The next ambassador workshop #7 - Alliance Troops Management

  • Next ambassador workshop is coming soon!

    This time we will focus on Alliance troops management and I would like to ask from you

    any ideas, suggestions or opinions

    I could bring out. Feel free to comment here or you can always contact me in Discord too.


    I would also like to know your

    opinion about ally punishments.

    Ally punishments would mean that for example when a player gets banned for the first time, it causes warning. Second time the whole alliance is punished somehow. This concept has no clear frames yet so any conversation about it is very welcome. Many pros and cons have been discussed already but opinions are most welcome about this too.


    Edit: I would also like to know your

    opinion about this suggestion:

    "Create an option that allows ally leaders or any one who were assigned to that, to see troops from other members of the alliance the same way we can see it. right now in troops overview."


    <3 Yours, Nyx

    ...I'm already under your skin 'cause I'm the big bad wolf, now let the games begin.


    Stars can't shine without darkness

    Post was edited 2 times, last by Nyx_ ().

  • I would also like to know your

    opinion about ally punishments.

    Ally punishments would mean that for example when a player gets banned for the first time, it causes warning. Second time the whole alliance is punished somehow. This concept has no clear frames yet so any conversation about it is very welcome. Many pros and cons have been discussed already but opinions are most welcome about this too.

    Does this mean the same player needs to be banned twice in order for the alliance to get punished or just two bans in total?

    Seems like the idea is pretty bad regardless since its very hard for non premade alliances to know what everyone is up to, even in premade alliances this can be a problem.

    Final 2015 - Das Båt (SE)
    Qualify RU 2016 - Das Båt (Cerber-DD)
    Final 2016 - illicit Ping, Pong & PangPang (Def&Dest)
    Qualify RU 2017 - Chip&Dale #1 off (CerbeR)
    Final 2017 - Chip&Dale (CerbeR)
    Qualify RU 2018 - ChipDale #1 pop (CerbeR)
    Final 2018 - Chip&Dale (WW BP release) (CerbeR-I)
    Qualify RU 2019 - Chip&Dale #3 off (PoweR)
    Final 2019 - Penguin Party (PoweR)
    SE3 2017 - Krokodil
    Anglo6 R1- Mimer (Bifrost)
    Nordics 4 - Morgoth #2 Def (Midgård)
    Anglo6 - Magikarp (Pokédex)
    Active -
    Com2 - Set (Duat)

  • Does this mean the same player needs to be banned twice in order for the alliance to get punished or just two bans in total?

    Seems like the idea is pretty bad regardless since its very hard for non premade alliances to know what everyone is up to, even in premade alliances this can be a problem.

    At the moment the basic idea has been that when the same player gets a second ban (total), then the current alliance gets punishment. So for example two bans for different players within an alliance doesn't give punishment yet. But it will not reset if you change the alliance. Alliance leader gets info about the first ban and after that it's kinda all about trust if the second one is coming or not.


    Good thing about this would definitely be that rules would come even more important to obey. And it might help with multi accounts issues too.

    Issues that have been brought up are mostly about possible false bans, teasing other alliances on purpose and new player/"outsider" changes to get into any alliance because of the possibility to get punishments for all. Premades might become even more common and very hard to get in. Some players also have felt this as an inefficient way to solve problems and they feel like this might also make trust issues and game experience worse.


    Solving problems is not easy of course when it comes to issues like this. But I would appreciate the community point of view about this. I have Talked about this earlier too and that is why I have some idea about pros and cons that have been brought up already. Opinions are still very welcome! :)

    ...I'm already under your skin 'cause I'm the big bad wolf, now let the games begin.


    Stars can't shine without darkness

    Post was edited 1 time, last by Nyx_ ().

  • Here's a very radical suggestion:


    Instead of punishing innocent people (as in rest of the alliance), make the punishments tough enough so they actually make cheating not worth it. Like raid botting for couple weeks = you get what? 5-10% off population, all troops saved. Risk vs. reward. I understand that TG may feel like too "tough" punishments may cause players to quit the game (and not bring more money to them) but that's what has to be done. Risk factor (tough punishments) has to be made large enough so less players will go after the possible reward.


