Posts by ⭐Starx⭐

    The point is, that it's just foolish to believe, that players wouldn't confed, wing, and whatnot, just to prevent being on the losing side.

    Having read all that you have wrote, and stated that it's foolish not to assume that, we still do not factor in several features of kingdoms like Influence areas, 2 kings union (who cannot leave the kingdom) and victory points.

    You still "assume" that wings will be the main loophole of that idea, I doubt, since it is much more easier and rewarding for those kings/ dukes to run a different kingdom and do a confed with the 1st kingdom, rather than being a faceless wing. Lastly even if they form wing, they do end up on loosing side, because as you said endscreen do not acknowledge wings so I do not see that as preventing from being on a loosing side.

    All that being said, half of the harm from wings are already pre-existing on current system so it's quite unfair to make it look like the proposed system will "introduce" the wings concept.

    And yes confed will always happen, it's inevitable, but confeds do try to aim for winnings so not correct to compare them with wings who do not aim at winning but are there just for sheer support.

    How can you not see this absurdity? You are talking about little factors which can change everything but only use it to deny our comments about "wing-creation" but why can't you use it on your pros aswell? (Which we have done) You are criticising only other opinions but not yours. And if you now say that it is not true, then all the Cons deserve to be added into initial post aswell because from random observer perspective they have exactly the same probability to happen as your Pros. If you can't understand this then I blame our language barrier and wish there is any native english speaker who could explain it to you all over again because so far you understood nothing

    Calling something an absurdity doesn't makes you right at instant. Yes small factors can change everything, that's why there is a need for it to be tested on a proper server and evaluated the findings and implement it accordingly. Players have already expressed their interest into the same to have a special server like the dry world.

    The factors which superficially affect the idea had been listen, in addition to that Scorox's post quoted in the main post provides an in-depth explanation of the same elaborating further pros and cons, and his stats from the previous servers providing clear illustration of the issue. I do not see either you or anyone else from your side putting in so much efforts to highlight a problem and try to address it with a plausible solution, rather just nonconstructive criticism trying to be the frog in the well.

    Lastly, if you think it's a language barrier (which I don't think, since what you write makes perfect sense in English, even if I disagree with it) then I'm sorry that things have lost in translation.

    MadDogLT Good idea, I don't know if there is any way game can identify allies without reading confed/naps, and even then, kingdom can just do unspoken confed/ naps to get bigger bonuses but it can surely be applied to kingdoms themselves.

    Be2-e4 You just copied my post where I replied to all concerns and just replied with "You competely missed the point, good job." and "I would comment on the points themself btw, but I already did that once. Feel free to search and read it."

    I do not see that a productive argument at all, because we both can reply the same that we already commented on the post and we both can go back and search and look.

    Also, and now sit down, one can make a case differentiation (or however it's called in english). IF case A happens, then it's bad, because reason X. IF case B happens, then it's bad, because reason Y. A & B are the only cases, in both of which it's bad, therefore it's bad, no matter what. And that's the point. If wings establish, which they will do, you have T:L as proof, then one reason because of which it's bad is, that it changes nothing. If wings don't establish, it's bad because of for instance loss of new players, even more boring midgame, because everyone is afraid to initiate, and so on. Two options. In both cases this proposal is bad. There are no other options. Therefore in all possible outcomes, this proposal is bad.

    This is no contradiction, it's a fall differentiation.

    You do realize that this is a negative mentality where you aim for wings to save the day rather than focusing on a one stronger team .

    Also, as discussed several times, also mentioned in the cons, no one is saying that the wings won't form, they will sure, but the system where the wings will take turn each server is a very absurd one, and feel free to imagine the scenario where you might have to play in wings for 2 servers to win the 3rd one, maybe it's doable for you, but you cannot guarantee that it will be agreed upon by all in your right sense of mind.

    Probably wings will form in 1-2 servers but after it players will just start diversifying into separate kingdoms. Also, the argument of Travian legend is valid and acceptable to some extent, but remember, these are 2 very different games with a rather different player-set and a different structure inside a kingdom. Legend does not have 2 Kings and 4 Duals who have the power to make/break a kingdom/ alliance. Legend does not have the influence area , or treasures or VP which can change the direction of game significantly, so while you can still give examples from legend, you cannot use the same parameters or weigh both games with the same scale.

    There are so many factors which kicks in when you swap Legend with Kingdoms so it's not going to be a case of "one size fits all" and no rule of differentiation can be applied onto a thing without defining derivatives which in this case varies greatly. You think that you can run the whole simulation in your mind and derive a conclusion but you'll be amused how even a little factor can kicks in and topple everything.
    Lastly, just for the sake of clarity, if you decide to ignore above text, let me reassure that this is not a matter of "i am right and you are wrong".

    Snorri you said the same last time, and if you go back and read again, I DID replied to every single point of yours 3 posts above and made an effort to address everything in a separate readable format but to which you replied with "you are right and everyone is wrong" so it's very obvious who is ignoring the main discussion.

    My point is that your opinion is the only right. (Sorry, can't highlight it more)

    Actually, you can, by making the text size bigger. But you be the judge of it.

    And yes, it can only be said for sure if it works 100% or not after evaluating a server played under these rules and studying all the anomalies which we all might have skipped in our discussions, hence the thread requesting admins to looks into it for something like a special server like the dry world.

