Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 121

Thread: How to encourage/train up new players

  1. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Hawken View Post
    Point 2 is a Travian issue to ensure that the guidance is as good as possible - am I missing a trick here? Is there a route of having a better scenario driven mini game as part of the guidance?
    Obviously players will want to remain on top of their own secrets and that is understandable. I just think as of the moment players go into the game without having a large knowledge on what it is about and what their respective goals should be. I think travian should try to address this in terms of letting new players know their aim and the general points they need to do in order to stand a chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Hawken View Post
    I am trying to address the #3 point. If a trusted person is in charge of a quad who knows how to run an alliance well and involves people you will get more people to stay. In other words take the luck out of it for newer players.
    I just don't feel that people want the responsibility of say managing an entire wing of new players. Yes top people generally try to aid the process with one or two but i feel there must be another method of trying to ensure that people want to teach and at the same time listen to the advice. I'm not slating the idea I can't think of anything better personally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Hawken View Post
    Point 4 is a great point. Solutions? A really good chat facility within Travian (don't think that has worked before). How about a tie up with Skype or other provider of internet chat where there is greater promotion of the game? Difficult to do this I suspect - however, having just done a search I have found that skype has apps (in the tools menu) which might be a good place to generate more players (although not sure what the app would be.... Certainly advertising the game when people search for skype on the internet would be a good idea. Needs some SEO. Perhaps the relationship building you were referring to does not happen on skype - in which case where else?
    Yes a good in game chat would be a huge bonus. Some people don't want to have two programs running simultaneously and surely this would also help alliances as a whole in co-ordinating attacks/defence. However this should be implemented without slowing down the speed of the game as this must come first, it is too slow already. I just think that it should be advertised that one of the best things about the game is meeting people on skype/forums/in game. It is what kept me playing even when i found mid-game to be slightly if not wholly tedious

  2. #42
    Cloud Strife

    Prolific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific Member septimus ii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,980

    Default

    The IRC chat used to be used a lot, i think, but it's mostly gone now. An ingame chat would be good, but I think something in the quests about contacting players near you would also be good. Saying that some players keep themselves to themselves but some are very happy to help new players.

  3. #43
    MartinJames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Grimsby
    Posts
    1,854

    Default

    As Septi says, there is the IRC already, a direct link to which exists in T4.2, but nobody actually tends to use it, theres no reason to suggest something else would be more popular. On other domains the IRC is I believe reasonably well used to be fair.
    Quote Originally Posted by antonio View Post
    You just jump around like a tart.
    Quote Originally Posted by Elros View Post
    MJ may be many things: a 15 year old who's raided his dads dress up box, a huge ego-loudmouth and a goat botherer to name but a few, but he generally writes a fair and unbiased analysis (except when I bribe him to say good things about me)

  4. #44
    Cloud Strife

    Prolific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific Member septimus ii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,980

    Default

    Most games have a chat which is actually within the main game window. I don't know if this can be achieved in Travian without further hindering performance, but it's worth considering.

  5. #45

    Default

    So the goal of the game is in the start message, but by the time people get hooked they forget about it lol

    I've seen some in game chats that really kill performance, and others that don't. Trav's more modern games all pretty much have ingame chat but they are flash bases. I can't think of a single example where in game chat works well via mobile etc. and a lot of players rely on phones etc to play trav when not tied desk - so I'd be wary of gaining one at the cost of the other. The forum hooking into the game more would be better - but as a war game, many don't want their forum name linked to their game name (which is another difference from many games)

  6. #46

    Default

    what travian needs is a phone app (lots more chance for people to pick it up then) or even a mobile friendly version for internet. as not everyone has access to a computer several times a day. (i play via mobile only. i enjoy the game but its frustrating with slow loads. sidenote... anyone know a etter mobile browser than opera for travian?)

  7. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Hawken View Post
    I was trying to come up with a solution to the problem that the experienced really aggressive raiders destroy the noobs too easily at the start of a grown up server.
    Contrary to those that say this doesn't happen or is not a huge problem it still does happen. It doesn't take much for some new players to leave the game especially if they are receiving ingame messages because they have killed some of their attackers troops. Yes I know the MHs are there but the damage has been done by then and the player has left the game.If you chief a village and don't tell the big raider you get ingame messages. Maybe having the option for only receiving Alliance messages could stop this nasty practice?

    Also I have lost count of the number of times I have heard that people would be setting up a new village on the fringes of the new joiners in order to get easier access to fresh meat...
    That tactic has been around for years. Maybe new players could have the option to stay in protection until they have settled their 2nd village? Having by then hopefully joined an Alliance.