    And this has to be done with some added openness from MH team. If player is caught, for example botting, there should be some things which are told to the player by default if asked. Things should include for example a) IP of the person caught, b) what was used/done and c) rough timeline when it was used/done.

  • Sounds good. Will make the game much more dynamic and spicy when you not only need to worry about spies, but people who join you just to sabotage.


    Furthermore, in combination with TG's habit of banning a couple of innocent players every round without telling them what caused it, you'll have the thrilling experience of knowing if you get banned a second time, your buddies get punished as well.


    As already stated, non-premades will have an even harder time now and in essence, making it harder for unknown beginners to get into the game, which is surely something that will benefit travian.


    No, I don't like it, Makkoo has the right idea.

    Avslutade servrar:
    s1 14 - Nostromo - Reign-Beaux, s1 15 - Zarak, s1 17-18 - GULD - Kilgor,
    s2 16 - TENCHU - Algol,
    s3 14-15 - A A - Tobias,
    s4 13-14 - KIDS - Cyrus, s4 15 - MP - Solmyr,
    s5 13-14 - DEiTY - Daimyo, s5 14- TIKS - Aczalgaea,
    com3 16-17 - TVE - Hydra,
    com6 15-16 - ? - Kashmira, (http://forum.travian.com/showthread.php?t=156483
    com7 12-13 - AE- Piff,

    anglos6 18-19 - Bifrost - Raglefant "The Master of Walling"

    nordics4 19-20 Ar-Pharazôn


    Pågående servrar:

    com2 20-21 - DUAT - Horus

  • Really sounds like a bad idea to punish an entire alliance, the arguments are stated earlier and I agree with them.

    I also agree with making the punishment harder for people who are cheating, thats sounds like a way better idea - than to punish people who cant deffend themself if ally memebers break the rules.

    DK1 - Round 12 (Veritasbrow - GC) - RIP :gau01:
    Nordic 4. Round 1. (Veritasbrow - LHR) - Chicken dinner :rom03:

    Nordic 1. Round 1 ( Veritasbrow - SIN) - RIP :teu01:

    Nordic 4. Round 2 (Thor - GB) - :teu01: GG
    Nordic 1. Round 2 (Veritasbrow - Nevada) :rom03: GG
    Screenshot - b3def0180d1c349862dd20863b87fe26 - Gyazo - Lovely bugs! :)

    Currently active

    Nordics 5. Round 2 (The Last Dance - Idiotbox) :teu01:

    Looking forward to a bit of a break ;(:D

  • If some jerk in your alliance is botting in secret and gets banned for it, I do not think it's fair for the entire alliance to get a penalty for that. If I were an average def player in an alliance, why should I receive a punishment for something a random person that I have no interactions with has done? Collective punishment is never a good solution and the only thing this change would accomplish is having people leave the game for good. Besides this would be a great source for inter-alliance drama and toxicity further burdening any alliance's leadership.


    As for harsher penalties for individual cheaters, that would be something worth trying as some of the penalties for the most egregious offences committed are laughable as of now. I don't think the forum rules allow me to elaborate on this, but most people here probably know what I'm signaling. The current system of interacting with multihunters is not productive in the slightest, because they will not offer any evidence of sorts citing rules and user agreements. This isn't great, because there can be few rare cases with unjustified bans (not often though, thankfully).

  • The only idea that comes up to my mind regarding alliance troop management is reinforced players seeing the incoming troops, as if they were sending them between their own villages. I see this suggested every now and then in the official Discord. But this is a relatively small quality of life thing, not of great importance.


    But then, alliance punishments. I fail to see how collective punishments would benefit the game in any way. I understand the idea behind it, moving the responsibility of handling cheaters and other rule-breakers partially to the alliance leaders. Others have already given detailed opinions about the issues this might bring and I will not rewrite them here - I strongly agree with every one of them with this.


    Regarding the same topic, I would not mind individual accounts receiving harsher punishments. This would need to come hand in hand with more open policies in TG - player communication and more detailed reasoning behind the bans and penalties. Some of the reasons are obvious, like breaking the netiquette or password sharing - players surely know if they are guilty of such crimes, and there is hardly anything unclear with those cases to anyone.


    The problematic part starts with "bots/scripts", which is as vague as it gets. I have witnessed multiple cases where accounts get banned and punished for bots and scripts without any kind of clarification, what actually has been done that has triggered the attention of the RET. Some players surely know what they have done but what about those who do not? Considering the false positives, how is a legit player supposed to know what he was doing "wrong" and avoid that in the future if they are not told? It is like parents grounding their child and smashing their Lego buildings down without telling the kid why they are angry at them. Some would call that abusive parenthood but in the world of browser games it's an every day norm. In case of reverted punishments, the 30 gold apology does nothing when players have lost the trust to the RET and their tools.


    This policy is being supported by the idea of not letting the bot/script makers learn how the surveillance tools work. Meanwhile, there is a no rules server (apart from etiquette) running on the Arabics domain, allowing all kind of bots and scripts and what not. I know it was requested in the Arabic community and I don't see anything bad in running the server on its own - probably benefits TG as well to see, what kinds of illegal tools are being used. I only find it contradicting that these kind of servers can be requested by a community, yet our long-lasting cries for more open communication between RET and playerbase are being shot down with such a poor excuse.


    TG should be combatting rulebreakers with more severe punishments while making sure the number of false positives go all the way down to 0; not by holding the hands and patting the heads of communities that are famous of their illegal ways of "playing", or trying to outsource the cheater purge to alliance leaders.

    You know what's worse than useless? Useless and oblivious.

  • Because sharing device is not against rules, it might cause some issues in sharing password - but I have no idea how big is the issue in these cases.


    Regarding the same topic, I would not mind individual accounts receiving harsher punishments. This would need to come hand in hand with more open policies in TG - player communication and more detailed reasoning behind the bans and penalties. Some of the reasons are obvious, like breaking the netiquette or password sharing - players surely know if they are guilty of such crimes, and there is hardly anything unclear with those cases to anyone.

    ...I'm already under your skin 'cause I'm the big bad wolf, now let the games begin.


    Stars can't shine without darkness

  • One more thing about troop management I would like to bring up is a suggestion:


    "Create an option that allows ally leaders or any one who were assigned to that, to see troops from other members of the alliance the same way we can see it. right now in troops overview."


    What do you think about this?

    ...I'm already under your skin 'cause I'm the big bad wolf, now let the games begin.


    Stars can't shine without darkness

  • One more thing about troop management I would like to bring up is a suggestion:


    "Create an option that allows ally leaders or any one who were assigned to that, to see troops from other members of the alliance the same way we can see it. right now in troops overview."


    What do you think about this?

    This can currently be done by external platforms (Gettertools, for example), which will probably be used in the future as well because of their other functionalities like operation planning and defense coordination. I can see history repeating itself as with the reworked battle simulator: it is still not as good as Kirilloid (despite solid improvement from the original), why would I use the worse version?


    I do not mind such feature being implemented directly into the game but I wouldn't consider it a priority either.

    You know what's worse than useless? Useless and oblivious.

  • This can currently be done by external platforms (Gettertools, for example), which will probably be used in the future as well because of their other functionalities like operation planning and defense coordination. I can see history repeating itself as with the reworked battle simulator: it is still not as good as Kirilloid (despite solid improvement from the original), why would I use the worse version?


    I do not mind such feature being implemented directly into the game but I wouldn't consider it a priority either.

    Not everyone is willing to use an external tool for such thing.

    This would be a possibility for leaders to do the same thing they can do today without only 50% using or even update the gettertool.


    It would be easy to use and everyone could use it easy without doing anything.

