Open Discussion Account pushing and coplaying

Eakshow McGee

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
439
The best way to combat push accounts would be support actually doing something about the blatant push accounts.
To bad you can just use Merge-rule or PPfarming as excuse and you free to go :rolleyes:

Push Accounts needs a bigger part of rules, its way to common right now and not really breaking any rules. Nowadays its players having every coplayer starting on their own account just to gift to main account when villages are big enough. Which doesnt seems to break any rules since we dont see people half of top 50 being banned in start.

Forcing the old account to delete account before villages being noble (and moving to the account) could slow this down a bit atleast.

Bash account (clearing people for others) and then gifting their villages shouldn't be allowed. I mean Bash accounts in general is a weird concept that seems to be allowed.

Making rules that only apply first 1-2 months of the world would also be a great way to not make stuff complicated in mid/lategame if you need to merge accounts because of activity etc but still punish similar behaviour in early game where it gives a huge boost compared to others...
 

chanevr

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
37
I agree. But with co-owned accounts being the new style of playing (since players have become used to sharing the win glory amongst many owners) and the obvious benefits it has regarding time and cost of playing (shared premium). What you are explaining as a sacrificed start out village for the benefit a merged profile is simply good tactics. I don't see the rules being able to stop it while it allows co-owning in the first place.
 

Petzy

Active Member
Reaction score
20
I believe the very simple and enough argument against co-playing can be found in the very vision with which TW started.
The whole game is based around you, the player, succeeding on your own and, eventually, with the help of others as part of a tribe.
The others part has been thoroughly drilled in the design by way of the Tribe mechanism.
Lastly, the ultimate end of the game is, ironically, skill. The acquirement of enough skill in its multiple facets to be able to prevail against others.

Co-playing successfully f***s that core design up entirely:

Skill?
- Sure, here's an, essentially, 3x, 5x, 10x booster. Your skill not enough? No worries! Will get patched up by one or more co-players.

Tribe, teamplay/tribemates?
- Sure, here's an, essentially, 3x, 5x, 10x booster to that as well. Why have a tribe limit of 25 when that actually means 250 if you want it to?

Succeeding on your own?
- Sure, your own and a few others. Yup, boost that up as well, why wouldn't you?

Obviously a much lengthier discussion on the matter but it will always boil down to this simple, design-breaking fact.
If that's ok, then leave co-playing alone. Might as well change it even further to integrate co-playing more, even acknowledge it more officially, and hey, why not make some money out of it as well, somehow.

Personally, I think it's the biggest mistake since the premium exchange and p2w, strictly game pleasure-wise.
 

Petzy

Active Member
Reaction score
20
Coplaying was already a huge thing before Account Manager was added.
coplaying was around long before pe/p2w
casually ignores the very valid argument of how co-playing absolutely destroys the core aim of the game
probably comes back with an argument attempt of how it actually adds "a new skill facet that enhances the core game"

..
..
*cricket sounds*
 

ropey - blue text

Still Going Strong
Reaction score
1,006
The very core vision of the game is not you succeeding on your own. It's literally you succeeding in a tribe of players working together.

So would then the games vision not align more with succeeding in your account with others? Working with them for the benefit of the account. Contributing different skills and knowledge just like the account would to the tribe?

Wanting solo playing only kills that core value.

The whole idea that the game revolves around you the player succeeding by yourself is just flat out wrong.

If you can't manage to succeed with others for your account what makes it likely that you can succeed with others in a tribe.

The game has never been about who is the most skilled player there isn't a 1v1 or anything. It's always been the ability to work with others and as a group.

Usually the main excuses for not wanting a coplayer is that you usually are too anal about the control of the account, trust, etc. Basically meaning you have a shitty personality and can't get along with others.
 

Petzy

Active Member
Reaction score
20
The very core vision of the game is not you succeeding on your own.
Actually it is, considering how the game was thought of and implemented, the idea is for you to succeed alone such that at some point you join a like-minded tribe or form your own. Both hinge on organic development - not 'boosters' like co-playing and groups of friends gaming the system.

It's literally you succeeding in a tribe of players working together.
Eventually, yes. Stop skipping ahead or are you too used to rocket through that 1st phase because of your buddy cusion? :)
Pretty self-defeating when that tribe of players starts up simply because some people love gaming the system together, eh?
Hence, defeats the whole idea of the game as there's nothing organic about such endeavors. Like there isn't anything organic about a bot abusing automation or 10 co-players Farmville-ing their way to gratification.

So would then the games vision not align more with succeeding in your account with others? Working with them for the benefit of the account. Contributing different skills and knowledge just like the account would to the tribe?
If that were the actual case in reality, i.e. would actually translate that way - yup. For that matter, they would have designed it that way. They didn't. They didn't intend on how this evolved. Your answer is in how and why it evolved this way, and the reasons are numerous and quite valid.
How many of the actual premade tribes/co-played/pp farming system gamers out there are interested in "contributing different skills and knowledge" or "succeeding in your account with others" or "working with them for the benefit of the account"? :)

I'm quite certain you know pretty well from actual experience that the reasons people gang up to co-play and game the system is for the simple gratification of saying they were a part of it. Which technically folows that core i'm talking about - but practically it doesn't since it's used as just another way to rush that up. It's a simple giving in, nothing more. Why grind it out and get ultimate gratification when you can speed it up by using others? It's cheapening the game, not enjoyment or skill.

More importantly, as I'm sure you can see for yourself, most co-play happens actually because of tribe limits, some ridiculously low.
Or haven't you ran a tribe in a while (yup, an organic one, not a premade buddy fest) to have to deal with new or returning players (or even active ones) busting and backstabbing each other for those eventual spots? :)

Do an exercise and remove limits, or increase them somewhat. See how much co-playing happens then. It will drastically reduce and the ones that do co-play further are doing it most likely out of simple habit, being already used to the 'benefits' this play style provides. Fun fact? Would improve skill immesurably for everyone involved since it could act as a counter-weight to all that co-playing if more players are able to bunch up together organically and actually have real chances.

Wanting solo playing only kills that core value.

The whole idea that the game revolves around you the player succeeding by yourself is just flat out wrong.
Please, stop extracting context. You seem to have a habit of doing that. Read what I've said, nowhere did I propose that the whole idea of the game is to be a lone-wolf, not in the slightest. I'm talking about an organic path, presently designed in the game since its inception that still holds true to this day. The only ones changing that paradigm are the ones who insist on adopting this play-style since by its very nature it's aimed at nullifying that initial period of doing it yourself, until you don't have to, by way of tribes and the organics related to it.

If you can't manage to succeed with others for your account what makes it likely that you can succeed with others in a tribe.
I'm not going to dignify this with a further answer since anyone can clearly see the whole reason someone (new, active, or returning) might not succeed on his own is that people are already farm-villed in by the dozens or hundreds gaming the system even before the world starts.
Pretty hard to succeed on your own when the other side is 10x bigger in every respect simply because they're, essentially, gaming it, right?
It's not even an argument because you're trying to compare 1x person vs 10 or more people on an account/in a tribe. It's laughable.

The game has never been about who is the most skilled player there isn't a 1v1 or anything. It's always been the ability to work with others and as a group.
I'll repeat it, just to be safe. Organically & eventually. 10+ years of Inno thinking it, designing it and promoting that way and you're simply invalidating that it isn't the case.
Well, crikey, they've been delusional all these years, and that "come play co-play style" must have slipped out of their marketing and design messages.
Why haven't they implemented co-play more officially then?
Why hasn't the game been designed that way?
Why hasn't the game been promoted that way?
Why does support, even now (last check a 2 weeks ago) answer you that they technically discourage and don't support co-play?
Why do people need to end messages with /person 1 /person2 or add a list of names to the account profile description to inform everyone who are the people playing on it? Should have been more official ways of doing that, supported by Inno, if they intended to be about "the ability to work with others and as a group" in the view you're trying to force.

Stop grasping at straws just because you like, use or support co-play. At least come up with better arguments. I'm essentially talking about ultimately supporting it officially and modifying the game as such if that's the view of the team & the community as a majority. It's not yet though, is it? Which hints at a problem that no one seems to want to tackle, not at the fact that it might be the best way to go, as you seem to perceive it ;)

Usually the main excuses for not wanting a coplayer is that you usually are too anal about the control of the account, trust, etc. Basically meaning you have a shitty personality and can't get along with others.
Maybe in your experience. I've met plenty of people who simply find it dissatisfying to game that way. You do realise that this notion of "co-play" has only been seen, historically, through other games/gaming in general employed by: cheaters or people who are looking to artificially speed up the benefits in some way. To my knowledge, there isn't a single game out there, let alone on the popularity level of TW that support or encourages co-play in this fashion, or any for that matter.

I'd love to see you highlight the opposite of excuses in the context I quoted from your post. Meaning, motivations behind wanting to co-play. If you're fair and not a biased forum clown, you'll start invalidating your own...arguments.
 

ropey - blue text

Still Going Strong
Reaction score
1,006
"most co-play happens actually because of tribe limits, some ridiculously low."

pretty much evrything you has typed has constantly shown you have no idea how to play this game and are just mad you don't have a coplayer or people don't want you as a coplayer.

lmaoooooooo

coplaying happens because of tribe limits wtf lmaooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
 

One Last Shot...

Senior In-Game Staff
Tribal Wars Team
Senior
Team
Reaction score
1,456
I'm only going to comment on this part of the post as it is very inaccurate in my view.

More importantly, as I'm sure you can see for yourself, most co-play happens actually because of tribe limits, some ridiculously low.
Coplaying was already a massive thing on worlds with a 50-100 member limit. Tribe limits have never been a driving force of coplaying.

Tribe limits are smaller now, but this is because worlds are smaller now. A 100 member tribe could house the top 5 players in every continent and win insanely fast. Big tribe limits just won't work for the game.

My point (slightly tangent above but I feel it I'd important to consider)? Trying to link tribe limit to coplaying when coplaying was huge before tribe limits decreased isn't accurate.
 

Petzy

Active Member
Reaction score
20
"most co-play happens actually because of tribe limits, some ridiculously low."

pretty much evrything you has typed has constantly shown you have no idea how to play this game and are just mad you don't have a coplayer or people don't want you as a coplayer.
Lemme use your line of thinking (erm, assumption): pretty much everything you has (have, actually) typed has constantly shown you have no idea how to play this game and are just mad because you love coplaying too much.

Do you know the part of when someone tends to try and invalidate an argument by attacking the person and launching baseless asumptions? Yup, that's what you just did. Which in itself tells enough.

I suppose you're waiting for me to use the same line of reasoning and start listing how many co-plays I've turned down simply because I don't require them or enjoy playing as such. Forum clown confirmed. Dissapointing.

lmaoooooooo

coplaying happens because of tribe limits wtf lmaooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
You have a serious issue of over-focusing and extrapolating what you're reading.
Try reading again and you'll get (hopefully) the idea that I wasn't saying co-play happens simply, fully and just because of tribe limits. I said it's a contributing factor, a big one at present. Where did I draw that conclusion? From the myriad of people wanting to get it or set up tribes on the available worlds only to rather soon find out they can't join because they either don't have co-plays or they need to accept co-playing, with the tendency being to have them transform into co-plays, making their villages free gifts, which underlines and supports a lot of pushing ;)
You know it. And if you don't, then you're the naive one who's acting like he knows the game.

I'm only going to comment on this part of the post as it is very inaccurate in my view.



Coplaying was already a massive thing on worlds with a 50-100 member limit. Tribe limits have never been a driving force of coplaying.

Tribe limits are smaller now, but this is because worlds are smaller now. A 100 member tribe could house the top 5 players in every continent and win insanely fast. Big tribe limits just won't work for the game.

My point (slightly tangent above but I feel it I'd important to consider)? Trying to link tribe limit to coplaying when coplaying was huge before tribe limits decreased isn't accurate.
I'm inferring that the rest of what I wrote you find accurate. Hence, might want to validate it as such for clowns like ropey. Beyond that, I assume you've got access to data which I obviously don't. The problem with data is usually the level at which you look at it.

Not to poke an eye or anything but when was the last time you tried playing a world like a presumably regular player, to see the realities you face? I can tell you from first-hand experience that most new players or returning ones have an impossible time at getting into a tribe or setting one up without either: having co-players or becoming a co-player and gifting the village(s) hence encouraging pushing. It's literally everywhere and extremely prevalent.
It's gotten so the norm that people just assume it and flat out refuse and gang up on those who don't go along.
Would you say that's a positive aspect of co-playing and doesn't encourage most or more co-play further?

Most times, the let's say excuse, is the tribe limit (with respect to joining and making it in established tribes).
Reasoning comes down simply to a rationale of "25 tribe limit - x spots left, I'm not gonna take you when I'm keen on keeping my friend because were so used to playing this way" - hence my reasoning that tribe limits are actually contributing to this phenomenon, encouraging it and enabling it.
Note that I haven't proposed to do away with limits - simply raise them. 25-30 only promotes this predatory behavior and keeps validating clowns that think they're good at the game without noticing that what's making them "good" is usually the ease of having people on your account and forcing playing in this kind of a paradigm for everyone else who isn't.
You'd be surprised how many new and returning players either aren't used to this playstyle, find it highly disconcerting or simply don't vibe with it at all, ending up as mere food and quitting.
Which, fundamentally, aims at the core game design I was talking about, growth and makes tribe limits a factor, doesn't it? :)
 
Last edited:

ropey - blue text

Still Going Strong
Reaction score
1,006
You know the part where the person who obviously has no clue what they are saying stops getting any real repsonses because they are worth nothing more than stupid troll levels responses that is where we are at. It's not worth it to do anything besides laugh at what you've posted because you have shown everyone you are clueless.

Enjoying being butthurt about coplaying thinking you are better because you are above them etc.

You still think tribe limit is a big factor of coplaying. Again just showing everyone what a clown you are. Coplaying would be around whether it's a 10 tribe limit or 100 tribe limit.
 

Petzy

Active Member
Reaction score
20
You know the part where the person who obviously has no clue what they are saying stops getting any real repsonses because they are worth nothing more than stupid troll levels responses that is where we are at. It's not worth it to do anything besides laugh at what you've posted because you have shown everyone you are clueless.

Enjoying being butthurt about coplaying thinking you are better because you are above them etc.

You still think tribe limit is a big factor of coplaying. Again just showing everyone what a clown you are. Coplaying would be around whether it's a 10 tribe limit or 100 tribe limit.
It's hilarious that the arguments you're using against me apply to you fully. Are you capable of seeing that? :D
Of course, co-playing would be around whether it's a 10 tribe limit or 100. Know what wouldn't be around?
The level of it and it's accompanying toxicity becaue of the tribe limit. I know, it's hard for you to think deeper than above the surface, try though, it's a good skill in life.
Know why co-play will be around at significant levels? Because it's not actively discouraged or encouraged/adopted.
Know why co-play works? Because it makes everything easier and people, historically, are suckers for easement of struggles.

As for the rest of your clownish post, I'll repeat myself: grow up, you're not as great as you believe. You can barely hold a discussion without turning into a trolling clown or exhibiting a lack of depth in thinking. Assuming I'm simply "butthurt" and interpreting my comments as me feeling I'm superior because I don't practice it is, well, imature. But hey, I'm starting to be the idiot by answering you further when it's been pretty obvious that all you do is nitpick parts out of context and ignore the relevant ones, like when I said I'd actually encourage them to adopt it, if it conforms to their view, the point in that argument being that at least regulate and normalize it so it wouldn't be such a toxic paradigm ;) - that way of thinking and proposal equals lack of being butthurt, you moron. Good riddance.
 

ropey - blue text

Still Going Strong
Reaction score
1,006
I say I suck all the time. I don't pretend to be better than minty and DJ like you do or better than everyone because I'm not on some superior high horse that you clearly are on.

Sorry I'm not wasting my time to someone I can easily take a sentence and meme it because jt shows how big of a clown you are. Don't deserve well written thoughts with trash logic like you just deserve what I'm giving you.
 

ropey - blue text

Still Going Strong
Reaction score
1,006
You are still spouting nonsense about coplay like it's toxicity and the level of it. Maybe don't make it so easy to nitpick things that I'm totally not taking out of context and you are really just saying dumbass shit that is hilarious at how much you suck.
 

ropey - blue text

Still Going Strong
Reaction score
1,006
This all boils down to you being butthurt you can't get along with coplayers. And until proven otherwise that's all it is. You can't get the advantage of coplaying and are jelly.
 

Petzy

Active Member
Reaction score
20
Good lord, you're a tough mental case, aren't you? Easy now, you have 2 minutes between posts. Did your artery get inflamed and thoughts came with a 2 minute delay between them that you forgot to edit your 1st post and just snapped on the keyboard too quickly? Tz tz tz, pesky impulsiveness. I'll do you the favor of stopping to engage with you, I don't want to be responsible for murder via mental health battery. Hugs!
PS: I'm sorry I inadvertently picked on your TW game & forum heroes that you seem to look up to. Hope I didn't damage the poster of them that's hanging on your wall.
I'm wondering if you regularly look up at the misty poster before clicking that button to send an attack and emphasize with a warrior voice "this is for you misty, my lord!"

Now hear this everybody, tl;dr for my posts: ropey is correct and is awesome - don't bother reading anything. Also, give him hugs, he's a true slayer (opening suggestion for the ropey slayer achievement to be added to the game).
 

One Last Shot...

Senior In-Game Staff
Tribal Wars Team
Senior
Team
Reaction score
1,456
I'm inferring that the rest of what I wrote you find accurate.
Please don't infer. I just wanted to hone in on something that was fundamentally incorrect as it confuses too very different matters. I've glossed over the rest of the content.

Not to poke an eye or anything but when was the last time you tried playing a world like a presumably regular player, to see the realities you face?
I began playing in 2009 and have played on and off for 13 years now. You can look at my signature to get a better idea if you wish - it's all linked.

I've played in that time both solo and coplayed and see both sides of the coin. My views on this topic can be found earlier in this thread, which is why I'm not looking to engage in any discussion here beyond correcting the tribe limit aspect of your post.

In layman's terms, imagine a bunch of people in the pub. Do they drink more because it is a small pub? Would they drink less in a bigger pub?

The pub size is irrelevant - people drink what they want to regardless.

The drinks are the players/coplayers, with the pubs being the tribe limit. There is no real correlation.
 
Last edited:

TW.PLAYER

Active Member
Reaction score
13
Co playing is based on wanting the account being 24/7 active. Also it gives a person some time for having a life other than playing full time. The downside for the solo and new players having to play full time against a co played account. Is the game fair ? Nope.