    The original question on the original thread (although muddied with anti-raiding sentiment) was a good one - how do we get new people to play and stay playing... It just felt to me that no one was answering what that real question was asking.
    Thank you. The more this is ignored the faster the game will vanish. The diehards can hold onto their views until servers are down to 150 players (like s4)and there is no outcome other than a Natar win.

  8. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trooper Smith View Post
    Contrary to those that say this doesn't happen or is not a huge problem it still does happen. It doesn't take much for some new players to leave the game especially if they are receiving ingame messages because they have killed some of their attackers troops. Yes I know the MHs are there but the damage has been done by then and the player has left the game.If you chief a village and don't tell the big raider you get ingame messages.
    By the time a newb gets round to chiefing they should be in an alliance. Any alliance worth being a part of will mention to newcomers that they shouldn't defend a village immediately after chiefing it as there is a pretty big chance they will kill friendly troops as well as enemy troops. It is generally accepted, throughout the domain, that defending a village immediately after chiefing is bad sportsmanship no matter who the incoming raids are from.

    When I chief a village I send a polite message to everybody raiding it over the next 24 hours and ask that they stop (after 24 hours it is generally considered fair to defend), in all fairness, I have never had one of these messages ignored by a big raider.

    On the other hand, I recently played a server where a village on farm list was chiefed. It had 72 pop and to most people wouldn't of been worth wasting a chief on. The new owner defended the village and, due to the number of raiders already heading over, I lost around 200 TKs. I messaged this player 3 times and politely requested that they remove the defence and allow my troops to pass, in return I offered to return any resources they gained. All 3 messages were ignored. In that instance, of course I'm going to be a lot more hostile and bring out catts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trooper Smith View Post
    Maybe having the option for only receiving Alliance messages could stop this nasty practice?
    How would you go about finding an alliance if you couldn't receive messages from their leaders before joining? If an alliance lets you in purely based on the information you're willing to post on their forum then generally they're not very good. Likewise, this would mean people are stuck in the first alliance they join, with no potential to switch if they're unhappy. It would also limit diplomacy between alliances as there would be no way to make the initial contact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trooper Smith View Post
    That tactic has been around for years. Maybe new players could have the option to stay in protection until they have settled their 2nd village? Having by then hopefully joined an Alliance.
    How would you stop players who have been around for longer from abusing this and ensuring that they have large amounts of defence in place before losing their BP?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trooper Smith View Post
    Thank you. The more this is ignored the faster the game will vanish. The diehards can hold onto their views until servers are down to 150 players (like s4)and there is no outcome other than a Natar win.
    I can't say for certain as I didn't play UK4 but I would imagine the numbers only dropped so low because of the ridiculous length of time that the server dragged on, in which case it would be better to combat stagnant endgames in some way. By comparison, UK2 finished in 279 days (over 100 days faster than UK4) and had 794 players remaining at the end.


    I don't think that the suggested 'Junior Server' (sorry not sure on the term that was originally used I just remember Junior Monopoly featuring in the discussion) is the right move. It will lead to people learning the wrong skills and having a false idea about what they are signing up for. As mentioned above, it would be impossible to police in order to ensure that only new players were on the server and, unfortunately, it is impossible to deny that there are players out there that would sign up purely for an easy server where they can smash villages.

    I'm not keen on the idea of adding a chat feature to the main window. Travian is already difficult to play on a phone as it is so I would, most likely, be against most features that made it even harder. A lot of players only play because they still have some ability to play on the go, if that was removed a lot of players would go with it.

    In my eyes, Skype and the forum are some of the best tools that a new player can be encouraged to use. I will always advise new players to use both and attempt to explain to them the benefits of doing so. If they don't want to then thats fine, I'll still do my best to help them. If they are willing to use then they gain an entire community that is, for the most part, willing to answer their questions and help them.
    When you have lost hope, you have lost everything. And when you think all is lost, when all is dire and bleak, there is always hope.


  9. #49

    Default

    Trooper - code for an 'ignore' function has been developed (I'm not exactly sure what release it's scheduled for)

    One of the pros of bigger alliances is it makes sense to set up an external forum and it is actively used by a core

  10. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samantha78 View Post
    Trooper - code for an 'ignore' function has been developed (I'm not exactly sure what release it's scheduled for)
    I would imagine that only allows people to be ignored on an individual basis though rather than every player not in your alliance?
    When you have lost hope, you have lost everything. And when you think all is lost, when all is dire and bleak, there is always hope.


