Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: "Not a New Idea" Thread

  1. #1
    Consul Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,683

    Default "Not a New Idea" Thread

    This is a list of ideas that have been brought up many times and the developers and/or game staff are well aware of them. Bringing them up again is not a new idea since they have all been discussed here multiple times; if you are going to suggest them again, at least go into detail and try to address any concerns listed here. Any threads created about these ideas may be deleted at the moderator's discretion, which is more likely if they are poorly developed or add nothing new to the idea.

    1. New tribes: New tribes will not be accepted, regardless of how much thought or detail you put into them.


    2. More types of troops: Travian Games is not accepting ideas for new troops. Again, this applies no matter how well-planned or how balanced they are.


    3. Trapping animals / taming animals: <Removed, this has been implemented as of T4.>


    4. Hiding soldiers (i.e., "safe houses," "troop crannies," "bunkers," etc.): Seriously, it would be a nightmare to implement, even if it was a good idea. Just send them somewhere safe, or raid someone with them.

    Context: Ideas were being suggested (repeatedly) for buildings which would "protect" a limited number of soldiers, and not one suggestion offered a method by which it would be determined whether the soldiers would fight or hide.

    5. More resource fields per village: Travian Games has no plans to make villages have a larger number of resource fields per village, either as the standard or as rare village types.


    6. More building spaces per village: Travian Games has no plans to make villages have more building spaces, either as the standard, as "bonus" village types, or as a bonus from any building or artifact.


    7. Terrain changes (e.g., mountains, hills, etc.): <Removed, this has been implemented as of T4>


    8. Water (rivers, lakes, oceans, naval combat, etc.): <Removed, this has been implemented as of T4>


    9. Mythological creatures, magic, or other fantasy elements: 'Nuff said. This is a bit more relaxed in regards to heroes and artifacts, but dragons, wizards, and other such things won't be seriously considered.


    10. Holiday/vacation mode: This is not in reference to server-wide holidays. This is in response to individual "vacation modes" which would essentially give a temporary ban to a player, protecting them from attacks for a while at the expense of not being able to log in. This is what the sitter function was designed for.


    11. More members per alliance: 'Nuff said. There are no plans to increase the maximum size of an alliance.


    12. Official wing alliances: There are no plans to make any closer diplomatic stage than a confederacy. An official wing alliance would either be a confederacy by another name, or would involve giving additional benefits; there is no point in giving another name to the former, and the latter is generally viewed as a bad idea by many players.


    13. Different ways to get members in to alliances: This is primarily aimed at auto-recruitment of new players. Players will never be placed into an alliance unless they willingly join.


    14. Pictures/Animations in profiles: Not happening. This would require a lot more bandwidth than the current setup, and would require a lot of extra work to police. It isn't worth it for something purely cosmetic, especially when there are already lag issues.


    15. Pictures/Animations when under attack or of people walking around in your village (You can use a Graphic package to do this): Same as the previous, and you can do so with a graphics pack.


    16. Possibility to merge villages: This is aimed at ideas which would combine adjacent villages into one "super-village," giving it any sort of bonus.


    17. Cancel training of troops: Travian developers say no, so no. =/


    18. Canceling troop movements after more than 90 seconds: If the timeframe for movement canceling is increased, then people could potentially start abusing this to get "free" fakes. Seriously, a minute and a half is plenty of time to catch a mistake.


    19. Stopping marketplace shipments while they are en-route: This is extremely abusable, as Travian does not distinguish between accepted trade offers and one-way shipments of goods. It would either be a very abusable system, or would require a significant rewrite of the trading code.


    20. Killing prisoners / Slaving prisoners: No, this runs into severe balance issues. Whether it is killing the prisoners or gaining some kind of bonus from keeping them imprisoned, it greatly improves the value of traps, which are already a fairly good deal when fully considered.

    Context: Many threads were being made asking for the T3 (Travian version 3) traps to be able to kill prisoners at the cost of having no traps auto-repaired; given that T3 traps cost about a third as much as the cheapest troop and were built much faster as well, this was highly unbalanced. Other threads asked for trapped troops to give bonuses to production or build time to represent them being used as slave labor.
    Last edited by Woden; 01-25-2011 at 03:43 AM. Reason: Update; added context to several.