    I've tried to revert back to all the points raised in different color, hope it's clear enough to read.

    LoCrus Well said and you don't need to apologies for bad English (P.S. It's not bad at all). Most importantly you made an effort to participate, which is much appreciated.

    I agree with what all you have said, why would I not play thousands of PvE games instead of travian if I wanted to play against an AI. There are numerous strategical games to do so. Waiting for new "Age of Empires" too, anyway, sorry for going off topic.

    So If you don't want to add a con: "Newbies will delete more often than now and the whole community will get smaller" atleasrt edit that one to something like: "Newbies may have really hard times and without their 100% commitment will never get into any better kingdom" (=will delete after some unsuccesful attempts when they will be destroyed in every single round in a kingdom ranked as 20)

    Do you see me mentioning the extremities of the pros so that you want me to mention extremities of the cons ?

    You are just making up things in your head just to contradict the idea and just not accepting the legit cons which is already justifying your point in a broad aspect.

    The players are free to make their own conclusions from the points listed and evaluated the extent to what it can affect them/game. As said again, "new players" was one of my main concern when Deacon first started this whole proposal so I do not know what you're trying to achieve here. Rest assured no one here is "out of their mind" here as you pointed out in your post, probably you, but nothing productive in pointing that out to you here.

    Be2-e4 your posts are now sliding in the direction of being funny rather than credible. I doubt anything can be achieved by paraphrasing your single sentence 10 times and write long paragraphs about the same things again and again and nitpicking every minor loophole or details you can find in the opposition's argument just to prove a point.

    I would suggest you to go back to the start of the forum, read all arguments and counter arguments , make a table to get your head around them, then go to other threads from Deacon and Scorox and do the same , this will enable you to jot down all the pros and cons of the proposed system yourself. No one is here trying to pull you to the yes camp, you obviously are against the idea because, "in your opinion" it's not a valid proposal, and fair enough we respect your decision but posting to every single argument here with the same long paragraphs pointing in null and few of your minions at your disposal liking your posts is nothing productive to the whole proposal.

    Lastly, there are hundreds of suggestions made each month on the forum and some are good, some bad, I'd still not go and keep spamming a suggestion or a proposal as "trash" in the forum, no matter who much I dislike the suggestions. You do realize that world is all about perspective right ? Just because you don't see validity in some thing, it does not mean it's incorrect and that it do not stand credible for others. So, no the proposal is not "Trash" and I'm so tempted to say that your pointless arguments are "trash" but I'd refrain from doing that to do not contradict myself.

    P.S. I'd answer your questions once you find a justifiable analogy to explain the circumstances, since paper cut fingers is just not fitting in the situation, so maybe try some serious stuff which forces you to amputate your limbs!

    Gotta agree with a few statements tho, a team can’t come to forums backing each other to get something implemented, it’s not the way guys and specially not the content.

    This thread as far as I can see is pointless, sorry Stars.

    Funny you said that, 3 most active players backing up this idea are from all different team :


    Deacon - EMC

    Scorox - Ex - Phoenix / Codex

    Me - Stars

    So rest assured there is no team backing up their members on the forum ;)

    Sorry, not following that feature in detail.

    Does it basically allows you to change village of reinforcement to any other village inside your alliance/ your other villages ?

    I'd suggest going back and reading through all the discussions and arguments and counter-arguments provided , most of us have even tried to quote your points and addressed those, including one of the point from your very early posts which was thereof added in the cons list. You do need to realize that you have stated your opinion and others have stated their opinions, you don't have to target everyone else and label their arguments as "trash" or invalid. Well, it's freedom to speech and you can still do so but it is still going to be just your opinion and not a fact.

    I am biased, yes, because this whole thread was started to push forward Deacon 's vision of limited kingdom size so I cannot in my right senses be unbiased and say that nothing is wrong with current system , that defeats the purpose of having this argument in the first place. Also hiding behind the argument of New players finding it hard to get a place is repeated several times now and even after people from pro side accepting that argument as valid, including myself it is tossed around every other day for no obvious reasons. It is in Cons, it is a valid argument, and severity of it can be seen in a real game.

    Lastly, regarding your example of OP, it was again discussed previously that VP and Defense count is directly proportional to the size of kingdom. You succeed in taking down a 83 ppl kingdom, yayyyy, now imagine a scenario and replace those 83 people with 4 x your team and run a simulation in your mind. You argument does not prove anything except that 83 player kingdom you are talking about is disgrace.

    • New players are more or less fucked. You euphemize this by saying "it'll take them some time to get recruited by a top kingdom", but they just won't get recruited at all, get bashed, and get farmed. Either this, or they land in the 17th wing of some random meta.

    Yes and it is in cons for the same reason, I don't see how else I can highlight that more than that. Severity of it can only be seen when the changes actually do take place, whatever you said above even if right, are still your opinion as of this minute.

    You're right, but we still don't know the main objective, if it's to make some quick bucks, it's smart, if it's about anything else like keeping player's loyalty, than it's foolish.

    Are they a Pvt Ltd company ? Just wondering if declaring themselves as bankrupt by working towards insolvency by reducing their server counts and taking a soft exit before hard crash hit them due to loosing money in online gaming business has anything to do with this. But probably it's just me overthinking.