Account sitting

IanIanIan

Guest
Would it be considered pushing if you had a small account and a bigger acocunt deicded to let you take over, and before taking it over you gifted all your villages to it, then deleted your account and started playing the bigger one?

Note the bigger account was being sat by the smaller one on and off for days at a time prior to the switch,
 
Last edited by a moderator:

servy

Guest
Would it be considered pushing if you had a small account and a bigger acocunt deicded to let you take over, and before taking it over you gifted all your villages to it, then deleted your account and started playing the bigger one?

Note the bigger account was being sat by the smaller one on and off for days at a time prior to the switch,
It is a violation of the rules for one person to know the password of two accounts on the same world. Having two accounts is still illegal even if you use the account sitting feature to sit a second account you own.
 

Elliander

Guest
So if I attack two different players, where one player is sitting for the other, only one of them is allowed to retaliate against me? Because if both of them fight back it would be a coordinated attack. But if the sitter doesn't defend the village he is sitting it puts it at a disadvantage... seems like a loose loose situation.
 

Seagryfn

Contributing Poster
So if I attack two different players, where one player is sitting for the other, only one of them is allowed to retaliate against me? Because if both of them fight back it would be a coordinated attack.
Yes, if you are attacking both, only one can counter-attack... but only while the connection between them remains.
24 hours after the connection has been passed or ended, the other can be eligible to attack as well.
Coordinated attacks are not illegal... only coordinated attacks from (or less than 24 hours after) a shared connection.

But if the sitter doesn't defend the village he is sitting it puts it at a disadvantage... seems like a loose loose situation.
How so? 'Defense' is not all counter-attacking. The sitter in this case can use one of the two accounts he controls to counter-attack. If you were attacking someone controlling only one account, he could only use the one account he controls to counter-attack. The rule is there so that, either way, you do not face unfair retaliation when you attack an account shared with another on the same connection.
 

Rafa Red Army

Guest
Ok i've searched and i'm still not sure, can someone answer this please?

I know you cannot trade between sat villages, i understand there must be no interaction between players but can both players trade as in buy resources from the same seller? (3rd party)

I asked support but they gave me the impression it is not allowed to trade resources from the sat a/c as in no trading at all from the sat a/c

Thanks
 

Seagryfn

Contributing Poster
"Open trading" (the free shipping of resources from one account to another account) is not allowed from a sat account. The sitter of the account, however, can still place reasonable trade offers on the market, and accept the same. Market Offers and Open Trading both involve sending resources, but, a sat account may only send resources to other villages it owns (within the sat account itself), or make trade offers on the open market. Trade offers on the open market may be accepted by any player who does not share a connection to he game with the sitter/sat account.
 

freebutterflyx

Guest
A friend is quitting the game and he told me I can take his villages.
so, I started doing this by first scouting them (so I would know the ammount of defensive of offensive troopss) and then attacking them. If I attack defensive villages, I loose (a lot of) troops.

Now he offert me to sit his account so I could take them more easyly. I didn't accept it yet.
But if I'm correct, if I take the account sitting, I can't attack him for several hours (24h?). Can I attack him after this? If so I could clear his villages so I could take them more easyly.

So, should I just continue attacking him of should I accept the account sitting and clear the villages first?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SirEwok

Guest
Get him to clear his own villages. It's not hard. Just get him to support one of your villages with all his troops. Five minutes work and your problem is solved.
 

freebutterflyx

Guest
Get him to clear his own villages. It's not hard. Just get him to support one of your villages with all his troops. Five minutes work and your problem is solved.
This was also my first idea but ...
It is a Tribalwars-friend.
And I can't get in contact with him anymore for the past few days. I think he doesn't log-in anymore.
 

SirEwok

Guest
Meh, imo the rule could be argued either way. No doubt SeaGryfn will be along in a few hours to give you a definitive answer, but worse case scenario you'll just have to clear the villages yourself.
 

busamad

Contributing Poster
I would pass the mail on as a support ticket to confirm what you are doing is OK.

My thoughts If you have an in game mail from the player saying you can have his villages you could take the sit pass it to another player to clear the villages for you.
Then wait 24 hours after you end the sit to attack them.
 

SirEwok

Guest
Aye, in practice it sounds okay, but in theory you still violate the account sitting rule; namely the one about intentionally destroying an account you are sitting.
 

Boby05

Non-stop Poster
Here is a hypothetical scenario: It's early world, me and a neighbor each only have one village. He asks to join my tribe and sets me as a sitter to see if he's worth letting in. If I send his troops on an attacking run that takes several days, would that be against the rules? And if that is not against the rules, would it be against the rules for me to farm him while his troops are out? While it seems like that would technically be dishonest, would it actually break the rules?
 

Artofdefence

Guest
Here is a hypothetical scenario: It's early world, me and a neighbor each only have one village. He asks to join my tribe and sets me as a sitter to see if he's worth letting in. If I send his troops on an attacking run that takes several days, would that be against the rules? And if that is not against the rules, would it be against the rules for me to farm him while his troops are out? While it seems like that would technically be dishonest, would it actually break the rules?
It's against the rules to send his troops out, this is essentially sitting abuse.

Farming him would also be against the rules during the sitting period and 24 hours afterwards. The game will stop you in the majority of cases.
 

SirEwok

Guest
Here is a hypothetical scenario: It's early world, me and a neighbor each only have one village. He asks to join my tribe and sets me as a sitter to see if he's worth letting in. If I send his troops on an attacking run that takes several days, would that be against the rules? And if that is not against the rules, would it be against the rules for me to farm him while his troops are out? While it seems like that would technically be dishonest, would it actually break the rules?

Lifted straight from the rules (which you would have noticed if you actually bothered to read the rules like a normal person does before asking for clarification on said rules):

"A sat account must be played for their own benefit. It is not allowed to abuse account sitting. Account sitters that intentionally destroy or seriously damage an account they are sitting will be punished."


I think 'intentionally rendering troops useless and then regularly attacking' falls under the 'seriously damage' catagory.