Hi,

This post is already out of date – we’ve announced our decision regarding Troop Forwarding and Merging here

While I’ve collected your arguments last week, today I’ll write you about potential adjustments, we could do to address the concerns of our community. We want to find a solution in which we can release a feature which changes Travian strategies a bit, while keeping a balance for our game.

So what suggestions did we’ve got from you? A short overview:

  • Time-Delay for merging troops
  • Merging costs Gold and Resources
  • Limit the daily amount of troops to be merged
  • Don’t merge catapults/rams at all
  • Allow merging only to a defined army size

With that overview I must say that unfortunately I’m not able to address every suggestion. I’ve picked these, to have different approaches, and not to discuss too many details (yet).

Time-Delay for merging troops

One potential change would be to define a waiting period in which the troops merge into the new village. While that time the troops would still be bound to their original home village, so that if the origin village is destroyed the troops just disappear. If it’s just a plain 24h waiting period or dependent on the amount of troops is up for discussion. With this approach only one batch of troops can be merged at once of course.

This would address some concerns, e.g. it would address the “surprise hammers”. It wouldn’t address the “too big World Wonder Killer” concern, as still many troops could be merged together. It would make it a bit more complex, but it wouldn’t stop it effectively.

Merging costs Gold and Resources

There is the possibility to remove the “No, I don’t pay resources, I pay gold” option, and replace it with an “It costs resources and gold”-option. As the player has to pay resources and gold, we would lower the amount gold it costs. That way the advantage of gold payers would decrease, as they still need to pay resources.
Still there is the opinion that players, esp. top farmer or players who receive a resource push from their alliance, are able to form way bigger hammers as they should be. Also it would always require gold, which punishes players which want to play without gold completely. At least we have the silver to gold exchange so that such players are not banned from this feature completely.

Limit the daily amount of troops to be merged

Let’s pretend there is an account wide contingent, how many troops can be merged, and this contingent is increased by e.g. 600 per day. Every troop merged would remove its supply cost from the contingent. Once the contingent reaches zero, this player would be unable to merge more troops, until the contingent would be increased again by the daily production.

This would be pretty fair, as it limits all the “rich player could”-arguments. Also it blocks “too big World Wonder Killer”… there is the potential that players use there server contingent once, so we need to make sure that the limit is not too big.

This approach could also be combined with the time delay or the changed resources and gold costs, already mentioned above.

Don’t merge catapults/rams at all

We already limit settlers and chiefs, so that they cannot be merged at all. We could extend that to rams and catapults as well. With that only a usual amount of catapults can be produced, but still more troops could be added to an existing hammer.

This would approach the “too big World Wonder Killer” concern a bit, as there will no >90k catapult-hammers. Other than that this change wouldn’t change much.

Allow merging only to a defined army size

This approach would limit the merge of an army based on the current army of the new home village. Once the target village has a crop consumption of e.g. 50.000 crop no merge is possible anymore.

This would force players who want to save their big hammer to split it to multiple locations. It would only allow for small surprise hammers. There would be no way to build up a huge Wonder of the World Killer with such a limitation. This one seems to solve the most concerns, so it is my favorite, despite its “just” adding a new limit.

Conclusion

I hope I could name some potential improvements, which would address the concerns the community has raised. What do you think about this? I want to hear your input.

Thank you for your dedication and patience.

0