Fakes and Pushing

[DeletedUser3730]

Might be a bit of a tangent, but it is an interesting side to the coop debate. How far can you go in the name defending the cooped account?

 

[DeletedUser2847]

You can attack from an coop account if this is attacks that benefits the coop account. Example. A player nobles into a province where the coop account is lokated, in this case you are allowed to attack this villa because this will be attacks thats done to protect the coop account. Its also ok to attack from coop account if the coopaccount is nobling the villa you are attacking. To say it in an easy way. When you are cooping you are allowed to benefit and help the account you coop with production, growht and defence , you are not allowed to help everybody else.

 

[DeletedUser2578]

You can attack from an coop account if this is attacks that benefits the coop account. Example. A player nobles into a province where the coop account is lokated, in this case you are allowed to attack this villa because this will be attacks thats done to protect the coop account. Its also ok to attack from coop account if the coopaccount is nobling the villa you are attacking. To say it in an easy way. When you are cooping you are allowed to benefit and help the account you coop with production and growht and defence , you are not allowed to help everybody else.

so if we cannot help anyone then you cannot attack from your own account to villa before you conquer that for co-op account. also supporting would be forbidden

 

[DeletedUser2847]

You can support from your own account. Coop account isnt your account its sombody else that owns it you are babysitting the coop account . And you can attack from your own account to help other players as long as it not being a pattern that you more or less only help others and dont grow your own account properly

 

[DeletedUser2578]

To pull from your quote to make it easier to read...

wait...if you got main account in world it means you got other accounts too. own account + co-op account if we speak about main account it means: main account + co op accounts (removed the +1 or more accounts that is multi-accounting which is handled by 1. One account per player rule) I am specifically defining the pushing rule.

The underline portion of this statement is highlighted for emphasis. The main account belongs to you. The one or more accounts is in this case co-op account that does not belong to you. Anytime that a player uses an account for the benefit of one account over another by use of attacks is pushing.

i don't answer to this because we are not speaking exact same thing that can be seen in two ways

If the player is not active when a tribe announcement goes out to sends fakes, the coop account is not to be used.

replace old one with this line to rules as old one isn't accurate.Old one says you cannot send fakes from co-op account even if co-op account's owner is active
It's funny how different markets tell same rules different ways(some less or more accurately).and EN rules aren't close to #1 accurate

You can support from your own account. Coop account isnt your account its sombody else that owns it you are babysitting the coop account . And you can attack from your own account to help other players as long as it not being a pattern that you more or less only help others and dont grow your own account properly

first you say you can't and then you say you can help other without benefit.... also that means that you cannot help as co-op to tribe mate that is under attack if got with that account must benefit from all actions

BTW: pushing isn't limited for only co-op

 

[DeletedUser1323]

i don't answer to this because we are not speaking exact same thing that can be seen in two ways

There is nothing to respond to, I am giving you the definition of the rule, which is what the original poster and several others asked for.

replace old one with this line to rules as old one isn't accurate.Old one says you cannot send fakes from co-op account even if co-op account's owner is active
It's funny how different markets tell same rules different ways(some less or more accurately).and EN rules aren't close to #1 accurate

The EN market is the largest and only one that runs on a 24 hour clock. The rest of the markets have their specific guidelines and the moderators are able to determine fair game play that best fits that market. All of the moderators have the enforce the rules based on their determination of the rule based on available evidence. The EN market sees the most activity thus has had more time to refine the rules to best fit fair game and each world is different.

 

[DeletedUser1323]

so why not put a block in the code so the co-op person can't attack anything other than barbs saying that though you could pre-noble the barbs using the other account and still fall foul of pushing as your enhancing the main account .

Now this is worth being put in the "Ideas and Suggestions" thread.

 

[DeletedUser1323]

deffinatly not short sighted mate just saying how i see the co-op feature as it stands , it has floors and alot of them. You say they can only farm in the coop account to maintain growth but if the account holder is away for a weekend in RL by the time he comes back not only could he have no villages left or worse he could of been turned into a turtle as the coop player couldn't do anything else to protect the village other than build deff troops as he couldn't attack back .
i maybe going off on a tangent but my fingers are bored lol

You are missing the word solely in the pushing statement. What I am attempting to clarify is that you cannot coop a player for the SOLE (SINGULAR) benefit to you as a main account using the coop account. The coop can grow and take villas for the amount of coins/nobles that it has available as long as it benefits the coop account.

 

[DeletedUser2578]

The EN market is the largest and only one that runs on a 24 hour clock. The rest of the markets have their specific guidelines and the moderators are able to determine fair game play that best fits that market. All of the moderators have the enforce the rules based on their determination of the rule based on available evidence. The EN market sees the most activity thus has had more time to refine the rules to best fit fair game and each world is different.

facts? goes off topic but:
1. I compared different markets and EN server has similar player amounts(or less) as other biggest servers like US and BR.(result isn't very accurate)
2. There are many servers with 24 hour clock
____
haven't read closely all EN server rules as i don't play at EN server but i don't thing rules are wrote accurate enough and some server have some rules better written but hard to say are they really better as they contain different information.

 

[DeletedUser1594]

At anytime that a main account will benefit from the attacks it is considered pushing in all regards. What we are saying is attacks have to be done by the account owner, not the coop to be on the safe side. As we do not know the intent, we have to use the evidence at our disposal. It does not matter whether the account is active or inactive, it is still pushing.

I can tell you right now that the vast majority of the community does not interpret the rule as you are stating, I would like further clarification from CM or Senior Mod, as what you are stating makes very little sense

 

[DeletedUser1594]

I think you are taking this a bit to extreme and a little short sighted. Attacking is allowed for farming barbarian villages with the intent to maintain growth for the account owner. It is not meant to make it a second account. So long as you do not move the farmed resources away from the coop account you are fine.

Do you really think players are farming for their coops when they each of hundreds of villages?

 

[DeletedUser2847]

The pushing issue is as i see it taken down to. When an account that solelary exist to benefit other players or tribes it is pushing.
I noticed that many have pointed out that im an tactical reporter. I like to tell my side of the story and it is a fact that it wasnt me that sendt all of the tickets in this case, but i send a ticket straight away when i see attacks done by accounts that just got slow growht in points and no nobling last 3-6 weeks. Its actually just to look at tw2-tools to figure this out. I send the ticket straight away when i discover it. Im also experienced so i know alots of players from earlier and the result of this is that i automatically look at some players when they attack and i look at stats at other players involved in the attacks. I can be wrong when i report an account it might just be that he isnt so active and like to play this game more in a helping way instead of growing his own account and this is ok as long as its not an obvious case of pushing.

 

[DeletedUser1201]

Okay, let me see if I can clear this up:

1. When we refer to main account, this mean your individual account in general. The Co-Op account can be considered a secondary account, but as long as you are within the rules as they are written.. then you should have nothing to worry about.
2. You are not able to attack the same target with both accounts, and then simply Noble the account with only one of the accounts.. that is considered to be "Pushing". It is best to keep both account with separate targets, including if you are simply sending fakes or clearing a village for a tribe mate.
3. You can not transfer resources between the two accounts. if you do a farming run from your own account, you can not setup a trade between yourself and the Co-Op account to send the resources there.

I do hope this has helped clear thing up, if not.. just shout. I do not always come across clear with my first responses, no matter how hard I try to. I am human after all and not perfect.

 

[DeletedUser1594]

Okay, let me see if I can clear this up:

1. When we refer to main account, this mean your individual account in general. The Co-Op account can be considered a secondary account, but as long as you are within the rules as they are written.. then you should have nothing to worry about.
2. You are not able to attack the same target with both accounts, and then simply Noble the account with only one of the accounts.. that is considered to be "Pushing". It is best to keep both account with separate targets, including if you are simply sending fakes or clearing a village for a tribe mate.
3. You can not transfer resources between the two accounts. if you do a farming run from your own account, you can not setup a trade between yourself and the Co-Op account to send the resources there.

I do hope this has helped clear thing up, if not.. just shout. I do not always come across clear with my first responses, no matter how hard I try to. I am human after all and not perfect.

To clairfy, let me set up a scenario. Main player will be player A, coop of player A is player B who has not logged into his account for months and should be considered inactive, coop of of player A is player C who logs in regularly and is an active member of this game.

I think it is pretty well understood that attacking players with player B, so player A can noble or using player B's defense in player A would be considered pushing as this account is not being accessed by the original player.

What has now arose is a scenario with player C, where I know many players and myself included have utilized a coop that fits player C, in operations and such, as we do play on an international server which tends to cause timing concerns. If I'm in a province with player C, and am about to get nobled, I would surely utilize player C to snipe the noble, I have also used players C nuke to help keep a village I am nobling clear, according to @jehzir this would be pushing. I hate to tell you that if you are going to say those instances are pushing with player C, just eliminate coop as there is no purpose other than "i'm going away for the weekend, make sure I don't get nobled"

 

[DeletedUser2578]

Okay, let me see if I can clear this up:

1. When we refer to main account, this mean your individual account in general. The Co-Op account can be considered a secondary account, but as long as you are within the rules as they are written.. then you should have nothing to worry about.
2. You are not able to attack the same target with both accounts, and then simply Noble the account with only one of the accounts.. that is considered to be "Pushing". It is best to keep both account with separate targets, including if you are simply sending fakes or clearing a village for a tribe mate.
3. You can not transfer resources between the two accounts. if you do a farming run from your own account, you can not setup a trade between yourself and the Co-Op account to send the resources there.

I do hope this has helped clear thing up, if not.. just shout. I do not always come across clear with my first responses, no matter how hard I try to. I am human after all and not perfect.

2. This is important one. In TW this was technically blocked and if rule goes like that then block is needed here too or rules will be violated either purposely or accidentally. However there is difference between account sitting in TW and co-op in TW2. I see co-op feature as it is named -you can help co-op account's owner by building and farming etc. but also doing teamwork and attacking together. how you can know did I send attack as co-op or did owner of account send it? As i understood owner can attack same village where you are attacking but not thought co-op feature or i this only when owner of co-op'ed account is inactive? You didn't say that

3.i don't think this was unclear to anyone

 

[DeletedUser2847]

i agre that we can get an better understanding of the rules when it comes to active coope accounts. But the entire discussion started with abusing of accounts thats obvious inactive accounts with no other purpose then benefit others. I have played 10 realms at different servers and experienced 1 active account being banned because of pushing all this time. Its inactive accounts that is a problem not activ accounts. Iit is pretty simple. Stop using inactive accounts to attacking, defending etc. Just noble it away as fast as possible

 

[DeletedUser2578]

But the entire discussion started with abusing of accounts thats obvious inactive accounts with no other purpose then benefit others. I have played 10 realms at different servers and experienced 1 active account being banned because of pushing all this time. Its inactive accounts that is a problem not activ accounts. Iit is pretty simple. Stop using inactive accounts to attacking, defending etc. Just noble it away as fast as possible

hmm...right most topic as been about case where owner of co-op'd account is inactive but title of topic or topic creator's first post speaks when player is still active. When inactive co-op should be used as carrot70 said only for clearning villages so tribe can noble them.
I think co-op feature should be reactivated every 30 (or X) days or just when player has been 30 days without logging in to game. Or after 30(or X) days many actions will be locked for co-oper

 

[DeletedUser1201]

To clairfy, let me set up a scenario. Main player will be player A, coop of player A is player B who has not logged into his account for months and should be considered inactive, coop of of player A is player C who logs in regularly and is an active member of this game.

I think it is pretty well understood that attacking players with player B, so player A can noble or using player B's defense in player A would be considered pushing as this account is not being accessed by the original player.

