Posts by Jalistair

    Got the idea from there. But there are always those people who will not come online on time of bidding or not donate willingly. So tax setting is a way that can be used to take a portion of their income.


    If a player is not willing to pay TAX, they may try another association which does not look for worker recruitment

    I like it and I like the tax idea.

    I think that RN needs to be very careful of how they move forward with this. I suspect about half the people who play here would prefer the prestige to be counted only when a city or factory levels up and half the players would dislike that style of play preferring the current style instead. The risk RN runs is that if they try to implement this to all games they stand to lose a lot of players who will find something geared a bit more towards completion and not simply FarmVille with trains. Perhaps the best solution is to create a third version for people to play and let people chose which maps/gameworlds they want to play on. For all those who like FarmVille with trains they could opt to play on that server. For those who prefer the classic game, it would remain. Those looking for more confrontation could go to the American map and those looking for a huge network with regional play could go to the Europe map.

    That sounds an awful lot like what I suggested in corporate chat a month or so ago ;) Other than the "tax" part which I do like!

    Lesson number 3, never argue with Amaiyah because she is probably right anyway and if she isn't right she will out talk you into submission ;)

    I don't think there is a good way to solve the problem with dominating associations. Further reducing the class sizes would help a bit, but would be only a bandaid, because it wouldn't change anythink for the weakest associations of a class. And making classes with 10 or less assos would reduce the competition to much.

    Show me a change and give me enough time and I will show you how to exploit that change, said every gamer everywhere.

    I think a tighter tier should be taken into consideration, or at least a different algorithm to group the associations. Currently I've noticed that the first tier consists of the first 10 associations, though I may be wrong, and I have never seen an association past 5th place win a good worker. Hell, I've never seen them have 3 workers in the same time. And yes, I am complaining from the winning seat, as we all should when we noticed something being completely unbalanced.

    Associations beyond 5th place win quality workers all the time because they are in lower tiers. You may not see them win the worker because you only see the workers in your tier. However, if you start looking through the lower ranked corporations you will find that some of them have quality workers.


    There are two things that come into play here. First, I used to be on a team where we were notorious for constantly reforming our corporation with the intent of dropping our rank to the lowest possible worker tier. This allowed for our group to constantly win top quality worker at a fraction of the price. More importantly it allowed us to "hunt" 50% prestige workers across multiple tiers as we would leave a member in the old corporation to keep it open and then we would use discord to share which tiers had which workers. As such, we sometimes failed to even make the top ten in corporations but we always had the winning prestige player in our corporation. Even those of us who didn't win a round were still ending on the American server with 1.5 mill or more prestige points per round based off of worker exploitation.


    The second and more important factor is what you cannot control. Top players seek top teams. They want teammates who are willing to pay funds towards workers. Many top corporations have a member who keeps tally of who bids on what worker and how much they bid on the worker. If you don't bid enough, you are booted off the team. So you will always have your top bidders on your top teams and you will always have teams that simply do not bid on workers, or worse yet, they do bid on workers but are so divided on when they are online that that they can't get enough people bidding at the same time.


    So you come up with an interesting idea on how to change things with the worker, but I don't see a solution on how to divide the workers out.

    @sacroima

    i was out of internet 1d (24pt games) and it cost me top 10 and eventually top 100 aswell. a catch up mechanism would be useful (could also be implemented like: if you missed a 24pt day, you can play those 5 games a day later but get 1 tier penalties (if you finish first, you get the points of the 2nd, if you finish 2nd, you get the points of draw, if you finish draw, you get the points of 3rd place and if you finish 3rd, you get 1/2 the points of 3rd place)) (*and if you missed games on the first days where it gives 6pt for winning, then you simply get the points for your rank -1 point)

    Don't agree with that one. RN should work to fix things that are in their control not things that are out of their control.

    Is he? Anyway, I stand by my point. Even my career engine

    which is already better per slot than a olymp is only one of many engines in era 6 and therefore less impactfull in era6 than in era 1.

    But less impactfull doesn't mean I think it is irrelevant. ;-)

    Yes, your engine is impressive. However, in relationship to the other engines by era your CE engine has a beater rating against era 1 engines than it does against era 6 engines.

    It is possible to have 5 workers in way written in post earlier. Confirmed with support.

    Nice, now there should be some sort of bonus that goes to the first person to post a screenshot of this in Forums! Would be an interesting competition!

    Well, thats a bit stating the obvious. The career engine is obviously more impactfull in era 1 when you've only 7 other engines than in era 6 when you've 25 other engines.

    He is not referring to the number of engines, he is referring to the ratio of goods hauled per engine. In era 1 a fully maxed out to era 1 CE train is light years ahead of respective era 1 engines where as it may be less efficient than an era 5 or 6 engine.

    Two thoughts.

    First, when we talk about punitive action it is always a concern that things may be taken too far. For example, I just wrapped up my five rounds of clash, won one or two of those rounds and took second place in the rest. The last two rounds were interesting because one of those guys I played in both of those rounds. In the first round the third player, who turned out to be pretty good, was away from the keys at the start leaving the me and the other guy to duke things out. By the time the third play came back I was up four or five to zero because I was able to use the map to cut the other guys line and made better choices. The game ended with me at ten, and the next guy around 3 points, and one or two points for the last place player. On the next round we had a new third player but I was able to eek out a nice lead once again and this left the player whom I had just played the last round with in third place. Since I was about to win he cut my line, then suicided me at restart and the other guy won. I highly doubt this was cheating. It was a poor loser but not a cheater. This was someone who simply was frustrated for being out played. While I don't like it, particularly since it cost me a win by a single point, this guy should not be punished. That is simply life.


    The second thought would be a review of the players that seem to win almost all the games by their numbers. It would be very interesting to know who is playing on "off" times. As Dutcher pointed out they very well could be playing alts or even friends, and they don't have to play the same person twice.

    Very diplomatic of you ;)

    I don't think that would work, but it would be interesting to test. My theory, and that's all it is, is that once you purchase the gold slot for the first HQ, it will not allow you to purchase a new gold slot until the first one is used.

    Not at all, depending on the time of day I am ranked from the top ten to as low as around 250. That alone should tell you that I play every game to win. Suicide players? I just had one today. He collected one or two RG on the entire round and nose dived for my line every time he took off. My line, not my base. The other guy? Unlikely that he was involved at all. The time you talk about, maybe they were working together, maybe they were not.


    No, the difference is that I don't like complaining for the sake of complaining or to promote myself. I recognize that the problems we are talking about are problems faced by every player. I also recognize that it is an unfair burden to place upon Travian to hunt down every cheater and then to allow a rematch for the players who lost to a cheater. From my old army days we had a rule about complaints. If you bring a complaint forward, you had better have a solution. Else wise it is not worth listening to. If your solution includes self promotion, then it again isn't worth much either.

    Ouch! Sorry guys!


    Speaking of Clash!, for next year you guys should consider changing the points. Right now you have points awarded by the top three places, then the top ten, then the top 100, then the top 1000, the top 10,000 and lastly 50 CE points for everyone who plays.


    The problem with this is that the top say 300 players are all pretty good. Yet if you are not in the top 100 you might as well finish at rank 1,000 as you still get 250 CE points. Then when you consider that the lowest rank is only 4938... well all you have to do is log in and you are getting 100 points. In my opinion, CE points should be given to those who compete for the points. Make the spreed smaller, say the top 250 players win 250 points, the top 500 players win 100 points, the top 1000 players win 50 points the top 10,000 win 25 points and no points goes to someone who can't place in the top 10,000.