Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: Travian: Legends – Lessons learned and new features from Scattered Empire!

  1. #1

    Default Travian: Legends – Lessons learned and new features from Scattered Empire!

    Following on from the announcement earlier today in this post, http://archive.forum.travian.co.uk/s...54#post1501754, we are keen to find out your views on the changes. As the thread is currently closed, please feel free to post your comments here.
    i1260.photobucket.com/albums/ii568/TravianComps/LMT.png

  2. #2

    Default

    Already posted my views in the other thread.

    Tl;dr, as a top tier player who in theory would greatly benefit from it, I despise this change.

  3. #3
    New Poster
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ukx - NUTS
    Posts
    18

    Default

    I've also posted what I think, this idea is awful, someone mentioned on the other post that the resource 'payment' is extremely high and therefore will not be regularly used, if ever at all. But i also doubt it'll make players want to buy more gold, the only people that will be able to use this is huge accounts/top raiders or huge gold buyers, therefore once again this addition to the game favours those who buy gold.

    Overall. Awful addition. Seems like an alright idea at first... But thinking about the benefits to each player, it's gonna be awful.

  4. #4
    MartinJames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Grimsby
    Posts
    1,854

    Default

    My thread came with a poll. So basically, I win.
    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)

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinJames View Post
    My thread came with a poll. So basically, I win.
    I voted on it, and to make myself clear I chose this:

    "No, the change is dreadful and I don't want to play anymore."

  6. #6

    Default

    I don't really know where to start with this post, so it might get messy. I do have quite a few points I want to make in objection to this change.

    "largely positive feedback"

    This is feedback coming from a server where the concept is completely different from an ordinary server. The players who actively play on these servers are more casual players who never play at a higher level. They aren't necessarily bad, but simply don't put as much time and effort into the game. This means they don't experience everything the game has to offer, or stretch this to the limits. Everybody's opinion should be worth equally much, but in this case, the decision has been made almost solely from the feedback of "casual" players. It is thus biased.

    I made an analogy in the other post that probably isn't half bad;
    If you go to an elementary school and ask the students there if they think it is a good idea to hand out 1 million £ to every single person in the UK, most responses would be positive. Whereas if you asked someone with more experience with economy and life in general, they would mention inflation, no food production, no services, overall misery. It can sort of be translated to this; as a less experienced player would say this is a great idea, since huge armies sounds awesome, right? Where as a more experienced player will see the collateral issues this is going to cause.

    I don't want to sound condescending when making this analogy, but there is no denying that some players simply have more experience and understanding of the game mechanics than others, so it is only natural to gather multiple points of view in a proper survey before making decisions like this.

    Looking at MartinJames' thread with the poll right now, I see 75% of the voters saying it's dreadful, and 0% saying they like it. I understand it's only 20 people who have voted yet, but it's starting to form a pattern that speaks for itself. I will not call what I have seen so far "largely positive".


    Endgame

    I mentioned the endgame being different. On the SE-server, the point of the server is to reach the most victory points, which is made by keeping areas of the map, and not destroying an enemy WW. A thing that might work on such a server does not necessarily work on a server where the goal is to create large enough armies to dent an enemy structure. I can imagine it might work on maybe a finale server, where the amounts of deff in a WW exceeds 50 millions, but on .co.uk, .se, .dk., .no and so on, the levels of deff simply don't support the sizes of hammers people will obtain.

    Endgame on these servers will simply become too dominated by players who single handedly clear out all the deff in enemy WW's and chief it, making nobody able to reach level 100 within a reasonable amount of time.

    Disparity between player types

    There is already a large disparity between the types of players. Off/deff, active/less active, gold user/non gold user. It is already an issue that causes players to quit. What this will do is to widen this even more - active players will become even stronger, gold users will become even stronger, off players will become even stronger. The rest are pushed into the shadows. Deff players are discouraged to make deff, since the overwhelming strength of off players will just mow through anything.

    Less experienced/active players will become pawns for the alliance, whose only job is to queue deff and send this to a village with high granary storage and small diet in it, for sending around to others. If you are unable to utilize the merging, your alliance will pressure you into going deff, since you end up being a liability otherwise.

    Also, currently, off players are able to queue deff units with their excess resources, which adds to the overall deff on the server (which usually is pretty low in my opinion). With this change, off players are punished if they do that, and rewarded if they use excess resources on more off units. This results in already low amounts of deff becoming even lower, giving us WW's with 2 million deff etc, while hammers can be anything between 5 and 10 million (I guess even more if the account farms alot).

