/e: Was passiert, wenn man einen Travian-Begriff postet, obwohl die Zahl keine Primzahl war?
/e: Was passiert, wenn man einen Travian-Begriff postet, obwohl die Zahl keine Primzahl war?
thank you for sharing your idea, could you maybe give us some more details - where do you imagine such a shortcut and what would be it's behavior according to your expectations?
For example next to the quick links for marketplace, stable, barracks etc. As functionality, it could for example show when the farmlist was last started, maybe as tooltip if it doesn't fit otherwise.
Quick link to the farmlist
if i have no one from another alliance or independent governor to help, i dont see how that could work.
As mentioned above, you don't need someone from another kingdom. A member of your kingdom can chief the village and you take it from that member afterwards. The only limitation here is that this kingdoms member must not build a residence.
what about leaving account that i sit to go grey, while also not removing them from sitters, can that work? I let it go grey, chief it, and log back in to continue playing.
I'm not sure here, but if I had to guess, I would say it does not work. If you want a reliable response here, you can ask Travian's customer support.
Also, isn't it restricted to chiefing kingdom member village or allied or someone who you have NAP with? I have also thought about someone doing it for me but don't know anyone outside kingdom or alliance.
You cannot lower the loyalty of a kingdom member. But if a kingdom member chiefs a village and never builds a residence/palace, you can chief it.
Keep in mind, that all buildings get downgraded by 1 level if a bigger player chiefs a smaller one. So in case you do what Camelot suggested, you should ask someone for help who has more population than yourself or less than the player you are sitting.
You cannot chief a village of someone you are sitting. This is indeed "hard coded". When you remove yourself as sitter you will eventually be able to conquer the village, though you have to wait some time. I'm not exactly sure how long, but I guess its 14 days because that's how it works in Travian Legends (-> https://t4.answers.travian.com…answer&aid=103#conquering).
Travian's 1 developer you mean?
Bridget works very hard at her job......comes in 3 hours late, leaves 3 hours early, and takes a 3 hour lunch, plus drives the company Lamborghini.......and is thoroughly underpaid......
...but surely i jest
I'm pretty sure that Bridget does not work as a developer here. And even if she did, the developers are usually not responsible for such decisions.
I like the idea, but honestly I could name you 100 improvements to the game that I'd like to see before that, so I don't think its worth spending developer time on something like this atm.
Guess this round will be somewhat like the test rounds: Everyone gets some gold every few days
I know wiki's definition. It doesn't say "significant" by the way, "any" advantage is sufficient to be pay to win according to them. But you certainly agree, that it lacks differentiation, as the range of p2w according to their definition ranges from barely-anything to e.g. buying unlimited stats for your rpg-char. This + that me (and probably most other people) associate pay to win at first thought with those more literal pay for victory type of implementations renders the definition kinda shit, impractical and misleading.
Ofc there are different versions of pay-to-win. Anyway, that doesn't contribute anything to the topic here, so I'd like to settle that discussion.
Back to the original suggestion:
I don't think that a limit of 100$ per month is a good idea. As addressed in my previous post, gold usage in Travian is heavily affected by diminishing returns. You get most of the advantages that heavy gold spenders have by paying like 25$ per round (so <5$/month) if you are a little thrifty. And everything beyond 50$ is just compensation for laziness. So a limit of 100$ per month would make exactly no difference in fairness and prevent some players from paying for the meals of Travian's developers.
Pay to win =/= pay for an advantage
I do disagree with you here. Pay-to-win like you actually win (or are very likely to) when paying is just a very poor implementation of pay-to-win. In generell, I'd consider a game pay-to-win if you get a significant advantage and this is the case for Travian. Wikipedia does agree with me here.
Okay, first of all for the "What does pay-to-win really mean?" thing:
Obviously, pay-to-win games are always just "pay to get a significant advantage over others"-games. I've never encountered a game that features a button "Pay 20€ to instantly win this game!". So clearly, Travian does qualify as a pay-to-win game.
I wouldn't really call this kind of advantage "unfair" though. It is of course unfair, when you only look at it from the perspective of the ingame world. But from the outside, those players are basically paying for you to be able to play the game, so they deserve some kind of advantage. In other free-to-play games this advantage is solely cosmetic, but I doubt that Travian would be a profitable game with cosmetic stuff only.
most pay to win games (or should I say pay-for-unfair-advantage-games, since some other people in this thread just want to argue definitions) are team based games.
Sure, most pay-to-win games are team games, because pay-to-win is basically a multiplayer only thing and most (?) multiplayer games are team based I'd say. Pay-to-win in a singleplayer game wouldn't really make any sense
travian is one of the worst games in this regard, I personally can't think of another game that offers such a large advantage for people who spend a lot of money. I challenge you to name three other pay to win games that are more unfair than travian.
I agree that Travian features large bonuses for paying money. Especially the +25% ressource production, farmlists and NPC trader provide a huge boost.
