Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 93

Thread: T4- The death of s4

  1. #1

    Default T4- The death of s4

    S4 was always the best of the UK - well my fave server anyway , I have been watching numbers plummet dramatically . Less than 930 and its not even end game .

    What effect will this have on the WW race , is there even enough to see it through . Or will everyone just die of boredom . Is there any real hammers out there or the will left for people to build the WW defense .

    Had an interesting convo with a player earlier who thinks hes wonderful , doing great but in reality only looks in a good position due to how bad the server is .

    Is this the last S4 for you all , will any of you waste your time on the next one and how many will be left hanging on to the bitter end

    Where did all the good players go

  2. #2
    Active MemberActive MemberActive Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East Riding Of Yorkshire
    Posts
    721

    Default

    I considered S4 my home server, till it went T4 and that was the end for me on S4, Myself and many players I knew went to S1 which was still T3.6 and fought HATE (with debatable success)
    Last edited by The Analyst; 13 Feb 2013 at 10:35 AM.

  3. #3

    Default

    We will probably have only one ww , and that ally will have nap, and confed with most of the ally's on server.
    Nowone announced that they will build , just few said that they not going for it .
    It will more likely be just a fight against natars , and biggest hammer to hit the ww is expected to be around 75k inf and 30k cav.
    Not more than 500-600 players will remain till end of server , and....yea , boredom will make most of us to don't come back on s4

  4. #4
    Jas.
    Guest

    Default

    I would say this would have been a better post for General, I have not played on s4 but the title did get my interest on a matter that I find important.

    I played on my home server s3 after a break and it was T4, I found the game took some getting used to all the differences, I found the leadership quality lacking.
    I also noted the low numbers at that time, so decided to play again on a different server (hoping to find better leadership and numbers) but despite being in a top ally found the same lacking.

    The game has changed without doubt but the thing that I see is everyone wants to group together to individually destroy simply because they can no longer work together for a goal (which I admit is boring, yet the journey is what counts), with good leadership you are kept interested.

    I have seen two t4 servers now and have yet to see a leadership with anywhere near the quality I admired before and just for the trolls no I don't have those qualities so cannot lead myself.

    Discuss....

  5. #5

    Default

    I'm playing the current S4 and am enjoying it greatly. The top alliance is going purely for the hall of fame and are progressing greatly. They have been in numerous skirmishes and just about killed off any competition in their quad so naturally are slowly progressing through the other quads. It may have some of the smallest hammers but it most likely has the most active hammers with very little people letting them sit and get fat on wheat

  6. #6

    Default

    Hmmm....I've got views from a certain perspective. I think under T3. it took some time for leadership quality to mature (within servers and within alliances); it's best when you've got at least two really strong alliances/leaderships on a server as they'll challenge each other higher. Given how long T3. were around, some had already drifted away long before T4, others took the opportunity/excuse of T4 to quit/stop leading (I'm broadly in that camp), others still play T4 and lead (but have generally have less competition, or may put in less hours/effort because of all of the above and less affection for T4).

    Along the same timeframe, a lot of that experienced leadership had done the WW, and a few crazies aside, it's not the kind of experience you repeat more than a couple of times. So some of the experienced leadership are still around, but not playing to win (where winning is defined as getting a WW to 100).

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samantha78 View Post
    Hmmm....I've got views from a certain perspective. I think under T3. it took some time for leadership quality to mature (within servers and within alliances); it's best when you've got at least two really strong alliances/leaderships on a server as they'll challenge each other higher. Given how long T3. were around, some had already drifted away long before T4, others took the opportunity/excuse of T4 to quit/stop leading (I'm broadly in that camp), others still play T4 and lead (but have generally have less competition, or may put in less hours/effort because of all of the above and less affection for T4).

    Along the same timeframe, a lot of that experienced leadership had done the WW, and a few crazies aside, it's not the kind of experience you repeat more than a couple of times. So some of the experienced leadership are still around, but not playing to win (where winning is defined as getting a WW to 100).
    I can agree and add to that. I refuse to lead anymore, as I had enough of managing egos. And I refuse to contribute to building a ww, as i don't find it fun. And as a double, I refuse to help lead an ally going for ww because the people supporting the ww don't care as much as they use to, thus it is even more of a chore.

