Misuse of CO-Play Facility

  • Thread starter DeletedUser115558
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser115558

Guest
As the subject line itself introduce what topic i would like to address.
So before i start first i would like to clear one thing "I am not against Co-Playing on an account". In-fact it is a good facility for players to keep active there account 24hrs and keep safe villa from enemy while sleeping or working or relaxing with family and friends, which is quite possible as players are from all over the world and play from different time zone.

Now my doubt is that and especially in world like NO HAULS where

1. Nobling starts with very marginal troops as most of players were pit whoring from the start;

2. No risk of looting, so initially no one attacks

3. Free Premium allow you to queue buildings and relax, I gave example of free premium because any moderate level player can reach 500 point in 2 days in No Haul World and 7 days are enough to reach at nobling capacity.

This can be done with PP, but than some may raise question that we don't have PP, so i already clarified that with FREE PREMIUM.

these nullify the benefits of Co-playing early in the game of World like 83.

And If.

2 or 3 players invite each other premade and build villages near each other and one only work on pits and other on getting Academy fast, and than one nobled other without loss of any troops and start Co_playing, This can be done with mutual agreement between 2 players whose villages are close to each other.

On the other hand a solo player have to do a lot many thing on his/her own and while nobling a big villa huge troop losses or compromise on small barb or bonus.

This actually creates Inequality in between Solo And Co-Play Account. I think this should be rectify, few suggestions are

1. Either Ban CO-Play for 2 month from the beginning of world.
2. Or Completely Ban Co-Playing in between 2 players where one is Nobler and other one whose villages got nobled. (This can be impose in any type world though)


This is for Discussion and Suggestion for TW Team.
 

DeletedUser100013

Guest
2. Or Completely Ban Co-Playing in between 2 players where one is Nobler and other one whose villages got nobled. (This can be impose in any type world though)

I agree with this. There is WAY too many ways to abuse this feature. One village could supply the other with cheap resources helping them to noble rush and then get a free village. Coplaying should not be allowed between merging accounts.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
To play devil's advocate... since later world you do see a lot of merges with one person nobling a majority (if not all) of a players villages and then they jump on the account, are you saying that you are only against this at the 1 village stage? Or up to 3 villages? At what point are you OK with a merger and that person becoming a co-player? Never?
 

DeletedUser90465

Guest
Cal/Solace92 does this every world. It is quite sickening. This world he is doing it with Dezz/Solace92/Nebula. and this gives him a huge boost in the area.
 

DeletedUser115558

Guest
She even wanted me to create my own account at the start of the world to merge into it :O

As for the question, I'm going to go with A.

I am Quoting this from Thread "First to Noble" as a Example

and I am not sure Is this Merger or Not, But in first Six Nobling in this world 3 Players not gained a single ODA point, They Nobled those villages without even break a Wall ??

Here If TW team check IP Address and Computer System unique ID of the current Account would Know if these nobling are merger or really villages nobled.
 

twenty-five

Guest
To play devil's advocate... since later world you do see a lot of merges with one person nobling a majority (if not all) of a players villages and then they jump on the account, are you saying that you are only against this at the 1 village stage? Or up to 3 villages? At what point are you OK with a merger and that person becoming a co-player? Never?

To me it's the intention to do it pre-world (which sadly can't be objectively determined), which I personally see as cheating the game so to speak (note: this doesn't mean breaking the rules). The 1 "planned" account starting 2 accounts to later merge is the issue, imo. Merges happen, but actively planning them before the world just doesn't sit well with me.

I know that's no hard limit which is what you wanted, but ultimately even if there were a rule preventing this, loop holes would be found so it's really just a discussion of ethical behaviour within tw. A basic loophole if there was a limit would be to divide into 4 player "teams", A gifts to B, C gifts to D, A coplays D and C coplays B. It's a very difficult thing to enforce, but it is similar enough in concept, intention and execution to multi accounting that it should not be allowed. (One account per account vs one account per player).
 
Last edited:

darkaniken2

Guest
Alright, this thread is done. If I see anyone discussing a way to circumvent the rules again, there will be stiff penalties.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top