• Hello, Guest!
    Are you passionate about Tribal Wars 2 and like to help your fellow players?
    We currently have open positions for Forum Moderators!

    >> Join the Tribal Wars 2 Team now! <<
    We would love to hear from you!

Fakes and Pushing

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser3730

Guest
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

You are right, when I created this thread I was interested in what constitutes pushing in active account coops when it comes to fakes in particular. I think inactive account pushing is quite clear, so didn't need further discussion. Whereas everybody (outside of mods) seems to have a different take on what is pushing with active accounts. And I thought it would be interesting to see the differing views.
I think the resetting of coops after 30 without logging in, is a great idea, as it allows for people to go on holiday etc but stops the using of inactive accounts.
 

DeletedUser1201

Guest
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
That's simply due to the Developers not feeling that it is as highly important as other things, despite our push to show that it is. Perhaps another push will help with getting the Co-Op feature resolved.
 

DeletedUser2847

Guest
Yes it is the inactive account that is a problem. not the active accounts. Im a nightmare at my own account and you can start to think about the situation if i coop 9 inactive accounts free to use the troops and 9 paladins. I have done it before the coop rules was introduced so i know all about it.
 

DeletedUser1323

Guest
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
This is what is needed within the rules. This forum thread is part of that discussion and is the basis of why I started to comment in this thread. Not everyone is interpreting the vague portion of rules the same way, which is causing further problems. As I stated before, each moderator has the ability to make a decision based on the available evidence to them and make a determination at that time.

Pushing can happen with active or inactive accounts alike, do not be naive that it cannot happen, remember each player must play as a single account.

What will help is a set of instructions from a coop owner to the coop partners of allowed activities. That has been a previously suggested idea and would be helpful for solving this issue.

Coop owners are ultimately responsible for the actions of the coop partners. The punishments vary and go through review before handed out. We do have extensive tools that can see what happens to each account. It is a tiered system so that each level of support has the ability to assure a fair system to everyone playing and I think that is the ultimate goal here, a fair game.
 

DeletedUser2847

Guest
It will not help with instrucktions from account owners when it comes to what you can do on coop accounts. 95% of them is saying "Do wathever you want" So it need to be a bit more specific
 

DeletedUser1323

Guest
It will not help with instrucktions from account owners when it comes to what you can do on coop accounts. 95% of them is saying "Do wathever you want" So it need to be a bit more specific
There was a suggestion of a check box system similar to how you give rights in the tribe. I am not sure what became of it, have to do some research on it.
 

DeletedUser1594

Guest
This is what is needed within the rules. This forum thread is part of that discussion and is the basis of why I started to comment in this thread. Not everyone is interpreting the vague portion of rules the same way, which is causing further problems. As I stated before, each moderator has the ability to make a decision based on the available evidence to them and make a determination at that time.

Pushing can happen with active or inactive accounts alike, do not be naive that it cannot happen, remember each player must play as a single account.

What will help is a set of instructions from a coop owner to the coop partners of allowed activities. That has been a previously suggested idea and would be helpful for solving this issue.

Coop owners are ultimately responsible for the actions of the coop partners. The punishments vary and go through review before handed out. We do have extensive tools that can see what happens to each account. It is a tiered system so that each level of support has the ability to assure a fair system to everyone playing and I think that is the ultimate goal here, a fair game.

But up intil the other day where you laid out your interpretation most people I have talked to or played with would disagree with your assessment. There are very few instances where I could see pushing exists with active members. Perhaps if someone essentially goes rogue and uses their coops whole army to save their units, but that would be something corrected via the coop ending the relationship. I dont think very many people would agree with pushing via active coops.
 

DeletedUser1323

Guest
But up intil the other day where you laid out your interpretation most people I have talked to or played with would disagree with your assessment. There are very few instances where I could see pushing exists with active members. Perhaps if someone essentially goes rogue and uses their coops whole army to save their units, but that would be something corrected via the coop ending the relationship. I dont think very many people would agree with pushing via active coops.
Unfortunately in recent worlds active accounts are being abused just as much as inactive. It is the inactive that you can SEE the results from easier than an active account so most players do not pick up on it.
I get to see a much larger picture than you do by moderating worlds and get to see how the world is moving as whole in real time, as compared to your smaller number of interactions.
Pushing does happen with both active and inactive accounts. Being ignorant or not accepting that there is a probably that pushing exists, is a part of the problem.
 

DeletedUser1201

Guest
Okay, I may regret saying this but.. "Knowing is only half the battle." :D
 

DeletedUser1594

Guest
Unfortunately in recent worlds active accounts are being abused just as much as inactive. It is the inactive that you can SEE the results from easier than an active account so most players do not pick up on it.
I get to see a much larger picture than you do by moderating worlds and get to see how the world is moving as whole in real time, as compared to your smaller number of interactions.
Pushing does happen with both active and inactive accounts. Being ignorant or not accepting that there is a probably that pushing exists, is a part of the problem.

First off you have been a moderator for 30 seconds, so talking like you have witnessed the insides of the worlds for an extended period of time is bs. Second you have failed to provide any kind of viable example of what you would deem to be pushing, where anyone besides yourself would agree to it. The only example you have provided is something that most people do and will continue to do.
 

DeletedUser1201

Guest
First off you have been a moderator for 30 seconds, so talking like you have witnessed the insides of the worlds for an extended period of time is bs.
Sorry, but I have to defend @jehzir here.. this is false information. He has been a Moderator for a couple of weeks now, but is just recently being granted his Moderator rights on the forums. He has witnessed things behind the scenes to make mention of it. That is all that I am going to say on this, as I've expressed already.. can we please wait for the thoughts of both @Kengi9 and @andy01 on their version of what deems as "Pushing" and what does not.
 

DeletedUser1594

Guest
Even weeks is not an extended period of time, considering most of the worlds that are open are fairly new and small, there isn't anywhere near the amount of action going on that is going to tell me that he has all this extra knowledge.
 

DeletedUser3669

Guest
Sorry to break it out like this for you shekel.... But i don't think TW2 team answer to you.

Weeks can be a very long time depending on what you do. For an example, my friend Alice from eve online mod team just started trying out En21 with me and she like the game a lot, what she did first as mod. Does that mean she is inexperienced or perhaps she played the game for 5 years before becoming a mod and part time developer and solving a mess?

Same scenario here, you now nothing, perhaps this moderator have played the game and have a good understanding of the game, and with the extra power can solve things that other mods cannot?....Time will tell.
personally i would like to see some more stricter rules because when i played En20 i found myself in a tribe filled with cheaters and random people outsiders started call me a cheater aswell for playing in a cheating tribe....

Pushing is really simple: You are using another account to make your own stronger.

say you are 5 people, 1 main account 4 delta accounts, While everyone noble own villages and grow own troops eventually you gonna find that those 4 accounts stop playing and their villages are ''gifted'' to the main account that noble own villages and suddently expand rapidly. This happens a lot in TW1. Pretty much every world got this kind of problem. And it's happening in TW2 now aswell... a plague :p
 

DeletedUser1594

Guest
Sorry to break it out like this for you shekel.... But i don't think TW2 team answer to you.

Weeks can be a very long time depending on what you do. For an example, my friend Alice from eve online mod team just started trying out En21 with me and she like the game a lot, what she did first as mod was banning 26 cheaters in Eve online and solving 19 bugs. Does that mean she is inexperienced or perhaps she played the game for 5 years before becoming a mod and part time developer and solving a mess?

Same scenario here, you now nothing, perhaps this moderator have played the game and have a good understanding of the game, and with the extra power can solve things that other mods cannot?....Time will tell.
personally i would like to see some more stricter rules because when i played En20 i found myself in a tribe filled with cheaters and random people outsiders started call me a cheater aswell for playing in a cheating tribe....

Pushing is really simple: You are using another account to make your own stronger.


(drama inc)

Sorry to let you know that your little story is not relevant. I understand the concept of what is at his disposal, he is able to view ips of players and see the actions that are made, it's not earth shattering to look at data and make an assessment. What he is claiming is that he has seen all these acts of "pushing" yet none of it has ever been defined clearly. Also since most worlds are relatively small currently you don't see the kinds of massive operations that you see later in the game, but thanks anyway
 

DeletedUser3669

Guest
There is like 7 average old realms.....

indeed not rly relevant just telling you, you don't need to sitt down and do nothing for like a year before you start doing your job ^^

I often find people new at a job try to understand more than people that worked at same station for a while....
 
Last edited by a staff member:

DeletedUser1594

Guest
There is like 7 average old realms.....

indeed not rly relevant just telling you, you don't need to sitt down and do nothing for like a year before you start doing your job ^^

There is 7 worlds open, en2 has like 10 people alove, en11 is dead, 21 is a month old, the othere 4-6 weeks older than the previous. if you are going to argue with me do some homework, much easier to deal in facts.

Who said anuthing about sitting for a year, he has been a mod for a few weeks, i think its a bit premature for someone to decide he is going to change the rules based on some alleged instances that cant be described
 

DeletedUser486

Guest
That's simply due to the Developers not feeling that it is as highly important as other things, despite our push to show that it is. Perhaps another push will help with getting the Co-Op feature resolved.
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?
 

DeletedUser3669

Guest
I don't need to argue, just need to look at TW2 tools to find that En2 got more than..... 10 players... Alive or 10 players sitting 95+25+27+10+2..
kinda small realm indeed but it's old and still enough for intel gathering as a mod.


Hope they fix the CO-OP rules, it's kind of killed my game experience and until it's 100% resolved i won't let anyone sitt me :p
 

DeletedUser1594

Guest
I don't need to argue, just need to look at TW2 tools to find that En2 got more than..... 10 players... Alive or 10 players sitting 95+25+27+10+2..
kinda small realm indeed but it's old and still enough for intel gathering as a mod.


Hope they fix the CO-OP rules, it's kind of killed my game experience and until it's 100% resolved i won't let anyone sitt me :p
try tw2stats.com perhaps 10 is a bit lower than i thought, but im sure less than 50 actual players.
 

DeletedUser430

Guest
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"

Since there is some confusion to what is considered "Pushing" I'll help clear this up:

Example
Coop Players:
Player A
Player B

To start let me say this. Player B has not logged in his account for more than 30 days or so (yes the rule needs to be expressed a bit more to say this however support should be able to clarify this if a player has any questions). Being that Player B has not logged in for such a long time we first have to determine:

  1. How is Player A using Player B to benefit his own account (Attacking same players|trading resources with the two account|or is Player A using Player B troops to stack his own village)? If any of the above is true then this is considered "Pushing".
  2. Player A is still playing Player B account and Player B has not still logged in over some time and there is no interaction between Player A or Player B then now this should be considered "Multi-accounts".
Coop Players:
Player A = active
Player B = inactive
Player C = active

Player A coops Player B
Player C coops Player A

Now in this scenario Player A is cooping Player B (who has not logged in still in 30 days or so), however now Player A is being coop'ed by Player C who along with Player A is active as well.
  1. Player A and Player C are in same province or close to one another and Player A gets attacked by another tribe or player. I believe and correct me if I am wrong can Player C use his troops to support Player A? If this is the case then yes Player C can snipe the noble and/or support Player A (Player A and Player C are only trying to help each other within the tribe and should not be punished).
  2. Now lets say Player C and Player A uses Player B troops to support Player C. There is nothing wrong here as Player A is only the coop of player B and is not benefiting for this in any way.
  3. Now Player A attacks with Player B troops then sends his troops in to noble the player. <--Pushing
  4. Player C attacks with his troops (again both Player A and C are active players) and then sends Player A troops in to noble account. Now because both are active players you guys actually put us to work. We must now begin to look for patterns (which we have great tools to do so). If this is happening often then now you are playing within the line of "Pushing".
The best advise is this:
  1. If Player B is/have left the game then don't be Player A (coop'ing/nobling) the account. If you wish to noble the account then drop the coop before any interaction has taken place.
  2. If Player A is the coop of Player B and Player C wants to noble out Player B then just make sure Player C does not later make the mistake and try and noble out Player A as not this is again "Pushing". If any doubt just end the coop.
The developers are currently working to correct the issue with the Coop function as we understand the "Rule" itself is confusing however please make sure you contact support if in doubt.

@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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top