proud of all members of The Colony¿³ as they play hard, win hard and lose with grace. Be ready to rock the house again to all you who know who you are.

I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Back when XTOOLS won a server by having a WW switch over to their alliance there was a public out cry about how wrong it was and how players felt cheated and everyone demanded change in order to prevent this from happening again.

I posted back then that creating rules will not stop HUMAN NATURE.
A rule was put in place to stop that dastardly act so players could not be cheated anymore.

Guess what? You put a rule in place and HUMAN NATURE found another way to make players feel cheated again.
So I guess we need more rules in place to prevent this scenario from happening again.
Before you know it we end up with a game that will be missing the HUMAN ELEMENT.

Many of you say that you play Travian for the interaction and strategy. There is no strategy if you keep making up rules to try and control HUMAN NATURE.

I will repeat what I said back then......

No matter what you do or rules you put in place, HUMAN NATURE will find a way and sometimes a game just needs to be played as a GAME and stop making up rules when someone comes up with a way to win without breaking any rules.

War in real life is not pretty. You have many tools to use to break those you fight. From weapons to psychological warfare.

This is a war game and each side should be allowed to use all tools at their disposal and legal within the game. If you win you win and if you lose you lose and if you cannot accept a loss no matter how bad it feels then maybe war games or any game is not for you. No one likes to lose but those losses help you learn and will even make you a better winner.

I will also say again........
You make a rule to stop this and HUMAN NATURE will just find another way to win and if you don't believe that go back and read that thread about the WW switch and you will see that what I said then has come true here and always will.

First I want to state that I have been championing Kingdoms since it's inception as I like the game play and the direction that it was going before.
I am not sure I can say too much about this new server they will be starting on com1. It is with the new 1 king system and here is the thread where it is announced.

The Kingdom/Alliance Merge goes live

What bothers me most is that statement that was made about this version and here is the statement per quote......

"In this most recent update we have introduced the biggest change in gameplay in the history of the game. Some of you already tried it out on the test game world, and now, thanks to all the feedback we have received from you, all these huge changes are also going to be live for the first time on the international game world COM1"

You see we have not had an opportunity nor a chance to play this version out to an end. The last server was stopped due to bad bugs and this new test with this version just began. We are only on day 11 so not even close to WW release yet.
The feedback I saw in the threads had more to do about the sudden stoppage of the last test server and not about the game itself.
I know companies like to put things on the market fast but at least let this run thru a whole server to see how the dynamics play out. This 1 king system may look good on paper but think about what happens if it is a dud. Now you have a live server that players will be paying money on. Right now on test server i do not see anything that is doing much to encourage what was stated this version would bring.

Guess I will throw my 8.4 cents into this too......

When you create an alliance in Kingdoms from scratch each round it means each time you must entrust someone with holding and being the builder of your alliance World Wonder. There has to be a lot of trust for all those involved so you don't have holders switching at endgame. For pre-made teams this is not so much of an issue because you have played together for several servers and have built a team by putting in the time on the servers.

I am not a big fan on putting restraints on those who hold an build a WW because that takes a lot of your personal time to be that player.
I can see the need though that maybe if a WW drops from an alliance after a certain day then maybe there should be a penalty.
The best one posted so far to me is the WW levels itself being reset to 0.

However keep in mind that even this action if it became a rule would still not stop human nature from happening.
This would just become another avenue for those players with no loyalty to create havoc as well.
If you are in an alliance with just 1 WW and your builder decided to leave, then you end up with the same results now you have with no restrictions. No WW and the one you did have is now at zero.

This game is supposed to be about team work and if you put together a team and use those members for your more important roles then you will eliminate the whole idea of treachery.
Each round as you add new members you give them time to grow and become part of the team before handing over the keys to something so important to the alliance.

So overall I would say no rule regarding the WW holder during endgame but if developers are thinking of adding then WW to 0 I would vote for.

Minerva- wrote:

Some ideas and problems in game that must be fixed:
-Settler must automatically return when the tile it will settle has been taken
-Limiting Confederacy and NAP to 1 kingdom max
-Have artifacts that can make the game more active
-Issue of having a populated kingdom wherein robber camps only spawn to unused tiles limiting its number and not beneficial to the kingdom
-Have different icon for each hero tribe so you know what hero tribe is defending:
e.g. Red for Roman hero, Green for Gaul and Brown for Teuton
-Adding function of King to Hide his Troop information to all/certain dukes

-NEW ITEM
Helmet that reduces training time of Siege Units

Display More

Settler....agreed on that
Limit confed & nap....This was attempted in Legends and it was fruitless.
Artifacts...I hate artifacts
Robber Camps....I have not seen any problem and was in a mega alliance on alpha server and there was always room for even more camps.
Icon....Not sure what you are wanting here. When Ilook at the rp of a village I can easily which troops are defending.
Hide troop info....I do agree to this as well. Been asking about that since Kingdoms began. Give the kings/dukes options to who is allowed to view troop numbers. Much like inviting someone into a SS you can add names to those you are giving permission to.

What does it take to be king?

1, A very good understanding of Kingdoms
2, You better be a troop maker (simmers stay home)
3, Above average diplomatic skills (better be able to sell yourself and goal for the server to others)
4, Stamina to lead a group of known or unknown players for the duration of the server.

This is directed at some kings. Your governors are not your resource mules so don't treat them as such. It takes all to make a team and any good team needs to work together.
If you can't master that then playing as a king may not be for you. May sound harsh but the king title comes with mounting pressures and it will not be everyone's cup of tea

Both versions have both their own pros & cons.

