Open Discussion Account pushing and coplaying

Anonymous...

Member
Reaction score
1
honestly dont understand bashers or what motivates them to fight/clear for larger players (since their typically not in the same tribe)
the basher doesnt grow or gain anything most of the time or they end up merging into the account they been bashing for

a bashers life
log in, attack some random, have someone else conquer, rebuild and repeat
not really appealing gameplay wise in my mind.....
In the past bashers would "work" for the person they bash for by logging in and clearing those villages, in exchange for protection and quite often a bit of training. Yes, it's not appealing gameplay, but under the right set of circumstances it can turn out to be quite useful for the basher.
 

Txitxo

blocked
Reaction score
32
I can see where you guys are coming from.
makes a lot of sense to make the limits clear.


here comes the dinossaur but the 400 accounts is exactly what we would've done to prove our point ( support team absolutely ignored the community up to 2015 - can only speak for that time - and so in order to get these things changed we would go and break the limits as fast and as hard as we could )
 

hughfj08

Active Member
Reaction score
14
Personally I used the whole 'basher' system as a pseudo tutorial for the new player.

Obviously there reaches a point where your basher having only a single village is worthless, but you can still get the benefit of the basher having multiple villages just based on the opponents you are fighting at that stage necessitating they have more resources to work with. So yeah they are limited, but for new players (if taken under the wing properly) they do get that experience in growing an account and build style.
Yeah they are also not in the same tribe, but I remember my tribe just made a separate tribe specifically for any bashers to provide them with that 'official' relationship

Obviously they aren't going to succeed long term in the end on that world, however it does provide them with the skills to succeed on later worlds.

Granted this was all back pre w64, 2012 or so (when I last played before coming back last week)

Downside being that 99% of the time, the basher would just get dropped and capped out as soon as their usefulness diminished even a little
 

Frying Pan Warrior

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
474
honestly dont understand bashers or what motivates them to fight/clear for larger players (since their typically not in the same tribe)
the basher doesnt grow or gain anything most of the time or they end up merging into the account they been bashing for

a bashers life
log in, attack some random, have someone else conquer, rebuild and repeat
not really appealing gameplay wise in my mind.....
It's sick. I like bashing because I love helping people out. If I can help someone reach rank 1 by being their basher and helping em get villages that is fun for me. #MakeADifference.

But apparently that's considered pushing, #Lame.
 

HelloHeidy

Active Member
Reaction score
59
I mean in my eyes bashing is basically something like this, Players working together to achieve something like Attacking a player etc. Majority of the time it is the big player who will benefit yes but they are not getting anything for free as such. It will still cost troops the player being attacked will still be able to try to defend if he wants. So... basically what a tribe does. Don't think anyone would agree that tribes are the same as pushing

Pushing to me is something like Players A and B join the world. They know they are going to co play in a week or 2. Both these players build their villages up to a decent enough level and Player A nobles Player B with no resistance, then after 24 hours or more Player B starts logging into Player A's account and they play together like they planned before but they now have 2 built up villages for really no cost except for a single noble. This at the moment is completely ignored by mods who give some generic shit response if you question it. So will they do anything if i get 400 accounts together to do it? 110% if 400 accounts were used for pushing on a world the mods would descend and ban people. I don't agree that allowing 1 and not allowing 400 is fine, if your doing it by scale then surely i can multi-account 2 accounts, as long as i don't multi account 5 accounts then i should be fine right?. Yet again i have seen 0 members of staff bother to answer me and at this point i have given up on in game support to be anything other then a way to waste 5 minutes of my life only to get a robotic response i can give examples on virtually every world of friends prearranging this sort of thing just by looking at conquer stats
 

hughfj08

Active Member
Reaction score
14
All it has me wanting to do is the exact same thing.
convince a couple mates to play the early game and boost myself that way
 

Txitxo

blocked
Reaction score
32
co-playing is cool
i would agree to limiting at 2 players to keep more of an even playing field.

account pushing needs boundaries.
enough with the bullshit

if all you want is to win go play candy crush saga and get your digital heroin from there.
 

Txitxo

blocked
Reaction score
32
Still no conclusion here?
this particular thread has 7 months although this was already in debate 9 years ago.
 

Crazyish

New Member
Reaction score
0
There will simply never be a conclusion to this as its fairly split as to who likes what. As someone who started and has mainly played as a single played account, I know the disadvantages of it. Except, those disadvantages for single played are no longer the main concern.

