• 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!

Inactives still not going grey

DeletedUser1581

Guest
Internallling people alone makes it "pushing" and no longer internalling as its not favoring the tribe("family" in your word)
As it then benefits only one person in a huge way that is not balanced in any way.(If you need some examples I know oddysea used it to get his 100-200 villages he wanted atleast on en20 he can probably explain all about the way to internal villages)

Internals is a part of the game, you can either leave those villages with an inactive so there is 0% production towards the tribe or you can internal them and then they are productive again churning out troops and adding to the tribe skill. Odyssea offered out a lot of inactives, offered me several. Some of the time players would turn down those inactives due to having low amount of nobles where as the world i believe you're on about odyssea had 90+ nobles where as someone like me had 16 so it makes more sense if the guy with 90 takes them as he can easily afford it.

To clear up the bit about kicking people, that was my policy and something similar to what BAD has and I notice you don't disgruntle or slam this method in BAD. Players get into the tribe who aren't worth while, you give them deadlines and targets to reach such as growth, Honor Points, Bash Points and just over all activity to operations in general. If you weren't up to scratch you were kicked with nobles following. This allowed to use skill points to better things like wagons/raiding paths rather than increasing the member count.
So yeah internals do benefit the tribe as the village becomes active again, every tribe internals and if you say otherwise you're a fool simple as. I know you're not a fool snek, so don't be so one sided.
 

DeletedUser2578

Guest
Still internals aren't good thing as it's loss for tribe as you waste nobles(less players=smaller max village limit,) but it is more beneficial than if enemy would get villages
 

DeletedUser1581

Guest
What's a bigger loss, leaving the village just sat there waiting for someone out the tribe to take it which means then you have to spend troops/resources/time taking the village back all the while it is not producing troops or res for the tribe? Clearing the village ASAP and then nobling it putting it into production straight away, with the loss of 1 noble?
In an ideal world, people don't go inactive and this doesn't happen but unfortunately people drop like flies when a new world opens.
 

DeletedUser2847

Guest
Internals is a part of the game, you can either leave those villages with an inactive so there is 0% production towards the tribe or you can internal them and then they are productive again churning out troops and adding to the tribe skill. Odyssea offered out a lot of inactives, offered me several. Some of the time players would turn down those inactives due to having low amount of nobles where as the world i believe you're on about odyssea had 90+ nobles where as someone like me had 16 so it makes more sense if the guy with 90 takes them as he can easily afford it.

To clear up the bit about kicking people, that was my policy and something similar to what BAD has and I notice you don't disgruntle or slam this method in BAD. Players get into the tribe who aren't worth while, you give them deadlines and targets to reach such as growth, Honor Points, Bash Points and just over all activity to operations in general. If you weren't up to scratch you were kicked with nobles following. This allowed to use skill points to better things like wagons/raiding paths rather than increasing the member count.
So yeah internals do benefit the tribe as the village becomes active again, every tribe internals and if you say otherwise you're a fool simple as. I know you're not a fool snek, so don't be so one sided.
Isnt it a fact that there was an message from the council in the tribe that told everyone to stop Internaling, stop nobling Brown villas and only noble red villas so we could reach 80% faster. Whats make it even worse is that odyessa was a part of the council that decided this. Plenty of this internals didnt benefit the tribe at all it just benefitted 1 player that moved himself into nr 3 rank. So my advice to people knowing the story is to stop trying to defend What happend because its plenty more to tell about this.
 

DeletedUser1581

Guest
If I'm not mistaken didn't the council propose this after yourself had nobled about 100-200k worth of villages? Most of which were in my provinces which by tribe rules you should have been mailing me about entering my provinces first but I let it slip as I was targeting red villages and you were a friendly. If we're going to knit pick, lets try and make sure our own hands are clean and not just pick on some people for certain things and then excuse others or our selves for similar things.
Either way this is the past, no need to keep bringing up the past especially when it's on a world that is now closed.
 

DeletedUser3390

Guest
So yeah internals do benefit the tribe as the village becomes active again, every tribe internals and if you say otherwise you're a fool simple as.
I'm not saying internals are bad. I'm trying to get the point through that taking all villages from a single player through internalling is considered pushing.
As posted here by (ex)moderators: https://en.forum.tribalwars2.com/index.php?threads/faq-a-crackdown-on-pushing-mk-2.3944/
Under point 7.
I'm all for trying to share villas from inactives and keeping them within the tribe.
People should share the villages among the tribe at least in a somewhat fair way (By this I mean I can understand someone with a lot of noble spots should take more but never all as everyone should get a fair chance to get some of those villages.)
 

DeletedUser4297

Guest
That's not considered "pushing". Pushing is when you're a coop of an inactive player and you use that account to further your own ends.
 

DeletedUser3390

Guest
That's not considered "pushing". Pushing is when you're a coop of an inactive player and you use that account to further your own ends.
So If I get my friend to play for a month for himself then let him quit and then take all his villages to grow myself its not pushing?
Have you read the link I posted there are clear explenations about what is pushing and it clearly explains this^
 

DeletedUser4297

Guest
If he quits while you're his coop and you're using his account to further your own ends, then yes. That is pushing.
 

DeletedUser3390

Guest
Nah I would just take all his villages to gain double the amount of villages without doing efford and then I'm getting 2x my recruitment+resources..... Which gives me a huge advantage without me ever needing co-op....
 

