Inactives still not going grey

It does. Provided you have removed yourself from the coop and haven't logged into it, then it's all good.
But whats the difference if player 2 sends his own troops away or you do it through co-op the point is you get a free village so its still pushing??
As the end result is still the same player 1 gets a free village which had no troops in it.
 
I understand the frustration, carrot70. Being a player myself I've been there.
When the rules get implemented, there's no telling what's going to be done with them. Case in point - both of these situations. The rules are fluid until we see issues that need to be adjusted, like this coop issue. Nobody dreamed this would be a concern in the beginning so it wasn't addressed prior to its announcement. We have now addressed it. As for the issue of the tribe domination, I am aware of the issue but I haven't spoken to our CM about it so I won't be able to comment further on that.
 
But whats the difference if player 2 sends his own troops away or you do it through co-op the point is you get a free village so its still pushing??
As the end result is still the same player 1 gets a free village which had no troops in it.
The difference has been explained and I won't explain it again. The ends don't justify the means. If you are going to internally noble a player who is currently your coop, you must first drop the coop and not log into it. Period. I am going to ask you nicely to stop arguing about it. I've answered your question fully - all you need do now is accept it. You don't have to like it, but I am asking you very nicely to accept it.
 
I've answered your question fully
I am trying to tell you that you didn't as I still don't understand it and I'm asking you as a moderator to explain it more in dept to me??
If you did answer my question fully I wouldn't keep on asking things.
So how do you conclude that this is being solved?
As the examples you gave me didn't give an example where player 2 sends away his own troops it only says player 1 nobles player 2 without having co-op but it doesn't explain if its allowed for player 2 to send his troops away.
 
could somebody update us on when the crowns will be awarded for the xmas advent calender competition?
many thanks
hope you have all had a good christmas and new year and best wishes to all for the coming year;)
 
I am trying to tell you that you didn't as I still don't understand it and I'm asking you as a moderator to explain it more in dept to me??
If you did answer my question fully I wouldn't keep on asking things.
So how do you conclude that this is being solved?
As the examples you gave me didn't give an example where player 2 sends away his own troops it only says player 1 nobles player 2 without having co-op but it doesn't explain if its allowed for player 2 to send his troops away.
Agrees, that the question has not been answered fully or even that clearly
 
So this was the stance on this on June 5th 2016

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.

Posted by andy01 (while still a mod), and endorsed by coolnite a couple of posts later in the thread.

So my question is when did this change?
 

gutsman

Banned
The difference has been explained and I won't explain it again. The ends don't justify the means. If you are going to internally noble a player who is currently your coop, you must first drop the coop and not log into it. Period. I am going to ask you nicely to stop arguing about it. I've answered your question fully - all you need do now is accept it. You don't have to like it, but I am asking you very nicely to accept it.
The pushing issue doesn't suddenly disappear just because the co op is no longer applied, kek
 
I am trying to tell you that you didn't as I still don't understand it and I'm asking you as a moderator to explain it more in dept to me??
If you did answer my question fully I wouldn't keep on asking things.
So how do you conclude that this is being solved?
As the examples you gave me didn't give an example where player 2 sends away his own troops it only says player 1 nobles player 2 without having co-op but it doesn't explain if its allowed for player 2 to send his troops away.
1. If there is a previous discussion about it, then I would say get screenshots and keep them just in case. DO NOT log into the coop. DO NOT ask that the troops be moved or buildings/walls destroyed. If Player 2 decides to do these things on their own, that's fine. But DO NOT make the request. If Player 2 makes the offer, I suggest you decline so your chances are the same as anyone else's. MAKE SURE you are no longer a coop partner to Player 2 and then noble.

2. If there is no previous discussion about it, then DO NOT log into the coop. Make sure Player 2 is inactive by messaging him. Keep a screenshot of your efforts. Give it at least 3 days (by then he would show yellow or, if he's been gone longer, red). MAKE SURE you are no longer a coop partner to Player 2 and then noble.

I realize this subject came up naturally in this thread, but if you would like to continue discussions about it, please start a thread specifically for it.


I know about bans given in the past where supports explenation to ban is given from what you say now. But the reason for ban is wrong from what we have been told from support earlier
It may have been right at the time. We moderators work with what we know today, not tomorrow.

As I said to sneksinnej... I realize this subject came up naturally in this thread, but if you would like to continue discussions about it, please start a thread specifically for it.


could somebody update us on when the crowns will be awarded for the xmas advent calender competition?
many thanks
hope you have all had a good christmas and new year and best wishes to all for the coming year;)
Valid question. Please create a thread for this in the appropriate forum.
I do not have an answer for you - that is up to the CM.


So this was the stance on this on June 5th 2016

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.

Posted by andy01 (while still a mod), and endorsed by coolnite a couple of posts later in the thread.

So my question is when did this change?
I'm not sure. I can only tell you what I know from today onwards.

As I said to sneksinnej and carrot70... I realize this subject came up naturally in this thread, but if you would like to continue discussions about it, please start a thread specifically for it.


The pushing issue doesn't suddenly disappear just because the co op is no longer applied, kek
True. But then we would have other ways of knowing if it's happening or not. And before you ask - these are trade secrets. :)
 
could somebody update us on when the crowns will be awarded for the xmas advent calender competition?
many thanks
hope you have all had a good christmas and new year and best wishes to all for the coming year;)
This should be later this week Stemloch. There were a lot of players involved in this and the crowns are being added up to be distributed. :)
 
So expanging on what Eruzin just said - if you are in a tribe and decide to attack an enemy player - you must do it alone - do not attack your target together, since it would be unfair. Also supporting your tribe mates is now illegal, since it gives you unfair advantage over the players that do not support each other.
 
1. If there is a previous discussion about it, then I would say get screenshots and keep them just in case. DO NOT log into the coop. DO NOT ask that the troops be moved or buildings/walls destroyed. If Player 2 decides to do these things on their own, that's fine. But DO NOT make the request. If Player 2 makes the offer, I suggest you decline so your chances are the same as anyone else's. MAKE SURE you are no longer a coop partner to Player 2 and then noble.

2. If there is no previous discussion about it, then DO NOT log into the coop. Make sure Player 2 is inactive by messaging him. Keep a screenshot of your efforts. Give it at least 3 days (by then he would show yellow or, if he's been gone longer, red). MAKE SURE you are no longer a coop partner to Player 2 and then noble.
What is the exact message format we are allowed to contact Player 2 if he is inactive, to make sure we are not unduly influencing him to clear the villages? I would also like to add that, since we are now not allowed to ask Player 2 to do a solid to as and ask them to remove troops... Is it allowed to communicate with your coop partners at all? Imagine a scenario when we have worked with Player 2 for a long time and he trusts us and wants us to succeed - this means that we have influenced Player 2 and he will clear the troops.
This is clearly unfair and must be addressed. May I suggest total communication ban between coop and coopee to ensure fairness (The end that justifies all means).

Nugarin The Sane
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure. I can only tell you what I know from today onwards.

As I said to sneksinnej and carrot70... I realize this subject came up naturally in this thread, but if you would like to continue discussions about it, please start a thread specifically for it.
That is not a good enough answer. If have changed the interpretation of the game rules there had to be a discussion or announcement to the mods at least. So what date did this happen? Since you are the one telling us these are the rules, you should surely know or at least be able to find out the date they came into force.
Also a change in interpretation of the rules should have been announced to the players! How are we supposed to follow this new philosophy if we don't know about it?
 
I don't see point of this conversation. As far i know players are not required to follow random threads in given world's subforums that are 100% unrelated to topic name. what I know and have agreed: players need follow game rules that have been market down in given place , where they can quickly look so they stay updated if there is any changes. Rules are clear so players don't need to guess what is right and what isn't or have talk what these rules means while 99% players are unavailable to see this talk. And soon in next talk rules has been changed
 
I don't see point of this conversation. As far i know players are not required to follow random threads in given world's subforums that are 100% unrelated to topic name. what I know and have agreed: players need follow game rules that have been market down in given place , where they can quickly look so they stay updated if there is any changes. Rules are clear so players don't need to guess what is right and what isn't or have talk what these rules means while 99% players are unavailable to see this talk. And soon in next talk rules has been changed
The point to this conversation, is that players are entitled to know what could them banned. It is great to say you only have to follow the rules on the game rule page right up to the point you get banned for doing something that isn't mentioned in those rules but the moderation team deems is cheating.
 
as far as i know if moderation team come to conclusion that you are cheating and can provide evidence of it they can ban you and its fair.
usually you can raise your voice and do your own reasoning and rescue the ban if you are right but mods are there to ensure everything is going smoothly and executing the rules are a part of their job not all of it.
 
as far as i know if moderation team come to conclusion that you are cheating and can provide evidence of it they can ban you and its fair.
usually you can raise your voice and do your own reasoning and rescue the ban if you are right but mods are there to ensure everything is going smoothly and executing the rules are a part of their job not all of it.
I am afraid that the current confusion with "pushing" is extremely unfair. Now we've been told that we can't even ask coop player to clear their villages. I am pretty sure that 90% players have not read the rules at all and 99.99% do not know all these additional rules that have never been officially listed anywhere. These are also in no way natural - would anyone think it is wrong to ask a quitter to use up their nukes and clear the villages? I think not.
This creates a situation where vast majority of players get away with all these things, since realistically speaking, there is no real chance that a significant percentage of these people ever get a ban for sending an attack or clearing a village.
Now players who have read the rules and also these additional missives are at the disadvantage, since they actively try to avoid doing these things. How is any of this fair?

nugarin the sane