  11. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NightLock. View Post
    By the time a newb gets round to chiefing they should be in an alliance. Any alliance worth being a part of will mention to newcomers that they shouldn't defend a village immediately after chiefing it as there is a pretty big chance they will kill friendly troops as well as enemy troops. It is generally accepted, throughout the domain, that defending a village immediately after chiefing is bad sportsmanship no matter who the incoming raids are from.
    The chiefing reference was supporting the practice of those players that message others ingame to try and intimidate them. I come from a time when you fought for your chiefed villages and had to reinforce as there were fewer of them about to chief and more players about. So a bit alien for me to send polite messages. Mind you I only defend if I know I can chin them back if they come in with the cats.

    How would you go about finding an alliance if you couldn't receive messages from their leaders before joining? If an alliance lets you in purely based on the information you're willing to post on their forum then generally they're not very good. Likewise, this would mean people are stuck in the first alliance they join, with no potential to switch if they're unhappy. It would also limit diplomacy between alliances as there would be no way to make the initial contact.
    This seems to have been resolved with the 'ignore' option. But to answer your question it would be an option to use so once in an Alliance you set it as a preference and the jobs done. You leave an Alliance or switch it off when you want to communicate with other Alliances. I think skype is probably used more for diplomacy by many Alliances now. Leaders would probably not set this option as they would need to communicate with other Alliances. You should never really join an Alliance if it is not very good but I suppose there are those players who like to hide and build up before approaching better Alliances.

    How would you stop players who have been around for longer from abusing this and ensuring that they have large amounts of defence in place before losing their BP?
    Gives players the chance to settle their 2nd villages near/amongst their Alliance as well. This was aimed at those starting after other players and in particular against those that build their 3rd or 4th villages amongst all the new players spawning on the edges of the server. It wouldn't be used from day one. Just a way of keeping new players, joining later in the server, in the game long enough to get the hang of it. Their defensive troop numbers would probably help get them an invite as well.

  12. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trooper Smith View Post
    The chiefing reference was supporting the practice of those players that message others ingame to try and intimidate them. I come from a time when you fought for your chiefed villages and had to reinforce as there were fewer of them about to chief and more players about. So a bit alien for me to send polite messages. Mind you I only defend if I know I can chin them back if they come in with the cats.
    Ahh so it's alright to pick on those smaller and weaker if they are accidentally raiding a village that was an active farm but not if you're raiding them?
    I just see it as better sportsmanship to give others a chance to remove the farm before you defend. I appreciate it when I am given that chance and I know other raiders appreciate it when I extend the opportunity to them. It also means I don't have to be glued to my laptop moving defence in and out of the village to dodge friendly raids.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trooper Smith View Post
    This seems to have been resolved with the 'ignore' option. But to answer your question it would be an option to use so once in an Alliance you set it as a preference and the jobs done. You leave an Alliance or switch it off when you want to communicate with other Alliances. I think skype is probably used more for diplomacy by many Alliances now. Leaders would probably not set this option as they would need to communicate with other Alliances. You should never really join an Alliance if it is not very good but I suppose there are those players who like to hide and build up before approaching better Alliances.
    I think disabling chat for those outside of your alliance could remove a lot of the social aspect of the game (I talk to people outside of my alliance on a regular basis) and could potentially give issues depending whether Confeds/NAPs would be included in the ban or not.
    It's true that most diplomacy is done via Skype but rarely the initial contact. If players ask me for my Skype details I'll usually supply them but I don't advertise them on my in game profile...

    Quote Originally Posted by Trooper Smith View Post
    Gives players the chance to settle their 2nd villages near/amongst their Alliance as well. This was aimed at those starting after other players and in particular against those that build their 3rd or 4th villages amongst all the new players spawning on the edges of the server. It wouldn't be used from day one. Just a way of keeping new players, joining later in the server, in the game long enough to get the hang of it. Their defensive troop numbers would probably help get them an invite as well.
    BP is already extended for people joining later into the server, I don't think it really needs extending beyond the system that is currently in place.
    When you have lost hope, you have lost everything. And when you think all is lost, when all is dire and bleak, there is always hope.


  13. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NightLock. View Post
    Ahh so it's alright to pick on those smaller and weaker if they are accidentally raiding a village that was an active farm but not if you're raiding them?
    Sorry I don't really understand this statement. Probably too early for me.



    I think disabling chat for those outside of your alliance could remove a lot of the social aspect of the game (I talk to people outside of my alliance on a regular basis) and could potentially give issues depending whether Confeds/NAPs would be included in the ban or not.
    It's true that most diplomacy is done via Skype but rarely the initial contact. If players ask me for my Skype details I'll usually supply them but I don't advertise them on my in game profile...
    I don't see Trav as a social game as its a wargame. One thought which I had about the new ignore button/option is would that work with your leaders within an Alliance?