    Races

    Literally the only viable race to play as an offensive player will become teuton, due to how easy it is to queue clubmen in every single village continuously. You are punished for playing offensive as roman or gaul, since their troops are way more expensive and won't be as easily trained in multiple villages, meaning teuton hammers will be larger by the millions.

    Trainers

    Currently, small trainers are really strong, since they allow you to create the largest hammer possible in a single village. Come this change, small trainers will be close to useless, since you can simply queue the same amount of troops by using two villages instead. On top of this, large trainers will become godly for those who use it correctly. Getting that 25% training increase in every single village will be completely ludicrous when a player farms 400+ million a week.

    Only players with large or unique trainers are able to create the absolutely largest hammers, so expect enormous amounts of drama within alliances, as these can no longer benefit from sharing (you won't ever be able to get 100 hours queue in every village, so they have to stay put).

    Cheating and immoral play

    This will encourage cheaters into making multis to feed their villages, or finding other ways to maximize their resources so they can create an unlimited monster hammer. Also, it encourages players to farm friendly players, which creates an unfair advantage over players who are unable to do so.

    Players might leave alliances who refuse to boost their hammers, or even try to force others into boosting or get kicked if they themselves are the leaders, creating extremely egocentric gameplay without comparison. Alliances will be forged around accounts, and not the other way.

    Taking out an enemy hammer

    Every hammer will be built in capitals from now on, without actually having barracks, stable or workshop in the village (rather filled with granaries), so chiefing or sniping is out of the question. Leaving only zeroing in order to get rid of an enemy hammer.

    However, if for whatever reason the defending hammer is unable to gather enough deff in time for the attacks, relocating the troops to another village is highly doable with a resspush, considering merchants move way faster than deff troops. This makes killing off an enemy hammer virtually impossible with this change, and there are alot of people who enjoy this playstyle.

    So what can be done instead?

    On paper this sounds like a fun idea, and as I said earlier, on a server like SE it might be fun since you don't need to smash down an enemy WW to win/not lose.

    As a player, I am one of those that would be able to utilize this tool to the limits and create record hammers if I put my best effort into it, as I always put in a lot of time and money into my accounts, and I do think it would be fun to try it without consequence. But in this case, the negative consequences simply far outweigh the positive aspects, and the fun for a very selected few will ruin the game for the majority.

    I'm all for change and improvement to the game, but this is simply too big change too soon. This changes completely how the game is played, and old travian will be left dead behind. So how should you tackle this instead? Well, there are multiple things that can be considered in place of blatantly implementing this and seeing every server instantly die:

    1. Don't implement it.
    2. Give deff players a substantial buff.
    3. Implement it only on servers with over 5000 active players.
    4. Limit it to x amount of troops in some way.
    Last edited by Placebo; 25 Apr 2016 at 01:12 AM.

  7. #7
    Senior Teuton MemberSenior Teuton MemberSenior Teuton Member Elisa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Berkshire
    Posts
    579

    Default

    I had totally forgotten the club's cheap research advantage would be amplified when there are ten villages involved. Or more accurately, the setup cost and start for a roman is currently slow and hurty, but they end up with the most powerful and efficient attack units in the game - you are correct this may no longer be the case once you can build off in all villages.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elisa View Post
    I had totally forgotten the club's cheap research advantage would be amplified when there are ten villages involved.
    Think 40 villages involved. Which a teuton can easily do, since they can just queue without feeding each village with resources. That's 144k clubs each DAY on a speedserver, or 47.4k on a slow server if you have a large trainer, queueing in small barracks only. How can anyone defend against that?

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Placebo View Post
    I'm all for change and improvement to the game, but this is simply too big change too soon. This changes completely how the game is played, and old travian will be left dead behind. So how should you tackle this instead? Well, there are multiple things that can be considered in place of blatantly implementing this and seeing every server instantly die:

    1. Don't implement it.
    2. Give deff players a substantial buff.
    3. Implement it only on servers with over 5000 active players.
    4. Limit it to x amount of troops in some way.
    First of all thank you to Placebo, for articulating the thoughts that many players have privately said to me since the announcement. I, like others, agree with you almost entirely. Out of your options, I would only like to see option one.

    The only time I would like to see troop mergers is when you find them on adventures. Let's be honest, if you were a hero, wondering around, and found 200 scouts, you wouldn't convince them to come back to the village where you are training def or off, you would tell them go to the village with the scouts. So, the option to dictate where troops found on adventures go, would be nice.

    Just to do a little maths though... if I'm a teuton and I sim 35 villages out in the sticks each village produces. Let's say that they average 12k per hour. This is 420k production p/h. each village could build 46 clubs at a cost of 11.5k p/h or 3 catas at the cost of 8k per hour or 11 tk at the cost of 17k

    Plans come out on day 200, and I have 50 days to build a hammer for end game. So 10 villages building cata, 19 villages building clubs and 6 villages building TK for 50 days is ... 35k cata, 1m clubs and 81k TK... I'm a bit light on TK, lol. But considering this is a 50 day wwk, with absolutely no pushing required. Perhaps building 25 villages worth of clubs, and build 1.38m clubs. Even if you built clubs for 25 days from 19 villages, it is still more than the current UK record for most clubs built.

    What is more baffling to me, is that an update that could cause such a difference, is being considered a game update, rather than a new version of the game. It is a bigger departure from a previous server than any update before it.

    Also, not to criticise Chris, but I disagree that people are listened to. Take the birthday server, where numerous agreements were made on game improvements, and most were ignored. http://archive.forum.travian.co.uk/s...ad.php?t=78088 - Here are some of the suggestions that were agreed upon at the time, which I reposted in this format. The one that really irks me is the way the marketplace is structure, which was agreed upon by many on the UK domain years ago.
    Last edited by Bloated Fish; 27 Apr 2016 at 01:34 AM.

  10. #10
    DMR
    Guest

    Default

    Troop forwarding: Ok

    All the other features should be kept far from Travian: Troop merging, cauldron ..

    Gold currently gives a slight, must-have, advantage with plus and gold club.

    The cauldron gives gold users a decisive, unfair and insanely expensive must-have advantage.

    Troop merging changes the entire game dynamics and will give gold using hammer builders another must-have and unfair advantage.

    We all understand you need to make money, but the gold features are already slightly tilting the game balance, adding these would topple it. I would suggest to find new ways to earn money in working on new gold features that make a player's life easier, like gold club. Don't try to earn money on game killers.
    Last edited by DMR; 27 Apr 2016 at 12:04 PM.

  11. #11
    Mr Fantastic

    Well-Known MemberWell-Known MemberWell-Known MemberWell-Known Member MLGJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Omnipresent
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bloated Fish View Post
    Also, not to criticise Chris, but I disagree that people are listened to. Take the birthday server, where numerous agreements were made on game improvements, and most were ignored. http://archive.forum.travian.co.uk/s...ad.php?t=78088 - Here are some of the suggestions that were agreed upon at the time, which I reposted in this format. The one that really irks me is the way the marketplace is structure, which was agreed upon by many on the UK domain years ago.
    This!!!! I'm sorry but this proposed update shows how completely unaware Travian HQ are about their customer base and their wants. All I keep hearing is your views are listened to or our surveys say X......where are these surveys, who is gathering this feedback and more importantly from whom, it seems it's the developers asking the developers, certainly no one has asked me to do these surveys. I can't remember a single suggestion made on these forums ever been implemented, but then we never get feedback on our feedback.

    As for this particular change I think all has already been said, one of the worse ideas I've seen on Travian.
    This post was brought to you by "Mr Fantastic"

    Yayyyyy made it on to setbacks ignore list, can give it but not take it
    Let me guess, some kind of funny joke?
    This message is hidden because MLGJ is on your ignore list.

    Where is my apology from MLGJ, for his insult on the forums? - URSULA THE MINOR
    In your dreams Sunshine xx

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bloated Fish View Post
    First of all thank you to Placebo, for articulating the thoughts that many players have privately said to me since the announcement. I, like others, agree with you almost entirely. Out of your options, I would only like to see option one.
    I would also only like to see option one executed at this point, but if they are really serious about this and are dead set on adding this horrendous feature, they need to tone it down a bit and think about how they will kill small servers.

  13. #13
    Team Lead Customer Service Travian Head Office
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    877

    Default

    Hi guys,

    thank you for your constructive and detailed feedback in this and other threads. It has been received and we are currently looking at ways to proceed from here.

    In the meantime, some more information about the changes has been posted on the Travian Blog.

    Feel free to continue to give us your feedback and ideas.

    Thanks a lot!
    Chrisvc
    <center><b>[COLOR="#000000"]D[/COLOR]on't let a bot ruin your game:</b>
    * 157439 troops have been deleted.
    * 8406 building levels have been deleted
    * 1344368 resources have been deleted
    <i>(recent example of a punishment for using externals)</i></center>
    <center>Questions about T4? Check our <a href="http://t4.answers.travian.co.uk/"><b>Answers page</b></a></center>

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CM Chrisvc View Post
    Hi guys,

    thank you for your constructive and detailed feedback in this and other threads. It has been received and we are currently looking at ways to proceed from here.

    In the meantime, some more information about the changes has been posted on the Travian Blog.

