• this player is banned... i want to know how it's possible he lost the artifacts during this time. Maybe we can report this to Travian Games ;)

  • Like Mercedes already said, message the MH on ukx, if you have done that already, you can contact the community manager (admin@travian.co.uk) and hope that he can answer your questions.


    It shouldn't be possible for others to take artes from a banned player, so something weird has been going on...

  • After 72 hours, artifacts and oases become attackable.


    It shows up on the side with a timer, just like when artifacts from natars are about to be released, or when your account is on delete. It's just a normal function within the game.

    However, they are only attackable, and can't be reinforced, so it's about getting there first. Knowing the banned account is an advantage in this case, since they have the timer for the 72 hours.


    I thought you knew everything, Lemon?

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

  • After 72 hours, artifacts and oases become attackable.


    It shows up on the side with a timer, just like when artifacts from natars are about to be released, or when your account is on delete. It's just a normal function within the game.

    However, they are only attackable, and can't be reinforced, so it's about getting there first. Knowing the banned account is an advantage in this case, since they have the timer for the 72 hours.


    I thought you knew everything, Lemon?


    why i can't send raid to king's oasis? :)

  • HQ changed the way accounts bans worked. Accounts that are banned for certain reason can have WW/Arti/Oasis taken after 3 days.



    This is to prevent the situation that occured on a tournament server where the Top player did enough to ensure victory before doing something that lead to a ban. He won the server while banned.



    As a result players banned for certain reasons will see a message stating that WW, Artifacts and Oasis are attackable in X number of hours.



    The has been lengthy discussion between HQ and Customer Service Rep regarding this topic.



    Please do not message the Multihunter regarding this topic as they will just give you the same response. The discussion is well above something MH can deal with.

    CM mhudson
    Community Manager
    Travian: Legends US/UK


    128-10-93-85-10-128-98-112-6-6-25-126-39-1-68-78

  • I would like to know if anyone on the forum knew of such a rule change?


    As others have said, it is a vast change, and now the alliance the banned account is in are still able to profit from a banned accounts previous activities, how is that classed as fair?


    Also, it removes a lot of the motivation to quickly accept your punishment, just allows an account more time to discuss/argue the punishment...

  • It's been known for a while as far as I know. We've spoken to several multihunters on different domains about how they handle it, and the only difference is that it should normally take 7 days for an account that is banned for script/bot to have artifacts opened.


    And anyone can "benefit" from it, not just the alliance. That's the whole point. I doubt someone spends thousands of euros and hours on an account, just so they can get banned and hand over the artifacts to their alliance.

  • Hey folks,



    You will notice that i have relocated this thread to the bugs section.


    As CM I do not get the full details on Game Matters but after discussing with both the CSR as well as other members of the CM/CSR team their appears to be some confusion over what is and is not intended when it comes to banned accounts and artifacts.


    I'm well aware that i'm jumping out in front of a big red bus but i feel you need to understand some of the discussion that is currently being had.


    The finals server 2016 was marred with controversy where one of the top players deliberately got banned once they had done enough to win to protect their account. As a result there was a decision from HQ to change the way banned accounts work when it comes to WW, Artifacts and Oasis. Release of Oasis from banned players is often raised as a suggestion/change by players also.


    This is where things get a little confusing.


    We (the global crew) understood that the change would only affect a particular set of ban types (lets call the Ban A and Ban B). Anyone banned under those types would after a set period (and the user notified by a sidebar info box) release the restrictions on attacking any village with a WW or artifact and Oasis can also be taken.


    The case on this server where a user was banned for BAN C. The user was presented with an info box informing them that WW/Artifacts/Oasis become attack-able and they questioned it. The Game Center did not provide clarification on if this was a bug/intended function in-time to prevent the artifacts being taken.


    The CSR and myself have both raised the issue to HQ and we have tried to take action to prevent any more loss of oasis/ww/artifacts on other accounts banned for the same reason until its clarified.


    Due to the May Day Bank Holiday responses from HQ are not expected until Tuesday at which point we hope to have clarification on whether this is a bug or intended "feature"


    I understand that there is a lot of unhappy people in relation to this and all i can do is give you my word that we will get clarification, notify you if this is an intended change and attempt to get HQ to resolve the issue with the particular account(s) that was affected.


    Please do not send messages to the Multihunter as they do not have any more details then has been given here.
    I will allow this thread to remain open for discussion however please keep it generic and do not mention players names, To facilitate management we may need to close this thread periodically if I or my senior team is not online to monitor. If we do close the thread please do not make new threads and save your comments until we reopen it.


    Now wheres that bus got to....

    CM mhudson
    Community Manager
    Travian: Legends US/UK


    128-10-93-85-10-128-98-112-6-6-25-126-39-1-68-78

  • And anyone can "benefit" from it, not just the alliance. That's the whole point. I doubt someone spends thousands of euros and hours on an account, just so they can get banned and hand over the artifacts to their alliance.


    However, they are only attackable, and can't be reinforced, so it's about getting there first. Knowing the banned account is an advantage in this case, since they have the timer for the 72 hours.


    anyone 'can' benefit, but 99% of the time you've even said yourself the players alliance will.


    I doubt someone spends thousands of euros and hours on an account, just so they can get banned and hand over the artifacts to their alliance.


    That is exactly what happened in the only example I've seen anyway...

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Tombo457 ().