    As for this server. It is actually quite fun. People are chucking their hammers around (which may explain the hammers you've seen), cross-quad attacks seemed to occur a lot earlier than other servers I played on, and more regularly. 2 allys seem intent on WW success, whilst 2 big allys don't. This should mean plenty of hammers to disrupt WW effort, despite them apparently being smaller. consequently, i think this server will come out with a surprisingly high amount of attack points in relation to players left.

    I also think this server is a victim of itself. cf, smash, hostile and toxic refused to meta in their quads. With varying success they have tried to take apart their quads. only nw and the sea were strong enough to make it as a meta to contend with, and even they have had to join together now.

  8. #8
    Anonymous the third
    Guest

    Default

    I'm not playing UK4 and I have only led alliances on t4 servers but generally the people I play with don't want to go for WWs, they find it tedious. They prefer to spend a server fighting so we usually end up going for offensive points records. That isn't to say I wouldn't lead an endgame alliance if that was what all my players wanted, but they don't.

    I think there are still some good leaders around who can pull together a decent endgame. Blibble from NMS on UK3 is one that springs to mind, Raff is looking promising on UK5 there just aren't enough of them to make up a good competition spread around so many different servers. If they were all pulled together on one then that might make a difference. Personally I am hoping for a really good turnout on the next UK3. I don't know much about the alliances on uk4, but Hostile didn't want to bother with a WW on uk3 though they did support NMS in building theirs.

  9. #9
    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 Samantha78 View Post
    Hmmm....I've got views from a certain perspective. I think under T3. it took some time for leadership quality to mature (within servers and within alliances); it's best when you've got at least two really strong alliances/leaderships on a server as they'll challenge each other higher. Given how long T3. were around, some had already drifted away long before T4, others took the opportunity/excuse of T4 to quit/stop leading (I'm broadly in that camp), others still play T4 and lead (but have generally have less competition, or may put in less hours/effort because of all of the above and less affection for T4).

    Along the same timeframe, a lot of that experienced leadership had done the WW, and a few crazies aside, it's not the kind of experience you repeat more than a couple of times. So some of the experienced leadership are still around, but not playing to win (where winning is defined as getting a WW to 100).
    You keep beating that HQ drum that it's not T4 that has driven all the experienced players away and taken an already flawed end game element and made it even worse. T4 has been around for long enough now and on enough servers for new leaders to have been blooded! Plus it's not like the leadership element of the game as changed, you don't forget how to lead an alliance if you move from 3.x to 4.x or are you claiming that it was pure coincidence that all leaders burned out from playing T3.x just as T4 came along.

    The problem (I'll say the UK domain has as I'm sure Travian's not seeing the same everywhere) is that there's a lot more competition from other sources now than there was 4-5 years ago and we're also in a recession. In these times you listen to your customers and try and give them what they want, instead Travian trample over peoples views, continues to give poor customer service and then has the cheek to introduce something that fundamentally costs more money to play.
    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

  10. #10

    Default

    Not sure how you exclusively read that into it (tho 'less affection for T4' was too subtle for you? :p); I just don't blame T4 for everything. its just one of a wide range of factors. T4 was meant to be the fix for the decline that was already taking place ( for reasons much debated). In general...lower player numbers for whatever reason leads to a smaller pool of those who want to or can lead.

    I've got a very clear understanding of why I've done leading and why I've mostly stopped; but it would be interesting to know what motivates others (rather than to rehearse for the nth time the T4 debate).

  11. #11
    Active MemberActive MemberActive Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East Riding Of Yorkshire
    Posts
    721

    Default

    1st S4 - my 1st real server (did half a speed before this), ended up deputy leader of the omega meta with the leader awol, heavily involved in end game and WW's, great fun as was new to me, we won, good memorys

    2nd S4 - Leader of chimera meta, again heavily involved in ww and end game, made a wwk (pretty small as I recall), sat winning WW. We won despite being at times a comedy of errors (wrong players taking ww's, players taking ww's that was never in the plan and went on to win.

