DeletedUser
Guest
thats a choice not a ruleso 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....
thats a choice not a ruleso 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....
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
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....
The rule does not include barbs, it's about players, so you are not prevented from attacking the same barb.
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.
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.
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???
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?
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.
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?
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:
lol, you tempt me to not want to answer it
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.
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
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.
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.