Biggest problem with the new tribes - moral dilemma

    By using our site, you accept the use of cookies to make your visit more pleasant, to offer you advertisements and contents tailored to your interests, to allow you to share content on social networks, and to create visit statistics for website optimisation. More information

    • Mr. Seven wrote:

      We understand what it means. Some of you don't understand the consequence of it probably because they are newbies, including you.
      Who play this game for some years know very well what this changes mean to the future of this game and anyone Who Is not a cheater will be not Happy about that.
      Rest assured I know what the consequences are, sweet summer child.
      Now, you may like them or not. But its not related to multi accounting.
      And I also dont see how cheaters would benefit from this rule change since they have already been doing this.

      And by the way, calling people with a different opinion newbies just disqualifies yourself and your whole line of argument.
    • I see no difference between techs and multies.

      One player sets up 3 accounts and raids/chiefs them

      One player has 3 friends set up accounts and he raids/chiefs them

      End result is same. Same amount of gold invested; same amount of time invested.

      A multi-er is just someone with no friends.
      ..And that is the Final Word.

    • It's for TG to set the rules, that is where the line is drawn. This explanation is poor. Nothing against you, Ameno, I think you have been put in a difficult position by those in Munich who have once again let down those who care so much about this game all for a short-term approach.

      As for Path for Pandora, it is a mess. You need to open Beta earlier so we have more time to test the new functions, I've never known so many bugs.



      Thanks again for trying to explain the 1.1 rule, we all do appreciate your efforts.
      Livvy - GUA, Mostly Harmless, ChamELEon, Salah



      I cleared my cache and I liked it

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Defender of the Mint ().

    • Defender of the Mint wrote:

      It's for TG to set the rules, that is where the line is drawn. This explanation is poor. Nothing against you, Ameno, I think you have been put in a difficult position by those in Munich who have once again let down those who care so much about this game all for a short-term approach.

      As for Path for Pandora, it is a mess. You need to open Beta earlier so we have more time to test the new functions, I've never known so many bugs.



      Thanks again for trying to explain the 1.1 rule, we aall do appreciate your efforts.
      Those aren't bugs; they're features :D
      ..And that is the Final Word.

    • Final Word wrote:

      Defender of the Mint wrote:

      It's for TG to set the rules, that is where the line is drawn. This explanation is poor. Nothing against you, Ameno, I think you have been put in a difficult position by those in Munich who have once again let down those who care so much about this game all for a short-term approach.

      As for Path for Pandora, it is a mess. You need to open Beta earlier so we have more time to test the new functions, I've never known so many bugs.



      Thanks again for trying to explain the 1.1 rule, we aall do appreciate your efforts.
      Those aren't bugs; they're features :D
      You can queue troops without having resources for it :D
      cash me ousside, how bout dat?
    • Smelly Cat wrote:

      Rest assured I know what the consequences are, sweet summer child.Now, you may like them or not. But its not related to multi accounting.
      And I also dont see how cheaters would benefit from this rule change since they have already been doing this.

      And by the way, calling people with a different opinion newbies just disqualifies yourself and your whole line of argument.
      The consequences are that everyone is now forced to play like a cheater to be competitive.
      If u like that, u probably are already doing it. That's my point.
      TG could let MH ban everyone who do this silly friendly chiefing like they used to do 10 years ago.
      The will is to make all people use multi-like strategies to defeat multis. can't believe any experinced good player would appreciate this. That's why we all stopped in the past years. The remains of the playerbase is adapting to something that has nothign to do with old travian.
    • Ameno wrote:

      I think I should bring some more explanation to the rule.

      First of all, as an active player myself I completely understand your concerns. However, looking at the bigger picture I honestly do not expect much from that rule change.

      Rule 1.1 topic has been brought to us countless number of times. General feedback was the following: the rule is too vague and "own benefit" can be misenterpreted in so many ways that it actually makes every person wonder whether any action they do is rule violation or not.

      Just few examples I gave recently in numerous discussions. So, if...

      1) Off player chiefs and voluntarily gives away villages for his fellow less experienced players, risking to get walled anytime and losing in their own progress.
      2) Player pushes some ally member to help get strategically important spot, sometimes sacrificing own development and delaying settling second village.
      3) Defender sends all his def to some other player while having massive attacks on their villages.
      ...

      Do all those players play for their own benefit? No, each one of them is sacrificing something (sometimes big part or everything) for the mutual goal. Are those people real team players? From my prospective, yes, I would honestly prefer to have them as my co-allies.

      At the same time we can't deny, that there are players who work as "private farms" for other players. That we have players whose only goal is to grow villages for the others to chief them. Accounts that exist only to clear oases around some player so that this player could farm them.

      To be clear - we, as TG, do not think that this is a way the game should be played, neither do we approve those actions. However, in the game with so clear social component, where mutual goals often require some sort of sacrifice to make alliance stronger and bigger, to help them achieve the final goal, where exactly we should put the line? And not only put the line, but also be able to enforce it.

      And in that case I would honestly rely more on players "standards of morality" than on any even most strict game rules. We do not have rule that forbids spiking, and still most players are not doing that because they believe such behaviour as foul play. Yes, maybe I am idealist, and I think a bit too good about the majority of players, only time will show. However, like I already said in my announcement, I would like to give it a try and see what happens.

      Future of the game depends on you as much as on us.


      Thank you for understanding.

      //Ameno

      Sorry Ameno, but you're lying and you know it so very well ;)

      If you (TG) wanted really do something against multiaccount, you wouldn't have lowered the penalties.
      A lot of years ago if MH (Multi Hunter --> you know what it means, no?) could ban multiaccounts, the multis were deleted and the "main" account suffered 60% + cancellation of troops.
      Today, MH can't ban if the account have 1 clear IP (also if it have 10000 log with proxy, but 1 clear it's ok... ridicolous), and if MH ban because the cheaters are wrong to log, you TG no longer give any penalties, only ban the other multis, but at the main account NOTHING.


      Why??? Explain to us why please.
      Is just because TG don't want, simply, multiaccounts brings to you a lot of money.


      And now you write that the future depends on you as much as on us???
      I spent years to reporting all multiaccounts to MH, both allies and enemies, but the MHs can't ban and noone do nothing.

      It's like reporting to policemen and seeing them doing nothing to arrest the thief, and finally they tell to you "the future also depends on you"....you're kidding us.



      After this your answer, i reluctantly hope that the future i expect is that no one will charge to TG more money and fail in a few months. Sorry but is true.
      ........................... ...............................
    • Ameno wrote:

      I think I should bring some more explanation to the rule.

      First of all, as an active player myself I completely understand your concerns. However, looking at the bigger picture I honestly do not expect much from that rule change.

      Rule 1.1 topic has been brought to us countless number of times. General feedback was the following: the rule is too vague and "own benefit" can be misenterpreted in so many ways that it actually makes every person wonder whether any action they do is rule violation or not.

      Just few examples I gave recently in numerous discussions. So, if...

      1) Off player chiefs and voluntarily gives away villages for his fellow less experienced players, risking to get walled anytime and losing in their own progress.
      2) Player pushes some ally member to help get strategically important spot, sometimes sacrificing own development and delaying settling second village.
      3) Defender sends all his def to some other player while having massive attacks on their villages.
      ...

      Do all those players play for their own benefit? No, each one of them is sacrificing something (sometimes big part or everything) for the mutual goal. Are those people real team players? From my prospective, yes, I would honestly prefer to have them as my co-allies.

      At the same time we can't deny, that there are players who work as "private farms" for other players. That we have players whose only goal is to grow villages for the others to chief them. Accounts that exist only to clear oases around some player so that this player could farm them.

      To be clear - we, as TG, do not think that this is a way the game should be played, neither do we approve those actions. However, in the game with so clear social component, where mutual goals often require some sort of sacrifice to make alliance stronger and bigger, to help them achieve the final goal, where exactly we should put the line? And not only put the line, but also be able to enforce it.

      And in that case I would honestly rely more on players "standards of morality" than on any even most strict game rules. We do not have rule that forbids spiking, and still most players are not doing that because they believe such behaviour as foul play. Yes, maybe I am idealist, and I think a bit too good about the majority of players, only time will show. However, like I already said in my announcement, I would like to give it a try and see what happens.

      Future of the game depends on you as much as on us.


      Thank you for understanding.

      //Ameno
      I have one question, why does the 1.1 rule even exsist and what was the purpose implementing it? You have just explained that it will never be used so Im curious
      Finals: the nerone - Infiniti| Inno Di Mameli - SPQR WW HOLDER FINALS 2017/2018
      FRX : Rockerduck

    • Smelly Cat wrote:

      Rest assured I know what the consequences are, sweet summer child.Now, you may like them or not. But its not related to multi accounting.
      And I also dont see how cheaters would benefit from this rule change since they have already been doing this.

      And by the way, calling people with a different opinion newbies just disqualifies yourself and your whole line of argument.
      If you say "that rule changing Is not related to multi accounting" there are 2 posibilities:

      -you are a newbie.
      -you are so naive.

      I don't know you so I think you are just a noob that writes post only for +1 in his messages counter.

      Ps. Nobody said that cheaters will benefit of it but that now what they use to do became LEGIT.
      List of Dislike:
      alessandra
      Mazza Pazza

    • i never said i liked it. Dont put words in my mouth.
      All im saying is that multi accounting is still not allowed and will be punished.
      As for the friendly chiefing, how on earth should any MH be able to identify which ones were friendly and which ones were not.
      Of course there will always be some blatantly obvious examples that are easy to spot.
      But the problem is that if MH cant identify all of them, he will end up punishing only a certain percentage of the affected players. And therefore i can understand why TG decided to change the rules accordingly.

      And to be honest, i think its just silly to blame TG or the admins for this if none of you people has come up with a waterproof concept on how to approach and resolve this issue.
    • Smelly Cat wrote:

      i never said i liked it. Dont put words in my mouth.
      All im saying is that multi accounting is still not allowed and will be punished.
      As for the friendly chiefing, how on earth should any MH be able to identify which ones were friendly and which ones were not.
      Of course there will always be some blatantly obvious examples that are easy to spot.
      But the problem is that if MH cant identify all of them, he will end up punishing only a certain percentage of the affected players. And therefore i can understand why TG decided to change the rules accordingly.

      And to be honest, i think its just silly to blame TG or the admins for this if none of you people has come up with a waterproof concept on how to approach and resolve this issue.
      If they pay me i'll come up with a waterproof concept, untill then that is not my job. :)
      cash me ousside, how bout dat?
    • Smelly Cat wrote:

      And to be honest, i think its just silly to blame TG or the admins for this if none of you people has come up with a waterproof concept on how to approach and resolve this issue.
      Actually, in a italian thread we wrote many ideas on how to approach and resolve multiaccounting issue but Tg don't give a damn about those cause multi bring money to TG and this Is what they want: money, money and money!
      List of Dislike:
      alessandra
      Mazza Pazza

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Yowie: Removed swear ().

    • Smelly Cat wrote:

      i never said i liked it. Dont put words in my mouth.
      All im saying is that multi accounting is still not allowed and will be punished.
      As for the friendly chiefing, how on earth should any MH be able to identify which ones were friendly and which ones were not.
      Of course there will always be some blatantly obvious examples that are easy to spot.
      But the problem is that if MH cant identify all of them, he will end up punishing only a certain percentage of the affected players. And therefore i can understand why TG decided to change the rules accordingly.

      And to be honest, i think its just silly to blame TG or the admins for this if none of you people has come up with a waterproof concept on how to approach and resolve this issue.
      As paying customers we actually pay for that service :osd: We pay real money expecting the TG to make sure they can secure that their own rules are followed. Its not up to us, its up to TG.
      Finals: the nerone - Infiniti| Inno Di Mameli - SPQR WW HOLDER FINALS 2017/2018
      FRX : Rockerduck

    • Multiaccounting is not allowed, this is quite clear in rules. And one would think if MH don't have to spend time on chasing friendlies they would devote more time to chasing multies.

      I remind everyone that the rule change applies to PtP only and PtP is running under resources/reinforcements restricted to confederacy only which was introduced as IN GAME MECHANICS to help with disposable accounts abuse. We will see if that helps.

      For everyone disliking Ameno, one way or another, please explain me what changed exactly? You were given a scenario about friendly chiefing above. I can give you another one:
      An egyptian player settles 15C, I settle next to it and rush catas and chiefs.
      Option one: this is random player and one day when he sleeps I chief the village, he was careless enough not to change to a capital, no one was on the account to build palace or use tablets.
      Option two: this is my buddy who does not play anymore but don't mind poking around for 3 weeks till i get to chief, does not mind to drop little gold on the account. The accounts have no connection whatsoever, all giggling is on skype. One day I chief the village, nobody was on the account, same as above. Nobody will join mine as a dual.

      Now someone with right moral tell me how MH suppose to distinguish 2 cases? Thanks.
    • ELE wrote:

      Multiaccounting is not allowed, this is quite clear in rules. And one would think if MH don't have to spend time on chasing friendlies they would devote more time to chasing multies.

      I remind everyone that the rule change applies to PtP only and PtP is running under resources/reinforcements restricted to confederacy only which was introduced as IN GAME MECHANICS to help with disposable accounts abuse. We will see if that helps.

      For everyone disliking Ameno, one way or another, please explain me what changed exactly? You were given a scenario about friendly chiefing above. I can give you another one:
      An egyptian player settles 15C, I settle next to it and rush catas and chiefs.
      Option one: this is random player and one day when he sleeps I chief the village, he was careless enough not to change to a capital, no one was on the account to build palace or use tablets.
      Option two: this is my buddy who does not play anymore but don't mind poking around for 3 weeks till i get to chief, does not mind to drop little gold on the account. The accounts have no connection whatsoever, all giggling is on skype. One day I chief the village, nobody was on the account, same as above. Nobody will join mine as a dual.

      Now someone with right moral tell me how MH suppose to distinguish 2 cases? Thanks.
      Well to start with, option 2 seems a fairytale, if the guy settles before you that have capacity to rush catas early, he probably spent a loads of gold to settle and it seems unlikely he will just quit after 3 weeks, sure something could have happened irl but the example really dont apply to the reality as a common behaviour.
      Finals: the nerone - Infiniti| Inno Di Mameli - SPQR WW HOLDER FINALS 2017/2018
      FRX : Rockerduck

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Yowie: Removed swear ().

    • ELE wrote:

      Multiaccounting is not allowed, this is quite clear in rules. And one would think if MH don't have to spend time on chasing friendlies they would devote more time to chasing multies.

      I remind everyone that the rule change applies to PtP only and PtP is running under resources/reinforcements restricted to confederacy only which was introduced as IN GAME MECHANICS to help with disposable accounts abuse. We will see if that helps.

      For everyone disliking Ameno, one way or another, please explain me what changed exactly? You were given a scenario about friendly chiefing above. I can give you another one:
      An egyptian player settles 15C, I settle next to it and rush catas and chiefs.
      Option one: this is random player and one day when he sleeps I chief the village, he was careless enough not to change to a capital, no one was on the account to build palace or use tablets.
      Option two: this is my buddy who does not play anymore but don't mind poking around for 3 weeks till i get to chief, does not mind to drop little gold on the account. The accounts have no connection whatsoever, all giggling is on skype. One day I chief the village, nobody was on the account, same as above. Nobody will join mine as a dual.

      Now someone with right moral tell me how MH suppose to distinguish 2 cases? Thanks.
      Option one: i believe that noone would be such a bad player and get a nice 15 cropper, but anyway i still believe mh investigation could lead to the solution.
      Option 2: u can see that a well rounded 15 cropper without defence is going go be chiefed, so it's obvious that is a friendly chiefing and u ban the player.
      We used to do this. We can do it again. it's just that a lot of bad players use this to prove they are "good" and that's the new meta even tg is following.
      Giving MH real powers is the solution. I remember how scared i was when we had our SuperMh in the speed server that would check those thing and ban u for 50% or 66%. If someone in the ally was about to let u conquer the village it was very scary to try conquer it and u almost always decided to leave it delete.
    • ELE wrote:

      Multiaccounting is not allowed, this is quite clear in rules. And one would think if MH don't have to spend time on chasing friendlies they would devote more time to chasing multies.

      I remind everyone that the rule change applies to PtP only and PtP is running under resources/reinforcements restricted to confederacy only which was introduced as IN GAME MECHANICS to help with disposable accounts abuse. We will see if that helps.

      For everyone disliking Ameno, one way or another, please explain me what changed exactly? You were given a scenario about friendly chiefing above. I can give you another one:
      An egyptian player settles 15C, I settle next to it and rush catas and chiefs.
      Option one: this is random player and one day when he sleeps I chief the village, he was careless enough not to change to a capital, no one was on the account to build palace or use tablets.
      Option two: this is my buddy who does not play anymore but don't mind poking around for 3 weeks till i get to chief, does not mind to drop little gold on the account. The accounts have no connection whatsoever, all giggling is on skype. One day I chief the village, nobody was on the account, same as above. Nobody will join mine as a dual.

      Now someone with right moral tell me how MH suppose to distinguish 2 cases? Thanks.
      1. Player is complete noob if you settle next to a 15c egy and they don't notice you "rushing" chiefs which would be *very* slow in the context of v2-v3.
      2. MH could just implement a lesser penalty in the greater probability that its arranged chiefing without direct evidence, although such clues as speed of settling for both parties, is the player making def, does player B try to scout, etc - circumstantial evidence, or lack of defensive actions that points to arranged chiefing could be used in a "judgment call"
      ..And that is the Final Word.

    • Final Word wrote:

      1. Player is complete noob if you settle next to a 15c egy and they don't notice you "rushing" chiefs which would be *very* slow in the context of v2-v3.2. MH could just implement a lesser penalty in the greater probability that its arranged chiefing without direct evidence, although such clues as speed of settling for both parties, is the player making def, does player B try to scout, etc - circumstantial evidence, or lack of defensive actions that points to arranged chiefing could be used in a "judgment call"
      I have this very scenario on the current beta:
      I had chiefs and catas ready and my neighbor egypt who settled the 15c next to me (landed a few hours after me) has still not made it capital. Same applies for another cropper that i could easily reach during night.
      I have never met or spoken to these two players.
      How would a MH be able to identify if thats true or if we set this all up on skype/discord beforehand?

      Its just not that easy as you guys are trying to make it look.
      And calling these two guys noobs wont change the dilemma for the MH in charge.
    • NeoRec_IT wrote:

      Well to start with, option 2 seems a fairytale, if the guy settles before you that have capacity to rush catas early, he probably spent a s**tloads of gold to settle and it seems unlikely he will just quit after 3 weeks, sure something could have happened irl but the example really dont apply to the reality as a common behaviour.
      Shows you just have never played a Fire and sand map :)

      This is the problem in this thread too many people talking about things they have no clue about :D Myself included at times. But I am certain here . You have 0 ingame experience on the birthday servers :D
      A-nub-is me , I am a noob.

      ELE wrote:

      I actually agree with @A-nub-is

    • A-nub-is wrote:

      NeoRec_IT wrote:

      Well to start with, option 2 seems a fairytale, if the guy settles before you that have capacity to rush catas early, he probably spent a s**tloads of gold to settle and it seems unlikely he will just quit after 3 weeks, sure something could have happened irl but the example really dont apply to the reality as a common behaviour.
      Shows you just have never played a Fire and sand map :)
      This is the problem in this thread too many people talking about things they have no clue about :D Myself included at times. But I am certain here . You have 0 ingame experience on the birthday servers :D
      You are completly right, had no idea spending craploads of gold to settle fast and then quit was a common strategy on birthday servers :osd:
      Finals: the nerone - Infiniti| Inno Di Mameli - SPQR WW HOLDER FINALS 2017/2018
      FRX : Rockerduck

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