    3rd S4 - Deputy leader of WR (Mo was leader RIP). Many of norths top Off players moved to our quad and formed HATE. They fought us most of the server thus making us too weak come end game, performed very badly as a consequence. I personally think it was a deliberate north plan and it was a good one too. Made a good wwk for a no goldy

    Did not restart on S4 as it went T4 which I flatly refuse to play

    Was invited to join mo as a dual and many of the others on S1 T3.6 to fight HATE, Not playing end game, bored with it now and it takes far too much effort, Had an excellent server despite on balance HATE getting the better of us, very enjoyable.

    Played T2.5 classic on com as a non leader (deliberately put nothing of past xp in profile)

    Played T3.6 3x no gold on org with Matt, Val and a few others

    Waiting for the promised T3.6 classic on com
    Last edited by The Analyst; 13 Feb 2013 at 03:31 PM.

  12. #12
    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 Samantha78 View Post
    Not sure how you exclusively read that into it (tho 'less affection for T4' was too subtle for you? :p); I just don't blame T4 for everything. its just one of a wide range of factors. T4 was meant to be the fix for the decline that was already taking place ( for reasons much debated). In general...lower player numbers for whatever reason leads to a smaller pool of those who want to or can lead.

    I've got a very clear understanding of why I've done leading and why I've mostly stopped; but it would be interesting to know what motivates others (rather than to rehearse for the nth time the T4 debate).
    It's only less affection from the players, which seems a secondly requirement to more love from the accountants, plus you know I don't do subtle....(I had to google what it meant)

    p.s a debate involves two parties, what we have when it comes to Travian HQ is a conclusion! (Unless you subscribe to the Brian Clough school of debating which I believe Agge did, i.e "we sit down with a cup of tea, discuss it and agree that I'm right")
    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

  13. #13

    Default

    The servers seem to be losing interest a lot quicker nowadays to me doesnt seem as fun as it has been before.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurassic Park View Post
    The servers seem to be losing interest a lot quicker nowadays to me doesnt seem as fun as it has been before.
    If my memory is correct, the server's lost 10% of its registered players since the beginning of Feb.

    Is it time to declare indifference the winner and move on?

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by interestedparty11 View Post
    If my memory is correct, the server's lost 10% of its registered players since the beginning of Feb.

    Is it time to declare indifference the winner and move on?
    Only because we keep cataing them out of the game...

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bloated Fish View Post
    Only because we keep cataing them out of the game...
    While I acknowledge CF are doing well, I suspect there weren't too many players in that group that left because CF catted them out of the game.

    If you think there's a long list that CF got rid of, please let me know...

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by interestedparty11 View Post
    While I acknowledge CF are doing well, I suspect there weren't too many players in that group that left because CF catted them out of the game.

    If you think there's a long list that CF got rid of, please let me know...
    While i don't believe CF are the sole reason behind all the resignations; i still believe they are a contributing factor. Many players have quit because CF have left their account un-workable.

  18. #18

    Default

    I think its mostly about players thinking they don't have a chance of staying till the end-game, or the inactivity that comes if ur not in the top alliances.

  19. #19

    Default

    The poster above is the only player I know who has taken hits off us and not quit. That's alot easier than a deletion list.

  20. #20

    Default

    The powers that be refused to listen to the players feedback on the original T4 and they still try and ignore that T4 didnt go down as well as the effort it took to get it up and running - to many experienced players gave up . And while there are new players coming into the game they don't hang around for server after server so the experienced players who are the back bone of any server just aren't there in big enough numbers to bring excitement to the game . New players seem to want sim along more and build a WW - and this appears to mean teaming up with anything that has a pulse . Previously I think winning wasn't enough , you had to win and win well .


    I have no doubt a lot have been catted out of the game but doesnt account for the large numbers who have just basically died of boredom , egos may like to take credit but I think rigormortis is the culprit - large areas where the players just seem to have all disappeared where previously at this stage the area would have been packed .

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •