Posts by Doubledealer#COM

    yes, adding onto be's post, for the chiefing to be worth it strictly in terms of resources then you need to estimate the resource value of the village you're conquering (fields + buildings), subtract it by the cost of conquering from where you currently are (academy + research + chief) and see if that's higher than the negative cost of 3 settlers.

    Assuming you have all the other prerequisite buildings for a chief then for the chief to be worth it:

    (conquering: target village worth - lvl 20 academy - chief research - chief) > (settling: - 3 settlers)

    And even if it's not worth it in terms of res, it might be worth it to save you time. Especially in the later stages of the game where settling becomes less and less desirable due to the time it takes to get the village up and running compared to if you had even a 300 pop head start.

    After reading all this... Well I guess until a proper substitute to replace spiking as a way of balancing inactive farming is thought of, spiking will continue to stay. Otherwise it really is just free resources without much skill, it just takes an incredible time investment to update the list and send constantly. The problem is that while farmers spend all this time to gain considerable resources, spikers just have to reinforce any inactive village they please as it's sure to have raids sent on it.

    The farmers don't know what's being spiked, the spikers know everything is being farmed. The spiker has the information advantage. Coupled with the usually very high morale malus of these inactives and you get a farming mechanic that is very highly in favour of the spiker. So high in fact it can be called broken. The only reason why it's stayed so long with little done about it is that very few players actually spike or understand how much of an advantage they have if they do spike.

    I was always not so much of a fan of the current farming meta how the person who sends the most waves to the most villages is most likely to get top raider. However, I guess that's because I never wanted to take all that time to even begin competing with them so I accept that's on me and I wish for those players to continue getting rewards for investing such time on farming.

    For now to balance it, I'm almost fully leaning in favour of getting rid of morale malus for inactives, like robber camps, hideouts and oases. Another solution could be to make inactives become overrun by nature, just like abandoned villages in real life, and as time passes more nature troops come in. I guess you could base the rate at which nature troops spawn by the production of the village and cap the troop count by its storage capacity. It'll be very similar to oases in this sense except they'll be more profitable.

    This could change the farming meta positively from who is online the most to keep sending their farm lists, to people only sending raids to a select few inactives as they'd need more troops to clear the nature defending it with minimal losses. Although this could make farm lists obsolete, people who are online the most are still rewarded as they can send more raids. Focus will become to farm inactives closest to you before moving on. People can still reinforce inactives just like before, however instead of spiking it'll be seen as defending their farms. To balance this ability to reinforce, it could be made so that as soon as reinforcements arrive nature troops start to despawn instead.

    It should be just your res tiles which were destroyed and you should be mostly compensated for them with res packs (not sure of their actual name) which go in your inventory and are based on the amount you spent on those tiles. The buildings should have remained intact so the only thing you've really lost here is time.

    Hello, my question is can I chief a city with just 1 chief or do I need two? I believe I only need 1 as my line of reasoning is that a city takes up only 1 expansion slot like a village and since 1 chief takes up 1 expansion slot that means I should only need 1 chief to get a city. Is this correct? Also I know you need 2 cp slots so that's fine, I'm particularly asking about chiefs.

    Thank you in advance.

    You have boots of chicken equipped on your hero. They allow your hero and some troops (~200 troops for tier 1 item) to dodge any attack and come back to the village in 3mins I believe. Unequip them and they'll stay.

    Great points noted above, especially that bit about withdrawing troops. I can't choose what I want to withdraw, there's only a button which withdraws everything from a village so I can't send just hero/horses/infantry back.

    About the push notifications, they're great. However I don't need to be notified about my own messages and I also can't see who sent a message in group chats.

    See that's better. Share those in suggestions.

    Because 10 million will not stop playing all together 10 thousand would put.

    What? What makes you think that's true? Just because the number is smaller? It's all about proportion. Getting the entire playerbase to stop playing is still an incredible feat. It might be somewhat easier to get 10 thousand rather than 10m to stop altogether, but still difficult nonetheless. You'll always have a few staying.

    4 domains have already been closed and others will soon end up the same (Italy is on the right track).

    That's not altogether, that's just as slow a decline as anything else was. What makes that considered fast?

    What I know is that everyone complains about a boring gameplay and the players continue to decline ...

    I see what you mean but be careful when you use the word 'everyone', you're representing me too? Not everyone sees the forums or posts their views. You've only seen those that actively voice their opinion and wish for change, the vocal minority, not the silent majority.

    Dota is not the first Moba, i have played different Moba before Dota.

    ? I never said it was the first. Although I would like you to tell me more about them c: , aeon of strife is what you're perhaps referring to?

    Yes, dota is still alive after all these years because of icefrog maintaining the game (spearheaded solo as far as I know) for years up until 2009 when Valve contacted him and offered him to be under their development team as they wanted to make dota its own game (not a wc3 mod). At that point it got massively revamped and gave much exposure to the game.