    Leaders would not need to remind everyone to update there troops anymore either.

  • And this has to be done with some added openness from MH team. If player is caught, for example botting, there should be some things which are told to the player by default if asked. Things should include for example a) IP of the person caught, b) what was used/done and c) rough timeline when it was used/done.

    While I don't disagree with the sentiment that it's frustrating for players who get falsely banned, or players who have duals that cheat without them knowing, to not get any info... Providing this information helps cheaters and cheat-creators a lot, because you can pinpoint exactly what caused the cheating to be detected. It's the same in basically any game, you'll get a broad reason (if even given any reason at all), with no specifics. Edit: for IP adresses, there's also the GDPR issues.


    What I'd rather discuss.. When a false ban is reversed, maybe some info could be provided as to what caused it, so perhaps some specific action or pattern can be avoided. Though, that could still provide information to be used by cheaters too.


    As for harsher punishments, those have been advocated by LoT participants every year - and TG have actually upped the punishments a lot (latest example being punishment for multies (+password sharing)). But can definitely look at even harsher punishments for other things too.

  • While I don't disagree with the sentiment that it's frustrating for players who get falsely banned, or players who have duals that cheat without them knowing, to not get any info... Providing this information helps cheaters and cheat-creators a lot, because you can pinpoint exactly what caused the cheating to be detected. It's the same in basically any game, you'll get a broad reason (if even given any reason at all), with no specifics. Edit: for IP adresses, there's also the GDPR issues.


    What I'd rather discuss.. When a false ban is reversed, maybe some info could be provided as to what caused it, so perhaps some specific action or pattern can be avoided. Though, that could still provide information to be used by cheaters too.


    As for harsher punishments, those have been advocated by LoT participants every year - and TG have actually upped the punishments a lot (latest example being punishment for multies (+password sharing)). But can definitely look at even harsher punishments for other things too.


    1st) I'm quite certain that refusing to provide the information only acts as a brief delay for cheating development and I see it as a bad excuse. I'm more worried about paying customers getting screwed over. On one of the servers I've been playing recently we made a conscious decision to not micro-raid at all because of an incredible amount of (false) bans. This encourages teching, which is a huge problem in itself. It also reduces the threshold of actually cheating as well, since if there's a risk of getting banned for playing cleanly, why not just double down on the gamble. I do not want to get into TG's and RET's policy of handling complaints etc because this really isn't the place for it, but this isn't as clear cut as pw sharing and other things like that where you can be almost 100% confident that whoever gets a ban has deserved it. Sharing full IP addresses is not GDPR compliant, so that's not the gripe here.


    2nd) I might get edited out for spelling this out loud on the forums, but resource buying is an issue. The current penalties are applied irrespective of bought resources and the more you buy, the more you are able to invest into production which diminishes the penalty. These penalties in particular need to be a lot harsher imo.

  • Sharing full IP addresses is not GDPR compliant, so that's not the gripe here.

    Not sure if I understand you correctly. Sharing full IP addresses is indeed not compliant with GDPR, as IP addresses are considered personal data. The comment I was replying to was suggesting that banned players are told the IP address that triggers the ban, and I was commenting on that.


    And yes, false bans are a big issue, which has been brought up through many channels with TG. As said, maybe it could be looked at, to provide a little more information when a ban is reversed. False bans are a tiny fraction of the bans happening though.. But when they happen, it's quite often prominent accounts - I guess in part because the system flags them, because their actions looks exactly like scripting/botting (we all know the nerds sending raids out 24/7 every 15 mins, ourselves included of course).


    2nd) I might get edited out for spelling this out loud on the forums, but resource buying is an issue. The current penalties are applied irrespective of bought resources and the more you buy, the more you are able to invest into production which diminishes the penalty. These penalties in particular need to be a lot harsher imo.

    Can definitely ask to have a look at punishments for this - though as far as I know, they're already pretty severe - but perhaps not if you buy literally 10's of millions of resources.