    BP is already extended for people joining later into the server, I don't think it really needs extending beyond the system that is currently in place.
    So you are in affect supporting the raiders destroying new players as soon as they come out of BP then? Which was mentioned in other posts. I think the chance to let new players build at least one village and settle their 2nd before coming out of BP will keep them in the game longer. Maybe even give them a standard village when they start to speed the process up as this will give them an idea of what to build. Some players need more than 2 weeks to get to grips with the game and lets face it some who have been playing for years still don't know how to play.

  14. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trooper Smith View Post
    I don't see Trav as a social game as its a wargame.
    Trooper - you need to read Sun Tzu....

    “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself,
    you will succumb in every battle”
    ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Special Edition

    You cannot be an effective leader or warrior without at least finding out about your enemy - talking to them seems to me to be at least one option!!

  15. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trooper Smith View Post
    Sorry I don't really understand this statement. Probably too early for me.
    You stated you will happily reinforce chiefed farms 'as long as you can chin' the raider. How is this any different than an aggressive raider going after smaller targets?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trooper Smith View Post
    I don't see Trav as a social game as its a wargame. One thought which I had about the new ignore button/option is would that work with your leaders within an Alliance?
    If it wasn't supposed to have a social aspect then there wouldn't be alliances, it would be every man/woman for themselves. Personally, I find that the members who make more of an effort to socialise with their allies (whether it is via in game forums, Skype or IGM) will get a lot better response when they call for defence. People want to help somebody that they like, if you make know effort then there is no reason they should care.

    If you want to ignore your alliance leader then you're either in the wrong alliance or one hell of a selfish member. With that in mind, I would hope those with MM rights in an alliances are exempt from their members ignore list.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trooper Smith View Post
    So you are in affect supporting the raiders destroying new players as soon as they come out of BP then? Which was mentioned in other posts. I think the chance to let new players build at least one village and settle their 2nd before coming out of BP will keep them in the game longer. Maybe even give them a standard village when they start to speed the process up as this will give them an idea of what to build. Some players need more than 2 weeks to get to grips with the game and lets face it some who have been playing for years still don't know how to play.
    No but I'm also not supporting extending BP any longer than it already is. I've stated before, picking on newbs isn't my play style. I've usually settled long before the players you're talking about begin to spawn, if I've been forced into a cropper in the sticks then that is hard luck for them but I wont actively go looking for them.
    Extending BP gives them a false sense of security, many of them wont build crannies or defences they'll just sim up pretty villages which are even better for aggressive raiders to hit.

    A better option could potentially be an option from the task master at the start of the game 'Do you wish to play the beginners tutorial or the advanced tutorial'.
    Those of us that have been around for a while would keep the same tutorial we have, those new to the game could be taught the importance of crannies, walls, defence troops and (if they're Gauls) trappers in greater detail.
    When you have lost hope, you have lost everything. And when you think all is lost, when all is dire and bleak, there is always hope.


  16. #56

    Default

    trooper really sounds like someone who has been catted out of the fgame recently. how many dy players would say they were new to keep bp until second village.... the majority. i prefer nightlioks idea about different tutorials.
    when
    will people realise numbers will keep dropping due to no phoneapp etc. the whole video gaming sector is losing money to this quick pick up and play on the bus/train etc.

  17. #57

    Default

    Looks like Troopers idea has been put into practice on Uk5.
    When you have lost hope, you have lost everything. And when you think all is lost, when all is dire and bleak, there is always hope.


  18. #58

    Default

    i cant see how staying in BP will encourahg people to keep playing? people quit due to time intesive gameplay and they will still quit as it will be boring for them to sim up a village and do nothing.

  19. #59
    Cloud Strife

    Prolific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific Member septimus ii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,980

    Default

    A lot of people are going to get a very rude awakening when they hit 200 pop

  20. #60

    Default

    As a fairly new player, I can tell you that the 'beginner's server' idea won't work. Why? Because if I'm going to start a game that is supposed to last for months, I'll go for whatever format seems more fun. And full game seems more fun to me.

    As for keeping noobs involved, communication is the best and surest way. If u find a promising noob, use igm's first to judge his/her level of interest, then integrate into skype chats. All other options discussed above are more or less 'optional', but you can't forego this one. Maybe the in-game forums can be used to a better effect as well.
    [9:02:20 PM] Adam - Ragnarok/UK4: what is the correct terminology for a berry?
    [9:02:30 PM] askgreat: berry

    Yeah, I own people daily...

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •