Posts by VIOLENCE 59

    It could be that if you wait too long with using your troops then the players who have been fighting will have already caught up to you in economy, and will have already surpassed you, so you would be the one catching up at that point.

    That's exactly my point. Since you're playing attrition you'll never have a decent amount of troops since you are constantly hitting and rebuilding, therefore a simmer that has been fattening up will most likely be able to kill way more troops than the attrition player before he runs out of army, and he already has the eco to stack up the army again and probably can maintain parties going 24/7. I don't see an attrition player winning this fight on CP.


    Multi abusers will love this idea.

    Free resources, Hero XP and above that extra CP doesn't sound that good.

    Anyways, you probably pick your tribe based on the game-style you want to play right? Why would you pick Romans for an attrition game when Teutons exist and even Gauls give you more Attack/h (without HDT) with Swords + Haeds? At the end of the day you gotta plan ahead of the server and try to stick to the plan. It can be messed up to some extent because you're not playing alone but you gotta optimize the things you can.

    Wouldn't it still be unbalanced that way ?

    Given the scenarios that you described:
    what if the players that were left alone and go the simming/partying route start attacking when they have the eco to back up the losses ?

    Isn't that gonna make it even more difficult for those frontliners to compete with ?

    There are several game-styles that you can pick (attrition or simming and hitting later) but as a whole, even though I think that's an interesting idea I'm 100% sure it would hurt those players you are trying to help, instead of actually helping. But hey it's my opinion ^^

    VIOLENCE 59 , Thanks for your comment
    Let me play the answer with an example of current forces. We know that the catapult of all tribes consumes 6 wheat. It can be assumed that 6 people are needed to use a catapult. Is it possible for one of these 6 people to be killed during the war and then a catapult to fail because of it? This does not happen in the world of Travian. A catapult is either completely destroyed or continues to play unharmed. Or even the same thing happens with cavalry. Is it possible for a horse to die in Travian? Not. Persian group troops are of the same type. They are an inseparable unit. Either no one dies or everyone dies together. That is, when you attack with 1 immortals, either the whole group of ten survives or they all die together. And that means immortals.

    Thank you for clarifying. Didn't thought about it in those terms, I was thinking that you'd get a batch of 10 Immortals instead of 1 unit worth 10. That being said brilliant job mate :thumbup: Let's hope that the TG team is taking notes on this one because you did a lot of work already here, they just need to reuse some code + skip the new design ideas, work on the Persian tribe design istead and we get ourselves a whole new tribe thanks to you :) :saint::evil:

    First of all congrats on the post, it was really cool to see the historical references backing up the ideas. :thumbup:

    Second I got kinda confused here but I'm sure you can help me figure this one out.

    So the Persian tribe units that train in group (Sparabara and Immortals) can only attack in group as well ? Lets take the Sparabara as an example: assuming they come 5 since their upkeep is 5, you can only attack in groups of 5 - 10 - 15 - etc ?

    Lets assume that you have some casualties and only 3 Sparabara return alive. Will those be "stuck" until there are 3 casualties elsewhere and then you get your group of 5 back ? Is that your idea for this group units ? Train in group, attack in group ?

    That's actually a really interesting approach, I've been thinking about different types of villages but this goes a step further and I really like the idea. What it'll do to the game? Open a lot of new possibilities and strategies, might make or break the game? For sure.

    I would definitely play a server like that ! :D


    Independentemente da conta em questão há sempre uma aldeia designada por Capital.
    Toda e qualquer aldeia que seja Capital nunca pode ser conquistada, quanto muito "zerada" e mesmo assim não "desaparece" do mapa.

    Posto isto não vais conseguir conquistar a aldeia desse jogador visto que sendo aldeia única é capital de certeza.

    Se queres a aldeia pelo sítio em si/pela distribuição dos campos ela desaparece do mapa 360h (15 dias) após o jogador ter ficado inativo.

    Yeah, the mobile app is not as bad as the browser version in that regard (you are able to "enable or disable" a bunch of notifications) but for those that are not aware might be helpful Johnny :thumbup:

    And yeah, you don't get notifications on time to dodge/defend an attack so when you see those they are kinda "Shooot, I've been attacked :D" They would definitely be more viable if they had proper timings.

    Also, since we're asking for a change in the in-game chat, I'd like to propose a "Mute chat"/"Mute notification" option. Since it really is a pain getting pop ups. Also we should be able to disable "X Player is online now" notifications instead of depend on players to disable such notifications, one can still check the flags in the kingdom page and it's just annoying.

    You can hide entire conversations, but there's the chance of the player you're snitching to messages you, then when the sitter check comes they will know that you're a spy :S You can either tell him not to reply until you tell him to or you simply use another way of communication...

    What you say is true but how is it relevant to the discussion?

    You're not even trying :rolleyes: but: as in legends we had organized alliances, in kingdoms we also have kingdoms that are organized so it's the same level of difficulty to attack here and there with or without the attack notification feature. That being said it is indeed relevant to the discussion.

    My bad. Farming as a concept can not exist in this game since everyone is playing with 3 duals + 2 sitters, and is online 24/7. I don't even know what I was thinking, sorry for taking up your time.

    Like are you serious here? Maybe you won't farm active players okay. But have you never seen offline accounts during your 2 months of gameplay? I mean I understand you. Saying that "active players were unfarmable before, and are unfarmable now, so there's no issue here" and ignoring the less active accounts is convenient for you so why wouldn't you do that right?

    There are two separate points in my argument: one being the kingdoms organization (talking about WW contenders here, not top15 kingdoms) and second, what prevents you to raid those "less active players" like you call them ? The fact that they are inside some random kingdom borders ? Spiking was also a thing on legends... So no, it's not inconvenient for me to talk about those players since they are also easy targets with visual attack notification or without it. You can be spiked even without visual attack notification.

    Again how is this relevant?

    It's relevant since you're saying menhir + visual attack notification feature are buffing defense and they aren't. With or without visual attack notification you can still get spiked so I your argument doesn't makes sense. But generally speaking your actions have consequences because when attacking you cannot be 100% sure you'll have Green Swords since Spiking is as old as the game is. So visual attack notification has 0 to do with that and isn't buffing defense.

    It does not "prove" anything. It is literally not a "proof". How about removing stables from teutons? They'd still have their early game advantage over other tribes. The con here is that... well they can't produce cavalry. So they'll have pros and cons, must be balanced then! Let's do this! Remove stables, who is with me?

    Now I understand what I've just said is a pretty extreme example, but surely it illustrates what I mean when I say listing 3 "keypoints" for each tribe is not an argument neither with nor against what OP said?

    There you go talking about nonsense... Not even wasting my time here :sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

    I'm pretty sure I've reacted to every point you've made so far. Have I missed something? Please tell me what "the question" is that I'm avoiding, I'll gladly address it.

    More of the same, I gave you a chance to give direct replies but you kept mumbling around :sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

    Sorry, could you rephrase this please? I'm really not sure what you mean.

    I feel like there's a bit of a confusion between us. Please do say if I'm wrong but I think when you read the word "off" you think of an organized attack from 20 off players, on another kingdom. If that's true then allow me to clarify:
    so far I've been talking about early game farming oriented attacks. I've literally said this. Multiples times already. Maybe you missed it? OP was kinda meshing up the 2, but surely when

    he talked about clubs' carrying capacity
    his proposed teuton buff was a move speed increase on clubs and axes
    and movement speed increase on TKs too

    you must have realised he was not asking to buff his WW hitting siege attack?

    You keep making this "conversation" shift from one topic to another without giving proper answers... You were the one talking about the "menhir era" and how it affected the aggressive players raiding. Have you seen top robbers of the week charts ? I see they keep raiding even with this "huge buff" on defense that is the visual attack notification 8|

    Off/Offers = Offender; Def/Deffers = Defender

    Again, clubs are the best raiders of the 1st week of the server, after that they lose to TTs and EIs, but that's common sense, you want to buff Teutons because they have the cheapest units yet they are frail and have low speed comparing to Gauls and Romans ? That would simply break the balance, not "balance" the game.

    you must have realised he was not asking to buff his WW hitting siege attack?

