Posts by Sir Cin Sincere

    Not sure about OSEF, but to my knowledge BM dont collaborate with others. They do troll a lot in forums, but leave other kingdoms settle their own business.


    I was actually skimming the forum and saw a post on COM2 embassy, that a player was wrongly banned for multiaccounting. Just wondering if there might have been some players of GW who got wrongly reported and banned, but never made a forum thread about it.

    The concept of this game has survived for many years through all kinds of abuses..dont really think its breaking down. The reason why people get frustrated and quit and resort to illegal strategies is that in its core the game is painstakingly long and needs meticulous planning to succeed. Even if you do everything right, there are thousand other reasons why things can go downhill. Ironically the same tedious process that pushes players away, is the same reason that keeps players coming back.


    Also there are some famous smaller side kingdoms that can have great success in Breaking Metas.

    I leave the fighting for multihunters and people reporting them. I believe lot of players who are accused of being multies might actually not be..seen lot of posts that try to point out multies with screenshots that dont prove anything.

    What I do appall, is the propaganda that tries to get all players against a common enemy so they can have it easier.

    Haha, pretty sure you where part of a 250+ player meta full of mutlies and abuse in every way possible.

    Was in WST premade actually...they changed WW location when my second village was already being settled at first location choice and then fell under GF area. Bad luck for me that WST chickened out on early game war threats.

    Ahw poor thing. Don't bother yourself over politics when you have no clue what is going on.


    We aren't the one asking all kingdoms on the map to turn against the only proper premade on the server.

    Pretty sure WST and mycro with his avalanche of cringy memes was the one getting everyone to join against the other big meta last server they were participating..guess its your turn to be the top dog that everyone will go after.

    In the lobby my name is correct.. the effect is just in the forum.


    Not sure what is meant by having more than one account..like did other players have the same name?

    Im not totally sure, but I might have had the name Cincinnatus before, but it never ended with "--d".

    At this point its all hypothetical...nobody can foresee what exactly are the results of this.


    What I think of broken mechanics in multiplayer games-If everyone has access to the mechanics, then this itself gives everyone equal chances...I also explained in the start of the second post that multiple troop training facilities or any new features should have some controlling mechanisms to keep them from going array.

    There are a lot of ways to make it work.. The troops could either be used by each tribe commanding their units separately or every member can use all the troops together. I like the latter version since this way the village has better chances of reacting to incoming attacks plus it introduces the idea of merging attacks with units from different tribes.


    Merging attacks might need to have special effect of some negative attack bonus for not overpowering the feature (could be explained with bad coordination between different tribes) or possibly make it impossible to be faked. Another way for not letting the feature to be overpowered is to cap the unit amounts that sort of village can train.


    The exact picture how the change would look like should be discussed during team meetings of developers and other other concerned parties.



    The answers to previous points made:


    *It might help the multiaccounting situation by helping honest players cooperate more closely.


    The fact that these kind of villages get buff in their combat capabilities should incentivize people to not multiaccount. Even if someone thinks to make 3 accounts to have united village all to him/herself, then its really hard to compete with authentic players who can invest much more energy into upkeeping those villages. Also I bet its easier to detect if same person is keeping that village.


    *It would help kings and dukes to contribute their tributes back to kingdoms in a way that governors can also benefit in development.


    If a King and 2 governors reside in 1 common village, then the King is most capable of helping to build it up thanks to his surplus of resource from tributes. The other 2 governors can then focus on building troops without wasting too much resource on village infrastructure.


    *It gives an extra step in long and boring midgame to make it more exciting.


    I have heard a lot of players complaining about the midgame stagnation because many are just training troops to prepare their lategame hammers and doing the daily tasks to manage villages. By creating a village where more players invest in and where some buffs to combat can be achieved, then it raises the stakes and therefore brings more fun to the game.


    *It incites more battling.


    The buff of faster troop regeneration encourages players attacks more..and players who dont prefer to be offensive get to be part of the action more closely by operating in same villages.


    *It brings whole lot of new strategies to the table.


    The main effect I would foresee from this change is that players could build different special buildings in same village and also have possibility of having 3 barrackses and stables for fast regenerating offenses that can spam attacks for extra aggresive playstyle. And when the village is defense oriented, then it could bounce back from defeat quicker.

    3 workshops in endgame gives extra spice for WW hammers and this should alarm other kingdoms to try and take those kind of villages down.


    Since the village layout stays the same then its not that easy to just go ahead and build 3 racks, stables, workshops and all special buildings right away, also it might not be the most optimal strategy. Instead players need prioritize their building sequence and choose wisely which type of units they need the most.


    *Its never done in any of this type of browser games.


    I bet the reason is that its hard to implement, yet the payoff could be huge in terms of inviting new players to the game and differentiating from competitiors while innovating the industry.



    These are just few points that came into my mind at first, there are also the benefits of :


    *Improving the learning curve of new players.


    By getting to share a village with other players they get a chance to see more strategies during single gameworld and also communicate more with others.


    *Smaller kingdoms have better chances against bigger ones.


    Usually smaller kingdoms are made of players with less experience and many times there are no other ways to exist in the server than by acting according to the saying "If you cant beat them, then join them".

    When there is easier to create highly specialized villages and easier to cooperate between kingdom members, then smaller kingdoms have a better chances against the bigger ones and incetives to join meta kingdoms decrease.

    Since I havent gotten any feedback, then I thought I should make a separate thread about my idea.


    3 different tribes commit to settling a united village, where everyone can build simultaneously their own troops, wall and special building.

    The bonuses might seem at first too OP to even consider, but then again every player loses 1 cp slot and gains only 1/3 of the income of normal village so this should balance it out.


    Reasons I think this is beneficial:

    *It might help the multiaccounting situation by helping honest players cooperate more closely.

    *It would help kings and dukes to contribute their tributes back to kingdoms in a way that governors can also benefit in development.

    *It gives an extra step in long and boring midgame to make it more exciting.

    *It incites more battling.

    *It brings whole lot of new strategies to the table.

    *Its never done in any of this type of browser games.


    I elaborated more on this idea in the thread "merging troops"

    This this and so much this. The mobile "gaming market" is huge missed opportunity, and if people try travian on mobile with the app (which is to put it nicely flaming pile of dogshit) they get experience of buggy game with horrible UI and where the notifications come when ever they please to come if they come.



    E: As it stands the app is more likely to turn players away from game than bring them in. A WORKING "companion" app would be nice where you could get quick overview of your villages(on iOS app you can't even see who is attacking you...), attacks, troop ques, warehouse/granary levels etc.

    what about a widget of your capital