Posts by Buzz O'Bumble

    All good suggestions above, that will work. Pointing out to the raider that you are new to the game and want to learn it in peace is almost always very effective. See also if you can get 2 sitters, both in different time zones to you. When your account is going offline, send your troops away always.

    I actually wouldn't like to see this option. Often people have to send very early as they'll be offline when they should send their troops, so they add a ram with their troops to slow it down and conserve crop in the defending village. Releasing them all at once after the attack means they'll be waiting for a very long time for their troops to get home. Personally I return troops types for each village separately - e.g. phalanxes, separate to druids, separate to the hero. I agree that it takes a long time - half an hour usually. Perhaps a Return all cavalry/Return all infantry/Return all heroes option would be better. There would need to be some way to keep permanent standing defense from returning.

    For me, the most annoying thing now is that, say after returning all the spears from 1 Teuton village, it then goes back to the Show all Teutons screen. It would be faster if it stayed on that village until I sent the paladins home, then went to the next Teuton village, before going to the Show all Romans.

    I, and I'm sure, many others feel that the punishment for those caught cheating in Travian is too light. If you're caught cheating, your time in the server should be over. Many of us are tired of cheats being allowed to continue in the game and using their unfairly achieved advantages to attack and defend against fair players. If you read this, please give your opinion. The game administrators need to know how the majority of people feel.

    I don't know if this issue has been brought up before but it seems to happen in every kingdom in every server where there are already enough incoming attacks to clear the number of waves in camps, and others still send attacks and beat some of those who had already launched attacks. Your troops then come home with nothing. I realize that people playing on phones can't see the number of attacks already on the way, but I'm sure that others can see, and send anyway. Perhaps the camps could 'close' once the number of waves sent equals the number of waves available, but if that's not possible or not a good idea, it would help if troops came home instantly if the camp was cleared before they got there, so at least you have a better chance of attacking a different camp.

    I was not part of com2 and have no predetermined opinions of any of the players involved. My thoughts are that just like in real life, there are some people who will take advantage of situations/loopholes and use them to their advantage with no thought for the many who they hurt in the process, and some who won't. Some will stop and think about how such strategies affect the game's future membership and success, and some who won't. There is nothing we can do to change the moral compass of other people. Some will say it's a war game and within the rules, where others see the same action as wrong. The game mechanics allowed it and while those who thought of and undertook this strategy deserve admiration for their ability to come up with the idea and see it through, I also feel for the many who were hurt in the process. I do believe that if teams keep winning via means that many question, then we will keep losing players. Having said that, if the opposition was forming a meta with multiple wings, that is equally something that is hurting this game a lot. If players/teams are as good as they claim to be, they don't need metas and they don't need questionable tactics that the game developers never intended or thought would be used. Winning by massing huge numbers of players in comparison to other teams is nothing to be proud of either. I think if I had been in that server I would have maybe been happy to see a meta with obvious multiple wings lose, just not by the method used.

    In the end, each of us, in real life and games, has to stop and ask ourselves whether what we say and do is how we want people to remember us. Would our children/ partners/parents be proud of us? Would we be proud of ourselves? Is winning at all costs worth it?

    And the best thing ChillingEffect is that if it's like what has happened in the past, 2 new kings have been allowed to spawn in exactly the same spot that they left. Brilliant!

    To set someone as a sitter, in the lobby click on this Once you type in their name, click on the Edit icon to add gold privileges if you want your sitter to have them. (Remember that a sitter can't finish the last 5 minutes of builds for free without gold privileges for some very weird reason known only to the developers.) When you want to log into someone's account that you sit for it should be on the left of the lobby screen with your own ingame name.

    Showing treasure numbers just increases bullying, in the earliest stage anyway. A king loses a few treasures, then every alliance around sees it and is attacking that same king, whose governors are still in BP and can't help. Because kingdoms are so crammed, attacks come from just a few minutes away. Learning your mistake after the first attack and trying in vain to build up defense troops and a wall with constant incoming attacks is very hard for anyone other than an experienced player with lots of gold. The people who play this game server after server with high activity levels could be trusted to give input before adding new features.

    I also think that changes need to be made to make meta playing less attractive. I agree of course that being in a meta is the easiest way to win a server as the game mechanics are currently, but I wasn't talking about the easiest way. I was talking about playing in a way that honors the principles you espouse. To me it's also about whether winning or sticking to your principles is more important. Walking the walk, not just talking the talk. No offense intended VVV, as I agree with almost everything you write, but when you play as a king in a meta, then you are supporting meta playing.

    Loved VVV's comment too, other than the com5 part. I don't get how you could say that you've been "advocating for reducing the meta influence" when you're supporting the meta concept. A good team can win a server without going down the meta path. We've all seen it or read about it. We need more leaders and teams with courage and skill to show that it can be done again and again. Until then your actions show that you believe metas are the only way to win.

    Many of us were there and read Swordy's lies. The thing was that we didn't know Swordy had a dual, and it wasn't the account owner doing all the talking (where he agreed with BadZone to disband United) but the dual. I wasn't in xTools but felt that United acted dishonorably first and that xTools reacted with dishonor. Those on opposing sides (including me) will never agree as we are all biased to some extent. We need to use what we've learned from this and keep the conversation with TG going to remove the possibility of this happening again. Team, rather than individual, ownership of WWs might be the best solution.

    I just relocated to right beside a king's cap. He's in the third biggest alliance in the server. I bet he's thrilled to have an unknown player beside him.