Biggest game changer ever?

[Celeb]

TG have proved to be the type of company to create something and then refuse to get rid of it when proved to be a bad update, a good company will have accepted there losses and moved on. I also won't be returning, it doesn't matter how much they adapt this update, the only thing that will make me stay is if they remove it entirely,

also the community has been suggesting things, but every suggestion I've seen starts off with "if we have to have this update then do this -" not a single person on the blog that I've seen has said "oh sounds great, just change this -"

congrats TG, the final nail is in the coffin.

See you lot around :p

[MartinJames]

Agree with Placebo and Celeb, I'm not interested in playing their new game.

[Placebo]

Allow merging only to a defined army size

This approach would limit the merge of an army based on the current army of the new home village. Once the target village has a crop consumption of e.g. 50.000 crop no merge is possible anymore.
This would force players who want to save their big hammer to split it to multiple locations. It would only allow for small surprise hammers. There would be no way to build up a huge Wonder of the World Killer with such a limitation. This one seems to solve the most concerns, so it is my favorite, despite its “just” adding a new limit


out of all of them that would be the best solution, means it wont affect the endgame and means off players who loose their hammer don't spend a month twiddling their thumbs waiting for the next one to train

at the end of the day they are going through with this idea, you may aswell just pick the one that breaks the game the least

I agree it's probably the best idea, since people won't be able to obtain hammers that are literally unstoppable.

However, if catapults are "merge-able", it still would mean that nobody wins, as you can just fill that limit with catapults before you follow up with escort troops. Just an endless barrage of hammers running against all WW's.

[carebearetches]

I posted my comment around 2pm today and guess what....Still awaiting moderation, are TG picking and choosing what replies they want us to see, are they too scared to show negative feedback? Not a good indicator of a company that claims to care for its community, so here is what I put...

Why are you doing it, this isn’t what members of the community want, it’s to further line your pockets with our gold. When the changes come through and the community begins to turn away to other games what will you do then? Understand please just how against the changes players are and leave things alone . I can see this being my last server as will many others, when you implement the changes in May, which you will irrespective of views expressed against them. So long Trav was good till HQ put the final nail in the coffin.

[Trouble]

to Be honest if it cost 2k gold just to merg 70k troops

I see gold being enough of a deterent..

2k gold for 70k extra mace in your WWK?

Nuts

If you used res and did it in small amounts, you'd get a lot in though could keep filling up on res and doing it.

I think to be honest though I'm just willing to see how crazy the armies can get, most I ever seen is 600k axe.. maybe that was a dream, pretty sure I seen that in some report though.

But I forget, like the only WWKs I really remember are: Kaboom, Demoralizer aka Khronos and Assasins. Obviously there's more.

Assasins on ukx was the extreme case though, repeatedly clearing WWs abusing the ointment change.


To be honest gold and the massive res costs are enough limitations for me, but theres a bunch of other limitations aka Nerfs:
http://blog.travian.com/2016/05/community-proposals/

Discussed there, take your pick. If you really think this is a bad change then I guess pick one, champion it and maybe you can get it introduced.

[nickkcraig]

Even a single player who money to burn and spend 2k to merge 70k troops will make the whole thing a farce, sadly with the way the AH bids have been going, there will always be someone willing to pay to win.

[Purplejelly86]

''For that I’ve asked our Devs to give me the report with the most catapults on our Tournament Finals. From all the reports we still have, 19k catapults is the biggest one. I’ve put that into simulation to find out how many catapults would have been needed to destroy a level 99 WW to zero. In that particular constellation it was 91.500 catapults''

What a poor example.. Take 50mill defence from the biggest server and compare it to the average 8m everywhere else.

Agree with gold being a slight deterrent through out the round - as a bit pricey. But come endgame, 1600 Gold to double my cats? Yeah why not.

[Elisa]

to Be honest if it cost 2k gold just to merg 70k troops

I see gold being enough of a deterent..

2k gold for 70k extra mace in your WWK?

Nuts

If you used res and did it in small amounts, you'd get a lot in though could keep filling up on res and doing it.

The thing is... we know it will be used by some people because it's the same cost as the GB, which is currently used by some people already.

