Eremitage

[DeletedUser16]

Greetings, Tribal Warriors!

The leading Tribe, Loyalty & Service, now owns more than 70% of all villages owned by the top 10 Tribes on Eremitage. The Tribe Domination event has thus now started.
With the start of the Tribe Domination players can now no longer register on this world.
As soon as a Tribe owns at least 80% of all villages owned by the top 10 Tribes, the realm will be closed and victors be crowned in several categories! Furthermore, all members of the winning Tribe will be rewarded with 200 Crowns each!

Good luck to all!

 

[DeletedUser299]

@Dement0r, I would like to dispute that the world has entered the tribe domination stage until the outcome of the pushing investigations is concluded on EN5. The reason for this is that there has been a high level of co-op abuse in the top tribe which will have influenced their 70% village count. Based on the current investigations it would be unfair to start this phase at present. If it is found that L&S have gained that 70% level due to extensive pushing activity then it would be appropriate to with-hold the tribe domination until the world has been appropriately re-balanced.

 

[DeletedUser3016]

Dement0r, I would like to dispute that the world has entered the tribe domination stage until the outcome of the pushing investigations is concluded on EN5. The reason for this is that there has been a high level of co-op abuse in the top tribe which will have influenced Loyalty and Service's 70% village count. Based on the current investigations it would be unfair to start this phase at present.

The pushing thing will not change the outcome all that much. The domination phase just means that no new accounts can register on the realm. Any tribe can turn things around at this point, and until one of them gains an 80% majority, the world will not end. As pushing is being investigated, things may or may not change the fate of certain users and tribes within the world. That is up to you guys to capitalize on whatever you can.

 

[DeletedUser299]

Andy I disagree. The 70% level has been reached through extensive pushing, and I have been gathering substantial evidence on this since you announced the investigation. We are talking thousands of villages here.

 

[DeletedUser3016]

I understand what you are saying, but we cannot go through every world retrospectively and change over lots of captures. Our main focus is to change things going forward, and prevent anything currently happening. We are giving people a chance to come clean on their pushing, defined what pushing is, and if they continue to act upon it then they will be punished in some way for it depending on the severity. We don't want to make this a witch hunt, or destroy the game for lots of people, we are trying to make this happen as smoothly as possible.
That being said though, whatever evidence you are able to get, then by all means, please gather in to a ticket and send it in to support. We are serious about rectifying this matter, but it will not be something we can micromanage every village capture, especially when you are talking in a world that has been open for ~18 months.

 

[DeletedUser1594]

This could get interesting, according to tw2-tools, there are only 46,083 villages available. If L&S captured the all the tribes that are not currently owned by the South Alliance, they would get to 78.9%, which means they have to take villages form S.A to get the win

 

[Tlatoani.moct]

@DD, you are a sad case. Do you even vaguely recall the time when we gave Shackman's villages to you? At that time, I didn't even know about pushing. Apparently, you already knew about it. When we stopped pushing his villages, you stole them instead. Remember that? I expected you to be the last person to complain about pushing.

PS It's history now but I've just started using the forums.

 

[DeletedUser299]

I wasn't co-oping him mate. Therefore its well within the rules as they were being shared out with the tribe.

Yes I took them using troops later on - well within the rules.

The Shackman case was over a year ago I reckon? Certainly 9 months at least. I have never said I have never benefited from taking tribe villages, of course I have. But I have never abused another account at the expense of anyone else or sought to keep a dead account alive.


Anyway you have got the 80% now. When is this Pony and Trap done with?

 

[Tlatoani.moct]

Of course, you weren't a coop for the account. However, you did say in another thread that coop ruined it for you in this game. After receiving dozens of villages from a coop without losing any troops, you're saying it ruined it for you? Who else got part of the share of villages? You took advantage of the coop feature! If you didn't readily accept all the coop's villages, it would lend more weight to your complaint. Also, we had a personal NAP with the coop account (another complaint you made). You broke that NAP when you started taking villages without permission. Granted you were red at that time. So you had to fake it for your allies or they might get suspicious. After taking a few villages to allay any suspicions, you just continued taking and taking without once asking whether it was okay to do so. This case is never too old to bring up. IF you didn't complain about coops ruining it for you, there was no reason to bring up the "abuse" of coops by players such as yourself. Imagine how many nukes you saved by attacking those empty villages.

Yep, we've won the game. Hope it's done within the week. You're not even there to experience our victory. In fact, you're not even in your tribe anymore!

 

[DeletedUser299]

Shackman quit the game. If I hadn't been allowed to take the villages via coordination I would have taken them anyway by force. The outcome would have been the same. Other players (wad2d0) were taking the villages also. Why does it matter? The player quit - he doesn't care any more. The only people who care are the people hoarding accounts i.e your tribe.

The controversy is that the Shackman account is STILL being protected via co-ops EVEN NOW, by player(s) within your tribe. When the original player has been gone nearly a year! What benefit is this to Shackman's original account?

 

[Tlatoani.moct]

Once I became the only co-op of this account, you were the only one taking villages. When you started taking villages by force without even asking which ones to take, it became an issue. All you needed to do was ask. Hope you enjoyed reading about your nukes blowing up before you figured out what was happening. Of course, we're going to protect the account when you and your pals were attacking them. Are you saying we should just let your tribe add them to your village total? You mean you don't protect inactive accounts in your tribe at all. I find that hard to believe.

What about active players using co-ops of inactive accounts to protect their villages? I've seen that happen when I was attacking SA villages. Is that fine to do that?

 

[DeletedUser299]

You mean you don't protect inactive accounts in your tribe at all. I find that hard to believe.

I would do it by putting a single troop into the village to detect attacks on it, and I would try to noble them out as quickly as possible (the proper way). I cannot speak for what others in my tribe did, because some of them did have the co-ops of other players who had gone inactive and were protecting them as you describe. There was no point me doing anything about it because of how rife it was on the other side too. Plus there were such a huge number by the end it was impossible to get enough nobles to noble them all out.

What about active players using co-ops of inactive accounts to protect their villages? I've seen that happen when I was attacking SA villages. Is that fine to do that?

No its not fine, and this would be pushing as per the rules I think. I don't condone it. I came up against this when attacking active members of your tribe too, and saw incoming support from players who were inactive.

 

[Tlatoani.moct]

Since both sides were using coops to do questionable actions, why did you complain about our side abusing it? Did you complain about your side doing the very same things? If so, please point me to that earlier post that gave a more balanced view.

 

[DeletedUser299]

There were huge differences in scale across what both tribes were doing. In S.A a couple of players were co-oping one or two accounts for a couple of months. In L.S, a few players have been co-oping tens of accounts each for 6 months to a year. As I have said many times, I'd rather it didn't exist at all.

The vast majority of my posts on this subject have been general against the co-op system and not specifically focussed on your tribe. However I make no apologies for calling out the fact that the problem is on a different scale in your tribe than it ever was in mine.

 

[DeletedUser2847]

I decided to write my story on cooping and im not at the loosing side, i And m at the winning side. EN 14 ASH started with many good players but most of them went inactive on several reasons. The result was that 8-10 very active members cooped 7-15 inactive accounts each. We was a tribe with 160 members but i will say that 50% was controlloed by 8-10 very active members. I was cooping 10-12 inactive accounts and some active accounts. The inactive accounts i used to noble barbs in safe areas, turned it into 90% def and supported tribemembers that was in frontline and needed support. I was actually not supporting my own account in any way that can be seen as pushing its just that i nobled plenty of it when we took it down But the situation was the same in other tribes. But i was supporting tribemembers 1-2 provinces from me. So tactically i was in a way pushing my account. I just stopped the enemy from getting close to me and i used some off against the enemy from coop accounts. I probably noble some villas by my self as a result of this but tribemembers nobled more. So im actually didnt push my own account. But i was pushing the tribe. And not to mention donation of resources from inactive accounts. And we have been doing some merging and i have talked to others, the situation was exactly the same in other tribes. So you can say it was fair. But if you take a closer look at the situation. It is better with the minting issue and pushing rules but its not enough. The coop system is a huge advantage to players by myself. I can use 10-12 hours a day at tw2 . When im so running 8-10 accounts is this fair to smaller players. I have an advantage even if i dont break pushing rules. Just because i benefit my tactical situation. To you that say that cooping several accounts is destroying your own account EN 14 is my first realm at EN server and i dominated it with my account and i played 10-15 cooped accounts at the same time. I also played top ranked at a smaller server. Earlier i have only played at a smaller server but i had no problem with domination on 2-3 realms at same time. And i could actually grown faster but i didnt need to. So you dont know a clou about what you are talking about.

Today im not cooping 1 inactive player. Im just so sick and tired of it

 

[DeletedUser2847]

And i was growing the coop account. But there is one difference from the way bi played my coop accounts and my main account. I played my main account to win and i played my support accounts to benefit the tribe. If i wasnt for my support account i would have supported tribememders more from main account and grown slower because of this