Co-op Rules for Yburg

[DeletedUser]

20,000 points player A gave his 2 main villages to another player B
It is 14,000 points.

Before Player B noble A's village, A nobled barbarian village.
Can you call it Co-op abuse?

It seems not.

They are still playing.


in EN 15, leader of BAD tribe abuse 10+++ co-ops. he used inactive co-ops' nukes to gain villages.
But he is still playing.

Unfortunately I am playing with this kind of dirty players in EN25.
It's 2017. But some people is still abusing their co-ops

 

[DeletedUser3903]

As long as all players are actively playing their own accounts it is not abuse. If a ticket is sent in and players are not breaking the rules, no action is taken. Often players believe what they are seeing is co-op abuse when indeed it is not, many times tickets are turned in and when researched there is no rule breaking found. Often players assumed to be co-ops are not, they are simply well organized attacks. That can happen - I have been a part of tribes that work well together like this.

When you suspect multi accounts or co-op abuse send in a ticket I assure you every ticket is researched by the mod who takes your ticket. If you suspect a player is using inactive accounts in any way, please send a ticket in to support for review. If action is taken, you as the ticket holder may not be aware of it - we keep all actions taken against players confidential. There are different steps to rule breaching and those steps are followed.

The details regarding the Co-Op Guidelines are also here.

20,000 points player A gave his 2 main villages to another player B
It is 14,000 points.

Before Player B noble A's village, A nobled barbarian village.
Can you call it Co-op abuse?

It seems not.

They are still playing.


in EN 15, leader of BAD tribe abuse 10+++ co-ops. he used inactive co-ops' nukes to gain villages.
But he is still playing.

Unfortunately I am playing with this kind of dirty players in EN25.
It's 2017. But some people is still abusing their co-ops

 

[DeletedUser]

As long as all players are actively playing their own accounts it is not abuse. If a ticket is sent in and players are not breaking the rules, no action is taken. Often players believe what they are seeing is co-op abuse when indeed it is not, many times tickets are turned in and when researched there is no rule breaking found. Often players assumed to be co-ops are not, they are simply well organized attacks. That can happen - I have been a part of tribes that work well together like this.

When you suspect multi accounts or co-op abuse send in a ticket I assure you every ticket is researched by the mod who takes your ticket. If you suspect a player is using inactive accounts in any way, please send a ticket in to support for review. If action is taken, you as the ticket holder may not be aware of it - we keep all actions taken against players confidential. There are different steps to rule breaching and those steps are followed.

The details regarding the Co-Op Guidelines are also here.

Yeah, that's the problem
It's still legit even when the rule harm the original purpose of co-op system.
multiple-accounts = ban
co-op = okay
But, co-op can be multiple-accounts anytime.

 

[DeletedUser2847]

It is the situation on all realms. Yborg isnt anything special. Its easy to cheat and people do it. Its not sure it is coop abuse the situation you describe. if player A still log into the game its not coop abuse. But its in an grey area about pushing. Depends on how account B is played. Its not allowed to play an account only to help other accounts. EN 15 was in action when cooprules was introduced. I remember it because i was playing EN 14 when it got introduced late into the realm. I have no problem to admit i played 20-25 coopaccounts in a way that would be rulebreaking today. This was normal and legal when it was done. I guess it was an similar situation on 15. Dont have any clue if they continued to play coop accounts this way after the introduction of cooprules at 15. But i have played with this BAD players at later realms and they dont abuse cooprules. This is actually the only tribe i ever have been member of where the major players is playing coopaccounts the way it is ment to be.
Im not sure if support handle coopabuse in a different way now, but i know it was normal to give a warning first time abuse. Second time abuse short time ban(1-3 days) and loosing coop accounts. 3 time coop abuse and you got a 7 day+ ban. They are never going to get rid of coopabuse as long as they dont punish it harder. If they give 3 days ban and loosing coopaccounts first time abuse, Kicked out of the realm second time abuse people would might stop abusing coopaccounts.

 

[DeletedUser3903]

I am a little harder in most cases on players than what carrot has described above. Laying out the co-op guide as clearly as we have, there is no excuse for players to pretend that they did not what they are doing by pushing an account was rule breaking.

 

[DeletedUser3242]

KOR. is imagining a problem that is not there. Active different players in a tribe are always stronger than someone keeping couple of zombies alive. You can't just kill the coop for you imagined scenario, where coopers have a huge advantage, when in reality a cooper with tons of accounts might get a small advantage personally, but will get a huge disadvantage as a tribe. This game is called "tribal wars" for a reason. So if you have 10 active players in your tribe and the other tribe is 1 guy with 9 zombies, you will always win, unless you don't know what you are doing - in this case, it's time to git gut.
You basically want to take away the coop which is meant to allow people to help each-other to play the game, where actions take hours or even days and sometimes need precise timing. This would ruin the game for everyone.
So if you have someone abusing the coop for its personal gain all the time - just report them, no need to build some kind of communist state where everyone is (in theory) equal - communism does not work and is evil.

