Open Discussion Account pushing and coplaying

AuroraMoon

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
148
Premium points:
At the very least the cost of premium effects should be shared by the co-players. The premium points 100 premium points gives you a 25 point spend equivelant if you have 4 owners (25%). So you have to report number of co-players and then the premium points are adjusted accordingly. New owner added = pro-rata reduction in premium points. Simple... the premium points are 4 times more expensive for a 4 profile owner. Right now they get 100% benefit for 25% of the cost. So either increase the premium price at purchase level (800 points purchase gives to 200 points to use)or increase the number of premium used to gain the effects (200 premium points = 800 premium point spend.)
unsure if your talking about increasing the cost of pp for coplayed accounts or increasing the value of pp for non-coplayed accounts
but to both hell no - due to my currency (and probably some others) not being supported, some players are already paying more then others to get the same amount of pp. also most of the coplayed account in my opinion get by on farmed pp (not bought pp) so think that will just increase the amount of pp farmers on a world

Intentional merging:
Impossible to stop pushing. There's even intentional merging at tribal level. (2 tribes start mass recruiting... then merge and kill off their previous (now tribeless) members .... It's brilliant. Especially if you start a fake war and get the fools to deplete their defensive numbers while defending your offensive players. Just before disbanding the tribe and merging the offensive players into a new tribe.

Maybe make it that a merge must be reported and then is allowed but only into the smallest owner profile....LOL.
Or that the villages of the absorbed member will go to abandoned immediately and that villages previously gained by the absorbing profile will be lost at random to the rate of 50% of those villages gained (from the absorbed profile) in the last 30 days.
it can be stopped, where theres a will theres a way
but with merging and co-players (and what not) remaining outside the game as a grey area neither supported or condemned by inno/tw
then little to no progress will ever be made and were going to be in the same discussions over and over again until something changes or people move on to something else

Skills related:
You will have to learn the skill of not feeling guilty if you take "advantage" of "friends" in-game. You honour system will be a disadvantage to you in the long run if you don't have a coping mechanism to understand in-game tactics. It is a lot easier if you are in a co-played profile because you can simply blame your co-owners for the wrongful acts....Like Sorry that we gained from surprise nobling your village while your defenders were all still in our village. But it was my co-player and I did not know....LOL.
why stoop to their level.... reinforcing the bad mentality of betrayal just makes things worse and ruins the game overall
however if you want every world to end in backstabs, betrayals, lies, deceit and mergers by all means stoop to that level - enjoy the paranoia and empty victories it brings
 

bambamsam1997

Active Member
Reaction score
10
Well, this thread has been up all year. I think the effects of the team not taking action on this are being displayed pretty clearly in their tournament. Supposed to be the "fair" world, but it is being very obviously exploited by people with the mentality that it doesn't matter which or how many accounts they effect the game world with
 

Voodoo.

Well-Known Member
Reaction score
82
But surely they'd just get a VPN, there is enough options/free ones out there.

Edit; Comment to be taken as cheaters will still attempt to do it. But if it's obvious and blatant like OP suggested, then crack down on them.
 
Last edited:

BabyBoomer

Member
Reaction score
1
All the talk that the game will die without coplaying is overly dramatic. Look where the game is now, and look at where the game was before coplaying was common. Still, to ban coplaying would not much benefit to the fairness question. Ban account merging. That's where the real problems are. If three people coplay a single account from the start, then they really only have a minor advantage. They're covering the clock and maximizing activity, which definitely helps. But it doesn't snipe a train.

Account merging is an entirely different matter. It needs to be addressed directly, with a tailored set of rules and procedures. Not by proxy with broad changes. Account merging being accepted as supposedly legitimate is the result of internal nobling players who had quit. But account merging is an entirely different act.

But let's be honest about all this. Banning paying customers is not how Innogames makes money, and dishonorable players are always far more likely to pay top dollar. So there's very little incentive for them to create new rules to instill fairness, much less enforce them with any diligence.
 

The Absolute Ruler

New Member
Reaction score
0
I kind of agree with Seven Devils . However the game has changed drastically over the past 5/6 years and I have been away for 4 and half years from the game. And the change it for the worse. The pushing account unlimited family tribes and barb munching is like the new Game Motto . However TW rules are often contradictory I remember fighting over ban with Servy back in w28 for 3 months where he did agree at the end the ban and penalty was absurd sort of .

Regarding Co-player ban would be nice but with the account sitting rules and procedures no one will sit accounts and get enter-tangled in a loop where 100% of sat accounts and sitters will be in mess because they can’t support or attack same people or each other etc etc. Perhaps removing or make those rules less tighter (instead of 24 hours make it 2 hours) also making an account only can be played by 2 players instead of 7 might help it . At the end it is hard to play this game on your own specially when you have family and a Job.

PS: TUDADAR SHOULD BE DAMNED !
 

nop2w

New Member
Reaction score
6
you simply cannot be efficient in the very early game without basically 24/7 activity. rather than forcing everyone to be inefficient, maybe the solution is to let people be efficient with less activity; ie allow people to pre-schedule farming runs and construction/recruitment queues. this could be an early game version of the account manager; it would need to be coded well to allow people flexibility in their choices since for example farm manager is basically useless at that stage as it doesn't let you farm inactives or in waves.

this will never be quite as good as 24/7 activity but it will allow people with lives to approximate it, meaning that early game startups will be far more about choosing the correct strategy than being online literally every 20 minutes or whatever. there will have to be limits, and ways to ensure you can't designate active players as inactives (maybe you'll need a report of the cleared village, or their points need to have stayed static for a few days) or use this to send perfect trains or whatever (eg it should have a minimum ~5 minute cooldown between attacks per village).

the downside is that competing with p2w abusers would become even less possible, but at minimum it would make worlds with premium disabled more accessible and more about strategy than having more free time or money than everyone else

Everyone would have hated this idea 5 years ago or whatever, but I think it's obvious that the demographic of this game are turning into boomers, ie real adults with real jobs. That will be a large part of why the game is dying, since basically the main attraction of the game is the strive towards efficiency, and you can't have efficiency without activity.

To me, there's a huge qualitative difference between scheduling farming runs and construction queues -- basically mindless stuff that just follows an overarching strategy -- and accurately timing attacks or supports or snipes or whatever, which is basically the core skillful aspect of the game; that's why that schedule support feature from a year or two ago received such a big backlash.
 
Last edited:

ReD KhaN

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
182
I kind of agree with Seven Devils . However the game has changed drastically over the past 5/6 years and I have been away for 4 and half years from the game. And the change it for the worse. The pushing account unlimited family tribes and barb munching is like the new Game Motto . However TW rules are often contradictory I remember fighting over ban with Servy back in w28 for 3 months where he did agree at the end the ban and penalty was absurd sort of .

Regarding Co-player ban would be nice but with the account sitting rules and procedures no one will sit accounts and get enter-tangled in a loop where 100% of sat accounts and sitters will be in mess because they can’t support or attack same people or each other etc etc. Perhaps removing or make those rules less tighter (instead of 24 hours make it 2 hours) also making an account only can be played by 2 players instead of 7 might help it . At the end it is hard to play this game on your own specially when you have family and a Job.

PS: TUDADAR SHOULD BE DAMNED !
Exactly the account sitting is one of the good things. 24 hours is normal time. Imagine if it's 2 hours, 5 people can manage 20 accounts alone. Not that it's not possible now, but it's a lot harder. To understand that, for example, you want to launch attacks from your account and log in to another account as a sitter and time his attacks because he cant do it there as well, that would be a disgrace. The limit for 2 players in an account I have no idea how it will be monitored.
 

the shadow 59

New Member
Reaction score
1
just want to chime in and say that as someone that's been playing this game off and on for over a decade a blanket ban on coplaying would make me quit for good on the spot

with my obsessive personality it's just plain not possible for me to play this game solo without it completely taking over my life
you still playing man? i opened up a few accounts on 117 and 119 to see if i can get the old spark back
 

imdoo

Active Member
Reaction score
31
I don't know if this post is of any value but I think TW really should open a world with some restrictions to test out.

First here is my position, I think early game merges are account pushing either you start playing on the same account before the BP ends or at least do not merge until at least both accounts in question are at least 3 months old in the world. I have been there where player nukes you only for the benefit of the main account. after taking.

this is what happened to me a year from now which almost made me quit because when I reported it the mod team said it cannot be counted as account pushing.

account A partially clears me with defensive troops then account B nobles me. Account B then nobles account A as well without any OD increase to any of their accounts. The funny thing is there was an account C as well which did the same until account B nobled it as well in the end account B had almost no ODA with 6 villages

To prevent account pushing in the early game we can do the following. Just my opinion
  • Ban all merges in the first 3 month period. This can easily be done by checking if the main account is being accessed by an IP that used to access a different account. Players should be encouraged to report if they spot early merging happening as cheating and account pushing. I know there are ways to get around this as well but nothing is unpenetrable either so that's the best we can have.
  • If 3 month period is not acceptable then the disadvantage should be that it shows on the user profile that those 2 accounts are merging(assuming users will be asked to set co-player setting like connection sharing) and so they may face players that want to take advantage of this and don't do this kind of pushing.



Also, I do like the concept of merged accounts logging into their own and directly redirecting to the account they are playing on. It will give more oversight to the mod team and will make it easier to detect the above-mentioned issue.
 

ropey - blue text

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
636
if tw cared about push accounts they could easily do something but those using push accounts are spending money on this game w120 has so many blatant push accounts. even if they don't plan to join and coplay so many clear accounts made by friends with the intent to noble and never a serious consideration for the world.
 

Olve

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
198
They take out the obvious ones, but it never easy to know what is and what isn't a push account, without taking out people in the cross fire.

Everything isn't as black and white as you think it is mate
 

YeOlde Raven

Member
Reaction score
22
The main point seems to be co-players, but the main need for co-players is to tag incoming when the player is away.
One form of being away is sleeping, there is night bonus for this in some cases, so the chances are attacks will not land during this period of time, attacks may be launched though which is where there may be an issue in identifying the speed, but an adaption could be made where attacks sent in NB are automatically tagged, or a watchtower needs to be equipped with that facility.

Regarding account pushing, there is one method of that that has in effect been actively promoted.
Players play a world and farm PP so they can use the PP on other worlds, but if there was no PP exchange then players would not be farming PP and then leaving their vills to others.
 

chanevr

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
31
I was just a little upset when casual worlds became blocked worlds with no way out into a new casual world. The one place where co-playing did not make sense has become a place where sole playing now makes no sense. But it was explained that casual worlds are simply there to allow new players to learn the skills and not for players to actively pursue as a game world. Thus it would be unfair to continue to allow profiles to transfer inventory and villages from a casual world to a new casual world. The players simply left the casual world in the end game phase and transferred everything to a new casual world to continue a casual style of play. Then the victory addicts were left with barb villages to capture. Now with locking players in to a casual world it encourages co-played accounts to actively play in a casual world as players are locked in to the world and they have a new ground to run about bullying sole owned profiles in the end game phase. So here we go again... another platform where a sole owned profile could simply pack up and move on to the next casual world is blocked. In my mind this is the sad part of the new ruling that stops transferring to a casual world from a casual world.

I think that perhaps at least the casual world start up option should be limited to sole owned profiles. This could then at least become a place where sole owned profiles can then compete in the end game phase.
 

TW.PLAYER

Active Member
Reaction score
13
No merge of villages to just one account. Villages have to be gifted to tribe and only 1 village to each member of the tribe. I see accounts playing to 8-10 villages then gift them all to one account and then joining the account as a co player. This needs to stop.
 

ropey - blue text

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
636
No merge of villages to just one account. Villages have to be gifted to tribe and only 1 village to each member of the tribe. I see accounts playing to 8-10 villages then gift them all to one account and then joining the account as a co player. This needs to stop.
this is already illegal but tw cares more about banning the chrome extension lol
 

bluefinz

New Member
Reaction score
0
I'm very late to the party but about co-playing, I think there should be limitations on how it should be done.

I understand that Coplaying is really helpful in keeping a 24/7 around the clock maintenance on the account, to make sure at all times you're well prepped to snipe, nuke and it's like pooling all resources into 1 acc to make that acc a super account, loaded with pp, nonstop watching and multiple good minds to look for the welfare of the account in map state and such. However, there are drawbacks mainly being that you're still limited to 1 village. Many, and I repeat, many have tried to bypass that 1 village limitation start by having "push" accounts, or any shape or form to give themselves an edge over anyone else by having multiple villages or more resources available at the start.

I honestly like the nightmode which sort of disrupts and dissuades the co-play option, but it's not dissuading enough for people to really shy away from co-play. When I used to play w6 long time ago, co-play was really looked down upon from my memory because it was deemed "unfair" advantages when everyone was limited to 1 account, and that account only. Hence methods to sort of say "coplay shouldn't really be around" helps the general populace, but as stated previously, it doesn't help the hardcore players who are also generally the whales, which innogames wants to keep.

There are some ways to tweak certain things to sort of limit the powers of co-play/push accounts in a sense. Some of them include extending the nightmode to 9 hours from 8, and turning it into 150% defense instead of 100% defense. I know that sounds like a lot but it gives a lot of the casual players more of a chance of not seeking out a co-player because of that huge night time buff which dissuades a lot of people from attacking during that time frame. Another solution is to limit the co-play members to 2 per account. This limits the overtime seen on the account, and also the limitations of the money poured into 1 acc to make that account a super strong account. co-play has some serious strengths, and also some limitations but we have to address some of the serious strengths of co-play and make it a tiny more balanced.

Regarding push accounts, there's one way that we can combat that in my view in earlygame: On top of beginner protection, There should also be a 1 week wait timer before any other villages can be taken by another player (no barbs, or even barbs included). This makes it
a. gives the casual players time to build up compared to the pushers
b. Pushers do not gain an advantage in having more villages at once early game which they use to solidify their position much faster
c. Co-play and pp users will still end up having nearly maxed village in that time, and in that time as well have a more sustainable economy +/ nuke/defense force sitting around which means bigger action can take place right after.

I understand that sort of defeats the purpose of early game rushing but it's one of the best ways to stop push accounts from giving over huge advantages in the early game. Ways to solve against push accounts in the middle and late game would also have to be implemented but push accs are mostly for the early game advantages that gives lasting advantage over time. It also gives casual players more of a chance to not get taken out within 1 week of playing and then rage quitting.

My 2 cents really.
 

ropey - blue text

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
636
A 1 hour increase is going to do jackshit same with the buff to 150% any decent player can just easily just hit right before or right after. Especially on 5he international server compared to say the UK server running a NB during UK night hours.

I do like the 1 week timer on nobling but it won't work as anyways the meta is just nobling barbs and inno would lose money as it artificially slows the pp rush. It won't cause more action again because the meta is nobling barbs.

The best way to combat push accounts would be support actually doing something about the blatant push accounts.