    The thing is, you're wrong about them having changed the base game, they never changed the core gameplay of dota, ever. It was always changing/adding/modifying things around it. Dota was always 3 lanes, creeps, heroes, items, and of course, ancients. Give me one instance or patch where dota was not this game. Sure a lot of tweaks and additions have been done around it, but it never moved away from this core gameplay and is what makes 2005 dota the same as 2019 dota. If they removed items or changed the objective from ancients to something else then that could be considered as a dramatic move away from their original gameplay. Your comparison between dota's devs constantly dramatically shifting the core gameplay and travian's devs not doing that, is not true. They both never changed the core gameplay.

    Why can't I compare the two? It still stands they've decreased. Just dota by the millions while travian in the thousands. Epic brings out so many changes because they've got the players and hence the funds to do so, and they've got a fair margin to do what they please. The level of marketing/advertisement required to get 100k new players is something beyond my comprehension atm. What change are you suggesting that can increase playerbase by 10 fold?

    People age. Things change over the years. The question 'Why does player count decline if the game is perfect the way it is?' can be simply answered by the fact that players change over the years. You expect everyone to play travian indefinitely? It's much more reasonable to assume they're going to stop at some point. Just because player numbers are declining doesn't mean the game is inherently bad. It could just be that current players slowly stop playing while new players aren't coming in, and all you're left with are the veterans, until that slowly goes down to just the hardcore veterans.

    Just look at dota 2 for example. Its player numbers have stagnated since 2014, and arguably decreased, going from ~14 million players in 2014 to 10 million players in 2019. But is it a dead game? Hell no, it's got the largest prize pool in all of esports and has broken that record for 9 consecutive years, despite its stagnating player base. I bet it will stop at some point as it's just not sustainable for it to keep increasing every year without the total playerbase also increasing, but the point still stands. You saying that player numbers are declining because the game is not beautiful is a very 1 dimensional view. You think that's the only factor? Let's assume you are right and travian becomes this beautiful game that you imagine it to be. Do you really think the player numbers will suddenly increase? In the short term maybe, because updates and new features always draw more people in (happens with any game), but in the long term things will level out the same.

    And LoCrus Was Legends that different? Did people not farm inactives, prefer diplomacy over war, etc?

    anything beyond treasury lvl 1 is trash for cp. Treasury lvl 1 gives 1 cp per 329 res while lvl 2 gives 1 cp per 899 res. Residence is even worse, lvl 12 gives 1 cp per 5714 res. The common trend is the higher the level, the worse the cp/res ratio, so ideally you have low level buildings but then you don't get much cp. So the question then becomes where do you stop the upgrades? Usually at a tipping point. I personally like to up main building and marketplace to lvl 20 since they're the best highest lvl cp/res buildings in the game. Marketplace gives 1 cp per 1461 res (total 115 cp), main building gives 1 cp per 2235 res (total 77cp). From that you can see indeed marketplace is probably the best building to up for high level cp in terms of res cost.

    These are just my thoughts. What makes the game fun is having clearly defined enemies and friends and hence objectives. People complain about kingdom sizes being too large and there being too few competing kingdoms. Thing is travian allows anyone to join and team up with anyone else so teams grow organically most of the time and end up aggregating into bigger teams. The largest determining factor is spawn location and neighbours. This is natural as unless two warring kingdoms see each other as equal or better than their neighbour then they won't want to fight but instead more likely get incorporated into the larger kingdom. People like to see growth and so it just makes sense most of the time to combine with your neighbour as you can see yourselves becoming bigger and stronger than what you were before instead of suffering losses on both sides and as a result risk becoming weaker than what you were before. Given the choice, normally people will choose growth over risk of destruction.

    I think it's very rare that a kingdom gets outright destroyed by another kingdom as it either deletes first and wants to start fresh on a new server or the remaining players just join another kingdom. It's just our natural instinct to survive and prosper in any way we can given the choices we have. What starts off as numerous small kingdoms by late game becomes the big few which have all the chance of winning. It's hard to look for a solution to modify this though without taking away that organic growth aspect. One way to get around this is to have predefined teams and spawn locations for each one to give the highest chance of equal footing to all teams starting out. Like gladiators in an arena. Only prevent them from teaming up with each other so you don't get the same result but again this takes away the idea of organic growth and much of the politics of travian (confeds, betrayals, spies, etc.). You also have to account for players joining the server whenever. The most fun is competitive fun where all sides believe they were given an equal chance of winning and weren't compromised at the start, from then on it's all their choice and responsibility to ensure their own victory. I would really like to think of a proper solution for this as I believe it would make travian more enjoyable but I just can't.