 

[DeletedUser]

KOR. is imagining a problem that is not there. Active different players in a tribe are always stronger than someone keeping couple of zombies alive. You can't just kill the coop for you imagined scenario, where coopers have a huge advantage, when in reality a cooper with tons of accounts might get a small advantage personally, but will get a huge disadvantage as a tribe. This game is called "tribal wars" for a reason. So if you have 10 active players in your tribe and the other tribe is 1 guy with 9 zombies, you will always win, unless you don't know what you are doing - in this case, it's time to git gut.
You basically want to take away the coop which is meant to allow people to help each-other to play the game, where actions take hours or even days and sometimes need precise timing. This would ruin the game for everyone.
So if you have someone abusing the coop for its personal gain all the time - just report them, no need to build some kind of communist state where everyone is (in theory) equal - communism does not work and is evil.

I think 1 guy with 9 zombies is stronger than 10 nugarins

 

[DeletedUser3505]

nugarin stronk

 

[DeletedUser2448]

it depends KOR yes if they have 9 zombies they will be stronger than 1 individual player but they wont be stronger than tribes unless the tribe they are fighting is weak it doesnt really affect anyone unless the players they attack are tribeless in my eyes but it also depends on the coop abuser as well if he or she is highly skilled then yes will be a problem

 

[DeletedUser2979]

As a coop, can you move troops out of an inactive coop to allow your fellow tribe members to noble the villages without losing troops as long as you personally do not benefit? Is this pushing? Are the villages allowed to be kept within the tribe, after all, the tribe may have helped noble and defend them when the coop was active....

Any check on tw2-tools on any tribe will probably show tribe members being internalled, are all of these people pushing if the coop helps them out by removing troops? Or is 'pushing' limited to the coop themselves?

If as suggested, a player drops a coop as soon as inactivity is clear, do all tribe members have to send back support they have from that coop before any internal nobling starts? I am very confused with how far a coop can help the tribe with inactives.

 

[DeletedUser3242]

Main problem for TW2 is declining player base, not coop. Nerf or remove coop and players will start burning out faster. This will not help the game.

 

[DeletedUser3903]

What you are presenting here is a fine line because the scenario you are presenting has you dealing with an inactive co-op. As I mentioned before, it is best for you as someone who (again in this scenario) is dealing with an inactive co-op - your best bet is to always remove yourself from that co-op position. Co-op was never put into place so you could save those villages for your tribe if that player should go inactive. Co-op is meant to be used to cover for short periods of time when the account owner is active but unavailable. It was never meant for inactive players.

To answer your specific questions....

As a coop, can you move troops out of an inactive coop to allow your fellow tribe members to noble the villages without losing troops as long as you personally do not benefit? Yes you can as long as you do nothing with this co-op that benefits yourself - using his troops as support or to assist you in nobling other villages or nobling his villages for yourself. Note that I say this cautiously. For one, if you are stating this specific question then you know that you are working with an inactive account. Once a player goes inactive after so many days the co-ops are removed.

Is this pushing? Not as long as you are not doing anything that benefits you as the co-op.


Are the villages allowed to be kept within the tribe, after all, the tribe may have helped noble and defend them when the coop was active.... Of course you would like to keep the villages in the tribe and the tribe should actively try to make that happen in any scenario - co-oped or not. If you sense a player is inactive or know they are - it is always best to try to secure those villages for your own tribe before the enemy tribes get them. The key is to do it by the rules.

Any check on tw2-tools on any tribe will probably show tribe members being internalled, are all of these people pushing if the coop helps them out by removing troops? Or is 'pushing' limited to the coop themselves? Or is 'pushing' limited to the coop themselves? The definition of pushing refers to the co-op who has the advantage of access to that account using that account to further his/her game. Pushing is limited to the co-op themselves.

If as suggested, a player drops a coop as soon as inactivity is clear, do all tribe members have to send back support they have from that coop before any internal nobling starts? If the co-op follows the suggestion of dropping an account they know to be inactive, then no - they do not need to be sure all support that is out has been sent back. By making this move of separating themselves from the account, the account will work as the game has set up.


You said, "I am very confused with how far a coop can help the tribe with inactives." In my opinion, personally - I would not take a chance with a known inactive co-op. I don't think it is worth risking your own game and that is why I put the suggestion I did in the co-op guidelines (see this under game facts and questions). We want everyone to enjoy the game to the fullest and that means play your own account to the best of your ability. However - that is my opinion, and according to the rules you are in compliance as long as you follow what has been said above and what has been said in the co-op guidelines.

As a coop, can you move troops out of an inactive coop to allow your fellow tribe members to noble the villages without losing troops as long as you personally do not benefit? Is this pushing? Are the villages allowed to be kept within the tribe, after all, the tribe may have helped noble and defend them when the coop was active....

Any check on tw2-tools on any tribe will probably show tribe members being internalled, are all of these people pushing if the coop helps them out by removing troops? Or is 'pushing' limited to the coop themselves?

If as suggested, a player drops a coop as soon as inactivity is clear, do all tribe members have to send back support they have from that coop before any internal nobling starts? I am very confused with how far a coop can help the tribe with inactives.