Tribal Wars newsletter - illegal command protection

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

Guest
2 questions:

1. Does it automatically block attacks at Player A from Player X, if Player Y has been under attack from (but not attacking) Player A, and Player X has been sitting Player Y? Because this was supposed to be legal, as I recall. Ditto if Player A had been attacking both X and Y.

2. What about schools and universities where people don't know of the player they were supposed to be coordinating with? Under the old system, this was a valid defence to a ban.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
bluetoyjoy

I have one question
If player A is absorbing inactive player X.
And while Player A's troops are en-route,
Player X passes account to Player A.
Is either player at fault???
 

CodaAlFine

Still Going Strong
Reaction score
4
can i sit a player,totally defend for him,not attack anyone whatso ever from that acoount and give sit back and feel free to attack anyone from my own accont not worrying whom he has attacked in the last 24 hrs

Yes this kind of thing always worries me too. What I find hard about the limitations in the rule is that you can be sitting someone who is under attack by player x. So you are defending against player x. Then player x attacks your own account too. Does that mean you are, or are not, allowed to attack pleyer x from your own account? Is it co-ordinating to be attacking that player x when they are attacking both you and the sat account?

so when will you make it so ppl can't attack NAP's or allies
can't be that much harder to do.

then the naps and ally means something....


but then you couldn't take any gifted vilalges, unless the account was dismissed from the tribe - which would then leave it totally open to enemy nobling. You would be putting a sign up saying THIS ACCOUNT IS INACTIVE, NOBLE ALL YOU WANT
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Since it is all on a level playing field and therefore equal for all players why not entirely remove the ability to account sit? Also simply stop more than one account from the same IP address playing on the same world. That way members of a household can still play TW just not the same world.....there are lots of worlds.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
The rule does not include barbs, it's about players, so you are not prevented from attacking the same barb.

For clarification, I and the account i sit are still not allowed to attack the same player within ___hrs. But we are allowed to hit the same barb, provided i dont have the sit at the time? Or does the sit not matter because barbs are excluded. (Sry if this comes out weird)

2 questions:

1. Does it automatically block attacks at Player A from Player X, if Player Y has been under attack from (but not attacking) Player A, and Player X has been sitting Player Y? Because this was supposed to be legal, as I recall. Ditto if Player A had been attacking both X and Y.

2. What about schools and universities where people don't know of the player they were supposed to be coordinating with? Under the old system, this was a valid defence to a ban.

Also quoting this for answer, because i'm currently player X in this exact scenario and unable to attack my attacker.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LauraDestroya

Guest
For clarification, I and the account i sit are still not allowed to attack the same player within ___hrs. But we are allowed to hit the same barb, provided i dont have the sit at the time? Or does the sit not matter because barbs are excluded. (Sry if this comes out weird)

§2) Players sharing an Internet Connection

Definitions for this rule:

Interaction – Sending attacks, support or resource transports to a player on the same connection.
Coordination – Attacking, supporting or sending resources to the same player, from two or more players sharing a connection.


Relevant language bolded. You may hit the same barb within 24 hours, but not the same player.


2 questions:

1. Does it automatically block attacks at Player A from Player X, if Player Y has been under attack from (but not attacking) Player A, and Player X has been sitting Player Y? Because this was supposed to be legal, as I recall. Ditto if Player A had been attacking both X and Y.

No, this is defined as retaliation and is not legal. Here is the rule:

Retaliation from the same connection is illegal. This is when you attack a player who is already attacking someone on your connection, whether shared or sitting. These are just a few common examples of what is and isn't legal. Please submit a support ticket if you have any further questions.
If a player attacks you, it is against the rules for another player on the same connection to retaliate on your behalf. Both accounts are breaking the rules.
If accounts are sharing a connection (also via the sitting feature) and both are under attack by the same player, only one of the accounts may retaliate.
If you are sitting accounts under attack, only the account under attack may retaliate. If you want to attack the player who is attacking an account you are sitting, you must wait until 24 hours after the sitting has ended.



2. What about schools and universities where people don't know of the player they were supposed to be coordinating with? Under the old system, this was a valid defence to a ban.

Although technically possible, I've yet to see this be the case.


I have one question
If player A is absorbing inactive player X.
And while Player A's troops are en-route,
Player X passes account to Player A.
Is either player at fault???

Coordination and Interaction do not begin until sitting STARTS. Whatever attacks were sent before that are irrelevant.


Yes this kind of thing always worries me too. What I find hard about the limitations in the rule is that you can be sitting someone who is under attack by player x. So you are defending against player x. Then player x attacks your own account too. Does that mean you are, or are not, allowed to attack pleyer x from your own account? Is it co-ordinating to be attacking that player x when they are attacking both you and the sat account?

See rules for retaliation above. You are allowed to attack from either account (not both), if both accounts are under attack from the same person.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Since it is all on a level playing field and therefore equal for all players why not entirely remove the ability to account sit? Also simply stop more than one account from the same IP address playing on the same world. That way members of a household can still play TW just not the same world.....there are lots of worlds.

changing IP address?..
 

DeletedUser80534

Guest
The rule does not include barbs, it's about players, so you are not prevented from attacking the same barb.

I need clarity on some more issues:

There are 3 players. Player 2 and 3 share a 15x15.
Player 1 sits player 2's account, and farms (among the farms there are inactive small little players that are farms).
Player 2 logs into his account and farms.
Player 1 then sits player 3's account.
Can he then farm those small little inactive player accounts that are farms with player 3's account since he has last sat player 2 within 24 hours, and will it prevent player 2 from farming as well?

And one thing I have also wondered about forever: if a player sends support to another player, and then passes his sit to that same player, is it regarded as a breach of rules? The same thing, if a player sends an attack at a target village, and then passes his account to another player who also has an attack under way to the same village, is that a breach of rules?

Another thing I picked up previously. Trade was prevented between me and a player I did not even know, nor shared a connection with. What if the same thing happens while I try to attack a player village?
 

LauraDestroya

Guest
I need clarity on some more issues:

There are 3 players. Player 2 and 3 share a 15x15.
Player 1 sits player 2's account, and farms (among the farms there are inactive small little players that are farms).
Player 2 logs into his account and farms.
Player 1 then sits player 3's account.
Can he then farm those small little inactive player accounts that are farms with player 3's account since he has last sat player 2 within 24 hours, and will it prevent player 2 from farming as well?

No, player 1 cannot farm the same players with player 3's account. Player 2 will be able to continue to farm.


And one thing I have also wondered about forever: if a player sends support to another player, and then passes his sit to that same player, is it regarded as a breach of rules? The same thing, if a player sends an attack at a target village, and then passes his account to another player who also has an attack under way to the same village, is that a breach of rules?

No, Interaction and Coordination rules do not begin until sitting STARTS.


Another thing I picked up previously. Trade was prevented between me and a player I did not even know, nor shared a connection with. What if the same thing happens while I try to attack a player village?

Send in a ticket.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
can i sit a player,totally defend for him,not attack anyone whatso ever from that acoount and give sit back and feel free to attack anyone from my own accont not worrying whom he has attacked in the last 24 hrs

laura can you answer this for me or i kill xlr:lol:
 

LauraDestroya

Guest
laura can you answer this for me or i kill xlr:lol:

lol, you tempt me to not want to answer it :p

Question: can i sit a player,totally defend for him,not attack anyone whatso ever from that acoount and give sit back and feel free to attack anyone from my own accont not worrying whom he has attacked in the last 24 hrs

Answer: After sitting ends, the two of you are not allowed to attack the same player for a period of 24 hours. The game will now prevent this from happening IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
lol, you tempt me to not want to answer it :p

Question: can i sit a player,totally defend for him,not attack anyone whatso ever from that acoount and give sit back and feel free to attack anyone from my own accont not worrying whom he has attacked in the last 24 hrs

Answer: After sitting ends, the two of you are not allowed to attack the same player for a period of 24 hours. The game will now prevent this from happening IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES.

thank you laura :icon_smile:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I just joined the game to play with my sons, at their insistence. I don't imagine they are aware of this rule as I can't really see any point in the three of us playing together under this limitation. I also don't understand it, the ease of communications between people at the same residence is a spurious point; instant messenger/chat/facebook etc. surely allow tribes to coordinate their attacks with ease if they so wish. Similarly anyone sad enough to want to play on multiple accounts by themselves has an obvious workaround available to them?

Am I missing something?
 

Guftawl

Guest
what it sounds like they have finally done is add the database of logon information (time, date, id, IP ADDRESS, etc) to the rule processing.
This would be non trivial because this is a huge database.

the part i hate is going to a friends house thats in the game. Of course you want to check on your villa while you're over there and you want to show each other stuff.

But then you go home and cant help each other. Even if someone attacks both of you, only one of you can attack him.

at least they have calmed downt he rule so its only 24 hours now.

The pity is that the real reason for this rule, multiple accounts for a single player or groups of players each with multiple accounts only works with the unknowing among us. The guys that are gaming the whole system just see this rule as one more obstacle to overcome.
 

Guftawl

Guest
you're right DADAD

there are technical workarounds but it does take a certain level of expertise to beat this rule. Really the rule is to keep the average gamer from using multiple accounts. The sitting parts are to protect the players being sat as there have been many instances where tribal leadership has turned on their own players, demanded sits and then took advantage of their leadership privileges to screw over more naive players.

I can envisage many circumstances where players end up looking like they are from the same IP. I often wonder what the networks at universities look like. Seems like they could easily run into problems with these rules.

Or maybe the admins do collect enough info to sort out large shared networks correctly.

Often the rules are a constant back and forth battle between system admins, and the players who are playing against the system not against each other.
 

LauraDestroya

Guest
Honestly, the easiest way for family members who want to play together on the same world is to play one account together. Having a shared connection is limiting and in my opinion more hassle than it's worth. By playing a single account together, you get the same enjoyment (personal opinion). If you really feel a need to play your own accounts individually, you could play separate worlds.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
can i sit a player,totally defend for him,not attack anyone whatso ever from that acoount and give sit back and feel free to attack anyone from my own accont not worrying whom he has attacked in the last 24 hrs

From OP

Sadly, the new protection cannot prevent all illegal attacks. Timing is one of the most important parts of Tribal Wars so the checks we run every time you send a command cannot be too complex. This means that it is still the player's responsibility to make sure they are up to date with the rules and to make sure they are not sending an illegal attack.
 

Boba Fett

Guest
Honestly, the easiest way for family members who want to play together on the same world is to play one account together. Having a shared connection is limiting and in my opinion more hassle than it's worth. By playing a single account together, you get the same enjoyment (personal opinion). If you really feel a need to play your own accounts individually, you could play separate worlds.

I completely agree. I have played this game with a real life friend for several years, and for our first few worlds, we were constantly passing account sit's, and logging in on the same connections, be it at the gym, at a restaurant or at each others houses. One of the main reasons we played many of our worlds, was so we could co-ordinate together and help each other out, but because of this, we were unable to do that.

Eventually, we decided to just screw playing separate accounts, and started co-playing. Even though we are in the same timezone, we seem to do MUCH better playing together then separately. I don't think If I'll ever go back to playing alone :).

Anyway, Nice work TW Staff, I was banned several times in the past because of this rule, and even though it is not a problem for me anymore, It's good to know that TW staff is still taking steps to improve the game, and not just taking all our money by increasing Premium costs -_-.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser

Guest
hey does the illegal command protection also means that i cannot attack a guy more than once in 24 hrs???????????????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top