King/Dukes - What happens to treasuries when banned?

    I've got a quick question/observation. From what I can tell - when a treasury holder (King/Duke) receives a ban - their treasures stay in production. This is something that was just recently brought up here. I will preface this with "I don't know how prevalent this problem is" so please fill in with personal experience with anything that I will list below (or add things that I have missed).


    This is an issue. A Kingdom could create a treasury with upwards of 60,000 treasures and then have that player do something purposefully to receive a ban. This would let those treasures stay in production while at the same time protecting them from being attacked. Having treasuries not capable of being attacked while still providing production is something that has precedence for being fixed (see v0.97 update.).


    Another issue that should be mentioned here is when Kings/Dukes create multiaccounts for the purpose of abusing the Tribute system. In my experience the multis are deleted and the main account is allowed to stay. This can create an imbalance because that main account, if holding a treasury, is not emptied - so those treasures can be given to another Kingdom. This can give an early advantage to those Kingdoms because that trickles down. More resources for stolen goods, more VPs, etc.


    Now here is where I'm curious on other people's ideas. What is the solution? Here are a few potential solutions that I've thought of:

    • Those treasures are frozen in the account and taken out of production.
      • The downsides of this is that it allows the actions of a single player to hurt every single person in the Kingdom.
    • The treasures are removed from the treasury/treasuries and moved to a King/Vice-King treasury. Maybe it could be a 50/50 split. If the King or Vice-King are banned they will transfer entirely to the King or Vice-King. In the situation that they are both banned - I would say they transfer to the Duke with the most population (?).
      • The downsides is that this could move a significant amount of treasures to an undefended treasury.
    • The treasures are distributed first to treasuries that have capacity in a particular order. Maybe King, Vice-King, Dukes (by population first). This remaining treasures are given to the King/Vice King (or Duke depending on who has violated rules).


    Something that I think should be allowed to stay is the influence coming from those treasuries of banned players. Banned players have the right to appeal. My main concern is treasures being protected by a game mechanic. This is something that needs to be addressed, but still with the thought and care of not punishing Governors.


    I look forward to thoughts of others.


    W.D.

    Any banned member who has a title (king/vice-king or duke) should be kicked and the kingdom should be punished with removal of VPs and treasures. These shouldn't be redistributed. There are consequences to breaking the rules. And as a leader in a kingdom, these consequences should be more severe. You reflect and represent the kingdom as a king or duke. So if you cheat, your kingdom is cheating and should suffer. Incentivize playing fair and accountability.

    leo#EN(19)

    I want to agree, but I've seen mistakes happen when it comes to bans. They have the right to appeal just like every other player in the game. Unless there has been mass multi-accounting which is what produced the treasures to begin with I have a hard time agree with just removing them and all the VPs.

    Treasures are produced by governors. Why should they be so heavily punished by the actions of a single player?


    I appreciate the feedback and I'm curious if your thought is widely held. I just have a hard time agreeing, but that might be solution. Thanks for contributing to the discussion!

    Quote from Wheat Dragon

    leo#EN(19)

    I want to agree, but I've seen mistakes happen when it comes to bans. They have the right to appeal just like every other player in the game. Unless there has been mass multi-accounting which is what produced the treasures to begin with I have a hard time agree with just removing them and all the VPs.

    Treasures are produced by governors. Why should they be so heavily punished by the actions of a single player?


    I appreciate the feedback and I'm curious if your thought is widely held. I just have a hard time agreeing, but that might be solution. Thanks for contributing to the discussion!

    The ban can be repealed and the punishment can be undone. If you kick a duke, vp and treasures are lost. A ban should at least be that consequential.


    Why should the governors be punished? Because bad leadership results in consequences for everyone in the kingdom, regardless of whether that is from cheating leadership or failed ops. The governors aren't being punished directly. They can find leaders who do not cheat. Again, the leaders are the face of the kingdom. They represent it. if they are cheating, that is signaling to the governors it is ok for the governors to cheat too. Why be soft? Make the punishment harsh and curb the behaviors you want out of the game. Make the punishment soft or non-existent and you propagate the behavior or make it a hidden strategy.


    Edit: I too am curious about others opinions so I hope they will speak up for or against.

    Leaders' strategy to get banned should result in punishment for kingdom? 25

    The result is only visible to the participants.

    This has been used before to protect treasures/vp. It's a good way to protect treasures and vp in the key moment of the server, like the end day. An off duke can do this after using his army, like on com3 now. Some players know how to exploit TK rules, and others learn and adapt, or leave the game in disgust.


    The usual tk response is nothing, they just ignore the situation. This is wrong, the answer should be strong and against this kind of exploit.


    It seems TK is a game won almost exclusively by cheating and exploits. Multis, bots, timed bans, api, bugs that show where armies/heroes/catas target/go... it's not worth spending and getting too involved.


    What do you think, should this leadership strategy i.e. getting banned to protect treasures/vp result in a punishment for the kingdom, such as treasures/vp loss?

    I think it totally depends on the circumstances of the ban & who/what caused it.

    If it was intentional, then yes that Kingdom should be punished.


    But put yourself in the shoes of an innocent Governor with a corrupt King/Duke & how you would feel if suddenly all your villages were outside borders & you had no protection & no way to sell treasures or feed your army & how quickly you would be forced to delete :(



    Maybe a good mechanism to be considered is a pause on VPs until the ban is dealt with?

    Then

    • If the ban is upheld then yes a punishment should be enforced. Maybe "a huge VP loss" on top of the usual 10% pop drop & loss of troops? since VPs are what wins servers, if the risk is too high the corruption around this would not be worth that risk?
    • If the ban is dropped, then whatever VPs were lost can be factored back into the Kingdoms overall total?

    I think if it was due multies or bots and the one who does it is royalty it should affect kingdom but "a huge VP loss" is not viable option as you can catch vp leaders via stealing their treasures and VP.
    -25% loss in both VP's and treasures seems more appropriate as royalty do get tributes that should be enough to steer them away from underhander means.

    Thanks Tiitana , that's a valid point, I was only considering this happening at endgame as is the case on com3 at the moment


    what are people's thoughts on Tiitana's suggestion for punishment?

    this then does impact harshly on the kingdom,

    but not on the individual account of every player within it

    I remember a server a few years ago where there was one duke who made a few mega treasuries and spent a major part of the late game banned with full treasuries. They used being banned as a strategy. It was disgusting.

    Being King or Duke should be a privilege. You are supposed to be a good example to your kingdom.

    Treasures in banned villages should not generate any VP but they should count for the crop your govs receive, they should not suffer that badly.

    Quote from Wheat Dragon

    Another issue that should be mentioned here is when Kings/Dukes create multiaccounts for the purpose of abusing the Tribute system. In my experience the multis are deleted and the main account is allowed to stay.

    This is already weird. Why not ban the main account? Delete it, all the history and achievements. Let them keep the smallest multi.
    Have players click on a 'accept rules' page during the tutorial to make sure everyone gets their first warning right away.


    Ontopic: VP production should be stopped from that treasury. 50% of the treasures in the banned players treasuries removed from crop-tribute bonus.


    Also they should be shamed somewhere public, but that's a different topic :P

    Quote from Red_Panda

    Maybe a good mechanism to be considered is a pause on VPs until the ban is dealt with?

    Rather let the account keep accumulating VP as normal (in case the ban turns out to be a mistake) for N days while the user has a chance to appeal.
    If during that time they don't contact support (or however bans are handled, I'm not sure) or they are found guilty anyway, you can take the VP away from the kingdom.

    Quote from iribuya

    Ontopic: VP production should be stopped from that treasury. 50% of the treasures in the banned players treasuries removed from crop-tribute bonus.

    I think the royal should at the very least lose all treasures and 25 VP for each treasure since that's the amount that could be stolen from him. If the punishment is less severe there will be times when it'll be more benefitial to get yourself banned over losing your treasures.

    Thank you all for the ideas, it seems it is a case that is somehow important in your eyes.


    I have a question regarding something that only one of you mentioned.


    If you are a governor in a Kingdom where this happens, so a King/Duque gets punished for some irregular action, and the Kingdom looses treasures you personally collected legally, and the VPs that those produced.

    How would you feel?


    Do you think there is a way to have the guilty party punished without affecting the rest of players in the Kingdom that played and fought for a comum goal cleanly?

    Quote from Camelot

    dont think so
    they wouldnt get same players, but others who dont know about it

    Alot of the "regular" players have no single clue what is going on in most of the lead.



    Quote from iribuya

    This is already weird. Why not ban the main account? Delete it, all the history and achievements. Let them keep the smallest multi.
    Have players click on a 'accept rules' page during the tutorial to make sure everyone gets their first warning right away.


    Ontopic: VP production should be stopped from that treasury. 50% of the treasures in the banned players treasuries removed from crop-tribute bonus.


    Also they should be shamed somewhere public, but that's a different topic :P

    Amen to this, this has been said multiple times on the forums already. The way bans are handled regarding MA by fraud kingdoms is "accept it asap as gains>>punishment"

    Quote from Tiitana

    I think if it was due multies or bots and the one who does it is royalty it should affect kingdom but "a huge VP loss" is not viable option as you can catch vp leaders via stealing their treasures and VP.
    -25% loss in both VP's and treasures seems more appropriate as royalty do get tributes that should be enough to steer them away from underhander means.

    This seems like quite a decent "solution". You need to show that being banned in a royalty role is absolutely a thing you need to avoid, without impacting the govs.


    Another example of a funny ban was alot of test rounds ago, the WW was set in construction till 100 and the ww owner got banned ( on purpose ). And yes, it continued to build ( got unbanned at 99 i believe ).

    I would no longer work with that kingdom or be part of it unless the king/queen/leadership team handled it correctly and got rid of the cheater. II'd rather enjoy a round and lose than win by cheating. And I'd rather find a team that feels the same way. One server getting rid of someone who has cheated at the expense of our kingdom's chance that server is better than allowing rule breaker to persist and even be rewarded in some cases.

    What will happen if enemies will use ban tactics to ban a duke/king and this person eventually will be banned by huge amount of reports? Even though that this person could be innocent. As we all have seen, sometimes it gets days for response from help center, at least 1 day. So kingdom looses VP and maybe some other features if you will add. I think in this case you should decrease waiting time for response, which probably won't happen. Yes, you can say that you don't ban anyone without the reason, but it is a reason as you say 'when person receives a lot of reports from other players' which can be fraudulently used against someone innocent.

    Quote from Wheat Dragon

    Treasures are produced by governors. Why should they be so heavily punished by the actions of a single player?


    I appreciate the feedback and I'm curious if your thought is widely held. I just have a hard time agreeing, but that might be solution. Thanks for contributing to the discussion!

    Once you start punishing the entire team for the actions of the leaders, players will be more committed to ensuring they are not on a cheating team. Without this, players pretend not to see the problems and are therefore complicit.


    Quote from Wheat Dragon

    leo#EN(19)

    I want to agree, but I've seen mistakes happen when it comes to bans. They have the right to appeal just like every other player in the game. Unless there has been mass multi-accounting which is what produced the treasures to begin with I have a hard time agree with just removing them and all the VPs.

    Treasures are produced by governors. Why should they be so heavily punished by the actions of a single player?


    I appreciate the feedback and I'm curious if your thought is widely held. I just have a hard time agreeing, but that might be solution. Thanks for contributing to the discussion!

    I've never seen a mistake.. I've seen players claim it was a mistake, but where there is smoke there is fire.. Oh my brother logged on to my account.. oh I had a friend over, they used my network.. The truth is players on shared networks play all the time.. its when you're not playing fairly you get busted.

    Quote from Red_Panda

    But put yourself in the shoes of an innocent Governor with a corrupt King/Duke & how you would feel if suddenly all your villages were outside borders & you had no protection & no way to sell treasures or feed your army & how quickly you would be forced to delete :(

    Excellent - make players accountable for their team.. give them an incentive to report and deal with cheaters.. and we will have a much cleaner system and less cheating... Hi Player, you are at risk of having 5 months of effort destroyed because you turned a blind eye to the cheating being run by your team. Next time, be more careful in who support and play with.. and then good kings and leadership will earn their right to be leaders in this game.

    Quote from th0mm#NL

    Alot of the "regular" players have no single clue what is going on in most of the lead

    The actual internal leadership team would almost certainly know. Experienced players would certainly know. If the regulars don't know - and all the experienced players have left cos they know whats coming.. then the kingdom is destroyed.. and the goal is achieved.


    Please see the Players Charter in my sig... I'm a huge fan of us players taking responsibility for preventing cheating. Travian games is very limited in their ability to police the system... for many valid reasons.