Closed Discussion Account pushing and coplaying

[Deleted User - 848983838]

for anyone that doesn't want to scroll back through clown trolling

I think the biggest thing that needs it's own discussion and has a more clear resovle than the whole cplayer merge/push account drama

is the obvious push account farming. there's really no gray area here.

every world you have someone top 10 in hauls while not anywhere near a realistic number of plunders to make it believable. every wrld has multiple of these accounts and again there's no grey area whatsoever here. using push accounts to get insane hauls is 100% against the rules.

i think anyone in the top 25 hauls that isn't say top 250 plunders gets an autoban from sending attacks and is immediately reviewed by staff in the first 90 days of the world

 

[One Last Shot...]

every world you have someone top 10 in hauls while not anywhere near a realistic number of plunders to make it believable. every wrld has multiple of these accounts and again there's no grey area whatsoever here. using push accounts to get insane hauls is 100% against the rules.

i think anyone in the top 25 hauls that isn't say top 250 plunders gets an autoban from sending attacks and is immediately reviewed by staff in the first 90 days of the world

I've been in situations before where I find an account nearny which gives amazing resources early game. I'd just keep sending to empty it of resources before anybody else realises. 20 attacks in a day can still get top looter (I've literally had situation on a much older world).

Your suggestion would ruin a user's startup in that situation because they got to an insane farm first.

High looting with low plunders can seem suspicious but it can also be completely innocent.

That does get completely forgotten/overlooked at times by players in my experience.

That's not to say that you are not raising a valid point - just that your post is missing a vital perspective on low plunder/high loot accounts.

 

[Deleted User - 848983838]

I've been in situations before where I find an account nearny which gives amazing resources early game. I'd just keep sending to empty it of resources before anybody else realises. 20 attacks in a day can still get top looter (I've literally had situation on a much older world).

Your suggestion would ruin a user's startup in that situation because they got to an insane farm first.

High looting with low plunders can seem suspicious but it can also be completely innocent.

That does get completely forgotten/overlooked at times by players in my experience.

That's not to say that you are not raising a valid point - just that your post is missing a vital perspective on low plunder/high loot accounts.

Oh yea no doubt it does happen. Maybe a grace period to account for that. 7 days at the start when people are indeed only farming a few dozen-hundred villages at a time and a few strong farms like that can indeed get you ontop the leaderboard

But in the case of the players getting hundred of thousands of res with less than 1,000 plunders I don't believe there's a single person doing that legitimately. Especially when these people all have no ODA so any incredible farm like that the person who cleared it etc would've been plundering it.

 

[Anaconda]

I have been following Minty's post and the comments in this thread and have some ideas.

Myself, I no longer play without a co player as I know I will burn out and delete a world. I am not going to allow any game to wipe out my personal life. I agree with the posts stating that a blanket ban on co playing will kill the game on the spot. If Innogames goes that route they might as well shut down the game.
- So what about a compromise and have co playing be a world setting? Maybe ban co playing on world with night mode? These ideas would allow players to choose which world to play on. It also allows Innogames to collect data on co play/no co play player base, etc.
- Another idea is to have no co playing till account manager is activated.
- Perhaps co-playing should have a limit in terms of villages that can be 'merged' by the player. Say, 50% of the removed account's villages (the rest must be taken by others). That would limit the pushing element of premeditated merging. I love "One Last Shot..." idea of liming the merge percentage.

On the invite function abuse --- limit it to one invite per person, per world and it has to be done before end of protection. Yes that is restrictive but it solves this version of abuse.

Increasing moderators might be the hardest one to as they might not have enough to go around as it is. Micromanaging rarely works in life and it would not work in this game.

Thoughts?

 

[Nightfall]

I've mainly played solo during my years. It's much harder and almost impossible to even survive the wolds today as a solo player. You need a large wallet and no other commitments.

