Open Discussion Defining Pushing

One Last Shot...

Contributing Poster
Reaction score
1,552
I feel like there should be a thread of this where any mod can't respond for a set period of time and any idea anyone has however stupid can speak it without a mod jumping in to defend themselves because it seems this is just going to be a thread of people complaining/posting and mods getting defensive. Make one where mods can respond and one thread where they can't.

Asking questions and getting people to see the gaps in suggestions will hopefully help tighten suggestions down and potentially lead to realistic solutions :)

We are all part of the same community and this thread is about working together to see how pushing can be tackled moving forward.

#responsetime
 

Euler-

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
255
In reality, pushing investigations are taking far, far more time than any other type of investigation we look into precisely because of every case being so unique.

to answer you qouting me me, yet again im for hiring some guys that investigate pushing, so mods can do everything else, surely inno is big enough to invest in it and free up mods to do other tasks

We had three mods actively handling very little other than pushing cases for EN125. It still was not enough.

This is something we intend to resolve moving forward to allow us to execute rules like this effectively; but I do think the community in general underestimates how much additional work attempting to enforce a rule of this type really is. Players have years of experience doing these sorts of things without issue, and there is a lot of inertia associated with that.

yet again, surely inno could hire "push/bot detectives" and let you other mods put more time into modding/answearing tickets etc etc
 

JawJaw

Awesomest CM Ever
Reaction score
2,210
Can we please cut the "inno surely is.." or "inno can't do.." stuff from this discussion? It is completely irrelevant.

This is me, as a Community Manager, asking the community for input on how they would like Pushing defined and enforced. This has absolutely nothing to do with HR, nor is it a request from the company themselves to get done; This is me asking you.

Once that rule & policy is clear we will see how doable it is regarding staff , which again is my problem. Not yours, not the mod's.

So far, however, almost all of the arguments came with giant loopholes and easy ways to circumvent (which our senior staff has been actively trying to point out in your argumentations). So instead of coming up with arguments about whether or not the team is big enough, has enough resources, ... whatever... get those loopholes closed, and then we will look into staffing consequences.

The reality is that the way it is currently investigated, one single reported pushing case takes hours and sometimes even days to investigate. This makes it undoable in every format, regardless of how many people you throw at it. People expect immediate actions on a report, which we simply can not provide in the current state (on en125 alone there were days we got a hundred in a single day, and then people send us angry bias accusations if we didn't ban someone within 2 hours... ).

So instead of "throw more people at it", your answers should include a way that we can define pushing more strictly, which results in the investigations taking less time. We can then handle more cases with more people, and get more immediate results of those reports.

Focus on the questions I posed in the OP.
What is pushing? What rule or policy do you suggest? Are there any loopholes in that rule you are suggesting? Can it easily be circumvented? If so, it's not a good rule/policy.

Stay on track, please. This is not an easy subject, so don't get frustrated at the team for pointing out the flaws in your suggestions. It literally is their job to figure out the holes in the net so we can avoid them. Instead, work with them to get them closed.
There are game markets out there that are not even enforcing a pushing rule due to the complexity - they just let it happen. There are game markets out there that don't even allow simply village gifting (not even to get a spot closer to the frontline), to make sure it can't be turned into a pushing framework.

This is absolutely not an easy subject and Tribal Wars, community and staff, has been struggling with it since the game started out in 2006. The rules are simply too hard to define regarding them and there will always be ways to push due to how a game event is interpreted, or someone accusing another of pushing because he or she got lucky. That doesn't mean however we can't have a constructive discussion and try once more. Again and again, until we find a framework that works for us!

What I furthermore don't appreciate is people accusing my staff of bias, because they're able to poke holes in your argumentation. Maybe consider viewing your arguments from a moderation point of view with respect to the law. We can't change the law and some people here stating that we "conveniently use the law to avoid enforcement" has to be the biggest pile of shit there is to read on this forum. You don't "conveniently use the law". You abide by the law or pay million dollar fines. My god, it is not that difficult. That post earned a facepalm right there.

So again - keep in mind the restrictions we are under. Keep in mind the potential loopholes, help each other close them; Only when staff and community works together on this we can maybe come to a solution to the pushing rules that have been a problem since 2006. This is a two-way street however. We listen to your argumentation, but you also need to accept that we're pointing out the problems in them, without you slamming us with a hateful post or accusing us of a personal vendetta.


Moving on to my personal opinion -
I feel that we would be better off by just allowing pushing to happen (on a village gifting level). We can efficiently monitor and enforce resource pushing, but too many ingame situations make it way too hard to enforce any kind of rule regarding villages switching owners.
Our problem in this is that we have access to what a player did/hasn't done on his/her account the hours/days before, leading up to that point, while the outside player (who just monitors the TWStats pages) does not have this information.

This just leads to incorrect assumptions that we are not allowed to correct (because yes, what you did on your account is considered private and we can't tell anyone besides yourself), and eventually results in people not understanding this to accuse the team of bias (which is strengthened with every damn report that player makes about another, because we can't tell him/her why it wasn't).
This is frustrating for us too, you know. We sometimes spend days on a single pushing case (including having it reviewed by three-four members of staff) and then still get flamed with bias accusations, which are completely out of place.

I feel like it would be easier for player, community and team, if we allow village gifting (in every form) to happen, unrestricted so that everyone has access to do the same (evening the playing field). Keep in mind, other rules would still need to be respected (eg. multi accounting).

Village gifting should be allowed, as long as a player has sufficient reason to do so. If I quit, I should be allowed to gift my villages to my tribemates. I should also be allowed to gift villages to tribemates to free up noble limit.

I should also be allowed to gift to allies. And that's where the grey area joins us - because what are allies? To me, gifting villages to the opponent of my enemy, is a valid war strategy. If I lose, I'd rather get the enemy of my enemy to get my villages than the enemy themselves.

I found this part interesting. What would be your opinion on just allowed village gifts to happen within the tribe, and consider everything else pushing? This wouldn't work however if you would also be allowed to gift towards allied tribes (you just mark a pushing tribe as an ally).

- No I also don't believe that PP farming and then gifting is pushing. That's a fair deal: someone gets protection and then gifts later in return.

If someone "farmed" one PP and according to his own words "failed", then gifts the village: pushing or not? The team would need to make an assumption here to get to a conclusion on either side, which is kind of what we would like to avoid.
The "one" PP is an exaggeration of course, but where is the limit? Is it 50PP? 100PP? 1000PP? What is "failure" in pp farming where it becomes reasonable to accept a village to be gifted?

Righty, I've kinda thought a little on this as a result of a few examples spotted along the journey of 125.

What is pushing? What is it to you?

- Giving players advantages that are unfair to nearby rule respective players.

How would you define pushing?

- Pushing is when an account is used for the growth of another.

How can the team enforce a rule on pushing?

Since quite a few things is classed as "Pushing" in my opinion (and likely that of the community, I've tried to cover all angles.

Rule 1: Accounts that share the same connection or previously have cannot cooperate against the same target for the sole purpose of a single account gaining an advantage.
Rule 2: A player cannot move their troops outside of the village prior to an incoming noble so that the nobling player gains a "free village" i.e. no ODA gain.
- If the player is sat the same rule is applied.
- The player's account that is being nobled should be observed to monitor patterns i.e. is this the first time they've scavenged or attacked X? (This will help rule out accidental situations where someone's been "lucky" with their attacks).
Rule 3: A player cannot suicide troops prior to an incoming noble (The attack was sent after the noble has been sent) so that the nobling player gains a "free village"
- If the player is sat the same rule is applied.
- Likewise to Rule 2, the player's account that is being nobled should be observed to monitor patterns i.e. is this the first time they've done this? (A player suiciding full def stacks for example is an uncommon behaviour).
- Possible issue, "What if the player knows they are doomed and sends a retaliation attack against an enemy player?"
Rule 4: A player cannot offer their village to another player for "free" no matter how long the world/player has been running/playing.
- A village must always be fought over with the use of troops.
- Possible issue, Player in-game mails cannot be accessed unless reported (Players conducting in Pushing are very likely not going to report themselves).
Rule 5: A player cannot just purely build up their village with the intention of it being nobled by another player with minimal resistance.
- Activity must show that the player nobled had intentions to recruit troops on a regular basis.
- A player actively restarting and then being nobled by either the same player or same tribe/tribe family) should constitute as pushing.
Rule 6: Accounts that are active (i.e. green of colour in a tribe) cannot be nobled within 36 hours of removal (i.e. being kicked) by the same tribe or by a member of the same tribal "family" i.e. an "academy/sister" tribe.
- Reasons why someone is likely kicked at this point that supports Pushing:
- A desire to gain an advantage by an easy village:
- A tribemate is less likely to have stacked vs their own tribe
- Tribal bureaucracy is likely to know the "offline" periods of a particular player.
Rule 7: Accounts that are inactive (i.e. yellow of colour in a tribe) cannot be nobled within 24 hours of removal (i.e. being kicked) by the same tribe or by a member of the same tribal "family" i.e. an "academy/sister" tribe.
Rule 8: Accounts that are completely inactive (i.e. red of colour in a tribe) cannot be nobled within 12 hours of removal (i.e. being kicked) by the same tribe or by a member of the same tribal "family".
- Whilst the above may be "unfair", integrity of the game needs to be held at a higher position and whilst yes people do go inactive, a potential loophole where a tribe allows for a particular player to go "inactive" to hide pushing needs to be addressed and a fair comprise needs to be inserted.
Rule 9: A player with less points cannot transfer more than 1 million in resources to a player with higher points within a period of 30 days or less.
Rule 10: If a player has a desire to play alongside another player on the same account, the account they join the world first (keyword = first, accidentally joining with another account counts as the first account still) with is the account they must stick to for the first 40 days of the account having joined the world.
- A player cannot swap to another account within the first 40 days of the account having joined the world.
- This will provide a fair anti-pushing desire to provide easy villages to accounts no matter how long the world has been running for.

Durations:

- Rules 1, 5, 9: Entire world
- Rules 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10: For the first 40 days of a player having joined the world.

Should the team intervene at all or should pushing just be an allowed thing (for everyone equally) as long as the other rules are respected.

- If the moderation don't then this is a blatant disrespect for integrity and there should be no rules at all (and no support team).

How should pushers be punished? What is the punishment?

- Assuming you have suffcient evidence:

- Pusher: 24h attackable ban
- Pushee: 48h attackable ban
- If a tribe is caught kicking players to then noble them and this results in a repetitive pattern, kicker (In addition to the pushee): 48h attackable ban

I really appreciate this post, bobertini! A lot of suggested rules, while also taking into account potential loopholes. I'm going to keep this one in mind for more in-depth review later today. Thanks!
 
Last edited:

HotLikeDat

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
73
If someone "farmed" one PP and according to his own words "failed", then gifts the village: pushing or not? The team would need to make an assumption here to get to a conclusion on either side, which is kind of what we would like to avoid.
The "one" PP is an exaggeration of course, but where is the limit? Is it 50PP? 100PP? 1000PP? What is "failure" in pp farming where it becomes reasonable to accept a village to be gifted?

lol

This is where the mods need to go on a case by case basis, and use common sense. The evidence doesn't need to be "beyond reasonable doubt"
The level of PP doesn't need to be a fixed level; it should depend somewhat on the accounts size, farming, scavenging.
If a player builds to 300 points, makes >1k pp and gifts after the price collapses: no worries.
If a player builds to 1k and makes >3k pp and gifts after the price collapses: no worries.
If a player builds to 2k and makes 300pp and gifts: pushing.
If a player builds to 3k, maxes warehouse, farming 100k a day, scavenging 50k a day, then without upgrading market above level 5, or without using WH packs, or only makes a relatively tiny amount of pp (a player of this size would be expected to make maybe 2-3k pp a day), and then gifts while the price is still low. Well then it's obviously pushing.
--> Key questions: Has the player build a reasonable market, has he dedicated a substantial portion of his res to selling actively, has the price crashed, has he made a reasonable PP haul, did he continue to build after he stopped selling (should be clearly banned).
--> If in doubt: How big is the receiving players gain: did he get a single 1k village, or have 5 players gifted him large villages. You could even place a limit on this: MAX receiving of 1 village gift from a "PP farmer" friend per world. After that the PP Farmer has to restart without softening his village (killing off troops, demolishing wall). At least it makes it a bit more awkward and less easy for people to do. and Yeah, if a player still receives 10 ex-villages of "pp farmers" who made almost nothing, it's a major red flag surely.

Obviously there is a grey area, Im not saying there isn't.

Inexperienced player pp farming builds to 4k slowly, makes 4k pp (v low amount for his size), but the price has already crashed and he gives up and gifts.
--> Could easily be pushing, but at least if there's a common-sense approach, with some sort of a case-by-case threshold then it limits the easiness of it.

Pro player who made 40k last world, joins a world, spends lots of PP and builds to 8k (((waits for price to crash))) and then gifts having made almost 400 pp..... pushing.
--> Case by case clearly. takes a lot of time but hey, that wasn't a condition placed on suggestions.

The key idea of my suggestion isn't to catch 100% of pushers, or even to make a black and white rule. I think either is basically impossible. But at least have some likelihood that pushers will be caught to increase the risk/downside of it and reduce the ease with which some players currently do this.
 
Last edited:

Space Cowboy

Well-Known Member
Reaction score
54
I'm sorry but all the suggestions are ridiculous

Why am I waiting 12 hours to noble the village of a player of the same tribe?
others can take that village. I can't predict that my member friend in tribe will be passive. but it should be my priority. because I'm in the same tribe.

There is no clear rule on these matters.
because it is not a black or white situation.
is a gray position.
There is nothing to be objective about.
Some of us consider many things as cheating.
but the passive player plays the same way.
and we can't decipher the truth.

I have only one suggestion.
prevent it from being overdone.
Excessive spending of premium points should be prohibited.
Excessive pushing should be banned.
A player can push. If caught, he will be punished.
but if that person does it without being caught, if he does it excessively, he should be punished.

for instance
cheaters should be punished.
but a person has 10 villages.
but if the other people have a maximum of 3 villages, the first person should be punished.
because we are playing the same game.
A person can take a maximum of 3 4 steps in the same time. He can't take more than 10 steps.


Think of it like a walking race.
Whoever is caught running will be punished. warned.
If you run while everyone else is walking, you will be caught.
There is no such way of walking.

Someone else's walking stride cannot be 2 or 3 times my own.
 

bobertini

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
302
How would you go about proving this was deliberately?

So far, your comment doesn't account for situations where:

- Someone has sent out troops to backtime an enemy/support a tribemate legitimately and gets caught out from close range.
- Someone who deliberately empties out villages as a tactic specifically to get an enemy banned for pushing.

You raise a good point, and I've thought about potential solutions:

Point 1:

- Backtiming:
- The "Backtime" command can be observed; this would then constitute as legitimateplay and would not be considered "Pushing".
- It does indeed open up another loophole that may favour the experienced over the "newbies" however, as you mentioned, this is an actual possibility.
- I considered the option of reviewing the players attack patterns to see if this was the 1st backtime. This could add indicative evidence (If this behaviour is encountered multiple times, this could become legitimate evidence).

- Supporting tribemates:
- In my opinion, the "uber" tribe support setting should become default, this will help combat against "Pushing" to a degree i.e. a player would need to be in the same tribe (Pre-mades cannot hide people outside).
- Likewise to the backtime option, the command should be observed and would then then constitute as legitimate play and would not be considered "Pushing".
- Attack patterns could be reviewed to become indicative evidence (and later potential legitimate) if an attempt to turn this sort of behaviour into becoming moderation aid is desired.

- I believe someone mentioned this on the thread previously but previous worlds should be included as part of a moderation aid. This will help towards "reviewing player patterns".

Point 2:

- "Pushing baiting" (As mentioned by yourself)
- In-game communication should be considered.
- Under GDPR, the duration of which data (in this case in-game communication) is held should be limited (i.e. not stored for extensive period of times). What this means as a moderation aid in my opinion, in-game communication data can be observed for a limited duration. A copy of this data isn't created so I believe a moderator would have access to see your in-game communication.
- Since in my opinion your point is more aimed at the experienced, common sense can be applied by a L2 or greater in these situations:
- "How many tickets from the same player consist of similar accusations".
- "Were troops involved in a "battle"? i.e. "Why has an "enemy" just emptied their village?" and "How long after the enoblement was the ticket sent?". With this level of information visible (at least by a L3 possibly) a fair outcome can be observed.

This assumes all players are experienced. That isn't the case and any rule that assumes everybody knows simple things like 'must build troops' and 'how to call militi' is very much ignorant of a large section of players. They'd end up getting banned for simply not knowing how to play which would be disastrous for a game.

The Quest line could be altered (A free farm level item with resources as reward?) to aid the "newbie" players to train troops. This can of course be ignored by players but should aid towards combating "Pushing".

As for the other parts, this is a war game (and thus troops are expected). Player patterns should be reviewed to help combat the other element i.e. "Why did X have so little or no troops ever?".
- One such solution is to disable "Invite a friend".
- Not having the option to invite friends to spawn close to you should play a role in reducing the amount of times this occurs that constitutes as "Pushing".
- An non-experienced player is less likely to have anyone to invite so shouldn't be a bad thing to disable.

On this point, a number of tribes wouldn't necessarily check their members for things like troop levels etc but partway through they'd realise they are inexperienced and then kick and eat them. I'm not convinced that any rule should affect a tribe's right to recruit/dismiss and noble former accounts if they feel they don't add value to the team.

As part of recruiting, tribal bueuracy can see the players statistics (This wouldn't include accurate troop levels but perhaps % of resources spent on buildings/troops).
- Players can also see previous player history via TWstats.
- The "Years of Service" achievement could be made on display permanently. Whilst this won't show how skilled the player actually is, it will at least reveal they've played for a while.

This would be great for helping protect spies, backstabbers, traitors and people who simply need removing ASAP from their tribe for not following tribe directives/policies/ethos etc.
I can see this suggestion doing far more to encourage dirty play than to actually help reduce pushing. How would you avoid this being the case? Can you?

Spies, backstabbers and traitors are part of this game as such recruitment of such an individual is sort of like "it is what it is". The time limits could be altered (18h,12h,6h?), however as observed on World 125, this behaviour was extremely common and cannot be ignored.
- If such tribe feels they have one of these, what the player can see should be alterable.
Current available options include:
- Can a player in tribe X see the forum?
- Can they can see other players commands/village notes?
Possible additions:
- Can they see the noble planner/diplomacy?

In addition to the above, my "Rule 4" would still be in play so this would further prevent "dirty behaviour".

I should note, that these time limits can actually also look after the "newbies" by giving them a small window of time where they can arrange help for themselves.
 

Deleted User - 11105474

Guest
You cannot ban anyone through ODA check. As many nuubs come & leave the game/ world after growing the village/ villages before protection ends. Those villages will be defenseless & up for grab by anyone around.
xzU42MW.gif


I'll keep it easy & simple for TW Team as an old player. If you want to implement something (least) to stop "Digital Pushing" (what we specially seen in w125), limit the amount of invited players whom can locate just besides you. Like not more than 1 invited player can drop besides you, although you can invite more but they will drop random locations on the map. Of course they can just relocate to you again (whether a friend/ multi), so limit how many invited players can relocate near you (cannot relocate inside 50 fields distance from the person invited). This however, don't need to be implemented to all world (unless tw team think so), but non-premium worlds like w125. Then again, players can drop randomly to map (not through your invitation) & relocate just besides you right after (as now they will think they're smart which they're not), so TW Team can solve this 2 ways: relocation will not be 100% accurate but player can only choose a direction of the map when relocating like this on pic (give 8 directions to choose from instead of 4):
Screenshot_20220318-121634_1.jpg
Or make it this way, you cannot relocate to player A's location if he is not "a member of your tribe" (if you have switched tribe within 120 hours then you cannot relocate immediately to that tribe member, must go through a cool down period now haha (I bet you started feeling the thrill ;)).

This still will not stop "digital pushing" but it'll decrease the rate significantly. And believe me, they'll think about it too many times before going for it :cool: :p :cool:

To all pushers/ relative-pishers (the ones get away with it easy), do not take me as your enemy. I'll be glad too if they don't implement it haha (I highly doubt they'll) :cool: . Although if they do, my situations will be like yours lol.
tenor (2).gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:

One Last Shot...

Contributing Poster
Reaction score
1,552
I'll keep it easy & simple for TW Team as an old player. If you want to implement something (least) to stop "Digital Pushing" (what we specially seen in w125), limit the amount of invited players whom can locate just besides you.

Most reported players on w125 who players strongly felt were pushing via ticket weren't involved in using 'invite a player', so while I like the suggestion it wouldn't necessarily have a noticeable impact.

That said, the relocation item may well be worth restricting...but the other side of the coin is this stops friends from moving close together to play as a team.
 

Deleted User - 848983838

Guest
I'm sorry but all the suggestions are ridiculous

Why am I waiting 12 hours to noble the village of a player of the same tribe?
others can take that village. I can't predict that my member friend in tribe will be passive. but it should be my priority. because I'm in the same tribe.

There is no clear rule on these matters.
because it is not a black or white situation.
is a gray position.
There is nothing to be objective about.
Some of us consider many things as cheating.
but the passive player plays the same way.
and we can't decipher the truth.

I have only one suggestion.
prevent it from being overdone.
Excessive spending of premium points should be prohibited.
Excessive pushing should be banned.
A player can push. If caught, he will be punished.
but if that person does it without being caught, if he does it excessively, he should be punished.

for instance
cheaters should be punished.
but a person has 10 villages.
but if the other people have a maximum of 3 villages, the first person should be punished.
because we are playing the same game.
A person can take a maximum of 3 4 steps in the same time. He can't take more than 10 steps.


Think of it like a walking race.
Whoever is caught running will be punished. warned.
If you run while everyone else is walking, you will be caught.
There is no such way of walking.

Someone else's walking stride cannot be 2 or 3 times my own.

please explain how you got away with pushing on 125 so we can all play like you did this world. not to mention all those turk friends you totally didn't push with also now merge/gifting on 124 surprisingly so now 4 worlds the same accounts are playing in the grey area. i think it would be beneficial if the turks showed the rest of us how to legally push.
 

One Last Shot...

Contributing Poster
Reaction score
1,552
- "Pushing baiting" (As mentioned by yourself)
- In-game communication should be considered.
- Under GDPR, the duration of which data (in this case in-game communication) is held should be limited (i.e. not stored for extensive period of times). What this means as a moderation aid in my opinion, in-game communication data can be observed for a limited duration. A copy of this data isn't created so I believe a moderator would have access to see your in-game communication.

Just to be clear, nobody can access user ingame mails. It's physically impossible to access without the mails being reported. Much like emails - only the owner can access. GDPR (yes I said the evil acronym of doom in yet another post). That's where our hands are tied so using mails as a reliable tool for evidence is unfortunately a complete no-go.

Adding to this. Mails to 3rd parties often are untrue - goading and trolling is something we all do ingame. So even when a player says they are pushing to another individual, that mail can't be reliable on its own as evidence (although it would add weight when other evidence backs it up).
 
Last edited:

Deleted User - 848983838

Guest
So again is there such a high percentage of the playerbase that is playing on the same device IDs? Is there some EU law that you can't ban device ids for some reason? Besides the fact some people play in an internet cafe I don't see why this isn't possible?

Lock relocation items to preregistered tribes and inviting your friends to play does not bring them near you. This will limit how many accounts people can bring near them to push. Tribes can then only relocate N/S/E/W and NE/NE/SE/SW with members who joined during registration dukes will pick this location. New accounts that join in the relocation window cannot relocate on you. You can't relocate if you don't have a tribe and you can't relocate on friends. Limiting relocation might hurt a bit but would severely limit pushing accounts and push tribes. If you want to play with friends, be in their preregistered tribe. You usually have ~1 week to organize it, if you can't get it done by then thats your problem and if you join a world late you just have to hope relocation gods are on your side.

punishment needs to be harsher for everything. people getting banned for push account farming need to be permanently banned, why do I see rajashit on worlds still after his massive botting farming on 117.

what is the technical limitation of stopping coplay->merge /gift longer than 40 days?

How would you go about identifying the differences? And more importantly, would/should that be concrete evidence in itself? I'm not convinced it is possible to separate out the innocent and deliberate cases confidently enough to have rules based only on twstats.

I'm pretty sure with the fancy tools you have that we don't know about it's pretty clear the difference that if I noble a tribe member who I'm in a past tribe with who makes no attempt to defend the village and grew the village very clearly towards a set up village and the player is generally pretty good in past worlds and then there's multiple players doing so to benefit a specific group of players compared to 1 bad player who has no history of doing anything good and is very crappy and it's 4 months into the world and he loses 4 villages total. If an entire tribe that is related in a way is magically losing villages to people they are connected to with no effort to defend and it's 90% benefit 1 group of players or 1 generally good person growing a villge with a nuke and then immediately quitting and gifting early in the world to their friend looks a lot different backend than a consistently bad player who may or may not have some crossworld ennoblements by the same player. I think you either can't/refuse to look at past worlds, you said world data is deleted, it should be enough evidence along with other data that is people are playing or played with the players that are all magically gifting to the same group of friends they have.
 

world8vet

Still Going Strong
Reaction score
316
I see a lot of people talking about specific situations, but we have very obvious examples that don't get punished.

Such as merges 1 week to 1 month into a world.
 

One Last Shot...

Contributing Poster
Reaction score
1,552
Will give this a go at this from my mod/player perspective (taking insights from both). Hopefully closed most loopholes but there's a good chance I've missed something. I also feel I'm not going as far as some users would want but I can't personally see ways of going further without resulting in lots of users being unfairly punished.



What is pushing? What is it to you?
An account consistently being used for the sole benefit of others and not its own growth interests.

How would you define pushing?
- Resource pushing through market.
- An active user being farmed while building up pits/warehouse (with other factors that prove it is arranged and not a poor tactic choice).
- Bashing (clearing villages for others consistently, with no own growth...but this would be over sustained periods and not something that could be identified accurately in early game)
- Account merges where an account gives a huge portion of villages to another account


How can the team enforce a rule on pushing?
- Monitor reports of bashing and consider if accounts are being grown, or simply build troops to clear for others. Over a significant period of time (not an early game policy) this could present a clear picture of own/other's benefit.
- Not allow resource pushing via trade. Smaller players shouldnt be able to send disproportionate amounts of resources to larger accounts as a one-way deal (big accounts should have more outgoing res to others than the amount received).
- Restricting account merges/internalling/gifting for entirety of a world. Users to have X villages before a merge can happen and can only gift say 20% of number ofvvillages to a single account. Specifically village numbers as opposed to points as it would be something we can track accurately. This would limit growth through internalling but not completely prevent it. This would only be targeted at individual accounts, so if this happens over and over in the same tribe we'd only consider each gifting account as opposed to who is receiving it to make it something that could be moderated/managed.
- Restricting the relocation item ingame and only allow it after the first X weeks of a world to reduce potential impact in early game. This would likely be unpopular with a lot of rule abiding players and so would be a difficult decision to make.


Should the team intervene at all or should pushing just be an allowed thing (for everyone equally) as long as the other rules are respected?
As a moderator, it is a lot of work and a small portion of the community has become far more demanding and unpleasant in tickets than normal which isn't good. Clear guidelines for users may reduce that animosity somewhat... but I'm unsure it is good to have a rule that causes the worst side of users to come out to the people trying to help them.
As a player, I've always felt bashing = pushing and feel preventing this could be a way to tackle mid-game pushing.


How should pushers be punished? What is the punishment?
I think it should be a strong sanction but pushing isn't as serious to me as botting so shouldn't be our most severe consequence for first-time pushing bans (30% point/village reduction feels justified).

Should village gifting become disallowed?
Restricted during first 40 days. Sitters emptying villages for others to noble should not allowed in that time. It isn't easy to prove villages from a non-sat account are being emptied - there isn't a way of setting a line that doesnt lead to innocent users getting caught up in bans - so this is where I become stuck.
Gifting restrictions for all accounts at X villages or higher (eg 5) so no 1 user can noble more than 20% of a gifted account is something I'd like to see (the benefitting player should lose all the villages gained in such a circumstance). Gifting should be considered only as removing troops from villages to ensure minimal/no losses. Clearing and capping villages is the basic game concept so shouldn't be restricted.


How do we detect pushing?
- Handling resource pushing through internal means
- Monitoring bashing through player reports that we are able to verify at our end; if there is a clear regular pattern of 1-sided behaviour between coordinating accounts it then falls into pushing. This would need flagging up by players to instigate investigations
- Investigating reports of gifting to see if villages are being freely emptied and as such gifted. Check proportion of those villages being nobled by accounts involved. Sitters not allowed to empty out troops for gifting purposes.
 
Last edited:

Deleted User - 11105474

Guest
Most reported players on w125 who players strongly felt were pushing via ticket weren't involved in using 'invite a player', so while I like the suggestion it wouldn't necessarily have a noticeable impact.

That said, the relocation item may well be worth restricting...but the other side of the coin is this stops friends from moving close together to play as a team.

Idk about the reports although that sounds good. But I think you need to check this quote below (if you see helpful):
Screenshot_20220318-232416.jpg
 

Deleted User - 11105474

Guest
Either you'll have to "change relocation" (not removing it) or "edit relocation" (like after dying once in a world you cannot relocate again to him!). Or you might not be successful solving this entire issue.
 

Space Cowboy

Well-Known Member
Reaction score
54
please explain how you got away with pushing on 125 so we can all play like you did this world. not to mention all those turk friends you totally didn't push with also now merge/gifting on 124 surprisingly so now 4 worlds the same accounts are playing in the grey area. i think it would be beneficial if the turks showed the rest of us how to legally push.
sorry but i laugh when i see people crying like you
because you are like a fly in a swamp.
your existence is nothing
because your mind is rented to someone else
sorry i have no business in the swamp
stay away from me
because you don't even know the game.
 

Space Cowboy

Well-Known Member
Reaction score
54
Will give this a go at this from my mod/player perspective (taking insights from both). Hopefully closed most loopholes but there's a good chance I've missed something. I also feel I'm not going as far as some users would want but I can't personally see ways of going further without resulting in lots of users being unfairly punished.



What is pushing? What is it to you?
An account consistently being used for the sole benefit of others and not its own growth interests.

How would you define pushing?
- Resource pushing through market.
- An active user being farmed while building up pits/warehouse (with other factors that prove it is arranged and not a poor tactic choice).
- Bashing (clearing villages for others consistently, with no own growth...but this would be over sustained periods and not something that could be identified accurately in early game)
- Account merges where an account gives a huge portion of villages to another account


How can the team enforce a rule on pushing?
- Monitor reports of bashing and consider if accounts are being grown, or simply build troops to clear for others. Over a significant period of time (not an early game policy) this could present a clear picture of own/other's benefit.
- Not allow resource pushing via trade. Smaller players shouldnt be able to send disproportionate amounts of resources to larger accounts as a one-way deal (big accounts should have more outgoing res to others than the amount received).
- Restricting account merges/internalling/gifting for entirety of a world. Users to have X villages before a merge can happen and can only gift say 20% of number ofvvillages to a single account. Specifically village numbers as opposed to points as it would be something we can track accurately. This would limit growth through internalling but not completely prevent it. This would only be targeted at individual accounts, so if this happens over and over in the same tribe we'd only consider each gifting account as opposed to who is receiving it to make it something that could be moderated/managed.
- Restricting the relocation item ingame and only allow it after the first X weeks of a world to reduce potential impact in early game. This would likely be unpopular with a lot of rule abiding players and so would be a difficult decision to make.


Should the team intervene at all or should pushing just be an allowed thing (for everyone equally) as long as the other rules are respected?
As a moderator, it is a lot of work and a small portion of the community has become far more demanding and unpleasant in tickets than normal which isn't good. Clear guidelines for users may reduce that animosity somewhat... but I'm unsure it is good to have a rule that causes the worst side of users to come out to the people trying to help them.
As a player, I've always felt bashing = pushing and feel preventing this could be a way to tackle mid-game pushing.


How should pushers be punished? What is the punishment?
I think it should be a strong sanction but pushing isn't as serious to me as botting so shouldn't be our most severe consequence for first-time pushing bans (30% point/village reduction feels justified).

Should village gifting become disallowed?
Restricted during first 40 days. Sitters emptying villages for others to noble should not allowed in that time. It isn't easy to prove villages from a non-sat account are being emptied - there isn't a way of setting a line that doesnt lead to innocent users getting caught up in bans - so this is where I become stuck.
Gifting restrictions for all accounts at X villages or higher (eg 5) so no 1 user can noble more than 20% of a gifted account is something I'd like to see (the benefitting player should lose all the villages gained in such a circumstance). Gifting should be considered only as removing troops from villages to ensure minimal/no losses. Clearing and capping villages is the basic game concept so shouldn't be restricted.


How do we detect pushing?
- Handling resource pushing through internal means
- Monitoring bashing through player reports that we are able to verify at our end; if there is a clear regular pattern of 1-sided behaviour between coordinating accounts it then falls into pushing. This would need flagging up by players to instigate investigations
- Investigating reports of gifting to see if villages are being freely emptied and as such gifted. Check proportion of those villages being nobled by accounts involved.
dear mod. your suggestion is good but this is a limited suggestion.
think about what i said.
You can't catch all cheaters.
because this is a gray area.
you should only check the overgrown ones.
And you must punish.
 

Deleted User - 848983838

Guest
sorry but i laugh when i see people crying like you
because you are like a fly in a swamp.
your existence is nothing
because your mind is rented to someone else
sorry i have no business in the swamp
stay away from me
because you don't even know the game.

tell me you push without telling me you push
 

Deleted User - 848983838

Guest
How should pushers be punished? What is the punishment?
I think it should be a strong sanction but pushing isn't as serious to me as botting so shouldn't be our most severe consequence for first-time pushing bans (30% point/village reduction feels justified).

I obviously don't have the data but pushing especially on non premium worlds seems like a much more serious offense (just harder to catch)

I feel a problem with any sort of cheating is 30% reductions are very minimal and support is very leniant on punishments that don't really discourage people from not doing it.

And im not sure but is it 30% from the culprit villages or 30% of the cheating account
 

One Last Shot...

Contributing Poster
Reaction score
1,552
And im not sure but is it 30% from the culprit villages or 30% of the cheating account

Losing 30% of an account can be game-changing - keep in mind the coins for those nobles also disappear (so say a 100 village account loses 30 villages, it also drops the noble limit available by 30). Troop and positioning loss alongside this is huge.

Even at 10 villages, losing 3 of them is pretty huge.

Punishments aren't there to cripple accounts to stop people playing; they need to match the severity of the rule breach. But ultimately we want players to learn from a ban so they don't repeat it in future. I'd be on board with increasing any punishment for 2nd time banned for pushing etc :)
 
Top