Many players of Kingdom's did or are still playing Legends

Kingdoms is still basically a new game altogether for Travian and is still in it's infancy and still holding that beta tag.
So the bugs and game play problems that many post about are part of the reason why many will not play or have stopped playing.
It is tough to play a game that was just invented as you are playing and sometimes spending money on something that only works part of the time.

I would have to at least let Kingdoms grow to about 4 years old and see what the product looks like in full open mode before trying to compare it to Legends which has been around since 2004. Kingdoms opened to the public with the beta tag in early 2015 so this game is just rolling up on 2 years old, while Legends is 14 years old.

Just stating how I view it.

I am not against stats or rankings for individual play but I feel there should be more about stats and rankings for teams based on the individuals playing for the team.

Even smaller alliances have a chance at server wins if they can get all members on the same page and with same goals.

Since Travian is billed as a team game, it should do more to include team ideas and such back into the game. Right now there is a ton of individual actions that a user can do that really does nothing for the team because it's based for the individual. There are some actions that would work but as it stands right now you can send 1 troop to some one as a defender and complete the daily task for that.

That's my rant for today.

I think you missed my point I was making and I guess looking back I really did not stress what I really wanted to say.

Just because something can be done, does not mean you have to do it.

For example.....

- Just because you have an open slot to promote someone to a duke, does not mean you need to do it.
- Just because you could expand your kingdom does not mean you have to do it.

Many people play for the medals and rankings instead of playing for a team. I have known many players who build a big army but only want it to score the purple raiders ribbon. So it never gets used for or to help the team win a battle or a war.
Only used to collect medals and ribbons.

I have promoted many times for them to do away with the individual awards and make them more team oriented. So instead of medals for top farmer, alliance medals for winning battles and/or wars. This is a war game after all.

Or they can just share them with the alliance. There is an option for all players to do that.

Here is another way to look at the expansion of ones kingdom....

What is the point if you can do what needs to be done with just enough room.

This is where rankings and medals hurt team work. Kings want to have the biggest or best kingdom for that title or rank.

On a team it is what is best for the team and not one particular player no matter what position they are playing(king, duke or gov)
Plus there is no guarantee that having the largest kingdom mean you are the best king or even the strongest. This game is played and won by those who can come together and work as a team.

FabianF wrote:

The situation I was talking about specifically concerns players who are way too small to put up a reasonable fight anyway. And for them we're thinking it doesn't hurt to have a few "cushions" to reduce their potential frustration, so instead of quitting the game altogether, they continue to play and can then maybe learn to get better over time.

This is where getting into an alliance or kingdom will help that small person. Any player playing this game has a right to attack any other player regardless of size.

Fleas spread the black plague back in the day and that killed many humans. So small does not mean that they can't play.

So working as team the alliance or kingdom would then support and defend that small player against the larger attacker.

Adding more rules to help that player as an individual will again take away the experience of being helped in an alliance by TEAM WORK.

Something I think we all agree that we need to bring back but creating rules that encourage individualism hurts team work rather then promoting it.

It was meant to be sarcastic.

I just hate to see the game keep eroding into something else other then a "strategic war game"

I began playing Travian when is was a true strategic game and Legends is far from being that any longer.

I was hoping Kingdoms would bring that aspect back and at first it seemed like it would but now it is becoming just as gimmicky and hand outy as Legends.
So I guess from my sarcasm there is a bit of frustration as well.

FabianF wrote:

You know that the ability to close group conversation threads is part of the new update, right?

See that is something that was asked for by your customers.
Don't think I can recall any thread where anyone asked or suggested putting treasure counts on the map. I know I may sound a little sarcastic but seems like the developers want to take this game the way of the fb games.

I took this SS when I Googled Travian.......

http://prntscr.com/c1lhtt

No where in ancient tactics was there a map which told anyone anything except how to get somewhere.
Spies and scout type troops were used to seek out and identify places of interest or to keep an eye on neighbors.
So you need to go thru your Google selections and update them because right now they are not current.

Let's not stop at just the treasures though, let's just put all village information on the map so that way we can click less buttons to find out what we need. This will help start fights too since you can see when troop are there and are not.
Maybe everyone could have 1 shared password so we all can just log into each others account and gather any information we want.

So all you are doing is taking away another action that involved asking members to scout out targets and be involved and work as a team.
So all of you who happen to like building scout armies, you are now retired cause there is nothing left for you to do.

Been waiting for a long time to have the ability to close and/or delete unused or spammed threads in the chat.

Putting the treasure counts on the map is not doing anything to make people want to attack. The treasurers can easily be found using your brain and some troops (SCOUTS)

The scouts are almost useless in this game so you may as well just eliminate them and take away our axes, bow/arrows, spears, swords and all other weapons cause each time you add something useless it takes away from the whole concept of STRATEGIC WAR GAME.

I think that is what Travian still advertises itself as??

Here I go on another rant about adventures......

Here is a list of my last 4 adventures

- Nothing valuable found
- Nothing valuable found
- Nothing valuable found
- Resources

I will say it again that the hero should be able to find something anytime he goes on an adventure.
The hero is your top troop and a HERO!!

I can walk outside my own door and find at least a rock or a handful of dirt a chunk of grass and even some neighborhood cat..
Since the way the game is going is to hand everyone everything then I think it is fair that :"Nothing valuable found" should be eliminated.

Arcolithe wrote:

Personally I think it's better to granny up

Roger that, me too!!

The starter package is terrible compared to what it was and what it could be. I am not against the price to play certain things for the life od the server but the packages offered leave a lot to be desired