Love Pia

 

[STESHOT]

i agree you need to give a game 100% of your time to play solo, but i firmly believe this is the only true way to play. Co-playing has always been against the rules, so WHY is it not being enforced. Early on, anything even suspicious initiated a time ban and huge village loss, wheras now, you are simply allowed to cheat, and it can easily be stopped! eg link an account to 1 IP address or device/s. It's not just forcing people to merge, and stealing accounts that's an issue, it planning PRE-WORLD start to have multiple people playing a single account that is 100% wrong!!! If multiple players in a house or family is wrong, then so is this, as it uses multiple talents and personal resources, which is way more important. If you wish to share skills, be a mentor!!!

 

[One Last Shot...]

it can easily be stopped! eg link an account to 1 IP address or device/s.

In this day and age, that isn't possible.

- Individual users often use numerous different devices
- IPs don't work like that. Allowing one IP would prevent all users who play via 4G from playing, along with anybody wanting to play at different locations (eg home+ work) and other technical limitations

I'm not trying to push a view one way or another with the above, but the restrictions suggested simply are not possible now. 15 years ago perhaps, but not with changes in technology.

 

[Petzy]

In this day and age, that isn't possible.

- Individual users often use numerous different devices
- IPs don't work like that. Allowing one IP would prevent all users who play via 4G from playing, along with anybody wanting to play at different locations (eg home+ work) and other technical limitations

I'm not trying to push a view one way or another with the above, but the restrictions suggested simply are not possible now. 15 years ago perhaps, but not with changes in technology.

Agreed, although easily fixable by adding, for example, HWID identification.
Even easier to do that as far as the play via the official steam tribalwars app is concerned.
Wouldn't stop it, as HWID's can be cloned and such but it would add a layer of difficulty that would deter and stop a lot of people.

 

[-Purely Forgotten-]

Agreed, although easily fixable by adding, for example, HWID identification.
Even easier to do that as far as the play via the official steam tribalwars app is concerned.
Wouldn't stop it, as HWID's can be cloned and such but it would add a layer of difficulty that would deter and stop a lot of people.

all this would do is allow top so many to people to have a huge advantage! Games like apex for example use HWID bans and there are discords you can join to show how you can get around this with ease and free, friend of mine showed me last time I raged about cheaters haha
you are right that it would stop alot of random people, but name brand tribes would still do whats needed for the name brand tribes lol

 

[Petzy]

all this would do is allow top so many to people to have a huge advantage! Games like apex for example use HWID bans and there are discords you can join to show how you can get around this with ease and free, friend of mine showed me last time I raged about cheaters haha
you are right that it would stop alot of random people, but name brand tribes would still do whats needed for the name brand tribes lol

That's not a reason not to 1st deal with the rest of the people that aren't technical enough or would care/know to look how to avoid that.
Either way - it would add difficulty to everyone involved - both random people and name-brand tribes.
If we were to look for a one-stop-shop solution for the problem - we wouldn't find one. As in everything, multiple layers of difficulty add up to, eventually, a solution/fix.

Underline thing is it's deplorably easy to leverage co-play for advantage - and that's not because of the players cunning - it's because of TW's (total lack of) efforts.

 

[KillerKat]

It seems TW think that majority of accounts do not have co players and many solo players win worlds!!! What a load of rubbish. We all know that most big accounts have co players and very few solo accounts win a world.
TW need to accept Co playing and maybe then they can have better control of it by putting restrictions in. For example limit how many co players per account is one way.

 

[Deleted User - 11105474]

Co-playing should be the way it is. Or the community will get hurt big time. And I mean it.

Rule 4.9 shouldn't be removed. The reason is why, tw has many many school, college, hostel & university students who play from their shared WiFi connection instead of wasting mobile valuable data. Now even if they want to do not play from shared connection, this often happens accidentally as switching between connection is "automatic" for most Android devices (like suddenly your data turns off & it auto connect with WiFi & imagine you're BANNED). As TW Team already knows, young players are the one whom are making the game alive. If this rule is removed, not impossible that thousands of players will leave. You cannot make the game this much complex for the player base to just stop "pushing" which is not done by most players but only very few!