Biggest problem with the new tribes - moral dilemma

  • How long can it possibly take for the Munich guys to sit down in one room and discuss the problem to issue an official statement afterwards.


    Is it okay if someone registers an account, settles the capital, allows it to be chiefed (that was the plan all along after all) and then joins the account who chiefed it.


    Is that okay / not okay / the whole point of ptp

  • How long can it possibly take for the Munich guys to sit down in one room and discuss the problem to issue an official statement afterwards.


    Is it okay if someone registers an account, settles the capital, allows it to be chiefed (that was the plan all along after all) and then joins the account who chiefed it.


    Is that okay / not okay / the whole point of ptp

    i think some key personnel wont be available til september. wouldnt expect an answer until then (if at all).

    ..And that is the Final Word.

  • Unacceptable


    For those cases god invented mobile phones. If those people really are that important that a decision cannot be made without them. After all, that problem is known at least since Templar Knight asked them one year ago.

  • Hello Everyone


    I know you all have been waiting on some news about rule 1.1 and there is some so thank you all for being patient with me.


    I am just waiting on some clarification on something and once I get it I will post what I know. :)

  • Okay everyone here is what we got so far


    I am going to post how it was worded to me and hopefully it make sense to you.


    The rule in general as we have been discussing it......


    "Each player may only own and play one account per game world. An account must always be played for its own benefit. Accounts that exist solely for the benefit of other accounts may be permanently banned."


    ~~~~~~


    This same rule with explanation from Travian......

    With the new features in Path to Pandora the folks at Travian understand that there will be a lot of alliances that will have members, who will mostly be there to generate villages for other tribes' alliances members for them to conquer.
    Travian rates this as playing the account for it's own benefit and stepping back for the sake of your alliance, should not be punished.



    I know this can also be debated till the mountains become valleys but hope this will help clear this rule up a little.
    I will not be able to get any more clarification till Monday or Tuesday but hope this helps out a little till then.

  • Thank you for the clarification. That seems quite straightforward and easy to understand. Should make for some wild and wooly servers if there are multiple groups that plan ahead properly.
    I don't think it will be newb friendly at all.
    On the other hand, journeymen players that try to use this may run into serious problems. As chiefs as early as needed to use these tactics can be problematic.
    Looking forward to seeing how this all plays out.


    Excel

  • It is still vague.

    Is it okay if someone registers an account, settles the capital, allows it to be chiefed (that was the plan all along after all) and then joins the account who chiefed it.

    Can we please get straight answer for this scenario?

  • It is still vague.

    Can we please get straight answer for this scenario?

    If this is allowed in future, than TG hits all single-players and the new players straight into their face...

    79270bbef8675b2ce924b5eef65f97a4.png


    ...und Tschüss!

  • It is still vague.

    Can we please get straight answer for this scenario?


    Okay, I understood their answer in the way that exactly this behaviour is okay/accepted/encouraged.


    If you still think it is unclear, then the answer obviously wasn't as clear as I thought it was.

  • Okay, I understood their answer in the way that exactly this behaviour is okay/accepted/encouraged.


    If you still think it is unclear, then the answer obviously wasn't as clear as I thought it was.

    With the new features in Path to Pandora the folks at Travian understand that there will be a lot of alliances that will have members, who will mostly be there to generate villages for other tribes' alliances members for them to conquer.


    "mostly there to generate villages..."


    The statement is a vague because it implies the above accounts will have other purposes too: raiding? def? Will they stick around to be productive members or delete once they boosted one account? Allies cooperating on village swaps happens even on non-pandora, so it doesn't do much to resolve the situation in my opinion.

    ..And that is the Final Word.

  • Well, imho you have to take the context into account.


    I asked a specific question. I phrased the problem quite clearly.


    And then we get a post answering my question. And in that light I interpreted the answer.


    But you are right, if you look at it without context, it is ambiguous.

  • Technically you're question gave a scenario, and travian gave a generic answer, not exclusive to the scenario you posted. i.e. not in the context of the original scenario.


    As far as the answer goes, it's essentially saying, your friend can 'generate' villages for you to chief, but assumes that that account will also be played as an account in itself, and not just for the sole purpose of generating a village for you to chief and then be deleted.

  • It is still vague.

    Can we please get straight answer for this scenario?


    From the information I was given my answer above answers this scenario as well.
    Of course it could not be the capital as then it could not be chiefed but I do understand what you are saying and yes this answer does cover your scenario. :)


    I have seen a couple comments already about pre-planning and I would agree. Any seasoned team who does not may get left behind.
    This could make for some early and more frequent skirmishes/conflicts over villages and territory. :evil:



    EDIT I see more posts and read them and that is why I added in my first post that even this answer that was given can be debated till mountains become valleys.

  • There is another scenario that also needed clarification.
    Let’s say I expect limited number of teutons registering and some of our players want a teut village and in reasonable location. I can ask a player to start the server as teuton with low expectation on either troops or population but villages as requested by teammates instead. When most tribes requests are sorted the player starts building the account as everyone else, with ally push if needed to catch up.


    The statement above clarifies this scenario and this is great, but original question was not answered.


    Edited: Sorry, I was slow. Can we please have this statement posted in PtP section on all domains so we will not be accused of cheating?

  • If you talked to your team and several of them said hey I do not mind starting a teuton account and then letting you take then according to Travian they would be playing their accounts own benefit so would be allowed.


    If you invited players into your alliance and then demanded they settle somewhere and then demanded to have some of the villages then that would be against the rule.




    As for posting it in other domains....The CM's have all received this as well so that will be up to them to post or relay that info to them.
    There has just been several threads here over the last couple years so thought it important enough to get out to you all. :)

  • Maybe it will help if we get only YES/NO answers to the below scenarios:


    1. Two friends plan to play Pandora together with intention to dual together. One starts as a Hun, the other as an Egyptian and each plays solo, or at the most, cross-sits. Egyptian is pushed or fast settles a cropper, then later donates it to the Hun. Afterwards, Egypt deletes and moves to the Hun account with his friend. Is this acceptable, YES or NO?


    2. One player with not much time or gold wants to play Pandora at another's invitation. The said player never builds troops, just sims fields and settles villages at another player's request (not demand), and repeats the process as necessary. Is this acceptable, YES or NO?


    3. One player invites friends to each make an account on Pandora. They are not in the same alliance, or one (or more) is out of any alliance. The out-of-ally account player gets raided by the allied friend as agreed upon by the two accounts beforehand, i.e, "friendly farm," thereby bypassing the alliance push rules. In case of enemy attacks, they jump into the friend's ally to get defended. Is this acceptable, YES or NO?


    4. One player (Player A) invites a friend (Player B) to make an Egyptian account whose main purpose is to garage Player A's offensive troops. This garaging happens from the moment Player A can build troops 24/7 for the rest of the server. Is this acceptable, YES or NO?

    ..And that is the Final Word.

    Post was edited 3 times, last by Final Word ().

  • Based on what was stated the following would apply............


    1, Yes
    2, Yes
    3, Yes (although I am not a big fan of jumping in and out of alliances :)
    4, Yes (has this ever been against the rules?) I have been a garage and have used garages and never got in trouble


    The main component to all those scenarios is teammates/friends working to make their alliance stronger and agreeing to it. So each of those players are playing the accounts to their own benefit as that is how they want to play the account.
    If you look at the whole concept of working as an alliance it is based on team play and alliance members helping each other to become greater then those who oppose them on the battelfield.



    I know much more can be debated about this but it is a great start and cant wait to see how this will play out on the server with the different teams.
    Should make for some epic servers across all the domains. :)