This game used to be about having some skill. Farming and stuff like that was always about who could get on most, but I have cancel sniped and backtimed players who reached a train before I could when we were both single village accounts racing for a train. As long as you had certain skills, you could compete. Sure I got jumped before in the middle of the night while I was sleeping, but could at least maintain pretty well.

Now, that skill has nothing to do with timing attacks. Has nothing to do with sending 1k fakes. Has nothing to do with being able to snipe/cancel snipe. Has nothing to do with having 1 player or 10 players on an account.

That magic TW skill of today has EVERYTHING to do with sitting on the market for people selling to gain pp, constantly refreshing the screen. and being the fastest at getting those resources. You dont need to know how to backtime when you are over 2k points coming out of prot. and those around you are at 300.

Questions asked in TW in the old days when applying to join a tribe...

Can you snipe village to village?
Can you cancel snipe?
How much have you farmed so far?
How big is your army?
Are you a team player?

Questions asked in TW today when joining a tribe...

How much pp do you have on your account?

This game has become less about the world you are currently on and more about how much pp you gained on previous worlds or how big is your wallet. Its about having the fastest computer. Its about are you willing to spend hours refreshing a screen. I have actually done decent in grabbing some resources this world, but can only do the refresh thing for 10-15 minutes before my brain just says no more. Even with doing ok on grabbing some extra resources, the leader is still 5 times my size.

This game used to be fun as a single played account even against the odds. Now its not about timing attacks or any of that. Its whether you can sit on the market for hours at a time before your brain implodes on itself due to sheer boredom of constantly refreshing.

TW of old... WAR, WAR, WAR

TW of today... REFRESH, REFRESH, REFRESH and declare victory on the 3rd day of beginner prot. because you have nobles already and bp isnt even up.

Instead of banning co-playing, just rename the game to Tribal Refresh.
 

MarcMadness

New Member
Reaction score
1
I may of missed a it cos it's a long read but what about when people have 'friends' who want to pp farm and so they protect them from the big tribes and then get free vills, is that not account pushing also.

And if it is then what do you do to stop that? Stop pp farming, you can't because lots of players would quit TW because that's there way of getting pp.
Or do you say that if you have pp farmed then you can't be eaten by another account, if that's the case then we will have lots of unused villages?

My point is you can't 'stop' pushing
 

AuroraMoon

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
135
in all honesty any problem can be fixed - the community has put forth a few ideas on the matter
with the main opposition to them being that people may quit if they cant abuse the system anymore (keep in mind the externals roughly cover 10% of the player base)
it just requires some effort by those in a position to fix things

track the people who are playing the accounts - in most cases it would be rare for more then 3 ip addresses to access 1 account
so use the ip logs (especially the one that first starts the world)
connected to each account name (or any name it gets changed to)
cross reference them over multiple worlds (to check if there is a pattern or dummy accounts being made - possibly the last 5 worlds an account played would do)

also by bringing the "co-player" aspect into the game with a similar method to the account sitting feature already in use - would create an easily monitored feature (since a co-player would have to have an account as their own and access it to get onto the merged account - not just an internet connection)
by bringing the co-player aspect into the game (as above) restrictions and punishments can then be added and monitored alot easier
such as:
restricting the amount of co-players an account has
restricting how often an account can gain a new co-player (can even be tied to amount of village similar to report capacity)
preventing merged accounts from rejoining the world at a later date

theres also other little things that could also help
like locking the pp farmed on a world to that world until the end of those 180days (monitoring where it all ends up might also be wise)
removing pp use from events and balance out the playing field - even though that seems to be where its all spent and the biggest aspect of abuse
make the protection ratio one way so players cant just outgrow their area to gain safety via merged accounts
remove any player account from the map if they dont reach a certain amount (like all those 26pt accounts that just barb)
 

hughfj08

Active Member
Reaction score
14
Community reporting is a thing.
And also getting a better definition on what constitutes account pushing.

Early on in Classic 1 (a couple months back) we had a family of 5 tribes that was mostly built up of players just account boosting for a few players. Would openly brag that they had friends join the server just to boost villages for them to noble. My tribe couldn't do anything about it cause it was too early to noble them and the players just boosting would place all their def in the true player and just leave it there regardless of the damage we would do to their own villages.

Took this to the mods, with screenshot evidence of them straight out admitting to it and how clever it was of them, and they pretty much said, tough s***

How is this any different to a single player doing the same and making multiple accounts. IMO there is no difference



I get it, its hard to monitor/create rules/systems to prevent it, but as a community we should have that ability for some form of self regulation.
Granted it wont be perfect and some people will try and abuse it, but I think that in the net, it would affect far less players than the amount of people who get driven out of a server because of that level of blatant abuse because it would be possible to actual penalize these actions
 

TW.PLAYER

Member
Reaction score
8
Why have the co play option when you can get a sitter from tribe. The co players can have there own accounts.
 

AuroraMoon

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
135
Why have the co play option when you can get a sitter from tribe. The co players can have there own accounts.
having a coplayer gives all the benefits of a sitter but without all the restrictions - a loophole

personally believe that if there were no restrictions when setting sitters
the coplayed accounts would never of been created
 

Aretas

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
185
personally believe that if there were no restrictions when setting sitters
the coplayed accounts would never of been created
Then you would be a fool. For one thing, sitting accounts via mobile is terrible. If you are copying, then the non account owner can easily play via mobile when on the go. This would just be one example. There are many reasons that people decide to co play accounts aside from account sitter restrictions, that probably should be eased up anyways. Sitting accounts is mainly for unordinary cases. You are getting opped, you are maybe minting, you need some op sends done while busy, or you are away for some IRL event. They are meant to be temporary. Ie why there is a 60 day limit on having an account sit. Co playing is meant for more everyday activity. The idea being the more active the account, the fast and more efficient it will grow. This would have happened with or without sitter restrictions, and will continue to happen even if sitter restrictions were lifted.

Having account sitting replace co playing would only lead to increased amounts of pushing, as if an account now needs to have its cos play other accounts, then why not have them build, bash, push the main account using their account that now has to be on the world.
 

AuroraMoon

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
135
Then you would be a fool. For one thing, sitting accounts via mobile is terrible. If you are copying, then the non account owner can easily play via mobile when on the go. This would just be one example. There are many reasons that people decide to co play accounts aside from account sitter restrictions, that probably should be eased up anyways. Sitting accounts is mainly for unordinary cases. You are getting opped, you are maybe minting, you need some op sends done while busy, or you are away for some IRL event. They are meant to be temporary. Ie why there is a 60 day limit on having an account sit. Co playing is meant for more everyday activity. The idea being the more active the account, the fast and more efficient it will grow. This would have happened with or without sitter restrictions, and will continue to happen even if sitter restrictions were lifted.

Having account sitting replace co playing would only lead to increased amounts of pushing, as if an account now needs to have its cos play other accounts, then why not have them build, bash, push the main account using their account that now has to be on the world.
account sitting is the same as co-playing - it just has restrictions
remove the 60day limit and you have a perma-sitter (the reason the limit was put into the game atleast in my mind)
remove the sit blocks and that sitter basically becomes a co-player (except theres 2 active accounts now instead of one leading to issues)

all people want is for coplaying to become an official part of the game if it is going to be officially supported
it also makes the people monitoring the games job alot easier - atleast in my opinion
 

DaWolf85

In-Game Staff
Tribal Wars Team
Team
Reaction score
344
account sitting is the same as co-playing - it just has restrictions
Not correct. Coplaying can be done with a single account. Account sitting must have two accounts involved. In that sense, it is far closer to multi-accounting with restrictions than it is to coplaying with restrictions.
 

AuroraMoon

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
135
Not correct. Coplaying can be done with a single account. Account sitting must have two accounts involved. In that sense, it is far closer to multi-accounting with restrictions than it is to coplaying with restrictions.
that was kinda what i was trying to point out with my next few lines

remove the 60day limit and you have a perma-sitter (the reason the limit was put into the game atleast in my mind)
remove the sit blocks and that sitter basically becomes a co-player (except theres 2 active accounts now instead of one leading to issues)
that if the account sitting feature had no restrictions (sit blocks and the 60day limit)
similar to the co-playing aspect of the game currently

leads to one difference between multi-accounting and co-playing
and thats with multi-accounting both accounts are actively playing
and with co-playing you conquer the other account before hand (which could possibly come under "pushing" since theres no limitations to it)

by bringing the co-player aspect into the game similar to account sitting (where restrictions and limits can be put in place and easily monitored)
it would better define what account pushing is and potentially prevent it from happening

now i will clarify that i dont want to remove the restrictions from account sitting - they are their for a reason
however i will admit the 24-48hr sit block can get annoying at times