Anyway, I think that the pay-to-win aspect of Travian is not a big problem because of the following reasons:
1) As stated in my previous post: Travian is a game where you never really fight 1vs1. So while an account using gold has a big advantage over an account that is played without gold in a direct comparison, that doesn't really matter in Travian. As long as the gold spenders are roughly distributed equally across the kingdoms, it makes no difference whether you play with gold or without. Of course, when another kingdom has significantly more gold spenders and is equally skilled otherwise, you will probably lose. But that situation is very rare. Most of the time the kingdom wins that has the most active and experienced players.
As you asked for a comparison to other games, here is one: I used to play a shooter called Crossfire years ago. In that game you could buy character models with smaller hit boxes which is a huge advantage and also you could buy better weapons. Those real-money-weapons featured relatively small advantages like more ammunition or being slightly less heavy allowing you to move slightly faster. But they also featured really big advantages like doing more damage when shooting through boxes. It happend pretty often that you died to an enemy sniper and realized that you (being sniper as well) did hit him before doing only 80 damage through a box and he hit you afterwards through the very same box but dealing 100 damage and thereby killing you simply because he payed 20€ for that better gun. I can tell you that such situations feel very unfair. You basically played better than your enemy because you hit first, but he won because he payed. Now when comparing this to Travian, I have never encountered a situation where I thought "Oh, that player won against me because he payed money." in the 10 years since I started playing Travian.
2) There is one thing, that is way more important than spending a lot of gold: Activity. If you want to be ranked high in the farmer of the week chart, you don't need a lot of gold. Instead, you need to click that damn farmlist every 5-15 minutes. You cannot prevent your neighbor from killing all your troops at home by using gold. But you can by checking for attacks 24/7.
3) The benefit of gold usage is heavily limited by diminishing returns. So yes, you can spend hundreds of euros, dollers or whatever your currency is. But at some point it does not give you a significant benefit anymore. For all 3 bonuses for the whole round you need 800 Gold (200 Plus + 200 crop bonus + 400 resource bonus) and maybe another ~500 Gold for the NPC trader. This makes 1300 Gold for a whole round. Given that a lot of hero items provide very little benefit at all, you can sell them. Depending on your luck, I'd guess that you can accumulate 100k silver in a round which gives you 500 Gold in return. So overall you have to pay 800 Gold which equals roughly 20€ or 25$ (if you buy during a promotion event). Compared to games that you have to buy before playing this is a pretty good deal I'd say^^
So overall, yes, Travian provides (big) advantages for paying money. But this allows the game to exist and (at least for me) does not make the game feel very unfair.
I can't believe you think this is a fair game.
I agree with you that Travian is pay to win. You get an advantage over other players by paying real money. The difference between Travian and other pay-to-win games is the team part. In a 1vs1 situation, gold gives you a clearly unfair advantage. But unlike other pay-to-win games, you never really have a 1vs1 situation in Travian. And when you play with a decent kingdom you can have a great round while spending no gold at all. Sure you probably won't be Top 10 unless you really try hard, but that does not prevent your kingdom from winning. So overall I'd say Travian is pretty fair compared to other pay-to-win games.
Does my english is very poor or what ?
I said i don t want a link of gettertools and you sent me a link of gettertools.
I am searching another tools ...
I'm sorry, didn't understand you correctly then..
This link ? ...... http://www.inactivesearch.com/login ?????
No, that's not getter-tools This here is the link for current COM2: https://www.gettertools.com/co…com.5/42-Search-inactives
Inactive search in getter-tools is still there. Just go to "Region / Inactives" > "Search inactives".
2) crop fields are cheaper to level than resource fields, have less upkeep than resource fields
These are the costs to level one field of the given resource to level 17 and the crop consumption at that level:
Cost for one field to level 17
Crop consumption of one field level 17
So yes, crop is the cheapest and has the lowest crop consumption, but the difference is so small that it doesn't matter. The only exception here being iron which takes ~8% more resources than crop.
There are basically 2 reasons:
1. A lot of troops need a lot of crop.
2. The main village is the only one where you can build your resource fields above level 12, so you want it to yield the best results possible. And crop fields simply yield those best results, because their bonus is usually way higher than all the other resources. The maximum bonus you can get for wood is 100% (25% sawmill, 3x 25% wood oases) and you can get that bonus for up to 5 resources fields as there are no village types with more than 5 wood fields. Same for clay and iron. For crop on the other hand, you can get up to 200% bonus (25% grain mill, 25% bakery, 3x 50% oases) for all of the 15 crop fields.
Given that (I think) most of the top players use gold, they don't really care, what kind of resource they get. Even if they don't need that much crop at the start of a round, they can easily use gold to turn it into whatever resources they need (NPC trader). In this tool you can simulate the amount of resources you can get of a village based on the level of the resource fields, oases and other things, if you wanna know how much you can get from a 15c^^