    Feel free to continue to give us your feedback and ideas.

    Thanks a lot!
    Chrisvc
    Oh my gosh, that dev just made it official they actually don't play their own game. At least not above rank 200.
    Please make them listen to the players who actually dedicate their time into playing the game, not the ones that imagine​ the game.

  15. #15
    Senior Teuton MemberSenior Teuton MemberSenior Teuton Member Elisa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Berkshire
    Posts
    579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Placebo View Post
    Oh my gosh, that dev just made it official they actually don't play their own game. At least not above rank 200.
    Please make them listen to the players who actually dedicate their time into playing the game, not the ones that imagine​ the game.
    I'm beyond frustrated with that blog post. It's quite clearly a "we heard you, but here's why we still like the changes" aka, we're going to do it anyway. Extremely ill-advised.

    And I think you're correct. I've already said why devs are often not hardcore players so it's not exactly anyone's fault, but without being in a top alliance you also don't experience the human interaction and how teams work together. Moreover how key players and their egos can dictate to less-experienced players how the game gets played.

    The changes would be no problem if we all played our own game. But the fact is that people can manipulate other players to take advantage of them.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elisa View Post
    I'm beyond frustrated with that blog post. It's quite clearly a "we heard you, but here's why we still like the changes" aka, we're going to do it anyway. Extremely ill-advised.

    And I think you're correct. I've already said why devs are often not hardcore players so it's not exactly anyone's fault, but without being in a top alliance you also don't experience the human interaction and how teams work together. Moreover how key players and their egos can dictate to less-experienced players how the game gets played.

    The changes would be no problem if we all played our own game. But the fact is that people can manipulate other players to take advantage of them.
    Absolutely. They definately know how to write codes and programming in php, but unless they play the game at a higher level, there are actually a lot of players that are way better suited than them at telling which features/changes/fixes will make the game better, and which will make the game worse. This is one of the cases where they need to listen to the players.

    He repeated again that they need to make money in some way, but there are countless of other ways to do that without ruining the fun for 95% of the server.

  17. #17
    Warning - irritant!

    Epic MemberEpic MemberEpic MemberEpic MemberEpic MemberEpic Member Purplejelly86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,445

    Default

    "But now these features are stable from a technical point of view, and the feedback we’ve got was pretty good. We did multiple surveys on Scattered Empire servers, and yes, we did not ask Travian: Legends players, and for us that made sense – they haven’t seen the feature yet, nor played with it – so all points are based on assumptions and “what if’s”."

    Rather then rolling it out everywhere, surely common sense is - Lets test it on a couple of Travian Legend servers first, See how that responds. That way it doesn't need based on 'assumptions and what ifs'...


    Mentions balancing the Offence/Defence out, But in no way does this increase the defense numbers, However creates larger armies. It simply doesn't work with a WW Based servers.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amalgon View Post
    Mentions balancing the Offence/Defence out, But in no way does this increase the defense numbers, However creates larger armies. It simply doesn't work with a WW Based servers.
    Not only does it not increase defense numbers, it actually lowers them. A lot of offensive players queue deff on the side when they have surplus resources they don't need to increase their queues. With this change, that will no longer happen.

    Currently, the only thing balancing off vs deff (offensive troops are way stronger than defensive troops in general) is that you can stack deff in a village when you defend it, but you can only send off troops from one village at a time against said village. That will be gone, and thus the balance will be off. There will no longer be any risk of "walling" your troops, as you can just brute force any village you want, including WW.

  19. #19
    MartinJames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Grimsby
    Posts
    1,854

    Default

    TLDR Version : We like the changes because they will make us more money, the people complaining don't have a clue because they didn't play the SE servers so we're just going to go ahead and ignore them whilst telling them we listen and care. We're so good at this.
    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)

  20. #20
    Senior Teuton MemberSenior Teuton MemberSenior Teuton Member Elisa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Berkshire
    Posts
    579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Placebo View Post
    He repeated again that they need to make money in some way, but there are countless of other ways to do that without ruining the fun for 95% of the server.
    Try looking after your new players and you'd have more people buying gold - I'm going blue in the face here repeating this - but they leave because they exit BP and are faced with dozens of incoming attacks from players using farm lists. Update the tutorial. Make finding & joining an alliance integral. Assist alliances in recruiting from a central listing. Kill farm lists or stop them farming single-player villages. Or heck, make each sent raid list cost one gold. There's your money-maker.

    ...but they didn't ask us, did they?

    Is there no concern over the sheer number of players who delete before v2? We all know how many there are, since they are our farms, and the number is staggering. Why is their retention not a serious concern?! Is their money not shiny enough?

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •