Posts by Scorox

    Hi guys,

    unfortunately we don't have any dates for February yet but I'll let you know as soon as information becomes available. We know that you'd like to have the upcoming worlds lists earlier and our team is still working to improve the process and make it happen :)

    Best regards
    Georgi

    Georgi I don't want to the the guy spreading negativity around .. but can you please try to speak some sense into your Business Department on the behalf of us loyal fans of the game? It makes no sense to delay the announcement of the dates of launch in this way. The only explanation we as customers can see is that the Business side of this great game is trying to eat its own tail, trying to push players to get impatient and buy some gold on Speed and Local servers before you announce the COMx1 server(s). It's kind of humiliating to us players if this is indeed the case.


    /Scorox.

    Curtain wrote:

    I would like to chip regarding the whole "only clays, crops and forests" thing. I would just enable them all purely because it's better balance otherwise the capital meta will just be to settle a 3 iron field site for maximum gains.

    Yes, maybe that is the better option. Thanks Curtain .


    Curtain wrote:

    Also I don't think the field revert is needed if the capital changes (be it because of attack or because of you switching it). You can pretty trivially price out the "I will make 2 croppers" option from players

    Yes, you are most likely correct here too.

    Do not care for the idea.

    How about more 9c and 15c

    How about introducing some luck into the game play. LIke 9c that show up randomly on days 11 to 21 in forest locations.

    How about a Crop Builder Building that can up a 9c to a 15 c.

    How about capitals that go away when a player goes gray or 10 days after the player goes gray.

    Dawg420#NO I actually made the same proposal. Please check out the vote on this subject here: [Farmer Building] - Vote for 15C game mechanic

    Basically agree to transform a normal Villa into a cropper Villa. But why only in the capital? And what happens if capital changes?


    Additionally there should be a tool that 1 res field (lumber, clay, stone) could be transformed in any other res field (lumber, clay, stone). This would make more sense when claiming oasis and not being in first position. Like this, the FARMER would be a powerful item / building.


    Thanks for taking your time to comment Xenaydo#DE .


    Why only in your capital?

    The reason why I personally would like to see Croppers only being possible to obtain in Capitals is because the croppers should be something special. Furthermore, the Farmer will probably be very expensive, so it will really only make sense to build it in your Capital where fields can be upgraded beyond level 12. Capitals can furthermore not be chiefed, which hinder abuse of one player using multi accounts to prepare croppers from his main account to chief.


    What if you change capital?

    Just as with other Capital restricted buildings the Farmer building will be lost if you change capital. Also fields upgraded to a higher level than 10 or 12 will be reduced to level 12 if it is a city, and to level 10 if it is a village. With the Farmer lost, and the Capital village status gone, the clay pits and forests will again come back as there are no farmer to maintain the new Farm lands.


    What if your Farmer Building gets destroyed?

    As long as your village or city is a capital, all progress made by the farmer in terms of transforming Forests and Clay pits to Farm lands will remain if the Farmer building gets destroyed. Should you lose your farmer at level 7 you would need to rebuild it to level 8 in order to transform your nest Forest and Clay pit to a Farm land.


    Why not have the option to freely "Terra-form" between all 4 resource types?

    This is for a few different reasons. First being because I think it contradicts logic to be able to transform a forest into a mountain. Even removing a mountain and replacing it with a clay pit does little sense. It would be good to maintain some logic and reasonable connection to reality. Secondly, free terra-forming appear to have been discussed and dismissed by the Travian Dev Team as Sheila mentions in the quote below. The Developer Team fear it will create a "Noon Trap" to allow players to terra-form freely among all Res Types.

    Yes, the idea of terraforming the resource fields has been brought up and discussed thoroughly. This would be a huge game changer. After evaluating the pros andcons, our conclusion is that we will keep the resource fields as they are. The15c or even 9c should keep their importance and be rare on the map to keep themas valuable targets. Also, it could be noob trap and players might specializein producing one resource not thinking about consequences such a decision hason the whole round.

    Background

    A while back there was a discussion about the problems of the relocation of 15 croppers (link: Relocating 15-Croppers). In this thread an idea was discussed, which basically was to letting players themselves have the "expensive" but available option to over time transform the resource fields into farm lands. This thread eventually died down as the problem of relocating 15Cs were fixed. However, a new problem with 15Cs took its place, namely that players are using multi accounts to fast settle 15Cs with no intention of using them, with the sole intent of blocking others from using these 15Cs. As a response, game designer @Sheila have come forward with a new idea about the 15C dynamic (link: [discussion] 15cropper – your feedback is needed ). Although I did write my proposal in Sheila's thread, I think it would be interesting to see how you all feel about the idea I proposed there using this poll. So thank you if you decided to participate.