What has now arose is a scenario with player C, where I know many players and myself included have utilized a coop that fits player C, in operations and such, as we do play on an international server which tends to cause timing concerns. If I'm in a province with player C, and am about to get nobled, I would surely utilize player C to snipe the noble, I have also used players C nuke to help keep a village I am nobling clear, according to @jehzir this would be pushing. I hate to tell you that if you are going to say those instances are pushing with player C, just eliminate coop as there is no purpose other than "i'm going away for the weekend, make sure I don't get nobled"

This situation is simple to resolve, as long as Player A is not serving as Co-Op of Player B, only Player C is.. then its within the rules, as of the moment. If Player A is serving as Co-Op of Player B, then it is considered to be "Pushing". This has been the rule since day one of the Co-Op feature, but it has also been abused several times.. which has lead to discussions about changing the rules concerning Co-Ops. At least, this is how I interpret the rule as it is written at the moment.

2. This is important one. In TW this was technically blocked and if rule goes like that then block is needed here too or rules will be violated either purposely or accidentally. However there is difference between account sitting in TW and co-op in TW2. I see co-op feature as it is named -you can help co-op account's owner by building and farming etc. but also doing teamwork and attacking together. how you can know did I send attack as co-op or did owner of account send it? As i understood owner can attack same village where you are attacking but not thought co-op feature or i this only when owner of co-op'ed account is inactive? You didn't say that

And that is where we get the "Behind the Scenes" aspect of things. We have tools that allow us to view who has in fact logged into the account and done what, which is how things are determined. If the account owner logs in and its around the same time as the attacks are sent, then all is good. If not, well.. I think ya'll can get the drift from that point of what happens.

I will ask both @Kengi9 and @andy01 to cast their thoughts on this, as both of them may see things differently than I do. I know @Kengi9 has much further information on the Co-Op features changes due to having a closer contact to the Developers. You all have asked for better clarification, and that is our goal to provide it without an issue. We simply ask for your continued patience while we try to obtain the information from the Developers, all we can do for now is provide our aspect of how the rules should be interpenetrated.

hmm...right most topic as been about case where owner of co-op'd account is inactive but title of topic or topic creator's first post speaks when player is still active. I think co-op feature should be reactivated every 30 (or X) days or just when player has been 30 days without logging in to game. Or after 30(or X) days many actions will be locked for co-oper

Any and all suggestions to improve the Co-Op feature, please place within the 'Ideas and Suggestion' section so I can add it to my weekly report to @Kengi9 for his report to the Developers. Thanks!

 

[DeletedUser2578]

And that is where we get the "Behind the Scenes" aspect of things. We have tools that allow us to view who has in fact logged into the account and done what, which is how things are determined. If the account owner logs in and its around the same time as the attacks are sent, then all is good. If not, well.. I think ya'll can get the drift from that point of what happens.

i know about work done behind the scenes but i didn't think you can see action has done by co-op and not as owner. yes that is pretty obvious, i am just human i can't think everything same time

I will ask both @Kengi9 and @andy01 to cast their thoughts on this, as both of them may see things differently than I do. I know @Kengi9 has much further information on the Co-Op features changes due to having a closer contact to the Developers. You all have asked for better clarification, and that is our goal to provide it without an issue. We simply ask for your continued patience while we try to obtain the information from the Developers, all we can do for now is provide our aspect of how the rules should be interpenetrated.

Good to hear you are doing something. This is right direction.

Any and all suggestions to improve the Co-Op feature, please place within the 'Ideas and Suggestion' section so I can add it to my weekly report to @Kengi9 for his report to the Developers. Thanks!

it's late so i will wait tomorrow and i will try build clear post that contains much information as needed regarding co-op rules.

 

[DeletedUser1594]

This situation is simple to resolve, as long as Player A is not serving as Co-Op of Player B, only Player C is.. then its within the rules, as of the moment. If Player A is serving as Co-Op of Player B, then it is considered to be "Pushing". This has been the rule since day one of the Co-Op feature, but it has also been abused several times.. which has lead to discussions about changing the rules concerning Co-Ops. At least, this is how I interpret the rule as it is written at the moment

Right and this is the way that most people interpert, the problem is jehzir is saying something completely different which therein lies the problem that the rule is still ambiguous, I'm not sure why at this point coop hasnt been a) fixed in regards to inactives b) clearly defined with examples and scenarios to end the controversy