Biggest problem with the new tribes - moral dilemma

  • Well to start with, option 2 seems a fairytale, if the guy settles before you that have capacity to rush catas early, he probably spent a s**tloads of gold to settle and it seems unlikely he will just quit after 3 weeks, sure something could have happened irl but the example really dont apply to the reality as a common behaviour.

    Try to play Egyptian and you will see.


    Option one: i believe that noone would be such a bad player and get a nice 15 cropper, but anyway i still believe mh investigation could lead to the solution.
    Option 2: u can see that a well rounded 15 cropper without defence is going go be chiefed, so it's obvious that is a friendly chiefing and u ban the player.

    Did I hear you right? You suggest that every chiefing that did not meet defense is friendly and bun the player? Which of two players btw?



    1. Player is complete noob if you settle next to a 15c egy and they don't notice you "rushing" chiefs which would be *very* slow in the context of v2-v3.
    2. MH could just implement a lesser penalty in the greater probability that its arranged chiefing without direct evidence, although such clues as speed of settling for both parties, is the player making def, does player B try to scout, etc - circumstantial evidence, or lack of defensive actions that points to arranged chiefing could be used in a "judgment call"

    Will the probability table made public? How will you calculate it? And do I get it right - newbies should be penalized just because they are less experienced?

    The post was edited 2 times, last by ELE ().

  • Try to play Egyptian and you will see.

    Did I hear you right? You suggest that every chiefing that did not meet defense is friendly and bun the player? Which of two players btw?


    Will the probability table made public? How will you calculate it? And do I get it right - newbies should be penalized just because they are less experienced?

    Correct me if Im wrong, but the advantage the Egyps have in the start is generating a higher PC? Still need NPC resources for settlers/residence etc to settle fast. Chiefing a friend have always been possible by lower lojalty to 0 yourself before getting chiefed. Changing the 1.1 rule, imo, legalize the FF:s and the FF:s in reality works exactly as a multiaccount reguarding the impact ingame. A game very well balanced playing by the rules but nowadays are completly unbalanced due to multies and FF:s.

    HUX: alanopeloso|BuioPest

    COMX: tyra pack|ITINF

  • Lmao, we are talking about a 15 crop that is going to be capital and has to be the second village, not any cropper in the game. It's pretty obvious if they are doing it intentionally.
    No player would let a good cropper for free, and a noob one surely isn't gonna get one faster than a good account.

  • Try to play Egyptian and you will see.

    Did I hear you right? You suggest that every chiefing that did not meet defense is friendly and bun the player? Which of two players btw?


    Will the probability table made public? How will you calculate it? And do I get it right - newbies should be penalized just because they are less experienced?

    Do you prefer 1 case of wrongful ban on 10000, or 10000 cheaters without ban that ruin the whole server?


    What are we talking about? You have played for many years, how many wrongful ban you see?
    From 2008 i see 3, maybe 4 case.
    And i know a lot of player that have never been banned; if you are ok, at 99,99% you can be peaceful.

    ........................... ...............................

  • I think it is quite sad that so many are trying to defend these actions as being innocent as if there has never been a loophole or every rule ever made is supposed to catch abuses 100% of the time. That is why we have human MHs to use their brains to investigate and why I call this a judgment call. Let’s just stick with the context that it’s a high level cropper 125+ early in the settling process, v2 or v3. Hun and Egyp settle next to each other, at some point Egypt cropper gets chiefed by Hun and someone notices and reports. That it’s a high level cropper and contextual situation already implies that these accounts involved are at least experienced to know the value of said villages/potential cap. It is a situation already suspicious enough that it would warrant a look.


    Now MH obviously can’t use 3rd party evidence like Skype chat and in absence of igm communication would have to rely on other clues such as, and I’ve mentioned some before:


    1) Does the Egypt player react in anyway to Hun being near? Do they make loads of defense from spawn and rein their cropper? Do they make scouts?


    2) Was there resource transfer of any kind such as Hun pushing Egy to go even faster because that 150 was just too good to miss out to other experienced Egypts?