    Proposed Mechanics

    - All tiles on the map starts as 4446, 3447, 4347, 4437, and the "5346" variations.

    - Natar villages still exists as they do today.

    - Oases exist and works as they do today.

    - A new Building called "Farmer" is added to the game. It can only be built in your capital.

    - The farmer is able to transform Clay pits and Forests to Farm lands.

    - The number of Clay pits and Forests it can transform depends on the building's level.

    - [Example] For each level between level 1 and 10 the farmer can transform 1 Clay pit or Forest a Farm land.

    - [Optional] For each level between level 11 and 20 the farmer gives a bonus to crop production (Like the Mill or Bakery).

    - The farmer is a very expensive building, but it allows anyone whom can afford it to obtain a "cropper" over time.


    Re-using some of the games old art, and adding some stuff myself, I made an example of how this building could look.

    farmer2.png


    With this idea we can hopefully see a few desired outcomes. No more internal drama about who in your group will get the 15Cs, no more race to the 15Cs, and not more "theifs" of the 15C's by multi account cheaters. It's simple and plain, are you active enough to afford it, you'll get one eventually.



    Thanks you for taking your time to vote :thumbup: or :thumbdown:

    I would just again like to make a final push for the "Farmer" or "Terra-former" idea. Reading though the old suggestion thread for this idea I'll outline the key point of this idea below:


    Mechanics

    - All tiles on the map starts as 4446, 3447, 4347, 4437.

    - Natar villages still exists as they do today.

    - Oases exist and works as they do today.

    - A new Building called "Farmer" is added to the game. It can only be built in your capital.

    - The farmer is able to transform Clay pits and Forests to Farm lands.

    - The number of Clay pits and Forests it can transform depends on the building's level.

    - [Example] For each level bet level 1 and 10 the farmer can transform 1 Clay pit or Forest a Farm land.

    - [Optional] For each level bet level 11 and 20 the farmer gives a bonus to crop production (Like the Mill or Bakery).

    - The farmer in a very expensive building, but it allows anyone whom can afford it to obtain a "cropper" over time.


    Re-using some of the games old art, and adding some stuff myself, I made an example of how this building could look.

    farmer2.png



    This is the idea I absolutely feel would be the best for the game. No more internal drama about who in your group will get the 15Cs, no more race to the 15Cs, and not more "theifs" of the 15C's by multi account cheaters. It's simple and plain, are you active enough to afford it, you'll get one eventually.


    If you wish you can vote on this idea here: [Farmer Building] - Vote for 15C game mechanic

    I dislike the adding of even more PvE to a PvP game. It would be cool and interesting, no doubt, but it just doesn't fit in a PvP game. You would have to spend a decent chunk of the already short gameround to get your cropper, you have to blow a lot of troops into robbers, every now and then even more robber (camps) appear and then there's the natarian 15c. If you want to make a PvE game in the style of Travian fine, I'd probably test it, if it's fun play it, but don't force even more PvE changes to a PvP game with a PvP community - please.


    Be2-e4 , this post hits the nail right on the head for me. I could not agree more. Thanks

    Curtain wrote:

    Personally I think there could be other options that could be explored to limit the 15c rush (like say some ideas from earlier threads like cultivating/terraforming your own fields or capital auto turning into the type you want or something).

    Ye this was the one I meant too. This would be great. No more rushing and internal drama over 15C's ... and anyone who invest the necessary time and effort can build a 9C, 12C or 15C.

    Personally I do not care so much for NPC interactions, but removing the "short" race to 15 croppers is something I really like! :thumbsup:


    The only problem I see would potentially be the drama which could occur among players who both are setting up support villages around an Natar/NPC 15C with the hopes of chiefing it. More players will "prepare" for the 15Cs (over an extended time) than will in the end become an owner of one. Loosing the race just a few hours short to your competitor after preparing for several days can have a raging effect on many players.


    @Sheila Was the idea that was up on the forum a while back about letting players themselves "upgrade/modify" their capital to more crop fields and less resource fields up for discussion at any point among the dev team?

    Be2-e4 wrote:

    You're just repeating yourself, without any new argument or going into my points, that I wrote. I really tried, but I don't see any substance in your last post. I do try to dicuss these topics, provide arguments and reasons for my believes and thoughts, everything you did was to say "you're wrong, I'm right". This appears a little childish to be honest. If you want your opinion not to be ignored (by anyone who doesn't share it, not only by me), post reasons for your thoughts and arguments of some quality.