Also, there comes a point where, even with AA, you produce more res than you can queue in your hammer village. For many of the top players that means making a second off. If I had the option to merge that second off into my hammer? Of course I would.

Now add the teutons' insanely cheap clubs into the mix... instead of bothering to build my barracks up to level 20, then my GB, I already have a bunch of barracks at level 3 because I needed them for the academies and city halls. "Free" is cheaper than building the GB. So I'll just build them all across my account for the last month, and merge them last minute. It's also much easier to feed them that way and spreads the risk of losing them.

[Placebo]

Went through the "we listen!" blogpost again, and realized they actually wrote this in it:

We need some time to separate the arguments and concerns from the trolling.

This is extremely poor communication towards the customers, as they basically say it's up to them which concerns are valid or not. They will just scoff away things they don't like as 'trolling'. I say this, because why even bring up trolling in this debate? I haven't seen any trolling so far at all. If anything, the trolls are the geniuses who said the players were positive about this feature.

[MLGJ]

Went through the "we listen!" blogpost again, and realized they actually wrote this in it:



This is extremely poor communication towards the customers, as they basically say it's up to them which concerns are valid or not. They will just scoff away things they don't like as 'trolling'. I say this, because why even bring up trolling in this debate? I haven't seen any trolling so far at all. If anything, the trolls are the geniuses who said the players were positive about this feature.

Of course they are censoring things, Travian have never liked anyone criticising the product. They make Ostriches look like amateurs when it comes to burying their head in the sand....they seem to think that people aren't discussing this amongst themselves on Skype and if they pretend if there is no dissent then all will be rosy when they implement it.

2 days my post "trolling" by saying there is another options on the troop merging...i.e not implementing it in any form has been sat in moderation on the blog.

[Placebo]

2 days my post "trolling" by saying there is another options on the troop merging...i.e not implementing it in any form has been sat in moderation on the blog.

That is actually absurd. Anyways, I've given up on this crud now.

Travian should maybe consider hiring persons that are capable of handling customers properly. I'm sure they can afford one or two with actual experience and knowledge in the field, instead of playing professionals among themselves (because often it looks amateurish and straight out embarrassing when I see one of their "officials" try to act like a communications manager)

[Rome]

http://blog.travian.com/2016/05/deci...g-and-merging/

[MartinJames]

Shall we do a sweep stake on how long it takes trav to tell us the features received 'largely positive feedback' on the test servers and they're rolling them out on the main servers.?

[MLGJ]

Shall we do a sweep stake on how long it takes trav to tell us the features received 'largely positive feedback' on the test servers and they're rolling them out on the main servers.?

I think the comment about them being disabled on the new May\June servers says it all, the game has already been coded for these changes, they're just waiting to turn it on.

[roadrunnerx]

Lets hope they wait until the full test servers are finished and that they don't begin for a good few months or so. We all might get the chance for another server or 2 before they inevitably nuke the game once and for all!

Anyone else not think the post was hilarious how shirty they got when they realised the majority of the active community all believe that HQ dont give a rats ass about the 'Real players' of this game



On a side note, does anyone know of a developer who's actually played a full travian legends server? Should probably clear that question up too, played a full server at a high standard?

[Placebo]

I think the comment about them being disabled on the new May\June servers says it all, the game has already been coded for these changes, they're just waiting to turn it on.

Yes. Coding in PHP itself is really easy, and if they were to say add an easier option to move a farm from one list to another, that would take a knowledged scripter five minutes to write. But a code like troop merging takes a very long time to write, and triple that time to debug, so I wouldn't expect them to just lay that code dead, as they have spent much time and resources on it.

It's a complex code, and I understand their will to keep it in the game, so setting up test servers was a really great way to address this. I just hope they take feedback from that testing seriously, and not just use it for their own testing and debugging until they are happy with it.

You gave us the hint that both features are working fine on SCE because of the different endgame setting. We will keep that in mind.

At least they are listening though. I am glad they learned from us players that SE and legends don't have the same endgame

[roadrunnerx]

"Thank you for your patience and input. And for now – have fun playing the game.
Jake"

Taken from the final blog statement, "and for now" LOL!

[Placebo]

"Thank you for your patience and input. And for now – have fun playing the game.
Jake"

Taken from the final blog statement, "and for now" LOL!