  • You are going to love this.


    The announcement for this change is here: - TRAIVBXXIV-1154 As GD - I want Oasis, Artifact- and WW-Villages be attackable after a while being banned for payment - so these can't be protected by misuse anymore (after 3 days on all speed factors, ancient cities are affected as well).



    As you can see that states Payment ONLY not all ban types


    I will feedback the comments on resetting to natars. That would seem a sensible option

    CM mhudson
    Community Manager
    Travian: Legends US/UK


    128-10-93-85-10-128-98-112-6-6-25-126-39-1-68-78

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

  • anyone 'can' benefit, but 99% of the time you've even said yourself the players alliance will.




    That is exactly what happened in the only example I've seen anyway...


    You honestly believe anyone would intentionally get banned for that particular effect to happen? It's way easier to just hand artifacts over while not being banned, so hammers won't have to die... they were banned for whatever reason, and then forced to lose the artifacts.


    As mhudson said, the rule is there mostly because of an incident with a WW winning while being banned. A top account in mid-game has no benefits from getting banned.

  • You honestly believe anyone would intentionally get banned for that particular effect to happen? It's way easier to just hand artifacts over while not being banned, so hammers won't have to die... they were banned for whatever reason, and then forced to lose the artifacts.


    As mhudson said, the rule is there mostly because of an incident with a WW winning while being banned. A top account in mid-game has no benefits from getting banned.


    I did not once say anything about it being intentional to transfer artifacts, you seem to have entirely misinterpreted me.


    I am arguing the fact that it is unfair that an alliance that a banned account is in, get the greatest benefit when an account in their alliance is banned with artifacts (because they can speak to the account holder, and recieve the exact time to send attacks). The benefit is much higher than in the old system, in which artifacts are reset at a random time, and to their original location.


    Whilst it's clearly irrelevant now, the update to change the system for banned accounts in relation to WW and artifacts should definitely not have been hidden in patch notes. It should have had its own news post to ensure a level playing field.

  • I did not once say anything about it being intentional to transfer artifacts, you seem to have entirely misinterpreted me.


    I am arguing the fact that it is unfair that an alliance that a banned account is in, get the greatest benefit when an account in their alliance is banned with artifacts (because they can speak to the account holder, and recieve the exact time to send attacks). The benefit is much higher than in the old system, in which artifacts are reset at a random time, and to their original location.


    Whilst it's clearly irrelevant now, the update to change the system for banned accounts in relation to WW and artifacts should definitely not have been hidden in patch notes. It should have had its own news post to ensure a level playing field.


    I suggest you re-read the post you quoted me on then, because I said it wasn't intentional, while you said that's exactly what happened.

  • I suggest you re-read the post you quoted me on then, because I said it wasn't intentional, while you said that's exactly what happened.


    Apologies, I misinterpreted what you meant then. My point still stands on the fact that the likely main people to benefit would be in the alliance connected to the banned account.


    As in the example we've seen, who knows if they were banned intentionally, but it is certain the main people to benefit were in the same alliance :).


    And on the natar reset, it should be said you would certainly lose a lot more proportional amount of troops for taking any artifacts.


    Seperate point but out of interest - How does taking the artifacts work? Would you be able to send 20 cata waves to a hammer village of a banned account containing an artifact, zero it, then have your hero pick up the artifact and make it disappear?

  • I did not once say anything about it being intentional to transfer artifacts, you seem to have entirely misinterpreted me.


    I am arguing the fact that it is unfair that an alliance that a banned account is in, get the greatest benefit when an account in their alliance is banned with artifacts (because they can speak to the account holder, and recieve the exact time to send attacks). The benefit is much higher than in the old system, in which artifacts are reset at a random time, and to their original location.


    Whilst it's clearly irrelevant now, the update to change the system for banned accounts in relation to WW and artifacts should definitely not have been hidden in patch notes. It should have had its own news post to ensure a level playing field.


    i have experienced several times artiefact villages to be opend on banned players, as early as 2015 we counquerd a uniq diet from a banned player. Last winter around this time on UKX a player got banned and we where able to take a small trainer from him when artie village got unlocked. i don't know for how many days they where banned before the village got opend or if it was a countdown clock back then. This time a clock started so we knew when they where going to be relesed.


    The account in question raised this issue to HQ and the answer they provided was that no villages with artiefacts would be relesed while discussions about the ban was going on.


    We kept our eyes open just in case and we where all supriesd when the villages still got unlocked. and when enemy alliances sent attacks to the villages we had to take actions and go for the artiefacts to prevent others from takeing them.


    And if anyone thinks its benefical for us to kill 2 hammers of the banned account and then loose a good portion of our own troops as attackers, they are wrong. Noone from our side wanted that solution, but was forced by ingame actions.



    But tombo even if we knew the time arties would be releses we could not launch attacks untill it was opend, and then you can argue that we have an advantage of beeing close to a allymate. so eaven if everyone knew when the village would get unlocked it would still be the playes closest to banned account that would reach it first.


  • It works like taking artifact from natar. Reinforcements can't be sent, and unattackable after artifact is taken, so I guess it's possible to zero the village, if you save TC and hero for last wave.


    I'm still not sure what example you refer to. If it was the tournament example, or ukx? On ukx, NOBODY benefited from it, and we were only lucky to pick up before the other alliances that somehow knew the time of opening.