Vacation mode is a bad thing too? It's a feature like any other. Helps new players who stil don't know anyone.
I totally agree, this game has many things to complain about, but I wouldn't say that vacation mode is one of them. I would really like 100 other things being fixed before doing anything to vacation mode, like for example improving the justice system they have to punish cheaters.
Have you settled a village from the same village before using residence? Once u settle a village using either residence or palace u have to upgrade them to the next level where it is possible to settle (20 for residence/15 for palace) If u use residence at level 10, destroy it, and then rebuild palace to 10 it won't work.
The sad is that they will always win this discussion, they can creat more accounts to show that techs should be allowed and it is an awesome strategy, no one can proof they are not the same person.
Currently, as long as the meta doesn't have 240 players, it's easy to just swap the techs inside the team when needed in order to defend them. On a lot of servers, it's common to have metas less than 240 players strong, so even with confed limit, it's not an issue for tech users. Even if they can't join the main wings, they could just stay together in their own wing, and either all have a little bit of defense, or have a few defensive accounts in the wing to circumvent it.
if by team u mean alliance, that of course should also be more restrictive, confed resources exchanges should also be limited by antipush system. By doing this techs could still be defended by creating an ally and inviting all techs inside. At least this would put a target and would make things much more difficult. I know the difficulty of identifying multiaccounts, but I really think that we all should put effort on something that is going to end up killing the game.
Show AllJust to clear up what seems to be some confusion (some one saying techs aren't allowed):
Multies are not allowed - i.e. one person playing multiple accounts.
Techs are fully allowed (another person playing the account, but does the same as a multi, i.e. push/garage/gets raided by a main account).
Of course these days, it's easy to change IP adresses to run multies to make them look like techs.
Anyway - basically the domains are divided over whether or not techs should be allowed (and for some domains, even the community of that domain is divided, i.e. here on .com). Domains like .ru, as well as the tournament teams have historically been quick to adopt the tech playstyle, and extensively use it, which have made them clash with other communities when they went to play on for example .com or anglosphere.
As to why techs have been allowed (even though they de facto were on other domains even before the rule change):
- TG wanted uniform rule enforcement. Rule 1.1 as it was, was open to interpretation, and each MH would have to decide what "own benefit" was. As a result, it was not being enforced on some domains at all, while on others, you could get lucky if you reported obvious techs and get them banned.
- Some domains/players argued that people themselves should decide what they consider benefit of playing an account. Want to build 3 villages and be raided by your team? Want to garage a WWK? Want to produce scouts to be killed by friends for off points? If you think it's for your own benefit, it is, and you have complete freedom to decide what you want to do with your own account - and TG also accepted this premise.
- Lastly, it can be almost impossible to tell the difference between a bad/inactive account, and a tech account.
Personally, I think both of the first reasons could be disregarded. Just give out some general guidelines to MHs on what is acceptable behaviour, and then let them judge. Could easily be something like "accounts are generally not allowed to give away more than 1/10th of their resources willingly" or w/e. Of course not applying to inactive accounts. Own benefit - TG decides.
For the last reason, I do understand the issue... But it's still fairly simple - account being raided by one team/player, and if it gets incomings from any other team/player, it gets defended? Tech/multi = can be banned.
Anyway, with allowing techs, obviously this creates problems.
First off all, many players, like you, like myself, don't agree with the tech playstyle.
Secondly, multies and techs are functionally indistinguishable. Before, you could get obvious multies banned for not playing for own benefit, even if there was no clear multi evidence. Now, if you have any brain capacity, you can quite easily disguise multies as techs. Also, even if some techs are legitimate, it pushes other teams/players to use techs too - or if they don't have enough friends who wants to create an account just to be raided, they create multies instead (again, it serves the same function).
The tech issue has been a big topic for all the legends on tour events. As said above though, some domains wants their techs, so ambassadors haven't been united to pressure TG into tackling the tech issue.
For this year's event, there's still not unity between the ambassadors, but almost all agree that techs are an issue. The problem is that we need to present a good solution to TG, and tbh, if you have to accept that TG has the above mentioned premises (can't be enforced by rules), it makes it very hard to come up with a solution... But we're trying.
Meanwhile, any suggestions how to solve it are welcome, and do make noise about the issue! If the communities express their dislike, it just makes it easier for the ambassadors to build a case.
What do u think about applying more restrictions in terms of anti-pushing? At least this would force techs/multies users to have them outside of the alliance so that they cannot be defended as easy as they are right now.
If you have any suggestion how to handle the tech accounts problem, you can always give your idea. They implemented the confederacy system, now they can't freely defense their tech accounts. It does reduce the efficiency of tech accounts but not much.
Everyone who plays this game legitimately like you and I don't like tech accounts abuser, but we have to admit it's a hard to find a solution for it, because obviously the developers don't want to ban players who "might or might not" be using tech accounts. Probably because the developers rely too much on the automated ban system(?) who knows.
By applying an strict policy on anti-push protection things would get much better. Not a solution but an improvement.
I'm a pragmatist. It's been argued extensively for two LoTs at least. They made a decision and I'm assuming this will be end of it, or given even less time to debate overall this year. That is why I said trying to change 1.1 at all will be moot. You can holler all day, everyday, but in the end TG makes the decisions. I personally don't like techs myself, but have had to accept it is increasingly part of the game.
As customer I think that I have to use any available tool to express my dissappointment against the decisions taken, and so I'm doing, I'm also pragmatist, thats why instead of settling with that choice made I face it as much as I can.
No you're not the only one. Just because TG doesn't want to hear about it, doesn't mean it shouldn't hear about it. It still remains the crucial topic and it's only a matter of time when it will come up again. Because it's affecting the game in a major way and it's causing more and more changes that are moving travian further away from what it is.
I've checked hispano section of the forum today. And techs are not forgotten there at all. Although there's no LoT discussion there. Of course, you can hope the dust will settle, as much as someone else can hope the rules can be revised again. Once you start messing with the rules, you can never go back.
This is week after week, first and second systematically raiding their techs, this breaks the game.
Show AllI hope this is the thread for taking topics to Munich. I know they will ask reps to limit their topics to only a few, so maybe a poll would be nice?
So far the discussion is techs and IWWKs. I doubt TG will entertain yet another long discussion on Rule 1.1. Think it is put to bed at this point, whether we support tech use or not.
I guess I can volunteer what I've seen thus far from COM forums or something I think needs addressed (in no order of importance):
Finals:
- IWWKs - Many players are complaining about the increasing tactic of making one-village accounts that can't have troops killed offensively by zeroing the village or chiefed since it is automatically a capital.
Regions/Birthday:
- False Positive Bans and lack of compensation (from VP/artifact loss)
- Balancing Res/Gold Merge
- Wavebuilder Adjustments - Button placement, etc (feedback from French forum is pretty extensive on this)
- New Unique Building (for Gaul) - Something useful all round like every other tribe building
- Improving Hospital - Troop queues get ridiculous when all troop types are queued
- Improving Merchant Speeds - TS or Commerce should affect merchants
- Pop Limits for regions - Teams were unlocking regions with spawned accounts, then deleting said accounts to gain regions (with as little as 2 pop) far in advance of what is typical. Note: May already be fixed
- New or More Winning Conditions
- New or Varied Map/Arties/VP counts. Balancing Regions.
Regular Servers:
- 5 Tribes or no 5 Tribes
- Adding Merge/Forward or Not
- Randomizing BP/Uniques locations
Travian in General:
- Domain Merges - need more info: how many servers, what countries, what costs.. etc.
- False Positive Bans/Improving Customer Relations
- Enforcing Closed Registration sooner.
- Marketing
- New Player Incentives
- App improvements
- Graphic Packs for Buildings/Weather
- Lobby/Centralized Accounts - For example, players are registered to one main account but will have their server info/in game accounts tied to the main account. (Similar to Kingdoms)
And this just how the debate about techs dies? just cause you consider that TG doesn't want to hear of it and look to another place pretending as nothing is happening?
No way, just the "techers" protect the use of techs and either I stop playing or keep fighting against it, and I'm quite sure I'm not the only one here that thinks like me.
Friendly farming are legal except when it is from multi-acc. The multi-acc should got perm ban.
And sometimes they claim to be the sitter to hide their multi-acc.
Therefore I think the solution should be to limit Sitter duration to avoid Sitter abuse. Let say max Sitting day limit (SDL) is 7days. After that you cannot sit for that acc for the next 7days =Sitting Ban Duration (SBD). If you sit again for that acc in the first 7days after the first SBD, The 2nd SDL will reduce to 4days and SBD double. 3rd SDL 1days and SBD triple. 4th time permanent sitting ban.
And if it is proven that more than 2acc play multi-acc or sitter abuse or cheating in an alliance, whole ally members will get penalty too. This is to promote honest gameplay and avoid associated with them.
It gets as easy as establisihing a sitting rotation using more than 3 cheaters so that u can handle 6 techs acounts at the same time. Couldn't it be as easy as identifying what are the resources being used for and ban anyone who just takes profit for himself? Come on, we live in IA era, for sure code can be written to identify when mats are used to recover a capital or to feed defenses in a MW.
Yeah I've seen that one before too, at this stage most of the veterans are buddies with the management team since they've played together for 10+ years. Malaysian server is a joke when it comes to this, one of the alliances there has such a long history that it's their guys who end up being MHs and all the bullshit that comes with that.
Maybe a solution would be to buy some ice cream
Again I have got my posts in that subforum banned, Unknown can u throw some light on this issue please?? Can u see how this game players are sick of these practices and transfer it to whoever it corresponds?
Or you could just add 10 chiefs to the troops on that route until it's cleared to send again. Or any other troop you don't have enough of for the raid to send.
He means market routes, not raiding list.
To make this task easier what u can do is clicking the red cross with the scrolling wheel button. You will open 24 new tabs but it is much easier than going one by one.
This thing is new for hispano servers, I started playing this game in 2008 and of course there were multiaccounts, but nothing as big as what's happening in ts3 with ÑAM alliance. The worst part of it is that we have proved that one person is managing all the "techs" and still the RET team is doing nothing.
We have talked to the head of the managing team in the hispano domain and it looks like everything is arranged to let them cheat in the way they are doing, we are getting banned in the forum and any new thread that gets opened is ignored. They even deleted a post were I pasted the link to this thread. Are we really that unprotected against this practices? Is it enough to be friends with the administration to cover all the "illegal" things being done?
what do u mean? server time is server time, it can't be changed for u
Most of the text in the game uses the masculine gender for heroes, players, etc.
I think it should be changed to either a neutral pronoun "they" or be changed to reflect the player in question. For example, I just sent my hero on an adventure, and my hero is female, yet the game text says "the hero is on his way", which is rather silly. There are not only males who play this game, and not all the characters will be male.
Who are you to assume the gender of your hero?
4 of them are priestesses, including Nefertari
Nairobi
com30
