Posts by Thetdoc™

    I personally have had the opposite - I have repeatedly been assigned newbies to mentor & nobody has responded to me. On one occasion a newbie was very inappropriate to me & I had to report them.

    So at the moment I have turned off mentoring

    However if anyone is on my server & wants to ask me a question about the game I am only too happy to chat with them.

    Maybe one day I will try mentoring again.

    The problem here /Mihai is that there is no rule against breaking majorities - it is a deliberate feature of the game. Players can compete in an arguably aggressive manner by taking majorities & investing for prestige benefits and this is an accepted behaviour within the game rules. Likewise as I said the EG all haul together approach is the correct approach by those that understand the game but not following the calls is not illegal. Penalties can only be applied by the game management for infringements of the game rules. So, I agree with your comment that the bad ones stay bad most of the time but there is no recourse to punishments unless they cross the line of the rules.

    I think the comment that raised the concept of gamesmanship & sportsmanship as different concepts is the critical one & I agree with the post that suggested that the risk of mutual destruction is what stops it happening - the principle I believe which stopped nuclear war during the escalation of nuclear arms.

    In practice it is the individuals on the whole who cause the problems but a really strong EG city can usually haul through these barring the one or two most difficult RGs.

    It is tricky to legislate for these actions though as there is nothing in the games rules, to my knowledge, that says you have to haul the called RG in the EG scenario. Those that ignore the calls are usually ignorant of the damage they are doing or they have a grudge to take out on the city concerned.

    I personally fail to see how the concept of "unsportsmanlike behaviour" can ever be applied in the game.

    In practice though, those that behave in a destructive manner at any point will tend to be shunned & eventually forced out of a server, or they leave once they feel they have made their point. It sadly seems a facet of human nature that we have to put up with.

    Ok - were the strong associations always strong - how did they start out? You imply that nobody who is not in a strong association can compete. Well most of the servers have a strong association & they have evolved into these. They were initially smaller, weaker groups who through hard work, good game play & forming good relationships with players have developed into successful teams & good players drift towards more successful teams & so make them even stronger.

    There are not enough players to do the only thing that might level the playing field which would be to create leagues of servers whereby strong teams were pitched against strong teams & weaker ones matched with weaker ones based on the performance of those groups.

    It is wrong to give strong teams a hard time for being successful. Rather other teams that wish to compete should look at what strategy they wish to employ & build to be competitive.

    I fully accept that I speak here as a part of one strong team which grew from a small freehauling association on a server previously dominated by a very strong group of 4-6 city-based associations who won the round consistently until they decided to seek a new challenge. My team then developed & became the full sized association & gained the success we have as a result - by good strategy & strong leadership, committed play by a majority of the association & by playing hard but fair as judged by the rules of the game (not by those who dislike our success).

    The 4 workers is a one off situation whereby Travian have to honour the bought slot whilst adding the additional slot that comes from levelling up the HQ to the top level. 4 slots have been discussed a number of times in the past but would actually more likely increase the dominance of strong teams rather than reduce it.

    Finally people play this game for multiple reasons - some to compete, some to have fun, some for the companionship & some for their love of trains. There will be other reasons of course. The trick for Travian is to make it competitive for the competitors but also fun for those there for other reasons & please do not underestimate the companionship element & the benefits it has had during this pandemic for some players. Actually they do manage to tick the boxes for many but let's face it nobody can please everyone & people come & go for different reasons some related to the game but others related to real life.

    I welcome suggestions for game changes, the new formats are already providing alternatives like the new Platform X which skews the strategy towards city based running over freehauling. However, remember that the best strategists & tacticians will always find a way to be the best whatever format they compete on. I look forward to the challenges of bright new ideas that will bring in the new order & make me & my team work even harder to compete

    If it is in the world chat, click on the name of the player and if in the city chat then click on their icon.

    The report player option appears then for both in the menu that follows

    I have no problem with clicking on these once but I have had it pop up again a few times on a computer that I have already completed it on - I hope that it will not keep coming back because of the choice of necessary cookies only being an "unwanted" option

    The new shop has had some winners but probably more losers. The loss of the regular instant complete each era & the other bonuses we could count on as outlined by Paul2112 has meant we get more lotto tickets & then are left to vagaries of what we get. I agree that having some regular defined bonuses suited the majority of the players better

    A Masters server with the same set up as PTR with a fixed amount of gold available for the whole round would be a great idea. It would even things out & the true excellence & hard work of the player would be rewarded.

    I hope there is no plan to bring that reduction in instant complete bonus frequency to the regular servers though! We have already lost the instant complete from the one per era bonus schedule & a further reduction would be very tedious & slow down the progress significantly. It might also reduce the number of era packages I bought as I would be unlikely to get to the last one in 24hrs in some eras & if everyone is going that slow why waste the gold

    Association and Corporation are the same thing - in the US scenario it tends to get referred to as Corporation more, in the classic it is association

    Similarly in US we have rail cars & in classic waggons (spelt wrongly you will note)

    When you set up initially for a new round - selecting UK option will give you waggons & associations, US option the rail cars & corporations

    Hope this helps

    One of the attractions of the RN game is that there are different styles of play open to the players. They can play in different ways over time, keeping interest high. Workers strangely are an area where there is some balance. Clearly a city team needs to be a strong one to compete but if it has 25 good members there is no reason why they cannot compete for any workers. Additionally the goods based workers are usually only of interest to the city haulers.

    The practice of closing an association & reforming is used by smaller free hauling teams to get cheap workers and it is effective if the team is small but in so doing the players are opting out of the association competition so this affects personal rank only.

    The number of players is what makes playing style work - in a relatively lightly used server then free hauling is very effective. How often does free hauling do well on a really busy server where a majority of cities are active?

    If the aim is to eliminate closing & reforming then a penalty could be imposed on those that do this - losing pp for instance of delaying for several days before they can get workers (might be hard to program though i guess). Small associations playing normally should not be penalised though in the manner suggested - they are in the lower ranks due to being small & have fewer p[layers to contribute so it is fair that they have cheaper workers overall to my mind. If a full 25 player association pays 25 mill then the equivalent for a lower ranked 4 player association is 4 mill. That is paying the same per player.

    I would echo this sentiment. I too have been a chat moderator in the past & it is a privilege giving back to the game that I have enjoyed for so many years. I wanted to be there to make the game experience better for everyone but why should I not play the game I love as well? My role only involves me applying chat bans for behaviour on the chat screen that breaks the rules & then only after a warning & often a quiet word of advice.

    Volunteers make the game better & I never saw anyone behave with favouritism. My experience was that bans were last resorts & only for repeated offenders & I also agree that actions could only be taken when proof existed & if any doubt then I would double check with a colleague.

    Volunteer helpers should never be picked on - direct any anger towards the rule makers if you must, not those that just act to apply them. Play the game according to the rules & you can never fall foul of the helpers/support teams. If you do not like the rules then either petition for their change or leave. Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself & trust that action will be taken where it can be & that if it is not then there is a reason why & that reason is not favouritism or bias. Above all remember that this is a game & a place to have fun and a refuge from the miseries of the real world. Let's keep it that way!

    These are some fun ideas Dragoneyes

    We used to have graphics some years ago with trains coming & going to & from the station concourse & many of us have missed them.

    Your other ideas are also interesting & would add complexity & skill to the game play - they may not all be workable but I hope the developers will consider them

    The game is certainly still full of bugs & the video bug still does not seem to have been fully fixed based on some missed second video issues I had at the weekend.

    It may well be that some use of terminology has been an issue here but I believe we are all agreed that currently the game is not providing what it is advertised as intended to provide as regards bonus videos (unless the missing second video resolves).

    I agree that on one level Jalistair an unreasonable demand may make a company less likely to respond to that customer, but we must not let this excuse allow the company here to ignore a lot of it's customers. If all players who spent on a Plus account have not been getting their "guaranteed" second video then it would seem reasonable to suggest that some form of compensation is potentially due to any player who has spent on a Plus account. Clearly if Plus account has not been bought then no compensation is due. This is the all that missy amanda is focusing on I am guessing.

    So I would hope that everyone can agree on that as I feel that at the core of the issue we are not a hundred miles apart in what we all basically think is reasonable?

    Ok so Samisu told us that on 8th May the hot fix shut down would be fixing the issues with videos - I took this to mean that I could expect at least a second video when I watch having my plus account in place.

    Sadly not the case - I am still missing second videos today

    Was there any feedback on this from the team?

    Just a small correction: We do not WISH to reduce the amount of views. What I said is that it's not overly important, so it would be more accurate that a reduction of views (to some extent and depending on the circumstances) is ACCEPTABLE.

    Thanks for the prompt reply Salix

    I apologise if I misrepresented your position - I just got the impression that the intent was that you did not want the videos being watched in the large volumes that they were by individual players. Clearly these players and indeed players at large can no longer watch the volume of videos that were possible under the old system (due to the loss of the widget view factor) & so the total number of video views must have fallen with this latest iteration of the game. Clearly the additional bug with second videos will have reduced the viewing even further. Income from videos must be down :(

    So if I wrongly took the changes to imply your intent in the matter then I apologise once more - it is certainly the effect of the changes.

    What I was trying to get at was whether videos were paid per play, or on some other basis within the free gaming economy. Perhaps a fixed fee (which would seem illogical) or pay per volume of different individuals that played them & not for "re-plays" by one individual - I was just trying to get a sense of the "drivers" in this area of your business so as to better inform the community in suggesting the new solutions.

    Ok well Salix has shared that the two pillars of income for the free games are direct purchases & advertisement. The latter is the video element of what we have & unless we want irritating banners built around the game screen (which I do not) I guess videos will remain the advertising source.

    Clearly however, the payment for videos is not based on the volume of views of the adverts or the company would not have wished to reduce the number of views we make of these.

    In order to try to understand the situation better & to enable us to offer better informed possible new solutions to the problem we now face of finding a way for the lower budget player to compete, could you possibly share the range of ways that companies could gain income from advertising in this setting without of course asking you to divulge any details of how you currently do this yourself which clearly would not be appropriate. So a list of examples of the variety of ways that advertising interacts with the free game companies would be great. Clearly if other contributors to this discussion are better able to share this from their past lives then that would be good as well.

    Clearly we need to understand the dynamics so that we can make sensible suggestions.