Hehe, ye I heard about the "situation" on COM2.
We never intended to do that and neither did they, they just wanted to play with us at that time, as many others who joined.
Throughout the years our core of 10-20 people remains the same growing and shrinking slightly every server as people come and go, kingdoms are disbanded and merged left and right, our biggest change was the name some servers ago
Ok! I just did not find it fair statement to say that Trinity was formed to "make sure to get a server win".
All the best to Shrugg (many thanks for last COM2 together), and all the best to Trinity.
Im aware of all those reports You need to remember the forum is for bantering
Im sure that with +40 more off players we could also siege Hive' ass back to the stone age but as I stated before, this round, we didn't merge up with several other good teams to make sure we got a server win
But no one have question whether you did or did not merge with some other groups this round. Nor, i can imagine, would anyone from Trinity judge you if you did. Sure, the forum can be a place of bantering, but that does not rule out displaying episodes of being happy things works out well for others. To the point, just because your merge with the french did not work out well last COM2, there is no need to bash Trinity for having a good time. Travian needs more viable teams
Just addition, VK should be able to build Palace too (not just king), otherwise when attacks start coming - kingdom will simply delete Kings village as only possible place.
But current VP setting should be reworked too... in order to win, you have to be big. Or rather, being big makes win much easier.
Yes absolutely. I just brain stormed that out really fast just to give a general idea what could be done
Thank you Georgi for creating this thread.
The foundation for my suggestions could probably be separated into 3 categories.
a) Embracing the fact that "Travian like" games are inherently very competitive in its fundamental core. I feel that there has been a disregard for this fact by studying the direction in which the last couple of updates have trying to move the game towards. Instead of embracing this fact the development seem to have been trying to ignore it and brute force the game into something that it inherently cannot ever be.. and in the process making each category of players unsatisfied.
b) There is a lack of facilitation for new players to learn the game to a degree at which they can engage in this heavily competitive game. The game mechanics are getting increasingly complicated, and its fair to say that to fully know the ins-and-outs of this game one need about 4-5 servers played (some at a leadership level).
c) There is a lack of facilitation for new players to be able to play at a the highest competitive level. The game have instead opted for introducing features that protects players if they are not able to engage in the competition and/or are able to learn the game mechanics fully.
Based on the about "ground-work" I love to see the following features being worked at.
1. Weekly contests in writing "sections" to a new official game guide. There needs to be an Official game guide explaining all the rather non-intuitive mechanics of the game, such as Moving Treasures, What happens when both kings goes inactive, What happens when an active treasury is destroyed, etc. etc. Doing deep forum searches for answers is not the most new-player friendly solution. I.o.m. an Official game guide needs to be maintained to not have new players feel to overwhelmed when trying to progress in their desire to become a top player. Let the player base get involved in writing guides that may end up in the official guide, with pictures and tables.
2. Facilitation for smaller groups is another way to help new players to feel that they are able to progress. I would suggest that the current system of having 4 Dukes and 2 Kings be reworked as these are to a much too large part just passive tax-collectors and not guides and teachers to their governors. I would like to see that especially the Duke part of the game would be reworked so that a Duke could at most have 9 governors, AND that they draw tributes from these in a way that are A LOT more dependent on these governors progression. Right now Dukes and Kings are primarily concerned with filling up their boarders with villages, independently of to what degree of progression these have. If instead tributes would have a higher variance and be determined by the level of development, then the Dukes/Kings would be motivated to continuously teach and motivate his governors. Having small teams of 9 governors and 1 duke could facilitate knowledge transfer and build community and friendship. In essence, embrace the "squad-like" mentality and have that be a driving force behind having new players feel like they get the support they need to progress and learn, rather than pumping the game full of safety mechanics covering them from not being able to learn and being able to defend themselves.
3. Facilitate and motivate "repeated-server" cooperation and introduce meaningful punishment for cheating. As it stands right now each server is a blank sheet, what ever happened on another server does not matter going into a new server. This I see as a weakness and a missed opportunity for the game. All the "repeated-server" benefits are currently handled outside of the game via players organizing themselves in discord. I would recommend that the small 10 member groups (1 Duke/King + 9 Govs) obtain some benefit from sticking together across servers and not obtaining punishments for cheating and other actions that are against the rules (at which point the buffs can be removed). An example would be that after a server the group sticking together always obtains 3 randomized buffs that will be attached to the team. Hence sticking together and "farming buffs" will be a motivation for people to stay away from cheating and to stay in the game together with their friends. Possibly one team would at one server obtain the following 3 buffs (+ 5% Troop Movement Speed, + 2% Club Swinger Attack power, - 1% Training time in Stables). Over time some groups will be recognized (and possibly feared) for their impressive collection of buffs they have collected over the years. To account for members having to quit the team, possibly allow one member-swap/recruitment each month.
4. Rework the Victory Condition. This is a very crucial one. Currently if one kingdom gets a large enough lead they may simply be able to secure the victory before the server is over by hiding away their treasures and preventing other kingdoms from stealing VPs to catch up. It is in the final 2 weeks of the server a huge opportunity for the game to deliver an exciting strategic planing and amazing turn of events, both militarily and diplomatic. It's such a shame to everyone when a server ends in an anti-climax. Something needs to be done to keep both the mid- and the end-game exciting without one making one part exciting leading to that the other suffer. Personally I would like to see 3 completely separate victory conditions that when achieving either of these a kingdom win a server. For example:
a) Having a World Wonder at level 100
b) Having 10,000,000 VP
c) Building a Imperial Palace
The "c) Building a Imperial Palace" is an example of a new victory condition that would be of a "hidden information" style. Basically this is kind of the WW level 100 but it's existence and its current level is unknown to everyone except the owner. This would introduce a kind of a imperfect-information game aspect to the victory condition of Travian Kingdoms. It's just an example, but for example say that this building could only be built by they King, and he would in order to afford it be forced to use close to all of this tributes to be able to construct this building. It would introduce a lot more diplomatic and politics of the server, as other kingdoms would need to act when they see a World Wonder being close to level 100, or when some kingdom is expected to be able to reach 10,000,000 VP before a WW can reach 100.. OR when some secret rumors (true or false) leaks out that the King of Kingdom XYZ are building an Imperial Palace and will have it finished at day X. More plotting and excitement will follow all the way to the very final moment of the server.
Ok, that was just some thoughts I had. Thanks for reading.
yes... and give Romans brewery and trapper please, very unfair otherwise
we agree connecting with others is important and a lobby messaging system is already on our list of features to be implemented. We don't have an ETA at this time but will keep you posted whenever there are updates
Scorox Actually members of our team replied to many threads like this one, you can always check with the help of the forum search engine
Thanks. Sorry, I just meant that we have never gotten any clear reply on whether this will be implemented or not ... at least I thought so (my apologies if I was wrong). Where was it announced that this feature will be implemented?
I think this have been proposed like 100 times at this point. But never really been answered by a Game Designer, Admin, or any member of the Travian Kingdoms team.
Wow, this is the total nightmare for an OFF-coordinator ... if I remember correctly you cannot either send or land during the Night Truce.. if there are these 2h peace/2h normal intervalls.. essentially half of the villages on the map will be impossible for you to attack. In short, this is just a nerf to OFF in general as less players can participated in coordinated attacks.
It's not possible if I remember correctly
Another thing to consider is that a EC + Imp army make maximum use of Bandages. So if you are a heavy gold spender and Duke/King .. EC + Imp may be a viable option for continuous attacks... even if your activity in terms of raiding is not good. One should have in mind that a poor raider usually reach the maximum upkeep they can afford rather quickly as Teuton .. so for none-farmers and non-King/Duke Romans are a venue for reaching a rather strong OFF army.
If you check the wiki 3 EI.s will get +45 ATK +45 DEF from the weapon, meanwhile 2 EC-s will get +40/+40 that is what I meant as a horde bonus. That might seem insignificant but quickly piles up.
Look at it this way. 27/24, 36/32, 45/40 are all 1.125, meaning EI-s get 12.5% more increase from hero weapon. This is even more true during the early game when Romans dont have enough resources to raise the Horse Drinking Pool to max level.
Aha, I thought you meant the "Size Bonus" when writing "Horde Bonus". My bad.
But still, even when accounting for the Hero Weapon ECs have about 12% larger Atk/time than EIs. So even the extra buff from Hero Weapon EIs gets compared to ECs do not help them to get better than ECs in terms of atk/time.
First: I didn't check your numbers. Whether they're correct or not is irrelevant, because you're asking the wrong questions. It is completely irrelevant, whether EC are better than clubs in terms of any offensive point. You do not have the decision between EC and clubs. You have the decision between Imperian + EC + Ram vs. Club + TR + Ram.
- Roman EC hammers (with that I mean Imperian + EC + Ram - this will count for analogue cases in the following aswell) are the second best hammers in the game, in terms of attack force per time. And attack force per time is the one single stat, that is relevant for hammers in most cases. You want to train hammers quickly, because unlike defense you can't put two hammers together to fight as one.
- There may be an exception for WW hammers, their supply might be hard, so you might want to look at supply aswell, but wait, roman EC hammers excel at fighting strength per crop consume, being the best hammer in the game in this term.