    By boosting clubs attack it would definitely be doing that :rolleyes: You are giving more attack to THE attack/time go to unit... Meaning you would have a buffed "WW hitting siege attack" it's math :D

    Was waiting for a decent answer but you kept saying nothing about nothing, will stop replying on this thread now since I'm clearly wasting my time and I'm pretty sure I've proven my point.

    If you want to find me in-game I always go by VIOLENCE and am currently playing com1nx3 and com2nx3. Will also play on com1x3 with same alias. See you around :S

    Ok, let's dissect this:

    In my opinion telling OP that he just doesn't have enough off experience and/or never played with a competent kingdom is disrespectful. If someone takes the time to write down his thoughts about an issue (or at least an aspect of the game, since you don't see it as an issue) the least you can do is to not assume they are just incompetent about the topic...

    Like you said, it's your opinion .

    Moving on,

    the menhir changed moved basically everyone's 1st village within influence zones where kingdom members will have a visual indicator/notification thingy about incoming attacks. On top of this, villages are more closely packed together than ever (within a kingdom) so more def can arrive, and sooner too, while attackers must cover the same distance as before. This is a huge nerf to attackers (early game farming mostly).

    So back in legends you did not have the feature that displays the incoming attacks when X village is inside the borders of Y kingdom. But, you did had pre-server teams that organized the map so you could work towards a certain WW and you'd organize center, both borders and WW with the different types of accounts/players/styles. Which is kinda the same as being in an organized kingdom, where you don't pack all the Offers under the same treasury, you split them with deffers for obvious reasons... Back in legends you didn't have a visual notification but you did had 2 sitter slots, like you do in kingdoms. And every member of the alliance would be required to have the 2 of them occupied and to sit back other two members. In-game chat would work like that visual feature so we're kinda on the same page here. Menhir simply makes life easier for kingdoms to organize themselves since day 1. Example: In legends if you aimed for a crop at 100 fields distance you'd allow another member that would fight in the border to chief it after you had X villages. Now instead of leaving your 1st village for a border member to chief when you need an extra slot to settle near you cluster you get to keep it by relocating through the menhir feature.

    I don't see how it's a nerf since you wouldn't be farming much from average/decent players with villages outside kingdom borders anyway.. Like I said, this is a war game, your actions have consequences.

    ...meanwhile your "arguments" were listing the pros and cons of each tribe which proves nothing.

    It proves the game is balanced and you should choose the tribe that suits your play style the best. As simple as that.

    You're simply dodging the question here, calling me arrogant and not being coherent at all. You're using previous posts aimed at replying to other affirmations made in this thread. If you read my post again you notice I said "Off doesn't need a Buff" right at the end. Yet you don't see me talking about menhir feature like I did on this one so there you go, you can try again this time since I do talk about the menhir feature.

    And if you don't have nothing worth to add do us a favor and don't waste your time with some random words you put together just because.

    Now hold on a second. Just to clarify you've played this game for a total of 2 whole months? And you tell others that they have "little to no experience at all attacking"? Seriously?

    Like... independent if you are right or wrong in this matter... how arrogant does one have to be to come here with 2 months of experience and tell others who have played for years that they do not have enough exp to comment on topics?

    Now the true issue is my arrogance ^^ I do realize Kingdoms mechanics are different from legends, but that doesn't imply an Off Buff, and since you're so experienced you should be able to prove me wrong with valid arguments, not complaining about how I conduct myself, 'cause that doesn't concern you or anyone else unless I disrespect you, which I haven't done... Yet... ;)

    Cheaters hurt the game we both know that, untraceable bots exist, we both know that. And I traded legends for kingdoms in April so I only know "menhir era" but I still don't get what kind of game you want to play... Like I said looks like you both are asking for a game set to easy or "Sand-box" where you can kill a bunch of clubs, have minimal casualties and don't worry about repercussions of your actions. This is a war game, some players lack the skill so they go the cheating route, but knowing that cheaters have been around since Classic and that only a few of them get caught it is what it is. But I honestly don't see an imbalance between offensive and defensive players, at the end of the day it's all about outplaying each other, not crying around because you lack the skills to do so.

    Cheaters have been around since Classic Travian servers where you could purchase off/def bonus with gold and you were able to choose between TT EI or Paladin for a hero ^^, we're not discussing how they hurt the game in this thread...