Four workers NOW!!

Baron Mikel 50 wrote:

They don't have to give up using them. They can use them while they have them then cut bait to get the next one. It's already happening so it wouldn't do much to balance the game, not as much as removing them altogether would do. People that spend $$ will still spend it to get that advantage, but everyone else would be on equal footing.

If they have only one worker and use it!

During this time, other teams can also hire a worker.

That way there will be workers for everyone

(Now there is a problem because you can have more than one worker at a time.

If the team can only have one! That changes everything!)

Hear Me Roar wrote:

If they have only one worker and use it!

During this time, other teams can also hire a worker.

That way there will be workers for everyone

(Now there is a problem because you can have more than one worker at a time.

If the team can only have one! That changes everything!)

I think you missed my point, they can still buy and release a worker, just use them while they have them.

IE building discount, put buildings on the queue and then cut before the next worker is up they want.

Still better to have none and spread the worker bonuses around to all to make it more even.

Baron Mikel 50 wrote:

I think you missed my point, they can still buy and release a worker, just use them while they have them.

IE building discount, put buildings on the queue and then cut before the next worker is up they want.

Still better to have none and spread the worker bonuses around to all to make it more even.

This is too wasteful for even the strongest teams.

They will go bankrupt if they try to do so.

Now they succeed because they can keep 2 workers and do such tricks with a third.

If there is only one worker - they will fail.

They will not be able to take full advantage of any worker. And they will spend crazy money

Hear Me Roar wrote:

This is too wasteful for even the strongest teams.

They will go bankrupt if they try to do so.

Now they succeed because they can keep 2 workers and do such tricks with a third.

If there is only one worker - they will fail.

They will not be able to take full advantage of any worker. And they will spend crazy money

Display More

Do you think most care about the money side?

It's keeping the competitive advantage away from everyone else.

Baron Mikel 50 wrote:

Do you think most care about the money side?

It's keeping the competitive advantage away from everyone else.

Yes, the question is about money. And not just money....

Because if you spend a lot of money on workers you don't use!

You lose money without gaining any competitive advantage

If you do that ...You are a fool. You are loser

Hear Me Roar wrote:

Yes, the question is about money. And not just money....

Because if you spend a lot of money on workers you don't use!

You lose money without gaining any competitive advantage

If you do that ...You are a fool. You are loser

and there is plenty of fools out there.

If they are fools ... they will have no money and no workers

And the game will be balanced

And what will the expansion of the headquarters be for?

Joe Blackwater wrote:

And what will the expansion of the headquarters be for?

Hear Me Roar wrote:

3) The level of the team determines how long a worker will be hired. (Maximum team level = 200% time)

Thx, OK

Hear Me Roar wrote:

3) The level of the team determines how long a worker will be hired. (Maximum team level = 200% time)

so smaller associations having again a disadvantage. I play at a smaller server with a few full or almost full asso's. The gap between the bigger and smaller asso's will growing bigger instead of getting them closer.

Naike ♏ wrote:

so smaller associations having again a disadvantage. I play at a smaller server with a few full or almost full asso's. The gap between the bigger and smaller asso's will growing bigger instead of getting them closer.

Why?

Hear Me Roar wrote:

Why?

Hear Me Roar wrote:

3) The level of the team determines how long a worker will be hired. (Maximum team level = 200% time)

if I understand you correct, the bigger the asso the longer a worker is valid. The smaller the sooner a worker will expire.

If an asso of 25 members will buy e.g. a worker for 2 mil it will be valid for the max time (200%)

When an asso of 10 members buys the same worker for 2 mil, 1st they have to pay more per person and second the worker is expiring faster, that's for me a double loss.

In fact, teams of different sizes (a prestigious group) compete in different auctions for different workers.

Small teams buy much cheaper workers.

So no problem with that.

Small teams will have cheaper workers with less validity.

Big teams will have more expensive workers with more validity.

my example stays valid, even if they are in different auction groups. The smaller asso's having disadvantages because of the shorter time a worker will be present. When I start a new asso a worker will be present for (assume the 200% is the 48 hours at a normal speed server, 100% = 24 hours)

25 players = 200% = 48 hours

5 players = 200%/5 = 48/5 = 9.6 hours effective time the worker will be valid

If you go solo you will have a worker for 48/25=1.92 hour

So bigger asso's can profit longer of a worker and smaller asso's are having BIG disadvantages.

Sorry but this is not a good and ballanced suggestion

It's more like the rich get richer and the poor get poorer

Think again!

Example:

A team of 25 players will hire a worker for 250 million and 48 hours of validity. (= 125 million for 24 hours = 5 million per player for 24 hours)

A team of 5 players will hire (the same) worker for 10 million and 24 hours of validity (= 2 million per player for 24 hours).

The team of 5 players is still in a much better position!

Hear Me Roar wrote:

Think again!

Example:

A team of 25 players will hire a worker for 250 million and 48 hours of validity. (= 125 million for 24 hours = 5 million per player for 24 hours)

A team of 5 players will hire (the same) worker for 10 million and 24 hours of validity (= 2 million per player for 24 hours).

The team of 5 players is still in a much better position!

Display More

Not sure what servers you plan on, but, I have been in an Association of 10 that competes for bids against the top association (max players). So how does that work for that group?

Hear Me Roar wrote:

Think again!

Example:

A team of 25 players will hire a worker for 250 million and 48 hours of validity. (= 125 million for 24 hours = 5 million per player for 24 hours)

A team of 5 players will hire (the same) worker for 10 million and 24 hours of validity (= 2 million per player for 24 hours).

The team of 5 players is still in a much better position!

Display More

Hear Me Roar wrote:

3) The level of the team determines how long a worker will be hired. (Maximum team level = 200% time)

the time is the factor not the payed money, in 48 hours I can earn lots more than in 24 hours or less. 48 hours or 24 hours a speedworker, who will earn more? 48 hours * 25 members compared to 24 hours * 5 members.

After the experation of a worker the smaller asso payed more per person for the same worker regardsless the base price was less per person for the smaller asso.

This is the last I will say about it. The suggestion is not ballancing at all. And ideas needs to be applicable at all servers, 1000 or less players or 5000 players. This isn't applicable at all servers.

Baron Mikel 50 wrote:

I think workers should be removed from the game, would make the game more balanced and you would see a major change in the game dynamics. Top associations would lose that competitive edge over the other players in the game. As it stands now, it's just a bonus for the top Associations to remain at the top.

Make up for the loss of workers in other ways, such as lowering building costs/construction times by xx% and giving a small % in the way each worker gave a bigger one. In the case of workers that gave extra $ for goods, boost the licenses some to make up for that particular good.

As I said, as it stands right now, it's very imbalanced. We have people jumping from Association to Association to get that edge cause they can't beat out the top associations bidding power. Which is just slowly driving people from the game, or FORCING people to join that top association in order to be competitive.

If people are quitting the game because they cannot compete it is because they are non-competitive. If you have just the slightest ambition in the game you will end the round in the top 100 and that is without trying too hard. You also have the ability to jump to another corporation as you mentioned if you are looking for a competitive edge. If you only want to set your schedules and walk away then you don't need to be in a top corporation. I can jump onto any server, even one I have never played on and don't even speak the same language, and end up in a top ten corporation and a top 100 personal ranking. There is nothing wrong with having to bid for workers, in fact it is a good thing. Also, there is no need to lower building production or increase how much the licenses pay to make up for your idea of removing workers. Why? Because if you play in a lazy corporation that will not bid for workers and you pay full price for all building upgrades, tracks, full waiting time and so forth, you can still complete your buildings, lay over 200 tracks, and buy the cars you need for endgame.

Any player that would leave the game for the reasons you talked about is a non-competitive player who would likely leave the game anyway. Furthermore, such a player would not purchase gold packages from Travian meaning that player leaving frees up more "space" for the rest of the players and doesn't take away from the profitability of the company. However, you take away that competitive edge and it is your competitive players, and the ones more likely to spend money who end up leaving. That leaves everyone without a game to play.

Baron Mikel 50 wrote:

They don't have to give up using them. They can use them while they have them then cut bait to get the next one. It's already happening so it wouldn't do much to balance the game, not as much as removing them altogether would do. People that spend $$ will still spend it to get that advantage, but everyone else would be on equal footing.

Life isn't about an equal footing, why should a game be about an equal footing. You complain that you have to join a top corporation in order to compete for workers. Then why not make a top corporation to compete for workers. Too me it simply sounds like a lot of complaining because some people don't want others to be better at something despite them putting more effort into it.