- That one does not build EC as defense unit should be crystal clear. I will not explain in depth why, it's just obvious, they suck at deff. But so do most offensive units. EC just don't suck completely as def, so some people build them as def, whyever.
- You also don't really want to farm with horses if there are so many farm spikers around, like I heared it in com to be the case. One could opt into training EI in a support village for farming only, but that's another topic. So their carry capacity doesn't matter that much. Maybe a bit, if one is taking the risk of being spiked, but farming with Imps should be better there. Can't speak from too much experience here though, I always opted into either a support village with farm-EI or into a tertiary off with EI (EI's attack force per time is only a few percent below EC's, so it felt okay-ish to do so for a tertiary).
- Troop speed from off units is mostly irrelevant, you usually send your rams with them. Maybe if you want to bash clubs or a clubhammer you send EC only, but that's ... rare. But yes, that point is somewhat valid, EC's speed is bad.
- Resource costs don't matter too much aswell, EC off costs roughly 8% more than an EI off, but that's only around 2k resources per hour. You will be able to afford this anyway, also your hammer's supply will quickly cost way more than it's production anyway.
EC hammers excel at the one important off stat, and this is what counts, which make them a very good off unit. Other stats are ... interesting to read, but compared to attack force per time kinda irrelevant. Especially for the main hammer, like I mentioned, for a secondary or tertiary hammer one can opt into EI for farming.
By the way: You CANNOT make ANY conclusions without HDT. HDT is THE building for romans, if you train roman off, you ALWAYS have one. Calculating without one is useless. Also, calculating with level 0 units is nonsense, for the very same reason. You always upgrade your hammer to level 20.
Great post. Cover it all. Except maybe that EIs makes the best Ghost Hammer in the game. This balance between movement speed and atk/time is great.
you are right but when calculating with the hero weapon it is better to have 3 EI than 2 EC
Better in what way? What I meant there was just that the "Horde/Size Bonus" does not have anything to do with the number of attack units. Hence the choice of 3 EI vs. 2 EC is not affected by that. I think the most useful way to this about the EI vs. EC comparison is this:
EI's are better in: Atk/Cost (including crop upkeep), More suitable for Ghost hammers due to their speed, Better at farming due to speed and capacity.
EC's are better in: Atk/Production time ... and having #1 Atk/Production time in the game makes them a really Great OFF unit.
You must have made some error in your calculation. ECs have the highest Atk/(training time) in the game. Ye, they even beat clubs.
Also, the size bonus does not apply to the number of units, but rather the total Attack power of your OFF army.. so its not correct that you rather want 3 EIs than 2 ECs to get advantage of a ”Horde Bonus”.
Yes ECs are expensive, but if you can afford it you can enjoy training ECs with the knowledge of that you are training the unit with the highest atk/time in the game.
One more thing that should be considered regarding this proposal.
Not every location will now be viable as a a good 15C capital. Oases Bonus will still be a key determinant when deciding were to place your capital and start increasing the number of Farmlands. So there will still be contested locations on the map ( Sheila ).
Thanks for sharing @Starx !
I still wonder though if there are some kind of "spill-over" mechanic that pushed some people choosing a certain quadrant over to the adjacent quadrant if the one they choose is to "full". This is at least what I remember happening on one server to the team I was in.
Your tests confirm what Be2-e4 is saying.
And when you select North, you can end in all Northern places:
We did many tests last year choosing 'East' and we ended up in East (area 50/0), North East (+/+/ above ww 50/0) and South East (+/- below ww 50/0).
No mate. Be2 wrote "North means basically "more in the positive y direction than in any x direction". This is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is completely different.
And you are saying: "And when you select North, you can end in all Northern places:" .... well yes this is what I'm saying. But the argument here is about where the North is. And to this point I wanted to prove you wrong.
you also say: "We did many tests last year choosing 'East' and we ended up in East (area 50/0)" ... some times you will end up here according to my theory. But according to my experience this is still the "theoretical south". BUT, if you did in fact choose East and got placed in (+ X/- Y) .. then I am wrong I guess. According to my experience you should never get -Y selecting East.
Robbel & Be2-e4 . My experience differs from what you are saying. Each time I have selected North I end up towards the -50/0 WW .. either a little bit or a lot to either the "left" or "right of the line drawn between the -50/0 and the 50/0 WW. Similarly, when selecting south I have in the past always ended up towards the 50/0 WW. So my conclusion was that the North/South axis was between these 2 WWs.
Just to double check my past experiences I registered on COM4 and COM5 just now. I selected North. Here are the results.
My conclusion: (in terms of [Xcoord / Ycoord])
North: [ Negative / No Restriction]
South: [ Positive / No Restriction]
West: [ No Restriction / Negative ]
East: [ No Restriction / Positive ]
This means that you are placed in a "Half" of the map.