Fakes and Pushing

[DeletedUser1594]

@shekel finder:
All moderators are/should be trained to answer any question and in most cases they communicate with their CM's/Senior team via Skype for Q&A. I think that was lost here is that the moderator provided you with an answer within a certain time (so you didn't feel your question was never answered) and you tried to undermine him. Moderators are players that have given portions of their time to assist players. Lets at least give them some credit here for trying to assist you. Remember you can always email a CM/Senior via forum an clarify an opinion as well.

Coolnite7

I have to disagree with you, first off the original question wasn't asked by me. I answered a question which I was told essentially was wrong. After back and forth your mod clearly took some shots at me, but I do feel vindicated as your answer for pushing contradicts what he said and validates what I said so thanks

 

[DeletedUser430]

We hope to better clarify this rule "very soon" as well as the use of Coop feature. This is were all Tribal Wars 2 needs the help of the community so that we can progress and eliminate the confusion between players.

 

[DeletedUser3669]

@coolnite7

I always love your explanation, well written!

But i am a bit critic with the Pushing. Both TW1 and TW2 there is people actively playing together only to push another account.
The biggest crime happend a few years ago in TW1 EN73, There was a tribe with 13 members being top 1 far ahead of the top 2 tribe with 40+ members. how is this a crime?

well all members had 7-8 players close to them growing actively and letting them farm on their account, gift villages, attack enemy players while those 13 could slack and just get gifted villages. So for me, pushing could be done with active accounts and inactive.

I am pretty sure it happend in TW2 EN20, I saw a player growing 25k points and only getting 3-4k offensive bashpoints capping 4 villages. that is kind of.... not possible, because i was not really far away and scouted that same player that had almost full deff in all villages. Same player didn't quit but restarted and started growing again.
not gonna give away names but for me that is hardcore pushing.

 

[DeletedUser430]

But i am a bit critic with the Pushing. Both TW1 and TW2 there is people actively playing together only to push another account.
The biggest crime happend a few years ago in TW1 EN73, There was a tribe with 13 members being top 1 far ahead of the top 2 tribe with 40+ members. how is this a crime?

well all members had 7-8 players close to them growing actively and letting them farm on their account, gift villages, attack enemy players while those 13 could slack and just get gifted villages. So for me, pushing could be done with active accounts and inactive.

I am pretty sure it happend in TW2 EN20, I saw a player growing 25k points and only getting 3-4k offensive bashpoints capping 4 villages. that is kind of.... not possible, because i was not really far away and scouted that same player that had almost full deff in all villages. Same player didn't quit but restarted and started growing again. Not gonna give away names but for me that is hardcore pushing.

As I have played on TW1 in the past (loved it as well) their account sit is somewhat/or was somewhat different. If a player sat your account the system did not allow you to interact within the two accounts. To answer your question they had a 13 member tribe how however they were basically building villages (assuming quickly) and then having their tribe members noble these villages. I would not consider this Pushing nor violating the rules as some would argue this is strategy.

Pushing = using an account for the sole reason to benefit your own account.

To some point I do agree that it's not fair for players to play this way however as they have not really violated the rule(s) we cannot begin a witch hunt of all the players that do this. Again myself for example, I love startup's I'm great at beginning of the game and always find a way into top 10. Now once I have achieved my goal ranking (each world I play I set goal) then 75% of the time let my tribe noble me out. Those that are close to me benefit while basically just being awarded for being in the same tribe. This again does not violate any rules as some players actually like myself enjoy the beginning of worlds while others (amazing players) are able to go long term and kick butt.

 

[DeletedUser1323]

So you all will know my experience, I have played TW since EN 3, 11 years ago. I have played on 9 TW2 EN worlds won 3 of them and help in player projects outside of normal play. I have pretty extensive experience even before being accepted as a moderator. I have won on Grepolis as well so I know the Inno family of games pretty well.

 

[DeletedUser3730]

So you all will know my experience, I have played TW since EN 3, 11 years ago. I have played on 9 TW2 EN worlds won 3 of them and help in player projects outside of normal play. I have pretty extensive experience even before being accepted as a moderator. I have won on Grepolis as well so I know the Inno family of games pretty well.

I didn't know your experience, but it sounds like a lot. But what point are you trying to make with the post?

 

[DeletedUser1323]

I didn't know your experience, but it sounds like a lot. But what point are you trying to make with the post?

It was regards to one of sheckel finders posts, it did not copy the reply.
@StephCross This topic has now been made a priority within our group to really help the players gain a better understanding of the pushing rules with regards to fakes.
The issue boils down to this, fakes can be sent as long as there are no other type of attacks involved.

Example Player A & B are cooping each other with these 2 different scenarios

1) Player A and B are both faking random targets. Player A decides to add more fakes from Player B's account so long as no other type of attack is sent by Player A to the villas that are under attack than it is fine.

2)Player A lets Player B both have noble trains and are including fakes to nearby villas, So long as Player A attack Player Z and Player B attacks Player X, then it is acceptable. Now if Player B decides to attack Player Z also, THIS is where the rule is vague and needs clarification, because Player B knowingly is trying to multi-account in this instance, not pushing.

 

[DeletedUser2578]

2)Now if Player B decides to attack Player Z also, THIS is where the rule is vague and needs clarification, because Player B knowingly is trying to multi-account in this instance, not pushing.

okey this needs clarification but let me say:

how Player B is knowingly multi-accounting or even multi-accounting for anyway? Both players are playing only for their tribe&own benefit. Also is possbile that Player B doesn't know player A is also attacking Player Z too (they haven't talked or B Player hasn't visited Player A's account thought co op). even if they know both players are acting independently or at least semi-independently, like if Players G and H would doing same thing but without having co-op to either side

this would be bs

 

[DeletedUser1323]

okey this needs clarification but let me say:

how Player B is knowingly multi-accounting or even multi-accounting for anyway? Both players are playing only for their tribe&own benefit. And what if Player B doesn't know player A is also attacking Player Z too (they haven't talked or B Player hasn't visited Player A's account thought co op)? even then both players are acting independently, like if Players G and H would doing same thing but without having co-op to either side

Knowingly in this case, is the ability to look at both Player A and Player B's accounts while in coop mode, and taking actions that gives one of the two players a distinct advantage. As it stands there is no way for players to know if the logged into each other when they go offline, but moderators can see what happened.

This is exactly WHY I stated the rule is VAGUE and needs clarification for just these types of situations, but it stands now it is multi-accounting.

 

[DeletedUser2847]

Belive it also matters how often this happends . Its more obvious pushing if there is a pattern in several accounts attacking together and one accounts getting most of the benefits from the attacks every time

 

[DeletedUser2578]

Knowingly in this case, is the ability to look at both Player A and Player B's accounts while in coop mode, and taking actions that gives one of the two players a distinct advantage. As it stands there is no way for players to know if the logged into each other when they go offline, but moderators can see what happened.

This is exactly WHY I stated the rule is VAGUE and needs clarification for just these types of situations, but it stands now it is multi-accounting.

Players G and H without co op attacking to player x can know same things as players a and b and maybe even more. is basically same things as with Players A and B.Players A and B just have co-op activated. If they don't use co op for those attacks i don't think it can be looked like they are not in same situation as players G and H.

Let me also remind you what word 'Co-op' means and what that would mean in game like tribal wars 2. if this case isn't allowed then co-op needs name change

 

[DeletedUser1323]

Players G and H without co op attacking to player x can know same things as players a and b and maybe even more. is basically same things as with Players A and B.Players A and B just have co-op activated. If they don't use co op for those attacks i don't think it can be looked like they are not in same situation as players G and H.

Let me also remind you what word 'Co-op' means and what that would mean in game like tribal wars 2. if this case isn't allowed then co-op needs name change

I am not sure I am following you, but my example specifically mentions co-op activities not what player G, H or X know.

Simply put because players A and B have access to the same account via coop, if one of the two players gains a distinct advantage in attacking player X via the coop partnership that will be investigated for either multi-account or pushing depending on what direct evidence we have. Co-op is cooperation, not ownership, which is where the rule violations occur. Because a Coop account owner can be disciplined and it is mentioned in the COOP owner dialog box. "You are responsible for the actions your coop partners undertake."

 

[DeletedUser1201]

Just curious, what IS being prioritised right now by the devs? Been a while since any new features have been released, or even announced. Any whisperings on what is being worked on?

Nothing that has been mentioned as of yet, but @coolnite7 may have more information on that. I know the focus has been trying to correct past issues, but we're hoping new things to come soon.

 

[DeletedUser2578]

Co-op is cooperation, not ownership, which is where the rule violations occur.

id where you got ownership to your mind from my post...
Co-op aka cooperation "is about working or acting together willingly for a common purpose or benefit". How player A and B can work together if they cannot attack same targets same time ?

 

[DeletedUser1323]

id where you got ownership to your mind from my post...
Co-op aka cooperation "is about working or acting together willingly for a common purpose or benefit". How player A and B can work together if they cannot attack same targets same time ?

To add to your definition it is for mutual benefit, not selfish or singular benefit. Not everyone uses the same definition thus we as the EN and US teams are going to come to a solution to these and other ongoing issues.

This topic has gone on far enough and we can debate this for a 1000 years and not come to a satisfactory answer for everyone. Therefore, we can conclude this discussion. There is framework to work from.

Thank you everyone for your participation in the discussion.