Posts by joeymoey#COM

    Opening ww's on day one would more or less just hand the victory to whoever can conquer the first ww. I never liked the endgame, but as such we need a win condition. A time constraint would just be lame (t2?), and the current ending does have something. No matter how much I dislike the endgame, it does present you with a (somewhat) honest expectation (xtools-free-zone-here). Feed or lose. My only problem is that even the mightiest players cannot compete with the throng of casuals when it comes to sending crops and defense, and this is where I would like to see some balancing. It seems sort of ridiculous to spend months farming round the clock, training a kickass hammer, just to see it obliterated against a ww-wall. The victory point system has potential, but is not yet fully utilized.

    - would be nice to be able to press a button in the catapult target selection screen, instead of having to scroll through a bunch of things..


    - Honestly: The devs should just playtest this stuff on their internal server. Try coming up with a plan to attack a group of people, then spending +- 1 hour just sending waves upon waves of attacks, catapult attacks, fakes, conquering attacks+fakes, reinforcements, scoutings, scout anticipation moves, chat with eachother while doing all that, etc. You'll come up with all kinds of crazy bugs and inventions to improve the game. I'm not even trying here.


    Their time is probably better spent fixing known and/or reported bugs. I do miss some rally point options though. Marking stuff to be ignored, collapsing that event, and better in-rallypoint sorting options.

    How to balance this. Only one kingdom attack at a time ofc, making it obvious where the attack lands. All the participating players must bring their heroes ofc, each hero only adding attack bonus to his/her own troops. Probably, each duke and governor should choose what to send, only being able to add troops from a single village. Traveltime should probably be standard traveltime, plus traveltime for duke/governor village to the attacking king's village, and maybe something extra to cover the logistics. Oh, and the attacked village should probably be in an alliance that the king is at war with, otherwise it doesn't make sense. The question is, if even with these limitations, will it be too overpowered?


    On a sidenote, it would be the travian fake equivalent to a masterball.

    It is still a problem not being able to modify sitter access beyond who you as dual have been assigned to sit. I recently had an experience when the avatar owner was on vacation, and I had to remove sitter access from an inactive account to my avatar. It was not possible. Yet it could have been much worse, what if a spy had been caught who was assigned as my sitter? My avatar would be devastated by the time my dual (owner) came back from whatever shenanigans. Stuff can happen that means the sitter slots have to be updated.


    I have been told that it is a design desicion that only the avatar owner has access to these settings, which is something that is beyond my understanding. Sitters are a temporary thing, and something that is often shuffled around for weekends and vacations and stuff. Duals are not, duals are mostly for the server duration, and as such both players have that feeling of ownership. Imo both players should be able to appoint or remove sitters. The current system is treating the non-avatar-owning duals as common slaves, nothing but glorified sitters.

    Let them add you via email, you'll be able to do it then


    Yes, I can be added as sitter to other avatars via email, but I can't add or remove sittee's (or whatever it's called). I have no control over who has access to the avatar, in case the avatar owner is sick or drunk or whatever.


    This thread is spinning off topic btw, it was supposed to be about sitters, a function everybody uses, as opposed to playing duals.

    I completely agree with your views on duals. As a dual, I can't even appoint sitters (or remove them) which is truly annoying. I only dual on the test server, so I have no experience with gold usage this way.


    I still find it weird that a sitter can upgrade a village to city, spending cp's, and still not be allowed to demolish buildings.

    I have stumbled on a few of what I would call inconsistencies in what sitters are or are not allowed to do.


    Sitters can spend cp's by settling or upgrading villages.


    Sitters are not allowed to demolish buildings or send attacks/sieges (except on bandits, thanks).


    I think a discussion is in order, to balance the sitter function. Personally I think cp's are harder to come by than the few troops saved by a raid as opposed to a normal attack. The inability to demolish just seems weird when sitters can build all the stuff.


    Maybe (some of) the above mentioned features could be implemented as options in the sitter rights menu in the lobby, like spending gold. It would make sense to me to at least be given more options.

    Another possibility could be that he has a hero with chicken boots and a lot of scouts. Even when grey (inactive) the hero dodges with the remaining troops. Try checking if his hero has chicken boots equipped.

    Well, myths are awesome, and now we have clarification anyway. I guess I have to start new myths soon enough, now that TG is revealing much more information than in the past :)

    I thought about this as well, but usually I just ignore the trade notifications, deleting them with a single mouse click whenever I feel like it. Sometimes though rare, I actually wait for a specific merchant to arrive, which makes it nice to actually have a notification pop up.


    I am of course talking about the small icons in the lower right corner. I have disabled the browser tab notifications, though I could see profit in being able to customize when these are activated. By enabling it, right now it shows 320 reports, and I only find 12 of them relevant at the moment (yellow swords). I would maybe use browser tab notifications if I could disable the irrelevant ones, like trades, no-loss attacks and defenses, reinforcements and oasis changes.

    Also, do not underestimate the armors with damage reduction. After equipping one of those bad boys, I no longer had to troll the auction for ointments, at least not as much as before. I prefer the scale armor as it also comes with the regeneration attribute, and after a certain point the extra fighting strength from the chainmail is just irrelevant. In addition to that, I'm super lazy, I don't care to have to change equipment if I can do without, it's enough having to deal with boots and left hand items when moving around.

    It was like that in t3, at least before blacksmith and armory were merged into the smithy with t3.6. I never heard of that being changed back then, and never saw a reason to test it. Upgraded unit attributes were not showed, only base stats, and we only had a ~1.5% stat increase per upgrade to work with. Not that it mattered much, all troops had to be fully upgraded anyway.

    Will upgrades in a village be automatically applied to units sent as reinforcements? In earlier versions, the units had to return to their home village to "obtain" blacksmith and armory upgrades. But that was also before dynamic troop training speed. Dynamic training speed is the logical way it should work, just as upgrades not being applied before they return home, but I might as well ask.

    Quote

    Downgrading has been requested before, and it might be a solution, but if this is chosen not to be implemented due to game design issues, then I'd at least like a dialog box for confirmation. Make it fill the entire screen or something, so people know this is a serious matter, like when constructing lvl 1 of anything with the master builder instead of enqueuing it.


    Dear staff. Could this please be considered? It might help others that have derpy moments without delaying their plans for 6 days or more on normal speed.

    Wow, the archive in the gettertools analyzer part is amazing. It found two instances of me back in t3 :)


    I guess that's the advantage of reusing the same avatar name over and over, though it could also be a disadvantage.


    To clarify, the numbers 7/16 and 9/16 are fractions, based on the 70k infantry attack value vs the 160k total attack value; and the same for cavalry.

    You might want to look at the text explanation in the palace building, it clearly states that all resource fields will be lowered to level 10 in the old capital.


    Quote

    Change capital village
    If you make this village your capital, all resource fields above level 10 in the previous capital will be lowered to level 10 and the Stonemason's Lodge (if available) will be demolished.