A problem, other than the "pay to win" one, that Rail Nation still doesn't acknowledge

  • .....


    Are people of the mind that all accounts declared as a multi by Support be banned from finishing the round and lose the potential for end of round career achievements?

    Yes. It is harsh, but, it would make players think twice before trying this type of cheating.

    In this world there is nothing softer or thinner than Water.

    But to compel the Hard and Unyielding it has no equal.

    (Lao-Tse)

  • Actually password sharing is NOT against the rules for some strange reason. You can share your password to as many people as you want, just the people logging onto that account can’t also have an account of their own on that server.


    It’s called Hot-seating and is perfectly legal

    This is an exploit a way of using the rules in order to cheat. Some time ago the rules were changed to make it not possible to use a "sat" account during the end game. This "hot seating" is actually a worse exploit and the window of opportunity should be closed, imo.

    In this world there is nothing softer or thinner than Water.

    But to compel the Hard and Unyielding it has no equal.

    (Lao-Tse)

  • This is an exploit a way of using the rules in order to cheat. Some time ago the rules were changed to make it not possible to use a "sat" account during the end game. This "hot seating" is actually a worse exploit and the window of opportunity should be closed, imo.

    password sharing isn't against the rules if it is used as account sharing. The people who play at one account are not allowed to have another account active on that particular server(s). Do you play yourself active on a server the only way you can enter someone elses account is by sitting.

    :engine1::engine1::engine1:

    Work for a cause

    Not for applause

    Live life to express

    Not to impress

  • password sharing isn't against the rules if it is used as account sharing. The people who play at one account are not allowed to have another account active on that particular server(s).


    we all know about it.


    Investing in a company, even if it causes the loss of the majority of shares in that company by other players, is also in line with the rules, and yet the talk about "saboteurs" has been going on for some time.


    I believe that you can effectively defend yourself against "sabotage" with what is legal at the disposal of players and it is a normal element of competition.


    However, playing several players on one account non-stop, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the entire duration of the game - as legal - deprives other players of equal opportunities.


    How much time is one person able to play non-stop to be able to establish an equal fight with such a multi-person account?


    Therefore, I believe that the game of several players on one account should be prohibited.


    One account - one player and one player - one account. As the basic rule of the game.


    It may suddenly turn out that the notorious round winners on individual servers will be relegated to a very distant position.


    And it will be ok, it will be a shift towards fair play.

  • Investing in a company, even if it causes the loss of the majority of shares in that company by other players, is also in line with the rules, and yet the talk about "saboteurs" has been going on for some time.

    this can be done as sabotaging. Believe me it happens. And people can harming the game pleasures for a large group with continues actions which are allowed in the game rules only to harm others. In most cases they don't perform these actions to profit of them, just to annoy and sabotage. And this happens also very often during the endgame. But clearly you haven't met the real saboteurs or you are playing yourself with little to no respect for others.

    :engine1::engine1::engine1:

    Work for a cause

    Not for applause

    Live life to express

    Not to impress

  • How is something that is allowed by the rules a cheat?

    Ok, I was not pedantic enough in my choice of words.


    • Example 1 :- Player X on server Q sits for player Y on server Q. This is now prevented in the end game.
    • Example 2 :- Player X on server Q "sits" for player Y on server R, during the end game, by sharing passwords. This is still permitted in the end game.


    An exploit is a window of opportunity to gain an advantage which is not intended by the game structure. It follows that "hot seating" is clearly an exploit as shown by the prevention of the same action in example 1. As such it is a bending of the rules, a trick in order to gain an unfair advantage, in other words it is a cheat as a result of an oversight in the game structure.


    H is playing Civilization, a turn based stand alone game. H is about to go into battle. H uses a simple exploit and saves the game before the battle. H does not like the outcome. H abandons the game and reloads the save and makes a few tweaks to his game in order to get a different outcome. He may have to do this several times. H wins. In this case, H deceives only him/herself! H did nothing illegal but, H won by cheating never-the-less.


    I suggest that the rules on password sharing need to be amended and tightened or password sharing should be altogether forbidden.

    In this world there is nothing softer or thinner than Water.

    But to compel the Hard and Unyielding it has no equal.

    (Lao-Tse)

  • this can be done as sabotaging. Believe me it happens. And people can harming the game pleasures for a large group with continues actions which are allowed in the game rules only to harm others.

    Of course they do.


    This is what competition is all about!


    Briefly, for example:

    If I make you have a smaller supply of goods and I have a bigger one, I will win and you will lose.


    And this is the norm, not malicious "sabotage".

  • All unsportsmanlike behaviour should be discouraged, just as cricket bans ball tampering.


    I gave an example earlier of a "Trojan Horse" getting into an association early in the round and playing normally only to turn on his team, from within, during the end game. The behaviour was obvious and deliberate, but, the saboteur could not be booted to at least mitigate in some small way the damage being done. In this case, it is immaterial whether the account in question is individual or multi, it is definitely unsportsmanlike.

    In this world there is nothing softer or thinner than Water.

    But to compel the Hard and Unyielding it has no equal.

    (Lao-Tse)

  • I gave an example earlier of a "Trojan Horse" getting into an association early in the round and playing normally only to turn on his team, from within, during the end game.


    I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh.


    First "saboteurs", now "sleepy" agents!


    And all this is will be verify from the support?


    The CIA must be called for help.


    Are you going to talk about Putin in a moment?


    People, get down to earth!


    It is only an economic and strategic game and you have the possibility to influence what you write about without any changes in the rules.

  • Unsportsmanlike behavior by a non multi, is annoying, but is allowed (and I dare say purposely ignored by Travian)


    In your example, there must have been some preceding event for someone to go to that amount of effort to spoil things for that Corp/city. From my point of view the likely unsportsmanlike behavior done to the future saboteur is as much to blame for the sabotage.


    People often have excuses for their own “bad” behavior but are often unforgiving of others. Get this on both sides of a conflict and its trouble.


    People only lose in a war, the trick is not to get in one. If you wish to do well in a competitive game, then it is important not to tick off other players to the point where they come after you. Anything that slows down your game helps your competition. It’s your responsibility, not Travians, to play well.

  • Unsportsmanlike behavior by a non multi, is annoying, but is allowed (and I dare say purposely ignored by Travian)


    In your example, there must have been some preceding event for someone to go to that amount of effort to spoil things for that Corp/city. From my point of view the likely unsportsmanlike behavior done to the future saboteur is as much to blame for the sabotage.

    A very naive assessment of human behaviour.


    Some humans can and do act badly, in all kinds of situations without provocation of any kind. They may also do it to obtain an advantage rather than to punish some perceived or real injustice. This is in real life, why should a game be different?


    Some humans, damaged by one person will vent their spleen on whoever happens to be there in the future. Who gets the fallout in such cases is completely random. This is in real life, why should a game be different?


    In the case I referred to, the player was absolutely a second account, and was trying to advantage the group where his main character was playing. To assume some misbehaviour on the part of the affected group is a dangerous and unjustified conjecture. It is also insulting. You are right, it may be the case, but, it may NOT be. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?


    Or, maybe just being in a position where you just might win is "provocation" in your world view?

    In this world there is nothing softer or thinner than Water.

    But to compel the Hard and Unyielding it has no equal.

    (Lao-Tse)

  • In the case I referred to, the player was absolutely a second account, and was trying to advantage the group where his main character was playing. To assume some misbehaviour on the part of the affected group is a dangerous and unjustified conjecture. It is also insulting. You are right, it may be the case, but, it may NOT be. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?


    Or, maybe just being in a position where you just might win is "provocation" in your world view?

    It is dangerous and unjustified conjecture for me to speculate that someone ticked off someone else to have them spend three months plotting the first player’s downfall?


    However innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply to calling someone a multi and certainly not dangerous and unjustified conjecture?


    From my time watching Law & Order, motive plays a big part in the prosecution of criminal cases (and in reality too)

  • Unsportsmanlike behavior by a non multi, is annoying, but is allowed (and I dare say purposely ignored by Travian)

    It's allowed, so nothing unsportsmanlike.


    This can possibly be frustrating to another player for a variety of reasons.


    In your example, there must have been some preceding event for someone to go to that amount of effort to spoil things for that Corp/city.


    It didn't have to.


    It is enough for someone else to plan such activities in order to gain more prestige, money in the game and, as a result, to win or improve their position in the ranking.



    People only lose in a war, the trick is not to get in one.

    Truth


    There are many, especially those who try to win by all means, but there is always someone better.

    When you prove what they really do, they take offense for life and you are their enemy number 1 :D



    People only lose in a war, the trick is not to get in one.


    "War" is or can be part of the strategy of this game and does not necessarily lead to failure.


    Depends on how you prepare for it.


    If you wish to do well in a competitive game, then it is important not to tick off other players to the point where they come after you.


    Not true.


    I know very strong groups of associations that everyone on the map clings to, because they are so strong that no one even tries to "come" to them to try to fight about factory's etc., even though these strong associations or their players do what they want and have no brakes.


    Anything that slows down your game helps your competition.

    And vice versa


    anything that slows down your rivals helps you


    Or, maybe just being in a position where you just might win is "provocation"...


    You finally hit the crux of the topic

  • "Law and Order" is fiction. Real life is not that neat. Human psychology is far more complex. If you have proof that someone is a multi because it has been clearly stated by that someone, then yes it can be said. Even "Law and Order" would accept such evidence. But, hey ho! There is no point in arguing.


    I stick to my guns. Not every saboteur is doing it because they have a genuine axe to grind with the group they are harming. Some have quite different motives which do not always fit the simplified view of life. The people playing this game are a subset of all humanity in all it's complex variations.

    In this world there is nothing softer or thinner than Water.

    But to compel the Hard and Unyielding it has no equal.

    (Lao-Tse)