Big downside to new implemented anti-pushing function

FNUG · Jul 13th 2020

Hello community and representatives

So we just came across this newly enforced rule today:

Why did we get this?
1 account from our alliance made a trade in the marketplace with a random enemy account on the server. Then a 2nd account from our ally raided the random enemy account after the trade had been made with the enemy (the 2nd account is also the sitter for the 1st account), and when the raid landed he got this warning in his report, resulting in a fight, but no ressources gained from the raid.

Picture taken from the 2nd poster in the thread

What does it mean?
It means that if you make any trades as an account, or any account that you sit, then you can't raid the account which were traded with for 2 weeks.

Why do we care about this?
We as a group have been left quite speechless regarding this anti pushing feature, since it counteracts some of the most basic core functions in the game.
And can result in some heavy downsides at different points in the game. So let me try and narrow down the main concerns.

It's pretty simple to be honest:
We love trading. We add hundreds of trades to the marketplace every day.
Example: 500 clay for 1000 crop in earlygame and 6000 clay for 12000 grain lategame.

Why do we do this?
It's millions of ressources earned under the table, and it also helps feeding the hammers.

So why are we bringing an attention to this?
Both off players and the def players do this trading, and we have 0 control over who picks up the trades. And apparently whoever picks up any trades from us, is given a 14 days anti raid shield.

Likewise there is no information about a trade has been done with an account, so at some point we might see an interesting farm, and then we go clean it, and as soon as we lose thousands of troops clearing it we will get a notification that we can't raid the account. Just imagine that for a second

Then imagine 3 accounts in a sitter grid, whom can't control or see any of this information.
How are we to circumvent these downsides to trading?

So far our only solution is to completely stop trading with anyone on the server, which just means less relevant trades for the low gold users on the server, and we are left with an old feature of the game that has become completely useless.

Was this a planned outcome of the antipushing rule?
And can anyone share any light on the function in general, like when was it even implemented, and how do you feel this changes the flow of the game?

Inzo · Jul 13th 2020

here is a picture of the info from the report!

Mushroom Cl0ud · Jul 13th 2020

It literally says "Sitting or usage of the same computer". So the 2 accounts are connected via a type 3 connection.

FNUG · Jul 13th 2020

Mushroom Cl0ud wrote:

It literally says "Sitting or usage of the same computer". So the 2 accounts are connected via a type 3 connection.

Yes, the 2 accounts from the same ally are connected through sitting.
The 3rd account that got traded with and then raided has no affiliation with the other 2 accounts, other than a minor trade, before being raided.

After further consideration it also means:
At some point we can't raid let's say 10% of the players on the server.
Or it can mean that people can exploit trades, by accepting a trade from us, and then they have immunity from us for 2 weeks, without us even knowing.

Mushroom Cl0ud · Jul 13th 2020

FNUG wrote:

Yes, the 2 accounts from the same ally are connected through sitting.
The 3rd account that got traded with and then raided has no affiliation with the other 2 accounts, other than a minor trade, before being raided.

After further consideration it also means:
At some point we can't raid let's say 10% of the players on the server.
Or it can mean that people can exploit trades, by accepting a trade from us, and then they have immunity from us for 2 weeks, without us even knowing.

Ok because in the original post you talked about 2 accounts and now you are mentioning a 3rd, can you explain again what happened?

FNUG · Jul 13th 2020

Mushroom Cl0ud wrote:

Ok because in the original post you talked about 2 accounts and now you are mentioning a 3rd, can you explain again what happened?

I thought i had made it bulletproof. my bad.

Here is what i have changed it to in the original post, i hope it brings more clarity:

1 account from our alliance made a trade in the marketplace with a random enemy account on the server. Then a 2nd account from our ally raided the random enemy account after the trade had been made with the enemy (the 2nd account is also the sitter for the 1st account), and when the raid landed he got this warning in his report, resulting in a fight, but no ressources gained from the raid.

fnx · Jul 13th 2020

I have no idea when that was added. But the biggest concern something this stupid would have is at the wonder stage. Imagine my NPC village sends resources to the wonder, but the crops at the wonder is getting very low, and then the wonder has to raid my village for full crops (npced), and it says you can't raid due to trade

This is just plain stupid. Even if they had the insight to keep the wonder as the exception, this would still affect the quick res transfers. I don't remember using merchants anywhere but as for trade routes within our own account. Everything else we'd raid for quick transfers, between allies too. They're trying to counter techs, but techs are still not affected at all with these changes. They can still store 100ks of troops inside from allies. They can still be fully raided. So why the restrictions

FNUG · Jul 13th 2020

fnx I hadn't even considered that it would have that effect as well. I hope it's not inforced within the boundaries on the alliance, but i think we can kinda bet that it is.

Yes it's very standard to move large amounts of res around for trainer boosting and what ever players need res for boosting up.

This is gonna have some very crazy impacts.

On the tech note, then yes it has no effect. The only thing it does is to prevent players from boosting the techs. Let's say you complete your own cap at lvl 18 crops before arties, and then you use main off and the def accounts to boost up the techs if their production is not high enough.
But the way many build their techs they just have them simming on their own anyways through proxy.
And isn't this also the reason why the 1h production limit was added so many years ago, so you couldn't do these bigger pushes anyways.

I really have no idea why this has been forced into the game.

