Well the end of those two sales appear to have increased the overall sale of my bandages (which are brand new) from 43 per bandage to 47 per bandage.
This gives me a spectacular 846 silver for my 18 bandages. Heartbreaking after I've just seen 15 bandages go for over 8,000. Nonetheless my faith in Travian is restored....
What a joke
and lets say u get 5 times in-a-row bandages from adventure and you buy any amount of bandages from auction if you let them mix in inventory all of them get counted as "previously owned" and depending on ur luck it could then have 5 previous owners thus dropping the price rly low
And my bandages are all from adventures. So this will be an interesting test as my bandages should technically be the highest grossing available
you should give 50 % or revenue generation ( deduction of actual amount ) to the owner. this is really unfair to the game sprite.
That's a great idea! rather than a flat rate, give a portion of the sale price to the owner
Prices update after auctions end and is calculated from x amount of previous ending prices
That's good to know thanks. Then I'll keep an eye on how much these bandages sell for after those two auctions have ended. I can't imagine they will change much.
Can someone please explain this to me? To buy 15 bandages I must pay almost 8,000 silver, but to sell 18 I get a mere 774 silver.
Is this capitalism in the 2nd Century BC? Not very accurate...
Travian, can you please stop forcing money from us and start being fair? Sort it out!
lol "behind the corner"...
It is something that happened, we cannot deny it.
But as soon as we found out we did something about it. But to be able to install it we first have to test it and make sure it does what it has to do and doesn't "break" anything else.
Again, we thought that been transparent was the best policy here.
I am really sorry for any inconvenience it may have caused you.
We can at least thank you for your transparency. Thank you
I find it very concerning how you are knowingly allowing players to continue playing on a server which contains such an exploit.
The reason being is that many of us have spent a lot of money on this server, and we don't pay money for an unfair advantage.
I think the option to start as king should be limited from the outset. There are too many noobie players signing up as kings, and in turn players signing up as governors under those noobie kingdoms.
Noobie players are great, but not as kings. Experience should be proven before you can choose king.
Sorry that this post is slightly unrelated to your original thread. I didn't want to make a new one
Personally, I like this idea. But I think the problem with this idea is that you're essentially adding a new village to your collection of villages unofficially. You can reinforce it, but enemies can't; you can farm it successfully, but enemies are stopped by your defences. I suppose the only difference between this and owning your own village is the fact that with your own village you get the population boost.
Great concept, though. But terribly unfair, and allows bigger players an even bigger chance and smaller players less of a chance to succeed - a thing Travian tried to prevent.
And let's be really creative and make female units have a cycle, where they can fight on day 1 and 2 after being trained, have their speed and capacity drop on day 4, 5 and 6, have them be incapable of doing any fighting at all (not even defending) on day 7 and 8 only to let you gain 1 population on the 9th (because of reasons..). Then on day 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 they gain some amount of speed and capacity back each day until their speed and capacity is fully restored, only to have this cycle repeat again.
Also, each day during a "period" of 6 hours let them rage. What this means is that if you send them to any location, they'll do whatever they want no matter if you send them as reinforcement or raid or whatever. They randomly choose what they do during this "period". If enough of the females (say 1/4th of the total amount of females you have) gets into this rage-mode at the same time, they'll accidentally kill 1-5 troops. If like 1/2 of all the female troops go into this rage-mode one of your buildings will drop a level because they've decided to smash it to bits and in the case of a city 1/6 of those 1/2 raging females will drown in the Water Trench because they got into a fight with other raging females.
And to top it all off, why not make an incoming attack of females be colored pink in the Rally Point?
Sexism is best received from a person who places the word 'period' in quotation marks
Imagine for a moment a female troop unit for each tribe in Travian. Their attack and defence low, but their speed and carry capacity very high. They would be very cheap to produce, and would accompany raiders on attacks to carry larger loads.
Alternatively, they could be a form (or a replacement) for scouts.
Additionally, because they are female and Travian seems to be overwhelmed by male characters, the female troops would produce an increase in culture points and loyalty.
What do you think? Also, name suggestions?
Are you sure? Because I think they send troops on top of what they had in their hideout..
Nope, they send the troops from their hideout - so when you attack their hideout, they have very minimum defence so it's an easy take. But you do have to clear the resources in order for the attack to disappear on your village.
This happens with everything; it has been happening since the first console, the first handheld device, the first phone, the first movie. Companies adapt to try and invoke a wider audience. It's such a shame how companies like this feel they have to meet the immediate demand that society poses on them. Why can't they go against the grain, and forget what the selfish, mass-influenced majority needs and satisfy its true fans instead? Stop trying to increase your profits and be happy with what you have, with the knowledge that you provide something that money cannot - a service, a game, that is not only loved, but admired by people.
For cutting into a post, I just find it easier to respond to various thoughts by cutting a post up (and find it easier to read when others do the same).
The simplest way is just to quote one thing, find the closing [/ quote ] at the end (without spaces) and cut & paste it to the end of the first thing you want quoted.
Then highlight the text you want and click the Quote button (far right after all the B / I / U / Font / Size / etc. /....... squarish thing that looks like a cartoon bubble).
Thanks a lot for that! I always thought the "+ button was a sort of '+ like'. Obviously not. Thanks again!
True, but while he was technically European, most of his empire was in the regions generally considered as Persia. I don't believe he ever had a European satrapy.
(And as a side note, the largest empire is generally an argument between the modern British, the Mongol horde as started by Ghengis, and perhaps the Qing dynasty in China. Though these things are pretty tough to quantify due to the varying nature of the world, and how one counts largest -- total population and/or land, percentage and/of pop or land, etc.)
Tough to say, really. At their peak, the Gauls had parts of Germany, France, Britain and a good pieces of the rest of Europe.
But for the purposes of Travian, it seems the Teutons were the Germans, Gauls were the French, and Romans were, of course, Romans/Italians. Of course, being a German company, it could also be supposed that both the Teutons and Gauls are meant to be German, and the Romans are included as the most well-known Empire.
Meh...I don't think much on the history part of it all that much considering how little the game represents any of that, outside of some of the naming conventions.
But if they were to introduce a new tribe, I would think the British (Saxons?), Persians or Greeks (Sparta?) might be a better fit. Though personally, I'd love to play as the Mongols.
So I'm not as good as you are with the separating of quotes, so I'll type continuous.
That's a good point. I was referring merely to topographical occupation, not population.
The Greeks (SPA) would be a great idea! Imagine their offence (hoplite), and their defence (phalanx)? Wow. Obviously, the game lacks historical accuracy, so it would be fine to introduce Sparta I guess. Saxons is a good one, too.
- - - Updated - - -
We don't have a full idea of what the role will be but that is sufficient enough to know that it's nothing close to a satrap.
True for Gaul though.[/COLOR]
Agreed agreed. I assumed with the number of kingdoms around Travian, the satrap sprung to mind. But reading the role of the Vice King, you're right. Opposite to a satrap. If anything, it sounds more like a king's mother. In almost every ancient empire we have seen, the king's mother has the most influence over the king. Ha!
I vote a new name. King's Mother.
Satrapies were more or less administrative regions. So the satrap doesn't really describe the office of "Vice King" at all.
We have not been told what role the 'Vice King' would play yet, so we cannot say that it is unlike the role of a Satrap.
Gaul fell under Roman control almost two hundred years before the Huns even appeared in history - therefore, the Gauls and the Huns never really knew one another. That is inaccuracy - unlike the introduction of Carthage, as they were a current threat whilst all of the above tribes are at play. Imagine if Travian introduced Carthage? Rome's biggest enemy since the legendary founder of Rome, Aeneas', journey from Troy to Italy!
Well... I've never heard of any satrapies outside of that area. There are occasional modern references, but those don't really apply.
As for dukes, the title may have come from the Germanic tribes, but it was widely used throughout Europe...besides, we have a German tribe as one of our 3 choices. And emperor has also been quite widely used, from Rome (another of our 3 options), through much of Europe and even into Asia. Knights were English, but certainly French as well (...and that would be our 3rd choice of tribe).
Fair, but remember satrapies were placed around the empire by Alexander the Great - and his empire was enormous, bigger than that of Rome's (smaller only to Persia, which was the largest empire the world has known). Granted, he took the idea directly from Persia, but his empire and his Hellenisation arguably give us the tribes that we're playing on today in Travian, so satrapies can't be overlooked as something that just happened once in Persia, it affected the world.
Also, I assumed Gaul was primarily France? Sure it incorporated a lot of Germany (the whole west of the Rhine), but its a French tribe in its roots. Anyway that's irrelevant.
I think Carthage should be force in Travian, what do you think? We have Rome and its biggest opposition during the Empire - the Germanic tribes of Gaul and the Teutons (eastern Europe), but Carthage were Rome's biggest opposition before Gaul. It surprises me how Travian introduced two tribes of the Germanic clan, whilst ignoring such a huge threat (the bigges, in fact) like Carthage.
You seem to know your stuff, I'd love to hear your opinion on this.
Agreed and Agreed. Thanks for your feedback on this guys, I now see things clearer.