Posts by Schmitz' Katze

    You know, this "it's all within the rules" is the boring part about it. Yeeeees, it is "within the rules" if your motherfatherbrothersistergoodfriendandrelative plays the account. And still, it's nothing but a damn multi. We all know that.

    We had the gold-free .org servers back in T3.6-times. They were loved by many (me included, especially the 3x speed org). TG gave up on them and closed .org domain when they introduced T4 and the auction hall. I am sure many players would love to have it back <3

    When the MH starts doing their job properly. It's not that hard to see when a certain someone is only being farmed by a certain someone or when an account has only foreign troops on itself, while having none of his own.

    The MH just needs to take action in this case, not ''I don't wanna deal with this'', there are domains where the MH does take action, which sadly isn't the case on .com, so the only way to solve this is to remind the MH what his job is. Or just replace him if he doesn't really feel like doing his job.


    I slightly feel bad about trashing the MH, but then again... this wouldn't be necessary if actions were taken when they should be, opposed to certain situations, albeit rare.

    This is no issue of good or bad MH. I recall two representants of TG (feanor and templar knight iirc) state that being a friendly farm was a way of 'playing for your team' and was perfectly fine with the rules of the game.

    As long as this is said by CMs.... what actions should MHs take?


    I realized as ally admin that my players who use cheats usually raid 10 times more than those who don't

    And THIS is the issue imo.

    As an ally leader, as a player in general I have a choice when I see cheaters in my group. I can either demand the same for myself or I can just make use of the kick-button.

    And if the honest players refuse to play alongside botters we could hope for changes. But instead automated sending is claimed to be desireable. THATS what I call sad.

    From what I've seen so far, it's only been sent to people that currently hold an account with their e-mail, but not all of those either.

    No, this is not the case. I got one and i do not hold an account since October.


    Generally... I understand the dissatisfaction in some way. But a gift is a gift. One cannot demand it. (And if everyone got it... wouldn't that encourage players to open accounts from countless e-mail-accounts just to get loads of vouchers?
    And if they were only given to accounts with a certain activity to avoid this... would that be fair towards... say a player who couldnt play much the last days because of ... and so on.) Gifts aren't 'fair'. They are nice to get (btw: Thanks, @TG!) and you lose nothing if you don't get them.

    you really have to be a mediocre player if you need these strategies to deal with someone. I'm not surprised that travian is slowly rotting if it leaves the unhealthy ideas of players of your skill affect regulation.

    you really miss the point, mate. How do you come to the idea, _he_ needs such strategies?
    All he says is players _could_ use them and therefore they coud manipulate bans if they were used as you suggested. And that this option speaks against your idea.
    You guys make one core mistake in this debate: You assume everyone who thinks TGs change of the rules for PtP is the right thing to do in the current situation only says so because they want their actual cheating justified.
    This is not the case.

    I have the strong feeling discussion is being dragged away from what it had initially been about.
    I did not see any official of TG say they would stop banning/punishing botters or multi-accounters. Quite the contrary.
    All they are saying is that for _PtP servers_ (not TL or any other) friendly chiefing of _another player_ is considered strategy, not cheating.

    Thing is:
    You see acct A chief acct B.
    Acct B deletes. Later MH sees IP of player former on acct B logging in on acct A.


    So,what does that tell to MH?
    a) was planned from beginning => ban!
    b) players got to talk to each other. player B seemed nice, player B deleted because of loss of village, player B and player A continue talking, player B offers online times player A needs to cover, player B joins acct of player A. = > no ban
    c) can't tell => ....?

    Thanks for finally making a decision.
    And to all those who criticize the outcome: imo this was the only decision they could make.
    Players who are willing to cheat would do it anyway. And many alliances would turn a blind eye on it. Since it is impossible to tell from the fact alone whether chiefing was friendly or not those accts would probably not be banned.
    And if it was forbidden and a few/some/many accts still did it w/o punishment this would make the fair players angry and for sure they would share their anger with the forum ;)


    So what should TG do? Still forbid it and have those who don't mind breaking rules benefit from friendly chiefing? Or legalize it for this server and equal the chances for everyone?
    I think it was the right choice to make in this specific situation.
    Still, I do not like it and would prefer alliances to agree on not using it. I just do not think that will be possible.

    Danilo, I assume you have no idea how much you are disqualifying yourself by your own statements.
    Thanks tho, that's exactly my point proven in a discussion we just had.


    @Ameno: see? nothing about "bad reputation", they just think it's fine tactics.
    additionally, we don't talk about bragging randoms in case of Danilo but of the player who held winning WW on comx one year back.