Smelly Cat · Jul 13th 2020

I think the biggest impact of this new rule had not been mentioned yet:

As the guy from TG staff mentioned in his reply to the support ticket, When player A and B trade with eachother by accepting random offers on the marketplace, this creates a connection type 3 between them and also the sitters of these two accounts.

As we know, connection type 3 does not only affect raiding but also prevents you from chiefing a village:

------------

Rules for connection type 3

can NOT conquer village of each other

Exceptions

Wonder of the World villages can always be conquered as long as they are not the last village of the defender.
Artefact villages can always be conquered as long as they are not the last village or the capital of the defender.

------------

I mainly see two issues here:

1) you can specifically search for trade offers on the market from dangerous accounts in your area in order to become unchiefable for them.

2) you can try to accept as many offeres from an enemy alliance as possible, which will result in a chiefing protection between them and you and all the accounts that are sitting these accounts. Good luck running an ops like this.

Of course there also is the option, that this connection type 3 via trades only applies to raids and not to chiefing.

Ameno & Ridder Huma would you mind to let us know if chiefing is also affected?

ELE · Jul 13th 2020

Is it in changelog?

FNUG · Jul 13th 2020

ELE wrote:

Is it in changelog?

I went back to december 2019 and still couldn't find anything. I didn't experience it last comx. So i am not sure where it originates from.

Wittekind · Jul 13th 2020

This is not new,

it is already implemented for years to prevent players to send resources to inactive farms using sitter accounts and pickup with your own. Used to be common way to avoid limits...

2016/2017 i saw it first time i think.

Didnt know about the trading restriction, but obviously the resources originate from account that has same ip logged (as sitter) as the one raiding.

Playingwithfire · Jul 13th 2020

Since I think this is something that wishmaster3 may be able to explain or inquire about, I am paging him. I honestly can see the issues with it with a WW.

ELE · Jul 13th 2020

Wittekind wrote:

This is not new,

it is already implemented for years to prevent players to send resources to inactive farms using sitter accounts and pickup with your own. Used to be common way to avoid limits...

2016/2017 i saw it first time i think.

Didnt know about the trading restriction, but obviously the resources originate from account that has same ip logged (as sitter) as the one raiding.

Show All

Pretty sure shipments via market trade were always excluded. Text was also different so I bet on undocumented change, not a bug or mistake.

FNUG · Jul 14th 2020

Thanks for sharing in everybody.

We are glad to receive some further understanding of the changes.
I guess we are a little old within our team, and we don't play that often, and perhaps a bit different from everyone else. But it's the first time we have experienced it.
Maybe it's a bit rare to bump into, and we are pretty sure we traded with people that we raided last server, but i think a few new interesting points have been made as to how it could effect gameplay, and we are looking forward to a further insightful clarification of the impact it has to gameplay.

**wishmaster3** · Jul 14th 2020

I had/have no idea about this. What Wittekind said sounds plausible. But yes, I can inquire about it. Though if it was really implemented many years ago, this is the first time I've seen it pointed out as an issue.

**Ridder Huma** · Jul 14th 2020

Hello all,

The protection has been in the game for years. There was a bug that did not connect accounts correctly, which was fixed at the end of April, so it now works as designed and the purpose of this is to prevent scam action/hidding pushing.

About the "recently" part, it does not mean two weeks in this case. It's a short term limitation, which we can't tell.

Wittekind · Jul 15th 2020

wishmaster3 wrote:

I had/have no idea about this. What Wittekind said sounds plausible. But yes, I can inquire about it. Though if it was really implemented many years ago, this is the first time I've seen it pointed out as an issue.

I remember the ingame message from years ago, when confed limitations where not yet added and i sent millions of resources to wrong village and tried to pickup. which did not work bcs i sent it from sitter account...

Smelly Cat · Jul 15th 2020

Ridder Huma wrote:

Hello all,

The protection has been in the game for years. There was a bug that did not connect accounts correctly, which was fixed at the end of April, so it now works as designed and the purpose of this is to prevent scam action/hidding pushing.

About the "recently" part, it does not mean two weeks in this case. It's a short term limitation, which we can't tell.

Thanks for your feedback.

I totally understand that it is intended to shut down hidding pushing etc. We were just surprised to see it being applied to public trade offers that are being picked up by random people.

So I assume this connection type 3 that is created here does only impact the raiding, right?

And if I pick up a trade offer from an enemy account, I could still chief his villages during an ops on the next day for example?

As for the "recently" part, that's the time period that has been mentioned by your staff in the support ticket.

**Ridder Huma** · Jul 15th 2020

Smelly Cat wrote:

Thanks for your feedback.

I totally understand that it is intended to shut down hidding pushing etc. We were just surprised to see it being applied to public trade offers that are being picked up by random people.

So I assume this connection type 3 that is created here does only impact the raiding, right?

And if I pick up a trade offer from an enemy account, I could still chief his villages during an ops on the next day for example?

As for the "recently" part, that's the time period that has been mentioned by your staff in the support ticket.

Show All

Seems the "recently" part is public knowledge, as I looked up on Answers for connection types, and it mentions 6 hours. Trades via Marketplace also count. All rules for connection types (both anti pushing and anti conquering) can be found on http://answers.travian.com/?vi…ers&action=answer&aid=103

This is Anti pushing rules, so no it dosnt effect conquering.

Hello community and representatives

So we just came across this newly enforced rule today:

Share