    Telling me this just goes to show that you have not read my other posts on this subject. In these post I clearly point to the fact what I believe a max limit to be beneficial for. My last 2 posts were strictly aimed at pointing out the fact that hard limits are not inherently bad game design (which some people claim it to be), and to point out (which have been pointed out many times) that the max player limit is not a solution to wings or METAs. Why would you not finding any substance in this? Hearing people using the arguments over and over again that a hard player limit is bad game design and that it will not solve the meta problem is pretty problematic, because the first part is factually wrong, and the second part is not even the purpose of the proposal. It surely have substance to respond when these 2 arguments being used against the proposal of a max member limits of kingdoms.


    Furthermore, saying that all I did was saying that "you are wrong, and I am right", and that I'm childish ... I think this is highly unfair when I even in my last reply to you supplied a separate paragraph addressing why I think we have different opinions about this. If anything I try to see this from your point of you and trying to see why we differ so much in our opinions about it.


    If you still don't know why I support a hard max limit please read my earlier post on the subject (in Deacon's or Starx's post). Your quote above clearly show that you have missed these. This is understandable since there is so much to read in these threads now. Maybe there is a need for a new collection of the points and arguments I have posted before. I have even respond to why a soft limit is not something I believe to be better than a hard limit. So it's wrong for you to dishonor what I wrote in my last two replies (saying I'm childish and upset) just because I did not include the arguments I have made before into my most recent post/reply. This time I felt like I strictly wanted to comment on the argument "A hard limit is bad game design", and I think this is perfectly fine to do so without having to also supply all my other arguments and comments I have made before.

    No mate, I'm not upset at all. I'm happy this topic is getting this well deserved amount of attention.


    I don't think I need to add a list of more games with hard limits to prove my point. The evidence are abundant. Hard limits are every where in games.. even in this game. Its is factually wrong that hard limits are enherently a bad game design.


    The difference in our thinking may come from that you judge a max player limit as a way to stop metas (you conclude it will fail, and I agree). I do not judge the max player limit according to if this will stop metas or not. Metas will always form.. As they should be allowed to do. A max player limit is important for totally diffident reasons.


    Its a cheap shot trying to frame the debate of a max player limit as a method that will fail in its objective to stop metas. Any system will fail with that, and its not the aim of a max player limit to even try to stop metas.

    Be2-e4


    While I mostly agree with you on "Good game design doesn't enforce hard limits to try to force players to do something", good game design and balancing in particular entails "pulling levers" on variables within your control, be it existing or new ones. A member limit can be one such lever, and whether you achieve such a limit by strictly enforcing it or by making it almost completely infeasible (e.g. by a nerf on troop strength or by making treasure production negative or w/e if your kingdom > 60 members) doesn't make much of a difference in this case.


    Anyway, I don't think the point is that having a member limit would stop metas in their tracks - it obviously wouldn't. It would only function as a small first incentive against metas. If you want to have a meta you need to organize several wings, which is somewhat more work than simply having everyone in one massive group.

    Well spoken Ammanurt . Let's not accept the proposed frame of the debate that hard limits is bad game design.. This is untrue and a lie. Just look around you which games have been among the post popular in human civilization and you know how false such a statement is. This is a false premis of the debate and a frame set by people whom are against a max player limit for other reasons they may not want to reveal.


    Hearing people say that a hard member limit is a bad game design in Travian-like games clearly contradicts the fact that Travian Legends are built on this rule. Put this in the light of the dropping player base and closing of local servers in Travian Kingdoms, and the large and frequent updates of Travian Legends recently makes the statement of a hard member limit being bad game design even more absurd.

    Jak actually as I see it the evidence from the 2 servers BM played in 2018 suggests even more that a Max Limit of 60 members per kingdom needed. These 2 Server were two of the very few where the meta was not structured as a +130 man kingdom. Instead the meta BM faced was formed by an alliance of 3 opposing 50 man Kingdoms. The effect of this was that BM was able to run ahead in VP based on superior skill. Had the 3 Kingdoms instead been formed as a 150 man kingdom BM would just barely been able to keep up with this meta in terms of VP despite superior skill. I was on that server myself, as I have been on with one or two dominant +130 man Kingdoms... And to me the servers with 4 Kingdoms of 50-60 members each was a way better experience.