DeletedUser4297

Guest
Oh, I'm sorry. Read that again. So long as you're not the coop partner, then that's fine.
 

DeletedUser3390

Guest
Oh, I'm sorry. Read that again. So long as you're not the coop partner, then that's fine.
Maybe you should ask some of the GameModerators what they think of this as they all have been telling the opposite and it has been the opposite for since the term "pushing" came out.

I quote from the link I sent earlier:
7. Is internal nobling ok? How should it be done?

Short answer: Yes.

If a player quits the game, it is natural that the tribe would want to take over the villages. Co-op makes this easier, as you can send their troops out of the village first. This if fine, however: you should be fair and split the villages with your tribe mates. Also try to be efficient so you can leave the account alone. Here, again, we are back to the issue that a co-op account should not exist to only benefit one player.
This doesn't say that its fine when you don't have co-op it says co-op makes it easier. So even without co-op it would be against the rules
 

DeletedUser3730

Guest
I love it when it when moderators contradict each other and the game rules. Makes it so much easier for us all to understand the game.
 

DeletedUser4297

Guest
Game moderator or forum moderator, it makes no difference. We have the same information.

Internal nobling is fine because whoever in the tribe is nobling the member doesn't have inside knowledge of the member and can't take action to make the nobling easier. If you're a coop partner of the village you want to noble, you can send the troops out to sit in another village while you noble it, giving you an unfair advantage over everyone else in the game. Therefore, without coop it's within the rules but with coop it's against the rules.

You cannot use a coop partner to benefit yourself, whether that partner is active or not. The same is true when you're nobling an inactive tribe member. If they are your coop partner, then by nobling them you are furthering your own ends, and doing it by using an unfair advantage. It's akin to multi-accounting.

YOU CANNOT NOBLE A COOP PARTNER
YOU CAN NOBLE A FELLOW INACTIVE TRIBE MEMBER


Period. End of story. Discussion over.
 

DeletedUser3390

Guest
Okay can we get some of the bans that where previously done against people that did what I explained undone? (Ow wait we can't go back in time)
There have been ban's by GameModerators done against players using the thing I explained. So I don't get how you suddenly get other information about this subject.
Maybe on other realms its done different but on the en servers these rules have been here so its weird that you suddenly go and say these rules aren't right?

Internal nobling is fine because whoever in the tribe is nobling the member doesn't have inside knowledge of the member and can't take action to make the nobling easier. If you're a coop partner of the village you want to noble, you can send the troops out to sit in another village while you noble it, giving you an unfair advantage over everyone else in the game. Therefore, without coop it's within the rules but with coop it's against the rules.
So let me explain 1 more situation to you and why I think its against the rules and why other mods have said its against the rules:
We have 2 players.
Player 1 and player 2.

Situation A.
Player 1 is co-op of player 2.
Player 2 says he's quitting.
Player 2 sends his own troops out of the village's so player 1 can noble the villages. Both do all actions themselves and co-op is not used to do this.

Situation B.
Player 1 is not co-op of player 2.
Player 2 says he's quitting.
Player 2 sends his own troops out of the village's so player 1 can noble the villages.

I only changed 1 word in this and the situation itself didn't change.
However you say situation A is not allowed and Situation B is allowed.
 

DeletedUser4297

Guest
What happens most of the time is Player 2 just quits without saying anything to anyone so then Player 1 thinks he may as well nab the village(s). Of course, he wants to make it easier on himself so he logs into the coop and removes the pesky troops and then goes into his own account and proceeds to noble. BAD!

On occasion, Player 2 will announce that they are quitting and leave it at that. So Player 1 decides to nab the villages and proceeds to noble in the manner described above. BAD!

Rarely, Player 2 will announce that they are quitting and offer their villages to their coop partner. So Player 1 decides to nab the villages and proceeds to noble in the manner described above. BAD!

HOWEVER

Let's say Player 1 thinks Player 2 may have quit. He tries to message Player 1 to find out their status. Player 2 waits a couple of days and gets no response so they believe Player 2 has, indeed, quit. He then removes himself as coop and then proceeds to noble the village without first going onto the coop account to remove the troops. GOOD!

Or, let's say there is an announcement that Player 2 is quitting. (Whether or not there is an offer made is irrelevant for this example.) Player 1 first removes himself from coop and then proceeds to noble the village. GOOD!

Are you seeing the difference now?

(Oh, and just a note... If you look under my profile picture you will note it says "Moderator" rather than "Forum Moderator". This means I am a game and forum moderator.)
 

DeletedUser3390

Guest
This is a more detailed explanation but it still not addressed my situation B
 

DeletedUser4297

Guest
It does. Provided you have removed yourself from the coop and haven't logged into it, then it's all good.
 

DeletedUser2847

Guest
My question in this case is about coop rules implemented by old CM/Mods. Why didnt the community get a feedback from new CM/Mods when its pretty obvious that you look different at the rules? No info about this to the community. It have been discussions at forum about this rules but no info from support. Its a similar case about the merge into tribedomination a rule that was implented by this CM no info about the rule. Just a rule nobody understand 100%. If you want players to play in a legit way it might be clever to inform the community whats legit and whats not legit
 
Top