Biggest problem with the new tribes - moral dilemma

  • Hello Everyone

    I see our favorite little topic has come up again and before I post anything please let me state the following.......

    This rule is very confusing to both players and those who try to enforce it.
    I have seen many say they get banned for it and others who have no problems with it at all.
    It is the MH who has to determine if anything fishy is going on and in many cases nothing is done as no rules are being broken.

    What is of much debate is players/staff interpretation of what is considered "for ones own benefit"

    Since Travian is reviewing this rule it is best not to put any official quote at all till we know more and I will ask tomorrow when more people are online and can get a more conclusive answer on what is currently being done and/if we can expect some kind of timeline for an answer.

    My thoughts are as they were before. If you are playing the account legally and want to be a farm and that makes you happy then be a farm
    This fits the simmers life perfectly. When leaders call for a resource push, is that any more different?
    Many times that request comes with a warning that if you do not participate then you will be kicked and farmed.
    So with that are you playing your account for your benefit or are you being forced to play a certain way for another's benefit?
    So even with that scenario a player could be guilty of not playing his account for his benefit.

    This is why last I heard this was being reviewed as it is open to a lot of different interpretation.
    As I stated before I will ask about this again and see if I can find out what is going on with it so we all will know.


  • Please tell me how it could possibly be "to my benefit" to be an active farm? That sounds like a rule you made up when all the tournament players started to friendly farm their "teach alliance" which basically means their 60 paid multiacc farms that you never ban for some odd reason.

    cash me ousside, how bout dat?

  • Please tell me how it could possibly be "to my benefit" to be an active farm?

    I used that as an example.

    It would not be to my benefit to play as a farm as not my style.

    - Some people though do join a server
    -They then join an alliance
    -They sim the server and send resources whenever it is requested(might even build defense troops).

    If they are enjoying themselves and playing their account is it to their benefit or someone else benefit?
    This is the question that keeps dogging this rule and why I will try and get a more definitive answer on how the review is going and if we can get a solid answer from those above.

  • Isnt that the best reason ever to change the rule?

    It clearly doesnt work if people has worked around it for years.

    cash me ousside, how bout dat?

  • Everyone in the community would very very much appreciate it if we could get a final, definite answer from TG.

    This is an important topic and we need a clear statement soon. Because new ptp-servers are going to start soon. Please make them aware of the problem, very much appreciated.

    I second that notion.
    We need clear understanding of where we stand on the issue before servers start. Two things make it different from regular servers:

    - the reward for having disposable accounts/disadvantage of not having such is several folds higher;
    - confederacy only restrictions on reinforcements and resources push put at least some additional barrier on abusing them.

    Creating an additional account to settle a desirable capital is us clear as it gets against current redaction of rule 1.1. but I see no way TG can enforce it which obviously puts players who respect the rules regardless of how we feel about them in bad position. MH will be not able to punish for that but it will be obvious to teammates and opponent.

  • Hmm... where I live the morning is long gone. And incidentally it's the same country in which those TG officials live. And no, we don't have multiple timezones to explain that delay...

  • An answer before any ptp servers start is imperative. TG will lose pretty much all the players who enjoy playing solo accounts if this is not clarified, since you've no way of legally having that egyptian cap benefit as early in game as the "multiple duals, multiple accounts" plan that has previously been discussed, unless you sacrifice the strong hun army by spawning as an egyptian and chiefing a hun later and having a smaller hammer ecause you started later.

    and those who don't play with gold will just get squashed into the ground even further with the ever increasing benefits gap.

    at the very least, some clarification is needed for a rule which is the most ambiguous rule I have ever come across please!

  • Aaaand another night bites the dust. Let's see if we get an answer today.

    I know in this day of age that everyone is so used to things happening fast by just clicking a button.
    In games that is important sometimes but when you get behind the doors it is a business that works their jobs just like we do.
    So things do not happen as quickly as just clicking on that button.

    Those in TG are aware an answer is needed and when they figure it out they will let us know and we will report it here as we do.
    This is a rule under review so do not expect it to go as quick as hitting the enter button.


  • Just to make sure we are on the same page.

    - First PtP servers start in a week
    - TG official statement is likely to have significant impact on starting strategy

    So rush in this case is not for love of rush.

  • They are officially going to allow it. I can already tell you.

