• 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
I have a scenario concerning fakes and pushing, that I am not sure what the answer is so I would welcome input from other players and of course the mods for the official line.
The scenario is:
The tribe leadership orders players to send fakes to every village of a single enemy player to land around a certain time. You know your coop cannot do this as they are not on at the necessary launch time (itis the middle of their night, at work etc). If you send fakes from both your account and your coop's account to all that players villages is that pushing? There is no benefit for you in taking the action, and it will keep your coop from displeasing the tribe leadership. But you are essentially attacking the same villages which can be counted as pushing if done as coop.
 

DeletedUser430

Guest
I have a scenario concerning fakes and pushing, that I am not sure what the answer is so I would welcome input from other players and of course the mods for the official line.
The scenario is:
The tribe leadership orders players to send fakes to every village of a single enemy player to land around a certain time. You know your coop cannot do this as they are not on at the necessary launch time (itis the middle of their night, at work etc). If you send fakes from both your account and your coop's account to all that players villages is that pushing? There is no benefit for you in taking the action, and it will keep your coop from displeasing the tribe leadership. But you are essentially attacking the same villages which can be counted as pushing if done as coop.
In this case I would honestly say it would not be considered "Pushing" because this is not something that you are doing each day. Now if you for say did this you and he each day then you nobled these villages from your main account then that can be said to be a different story.

Coop feature is there to assist players during times they cannot be online. The issue isn't the feature itself. Coop'ing a player does not mean oh "Player A" quit the game I'll take the account. :) Hope this at least helps answer your question.
 

DeletedUser2847

Guest
As long as the account owner still active at the account, the coop can do everything on it
 

DeletedUser2578

Guest
well moderator gave then false banas these things are not stated in rules. Also there is really no difference does co-player or account owner send fakes if account owner is still active. Both persons can do it so both could abuse it same way. I think If co-player abuses something then account owner should be punished too for letting that happen

Players need only follow game rules + other terms(and changes to them) that they have accept when registered. All details about rules must be included in same place where rules are or people cannot follow them,simple We cannot except that all people would lurk at forum's sub threads for hidden rules that they must follow.
 
Last edited by a staff member:

DeletedUser3817

Guest
well moderator gave then false banas these things are not stated in rules. Also there is really no difference does co-player or account owner send fakes if account owner is still active. Both persons can do it so both could abuse it same way. I think If co-player abuses something then account owner should be punished too for letting that happen

Players need only follow game rules + other terms(and changes to them) that they have accept when registered. All details about rules must be included in same place where rules are or people cannot follow them,simple We cannot except that all people would lurk at forum's sub threads for hidden rules that they must follow.

this I like especially the last part ''we cannot expect that all people would lurk''
this is so accurate, anyone believe that people would lurk and find the actual rules or the hidden rules is terrible naive. There is people in all ages playing this game, there is rich people and poor people. So expecting EVERYONE to know the rules, is terrible naive. I don't know all the rules i just expect the rules to be kind of straight forward what you can and can't do in your general life style.
Allow to steal a car? no! allow to streal an account? NO. simple.
punishment for CO playing, 7 days bann and should be ''unable to play in a tribe for a certain amount of time'' To make a strong example out of the person so others don't try the same.

I played my first game when i was 10, back then there wasn't so many online game but i remember i was kind of trolling around, breaking rules left and right, being banned... Making a new account, no care what so ever. But One day, a modeator did something that made me stop the break the rules. He made it impossible to play in another corporation for a certain amount of time. that made me grow up :p

I was a kid yes, i had no understanding of what i was doing and didn't care i was just there for the laugh but that change of rule made it impossible for me to keep doing and made me reconsider what i was doing..... and that is how the mods should look into it. How to make bad apples, reconsider their action and change rules to make it ''to much of a risk'' to even try it out.
 

DeletedUser1323

Guest
The easiest way to avoid these issues is to follow these two guidelines

7. Pushing

It is forbidden to use one or more accounts that solely exists to advance the progress of another account.
It is forbidden to create trades in any form (resources, attacks, favors etc.) that involve multiple worlds and/or servers.
Example:
  • Transferring resources or troop support frequently to another account or other accounts to solely push their progress instead of your own is forbidden.
This can include the fakes attacks, if they benefit the progress of one account at the expense of the others. If the fakes are set up to protect the main account from losing a nuke or noble train, by the coop on any coop'ed accounts.

9. Miscellaneous

Members of the Tribal Wars 2 team are the final arbiters of any rules dispute. Their interpretation of these rules is final.

We have an extensive review system. Before any discipline is given it has to show direct proof of a rule violation. Every moderator has the discretion to make a decision based on the given facts. Sometimes those facts take time to come to light, other facts are very plainly obvious and have evidence to support the moderators decision in a timely manner.
 

DeletedUser2578

Guest
This can include the fakes attacks, if they benefit the progress of one account at the expense of the others. If the fakes are set up to protect the main account from losing a nuke or noble train, by the coop on any coop'ed accounts.


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 + 1 or more accounts + co op accounts

can't see difference between co-op sending fakes/attacks and account's owner sending them. technically same thing i both players still playing game and owner of co-op account wants co-oper to do that. If it's not allowed to send fakes as co-op account to help own account's attacks then owner of co-op'ed account shouldn't be allowed to do that too as it's aids other player without gain to yourself. This is tribe(team) game, not about personal win/benefits =play for tribe at all cost but it rules try limit game's core element?
 

DeletedUser1594

Guest

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 + 1 or more accounts + co op accounts

can't see difference between co-op sending fakes/attacks and account's owner sending them. technically same thing i both players still playing game and owner of co-op account wants co-oper to do that. If it's not allowed to send fakes as co-op account to help own account's attacks then owner of co-op'ed account shouldn't be allowed to do that too as it's aids other player without gain to yourself. This is tribe(team) game, not about personal win/benefits =play for tribe at all cost but it rules try limit game's core element?

I think you are mossing out on what they are talking about. Pushing applies to players leaving after setting up coops and the person who received the coop now has free access to an account because the original owner is not playing. If the player then uses thos account to aid his account that is where the problem lies. for instance if you are my coop and are actively playing, using your account to conducts ops are fine, but if you have now gone inactive and i use your account for your defense/nukes/resources i basically own a second account
 

DeletedUser1323

Guest

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 + 1 or more accounts + co op accounts

can't see difference between co-op sending fakes/attacks and account's owner sending them. technically same thing i both players still playing game and owner of co-op account wants co-oper to do that. If it's not allowed to send fakes as co-op account to help own account's attacks then owner of co-op'ed account shouldn't be allowed to do that too as it's aids other player without gain to yourself. This is tribe(team) game, not about personal win/benefits =play for tribe at all cost but it rules try limit game's core element?

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.

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

DeletedUser1323

Guest
I think you are mossing out on what they are talking about. Pushing applies to players leaving after setting up coops and the person who received the coop now has free access to an account because the original owner is not playing. If the player then uses thos account to aid his account that is where the problem lies. for instance if you are my coop and are actively playing, using your account to conducts ops are fine, but if you have now gone inactive and i use your account for your defense/nukes/resources i basically own a second account
This almost correct, the pushing does extend to active co-op accounts.

Here is a scenario if a player that is defending is being attacked by 15 players, divided into two groups.
Group A is 1 player in the same tribe has his own account + the maximum 9 co-op accounts (10 accounts)
Group B is 5 players in the same tribe, as themselves just sending fakes.

If any of the players in Group A sends anything other than from the main account, it is pushing. Group B is fine as it is not pushing. The issue becomes how does the Group B benefit themselves, not the tribe in this action. They do not directly benefit from the action of the fakes to the player they are attacking.

The intent of coop is to keep a player from being inactive and able to defend when they take some time off or need to go out and do real life activities outside of TW2. It is not meant to enhance a position of another player's account while they are away.
 

DeletedUser1845

Guest
all this aside cant we just get rid of co-op all together ..... please say yes ! ! ..

or for the money makers out there if players need time off or are unable to play for whatever reason like holidays etc then give them an option to buy a token like thing 1 per day which sets their account into holiday mode where nobody can attack them while in this mode is active. Also they can't activate the holiday mode while buildings or troops are building or incoming attacks in on the way ... just a thought . :)

you can also put these tokens into the resource depot as gifts every now and again ..
 

DeletedUser1594

Guest
This almost correct, the pushing does extend to active co-op accounts.

Here is a scenario if a player that is defending is being attacked by 15 players, divided into two groups.
Group A is 1 player in the same tribe has his own account + the maximum 9 co-op accounts (10 accounts)
Group B is 5 players in the same tribe, as themselves just sending fakes.

If any of the players in Group A sends anything other than from the main account, it is pushing. Group B is fine as it is not pushing. The issue becomes how does the Group B benefit themselves, not the tribe in this action. They do not directly benefit from the action of the fakes to the player they are attacking.

The intent of coop is to keep a player from being inactive and able to defend when they take some time off or need to go out and do real life activities outside of TW2. It is not meant to enhance a position of another player's account while they are away.

I dont follow your logic, if you are stating the 9 coops of player a are all active players, how is that pushing. If you needed attacks to land at a certain time and they needed to be sent when you are offline but your coop is up, he would send. Based of your logic there would be no reason for coops to have access to attack functions
 

DeletedUser1323

Guest
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.
 

DeletedUser1845

Guest
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.

reading into your post i don't see any point at all in having the co-op feature and as a bear minimum if immo are going to keep this option i suggest they remove the attack option like they have removed the minting coin option too .
By removing this option it will save all these headaches and posts and probably half the work load of the mods .. :)
 

DeletedUser1201

Guest
reading into your post i don't see any point at all in having the co-op feature and as a bear minimum if immo are going to keep this option i suggest they remove the attack option like they have removed the minting coin option too .
By removing this option it will save all these headaches and posts and probably half the work load of the mods .. :)
Please make this suggestion within the 'Ideas & Suggestion' section. As for the work load, who claims that is an issue? ;)
 

DeletedUser1323

Guest
reading into your post i don't see any point at all in having the co-op feature and as a bear minimum if immo are going to keep this option i suggest they remove the attack option like they have removed the minting coin option too .
By removing this option it will save all these headaches and posts and probably half the work load of the mods .. :)
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.
 
Last edited by a staff member:

DeletedUser1845

Guest
At anytime that a main account will benefit from the attacks it is considered pushing in all regards.

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 .
 

DeletedUser1845

Guest
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.

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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top