  2. #2
    Consul Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,683

    Default List of rejected ideas, 21-40

    21. Anything that gives free Gold: No. Just, no. Gold is Travian's source of revenue, and keeps the game from having to be smothered in banner ads.

    22. Buying/selling troops: Training time is the main restriction on army size in this game. Anything that bypasses this, such as instant completion of units or the hiring of mercenaries, will be strongly opposed.


    23. Transferring troop ownership to another village / using reinforcements offensively: This can cause problems in that it can severely reduce the warning that a village will receive of incoming attacks. It can also allow for combined attacks, which greatly increases the strength of the attacking army (throwing the offense/defense balance out of whack).


    24. Anything that affects a server other than the one you are on: 'Nuff said. Servers are typically at different ages, so it wouldn't be fair to have anything affect a different server.


    25. Limiting the number of attacks someone can make: Please do not suggest limitations to the number of attacks a player can send out per day, or the number of attacks that can be sent at a specific player in a given time period.

    Context: Some players were requesting that very low limits be placed on the number of incoming attacks a player could have in a given time period; when those were rejected, many of those same players went on to suggest very low limits in the number of attacks a player could send out in a given time period.

    26. Controlling troops in battle: This is not a tactics game, this is a persistent 24/7 strategy game. If your opponent is offline, this would give you a considerable advantage, and vice-versa.


    27. Stealth attacks (or any other form of attacking with reduced warning or no warning): As with #23, this causes a problem because villages can be given inadequate time to prepare. Think of how you would feel if your village got ground to dust because you only had 5 minutes of warning to get reinforcements; you probably wouldn't like that happening to you, just like no-one else would like it happening to them.


    28. Minigames of any sort: Google some flash games if you need entertainment.


    29. Neverending servers: Seriously, what's the point? Are you really expecting new people to join and compete with guys who have 50+ villages and hundreds of thousands of troops? That is what never ending servers will turn into--new players versus the established players who can easily crush them like bugs even after their 3 months of Beginner's Protection wear off.


    30. Super scouts / spies: This is in regards to the information that can be gained on other players. Travian, at this time, has no intentions of increasing the amount of information that can be obtained through scouting other players, and this particularly applies to any (inevitably complicated) ideas about sticking a permanent scout-like spy into an enemy village to gain information.


    31. Private servers or limited-access servers (e.g., "elite servers"): There are no plans for any invite-only servers or anything of the like. This includes servers designed to be a "server of champions. And yes, if you have a reasonable suggestion for such a server, it has most likely already been suggested and rejected at least once.


    32. Longer-lasting speed servers: The durations of servers have been heavily considered. Longer or shorter servers would have problems with the endgame from having either too many or too few troops.


    33. Changing tribes, having villages of different tribes, or otherwise getting the troops/benefits of multiple tribes: 'Nuff said. Romans will never have Trappers, Gauls will never get Macemen, and Teutons will never get simultaneous building. There is little point in having different tribes if a player can have the benefits of all of them.


    34. Plagues / weather / random events: Randomness reduces the strategy of the game.


    35. Choosing what resources get taken when attacking/raiding: This would make it much easier to lock a player into permanent farmhood by stealing enough of a resource that they would never be able to fully make use of their other resources.


    36. Healing units / medics / doctors / any other method of repeatedly getting a portion of your dead troops back: Essentially a sub-point of #22.


    37. Units having individual stats (health, experience, etc.): Heroes have these stats because they are special. This specialness would be eliminated if every rank-and-file soldier had the same stats. Furthermore, it would be a very large increase of server strain to record all these different stats for all the different soldiers, especially when there are millions of troops running around at endgame.


    38. Halting resource production: Honestly, why? It would be a hassle to code, and there is no reason except to deny raiders resources; if that is all you are trying to do, just build a Cranny or five.


    39. Sieges / blockades / any similar ideas: Incredibly complicated, fraught with problems, and pointless, to boot.


    40. Redirecting moving troops / waypoints / attack queues / etc.: These would greatly reduce the amount of warning given to players under attack, or would be a large step towards automated gameplay. Neither of those is considered a good thing.
    Last edited by Bahara; 04-11-2013 at 03:33 AM. Reason: Update; reworded and gave context on some.

  3. #3
    Consul Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,683

    Default List of rejected ideas, 41-53

    41. Multiple walls / barracks / stables / etc.: Barracks and Stables are already covered by the Great Barracks and Great Stables. Wall bonuses are already quite substantial, and increasing them further would risk the balance between attack and defense.