    Because the rule 1.1 is not provable. If I settle next to an Egyptian as a Hun and rush chiefs and chief him during his offline time and get 1 fully developed 15c it is perfectly legal.
    It is illegal if that Egyptian settled the village for me to chief. But how am I ever going to prove that.

    And because in most cases you cannot prove anything the rule itself is crap because it only hurts people who play by the book and give a huge unfair advantage to the people who don't care about such formalities.

    As long as mind-reading is not an openly available technique it is hard as hell to prove intent. Because even if that Egyptian is online while he get chiefed, you cannot say "ah, it was friendly because you did not build the palace and made it your capital" - do we suddenly punish people for being incompetent? Punishing someone for being overchallenged?
    So even if you have 5 strong indications:
    1. Was online
    2. had the resources
    3. extended the fields only and didn't build any troops
    4. Both players are from the same country
    5. Didn't even re-build the residence/palace once the chiefing started

    Even if you have all those points... is it okay to ban him or even better both?

    I don't know of objective indications who distinguish if something was done friendly or not. Feel free to enlighten me if you know of those objective standards to judge if a chiefing was friendly or not.

  • Solution to all this is remove chiefing from the game :nope:

    UK20(1) - Infinity. UKx(28) - Kebab. COMx - Darth Jar-Jar. ASx(1) - Mikle. AngloNYS5x(1) - Doner Kebab

    Skype: chainsawdaz
    Discord: Daniel#7855

  • Well. In the beginning there was a strict "friendly chiefing prohibition" in the rules. It was absolutely not allowed.

    Then they changed the rules (T2 I think) to the following "whenever you chief a smaller player the village loses 10%" and they allowed friendly chiefing because they said they cannot stop it anyway.

    Since then...well.. they forbid it again, but did not reverse the 10% rule and then they allowed it again, now they are thinking of forbidding it once more... it's mess, no stringency.

  • It´s hard to be honest and don´t get banned, but I would say it´s against rules. But why would you do that in the first place? You can just farm him and use his production for yourself and still have your main. On tournament servers, it´s very often case.

    MH should be more investigative and check at least top accounts individually.

  • @lopik We are talking about rule 1.1. in relation to upcoming PtP servers. You chief a village of other tribe to utilize the other tribe features, if it's a capital you want to develop it as fast as possible, if it's a hammer you want to set it up as soon as possible etc. Farming whatever does not help.

    Individual investigation will not help, as it was said above there is no way to distinguish fair chiefing from friendly and even less indicator to distinguish fair friendly chiefing (lets say we want to exchange villages) from disposable account chiefing.

  • The new concept is simple too strong, like a lot of years ago the first heros

    some adjustments would be needed like:

    1. you can convert a village to your own tribe, you decide if you are a liberal king which allows different villages or you can be an iron king and change the tribe

    2. your main village can be only your own tribe

    3. treasuries only possible in villages of your own tribe (like wonder villages)

  • I agree with the above. Maybe it's too difficult to enforce that particular rule. So why not tweak the mechanics of Path to Pandora slightly.

    2 Options:

    1. Capital can only be of the starting tribe


    2. Don't allow tribe specific buildings to be built in in any village that is not of the original starting tribe.

    Of course that might just lead to a 100% Egyptian start for everyone, but at least it's not taking advantage of a rule that can't be enforced.

  • I suggested something like this already along with other incentives to make other tribes attractive as a capital i.e, teut brewery 20% boost, not 10% or roman hdt becomes cap only building but affects all cavalry types, etc.

    If they did tweak it as you say, along with the above, it would inject some variety in the builds and would prevent a mass egypt start.

    ..And that is the Final Word.

  • Honestly I prefer Final Word's approach. Instead of decreasing the available options just create more than one viable alternative. That way we might actually see people who don't want to have an Egyptian capital.. If the special buildings are made strong enough (more than trippled in their power^^)

    /edit: That doesn't solve the problem though.

  • I agree with these as viable options, though you're right many more people would just start as Egyptian. And (not that it matters) but my opinion on rule 1.1 is that if an account is built solely for the benefit of another it is illegal. Therefore, creating an account just to build an Egyptian cap for another, then deleting is violating the rules. Pushing an alliance-mate would not unless that's all the account ever does. However, the rule is impossible to enforce without mind-reading, so it doesn't matter anyway.