    3) Were they in or ever been in same alliance, and one jumped out briefly or perhaps they spawned within minutes of each other and that they both end up going for same cropper is too much coincidence?


    4) What does the chiefing player do? Do they scout looking for defense and building type? Yes someone may like to try run in blindly, but is it 1 chief and handful of troops with lazy chiefing or are they sending the full armada and a welcome wagon?


    5) Sure you could case the player’s activity and chief him at night but what if he or she shows as online but doesn’t attempt to resist after a failed first attempt? Or even physically removes defense for free pass?


    And sure, there may be cases where players are just so clever they go to great lengths to throw the scent off so to speak, or perhaps one is really so noob they don’t realize they’re sitting on a gold mine, but really, I see no claim that enforcement of such a thing as friendly chiefing or teching or anything similar can be 100% foolproof. But do you want a game where such abusers (for lack of a better term) run rampant and MHs are tied, or do you want a game where you recognize the possibility of a false positive but at least the MHs are actively trying to create a fair game as possible for beginners and veterans alike?

    ..And that is the Final Word.


    The post was edited 1 time, last by Final Word ().

  • As said above you guys need to educate yourself a bit before you bring up these comments.


    The Egyptian accounts I sit settled 15 150, very central on beta. I don't think more than 200 gold was spent.


    We settled our 150 last BD server as 6th village, after cataing someone from that spot. The region was not open for settling for outsiders till we were ready for 4th village.


    Added: Egyptian's 75% cropper is equal 150% of any other tribe (minus cost of waterworks). So yeah, we are talking pretty much about any cropper.



    Do you prefer 1 case of wrongful ban on 10000, or 10000 cheaters without ban that ruin the whole server?

    Where these numbers came from? I have seen at least 4 just last year. And what was offered above is to multiply these case by i don't even know how much, maybe 100s. I have no data how many people will go chiefing without prior scouting and apparently that is to be penalized.



    This is not only wrong ban, the cheating happens now. There is no way to find it with reasonable degree of certainty. The rule is not enforceable.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by ELE ().

  • As said above you guys need to educate yourself a bit before you bring up these comments.


    The Egyptian accounts I sit settled 15 150, very central on beta. I don't think more than 200 gold was spent.


    We settled our 150 last BD server as 6th village, after cataing someone from that spot. The region was not open for settling for outsiders till we were ready for 4th village.

    You didn't answer me.
    Do you prefer 10000 cheaters in the servers, or 1 wrongful ban but 10000 cheaters banned?



    If you are looking for a perfect solution, i'm sorry to tell you but doesn't exist. Doesn't exist in real, let alone in a game.



    But in real, if you are a thief you end up in a jail. Like in travian 6-7 years ago when MH could ban.
    Now in Travian, if you are a cheaters for the TG it's ok if you are not wrong to log....because MH can't use their brain to analyze the situation and ban the obvious cases.


    Which Travian you want? A travian where no one are banned, or a travian where players can have fun without cheaters?

    ........................... ...............................

  • Unlike you, I have been accused of certain things based on probability and my family members were (not in game). And I did not like it a bit. I understand that everything is based on probability anyway, just "certain" cases have it very high. At the certain level I would agree on probability, that is why I asked you there did you get your numbers from.


    My experience is that among cases I know banned under current reduction of rule 1.1. about 2-3% are false positive. This is to high for my taste.

  • Just a bit of a comment. Please, keep in mind that this rule waive is currently only for Path to Pandora servers and only because exchanging villages of different tribe there is quite a valid alliance strategy, which we have to consider.


    Now, what you offer (correct me if I am wrong):


    Forbid and punish any friendly chiefing. If MH suspects friendly chiefing, he may ban players for 24-36 hours, look deep into the issue, and if he believes that players most likely had secret agreement, punish both and delete village in question.


    Pros:
    - More fair play (in this particular aspect) because (some) players would be afraid to do that.


    Cons:
    - Human mistakes can lead to honest players being wrongfully banned. Even if eventually Multihunter decides that it was just regular chiefing, player would still lose 24-36 h of his time, crucial at the beginning of the server and with high probability will end career at least on that server.
    - Not all cases can be caught and players would easily adjust to that. (Like join "enemy alliance", train 200-300 def to make it look like it's normal chiefing and conviniently go offline for a night just to wake up without a village).
    - Not all cases that look like friendly chiefing are actually friendly chiefing. (Player left the game and their alliance, moved capital to smallest village and removed army - will we consider this chiefing friendly? Should we punish a player who used that opportunity and chiefed any of the villages?).


    Since rule 1.1 is still an ongoing discussion, I'll be happy to get as detailed feedback as possible.

    Ameno.png
    When you contact me via PM, please, send your messages in English.

  • Unlike you, I have been accused of certain things based on probability and my family members were (not in game). And I did not like it a bit. I understand that everything is based on probability anyway, just "certain" cases have it very high. At the certain level I would agree on probability, that is why I asked you there did you get your numbers from.


    My experience is that among cases I know banned under current reduction of rule 1.1. about 2-3% are false positive. This is to high for my taste.

    I belive the point here is the non use of the 1.1 rule even seeing a clear case of FF:s (like one account raiding and absorbing another 10-15 for personal use). The rule is not being used even in obvious cases. The addition to the rule that applies now in pandora gives a clear signal to us players that there is no intention to stop that gameplay regardless of pandora or not. I can very well understand that rulechange based on the fact that in pandora you can have villages from different tribes, I just wonder if anyone even thought about the fact of how many FFs that will be started just with the purpose to serve one account now? Do we want to unbalance the game this way? Why not legalize the multies also? Or maybe farmbots for single players? That way we will all have the same possibilitys right?

    HUX: alanopeloso|BuioPest

    COMX: tyra pack|ITINF

    The post was edited 1 time, last by NeoRec_IT ().

  • You really dont have chiefs that early in the server when 24h are crucial.

    HUX: alanopeloso|BuioPest

    COMX: tyra pack|ITINF

  • For now.

    Yes, for now, because from what I know, and what has already been discussed, most people here agree that it would be better to replace the rule with more or less exact cases of what's forbidden and what is not. And yes, any feedback is helpful in this case.

    Ameno.png
    When you contact me via PM, please, send your messages in English.

  • You really dont have chiefs that early in the server when 24h are crucial.

    You have to keep in mind that settling early croppers doesnt have the same value in PtP as in Legends.
    There is nothing special to settle your cropper as 4th village for example. And its no rocket science to get chiefs ready by then.

  • You have to keep in mind that settling early croppers doesnt have the same value in PtP as in Legends.There is nothing special to settle your cropper as 4th village for example. And its no rocket science to get chiefs ready by then.

    And 24h are not crucial with 4 villages :osd:

    HUX: alanopeloso|BuioPest

    COMX: tyra pack|ITINF

  • You didn't understand what the problem is.


    We pay for gold TravianGames and we would like the TG to guarantee us an honest and clean game.
    Today the MHs cannot ban the dishonest multiaccounts, because YOU TG don't want ban if you don't have 100% proof, although it's evident in 99% of cases that they go against the rule:


    Current edition (still effective on all other servers):
    § 1.1 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.


    Now, for the Pandora, you change the rule encouraging even more the cheaters to make 3-4-10 accounts just to get them absorbed, and do nothing to increase the sanctions or give more authority to MHs (has it was once!!!!).
    This new rule is incredible, it has displaced us, instead improving it you wanna to put everyone in the position to make multi just to incorporate them. Legally.



    Is not only the chiefing friendly the problem. The problem is that we would like you TO REALLY USE the current rule


    ....but your intentions seem to go the opposite way.

    ........................... ...............................

  • Then how about giving proper feedback and suggestions rather than blatantly pissing all over the place?

    It actually exsist a proper thread with several suggestions in the italian forum. with very good discussions. Ameno have both read and posted in that thread, unfortunately we cant respond anymore, thread was closed by the italian admin.....

    HUX: alanopeloso|BuioPest

    COMX: tyra pack|ITINF