    42. Changing the length of Beginner's Protection: Beginner's Protection will not be extended or reduced; it is very well-balanced for allowing a new player to get to a reasonable level in safety, so long as they know what they are doing. This point includes such ideas as extending B.P. as a Gold option.


    43. Alliance banks / armies / other forms of combined holdings: Alliance banks would simply be an easy way to try and circumvent restrictions on resource transfers; if your alliance members are active and participating in the alliance, this shouldn't be necessary anyways. Alliance armies have all the problems already listed for combined attacks. Other types of "combined holdings" typically suffer similar problems.


    44. Making public lists of Robber stats (other than weekly Top 10): This would make it much easier for players to hunt for farms (players that do not build a strong enough military to defend themselves), and also to hunt for and eliminate up-and-coming competition.


    45. "Down-time" for servers (such as time-restricted servers, 12/7 servers, etc.): You will not possibly be able to come up with a timeframe that will work better than the current 24/7 for pleasing everyone. East Coast times won't work well for people on the West Coast, day times won't work well for night owls, etc.


    46. Travian as a console game or offline game:
    Making Travian into a console game would require completely changing the game design. Furthermore, an offline version would eliminate the PVP aspect of the game, which is a core part of the game's design.

    47. Adding videos or sounds to the game: This would greatly increase the amount of bandwidth and processing power being used by the
    server, which would directly contribute to worse lag. Furthermore, no matter how "cool" this would seem at first, videos and sounds tend to get annoying after a while.

    48. 0-croppers (villages with no wheat fields): I honestly hadn't thought to put this here until recently, because it should be so blatantly obvious to players why this idea wouldn't work; nevertheless, people have quite seriously suggested it. The problem with a "0-cropper" village is that, as the game requires you to have a positive wheat production to construct any buildings or upgrade any fields, a 0-cropper village would never be able to build anything; it would start at -2 production per hour and would have no possible method of increasing its wheat production.

    49. Gift cards: Travian is based in Germany, but has a global niche of players. The problem with gift cards is that they cost money to make and distribute, and Travian just doesn't have the player density to make it profitable.

    50. Seeing who attacked your reinforced troops: <Removed, this has been implemented as of T4>

    51: Heroes of other troop types: This goes for scout heroes, settler heroes, administrator heroes, catapult heroes, rat heroes, etc. The reasons are varied depending on the type of unit being suggested, but there are always plenty of good reasons not to extend the number of units that can be used. The biggest strike against this idea is that heroes are extremely combat-oriented, and all the combat units are already allowed as heroes; anything else wouldn't fit with the types of bonuses that heroes give. Also, heroes will always have to be made from units that were trained in the town--reinforcements will never be allowed to be turned into heroes.

    52: New Gold features: This one isn't really rejected, but it is something that the developers approach with caution, and it really needs to be pointed out to the user base. Gold bonuses currently give a definite edge to a player... but so much so that they cannot be overcome by a competent player who chooses not to use Gold. By adding in additional Gold bonuses, the gap between paying and free members would widen; therefore, this is being left to the discretion of headquarters without bombarding them with ideas. Good ones may be passed along at staff discretion, but you really need to think heavily about them before posting. This does not apply to Plus features, as they are merely convenience items and do not have a particularly significant impact on the actual gameplay mechanics (and, by the same token, things should not be suggested as Plus features if they give non-convenience benefits, such as actual bonuses to training, construction, or production times).

    53: Intercepting attacks: The biggest reason that it would never get implemented is that it further throws things in favor of attackers... their hammer (attacking army) now serves double-duty as a strong defense, as long as they are online to use it. Basically, it would boil down to, why use defensive troops when it would be so much easier to train hordes of Macemen and use them equally effectively for attack and defense? For one thing, it would save on research costs--you wouldn't need to do any research on defensive troops at all. Furthermore, it would reduce the effectiveness of rams and catapults; currently, even if none survive, they will still do damage as long as you send a reasonably large attack; however, with an intercepted attack, there would logically be no way to damage the village, and thus the destroyed rams and catapults would simply do nothing.
    Last edited by Woden; 01-25-2011 at 03:34 AM. Reason: Update; reworded some

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •