Open Discussion Defining Pushing

[hellosilver]

In the grand schemes of things multiple accounts are more useful than one, the only thing this does is give him a higher rank, it's not actually helpful.

there is a tribelimit

 

[world8vet]

there is a tribelimit

And? You can have academy tribe/ allies and so on. And again you are better off having more active accounts than having like multiple accounts merge into one, especially in a watch tower world.

 

[SwedishBlueCheese]

They only build vills for him, they wouldnt be playing the world anyway so that argument doesnt hold at all

 

[AuroraMoon]

im a little late to discussion (havent read all the messages) and unsure if any of the following would be possible

In summary,

what we would like to start here is an open discussion/debate about:

1. What is pushing? What is it to you?
1. How would you define pushing? as someone gaining an advantage over others (villages/resources) without any cost to themselves
2. How can the team enforce a rule on pushing?
Should the team intervene at all or should pushing just be an allowed thing (for everyone equally) as long as the other rules are respected - yes the team should get involved in the game they moderate
How should pushers be punished? What is the punishment? - both the pusher and the pushed should get the same punishment whether it be deletion or a village penalty (if village penalty villages should be either deleted from map or relocated randomly throughout the world as a barb)
How would a definition of pushing work if we keep allowing village gifting? dont allow village gifting, its creates a grey area to be exploited
Should village gifting also become disallowed? yes, gifting and pushing are one in the same, they just have different names
How would this work compared to a merging rule? merging should have a limit on how many accounts can be merged together, including past mergers on that world. eg. 5 total mergers (can be increased as world progresses in age) if account "a" has merged 4 times and account "b" has merged 2 times, then its over the limit and merger is refused.
A combination of "thresholds" or one clear line? a combination of thresholds built around how old a world is and when a player started the world.
How do we detect pushing? by bringing mergers and co-player restrictions into the game:
eg: to deter pushing via gifting/merger/co-playing or deletion
if someone chooses to quit or merge/coplay - make them press a button like the account sitting button with 2 options:
option 1 (merge/coplay): give the name of the account they are going to co-play, get that other player to confirm on their end,
link the accounts and allow access via each persons log in details (similar to account sitting, no password sharing involved)
keep a record of the accounts merging and who they are merging into via an automated support ticket sent to the support team - possibly even list both accounts automatically on profile page for that world (without the option to remove)
restrict the amount of mergers an account can have, for all accounts involved, for the duration of the world
option 2 (quit): essentially how deleting work currently
except all aspects of the account are frozen (including premium features)
resources reset to zero, troops reset to zero and queued troops are deleted, buildings reset to lvl 1 and buildings queues are deleted.

after time period expires all the accounts villages are either returned to a 26pt barb or removed from map - support teams choice.

before 90 days (since account joined world)
*village goes barb
*randomly relocated to a different K thats more then 50% occupied
*gains the max amount of militia for that world
*decline re-entry into that world from that account/device/ip (optional but recommend a time frame of 30days)
between 90-180 days (since account joined world)
*reset the villages to a 26pt barb
*randomly relocated to a different K thats less then 50% occupied
*decline re-entry into that world from that account/device/ip (optional but recommend a time frame of 30days)
after 180+ days (since account joined world)
*delete the villages from the map
*decline re-entry into that world from that account/device/ip (optional but recommend a time frame of 30days)

eg: to deter pushing via pp farmers (since they never intended to play the world to begin with)
have a button to press if a player intends to pp farm on a world (cannot be reversed)
each world is a new world, so in my mind all farmed pp should be locked to the world it was farmed on for either:
*locked for 180 day since account started the world
*locked for 180 day since account left the world
*locked for the worlds duration
delete the village from the map after X amount of days since starting the world

 

[SwedishBlueCheese]

Once again @mods hello?!!!

 

[SwedishBlueCheese]

Lets just allow preregging with eachother and the accs eating eachother. This is fun

 

[THE MURPH ALL CAPS]

past worlds should be relevant when you say you don't consider them

if your friend joins to do nothing but gift you a village which was clearly all that happened besides also bashing for them and they've used the same accounts to push "cooperate" it should probably be changed to innos definition of pushing because thats just hilarious. honestly idgaf what excuse is given support was complete trash this world. whatever you guys define as cooperation is hilariously bad, it's not cooperation to just build a village to be nobled by a tribemate.

125 should've had merges extended to 90 days minimum if not 180, coplayers starting separate to merge is pushing. this is a complete joke as well.

also include merges to "quitting" can't internal because it's too grey. no eating tribemates for at least 90 days or eating anyone that was in your tribe. i'd rather have to suffer dealing with accounts quitting and not being able to noble them than to let everyone just "quit' and get eaten and support not do anything because it's not "pushing". just no eating anyone thats been in your tribe (or obvious family tribes based off name) for 90+ days. be smart who you invite and deal with suffer when someone quits early on.

creating accounts that you have no intention of player long term either to ruin other tribes or to spy is pushing and then just jumping onto your account you planned to play long term when you get rimmed or internalled. on milestone worlds force everyone to use a vpn if they are going to push like that and suffer worse timings or potentially logging with the same ID. I'd almost say milestone worlds your IP address cannot appear on two accounts at any point the entire world especially if you were eaten by the same tribe. a merge 180+ days into the world will need to be pre approved with support staff and no previous history on any world between those IP addresses so it's a real merge to coplayer no preplanned merge etc (at least without not having a vpn entire world.

be more clear. why weren't they banned if you give a lot of evidence and it's just we didn't see anyhting its not bannable it's BS.

if support cannot create concrete rules, just tell us how deep and similar pushers are not blatantly pushing and let us do the same thing to equal the playing field.

without responding directly to the template tldr change definition of cooperation, increase duration of account merges, no internalling accounts that quit same or similar duration to that of merges to prevent the "quitting" excuse, IP cannot appear on two accounts ever not just simultaneous. NO RELOCATION EXCEPT FOR PREREGISTERED TRIBES who can only do so on each other.

template:

1. What is pushing? What is it to you?
   1. Using accounts that are never intended to be long term accounts to benefit the real accounts whether through bashing/free defense, building+gifting villages, spying/infiltrating other tribes.
2. How can the team enforce a rule on pushing?
   1. Should the team intervene at all or should pushing just be an allowed thing (for everyone equally) as long as the other rules are respected
      1. if you cannot create clear enough rules you should just let pushing happen and explain how people got away with it so everyone knows exactly what they can do pushing rule wise, if you are incapable of handling it, just let it become part of the game to limit it's effectiveness.
   2. How should pushers be punished? What is the punishment?
      1. publicly humiliated, account permabanned from current and future worlds, ip ban from creating new accounts to circumvent ban.
   3. How would a definition of pushing work if we keep allowing village gifting?
      1. Should village gifting also become disallowed?
         1. limit "internals" similar to how merges were limited this world except a longer duration 40 days is not long enough.
      2. How would this work compared to a merging rule?
         1. basically the same. time lock duration
3. How do we detect pushing?
   1. Give clear arguments and definitions that can not be countered/circumvented with a daily situation within the game
      1. Keep in mind that "there was no ODA gain" does not work to cover all eventualities of an in-game situation
         1. eg. scavenging = no troops home = easy conquer does not fit an accurate detection method
      2. Keep in mind that Tribal Wars encourages tribal cooperation for as long as there is a benefit for all parties involved
      3. Keep in mind there needs to be actual proof and not suspicion.
      4. Keep in mind a rule, policy or definition needs to fit every world's situation
   2. Keep in mind that our players are very competitive in nature. They would love to report everyone for pushing, simply for every conquest ever achieved. Take every argument with a grain of salt.
      1. then explain how our reports aren't pushing because theres very clear pushing that is ignored in tickets and no ability to understand why support does not view it as pushing. and the secrecy does nothing but make it seem like inno is unable or purposely not banning players.
4. ... we will expand on this list on the go and as the discussion goes forward ...

Pushing is really only a *huge* deal on non pp worlds. which is every 4 years. surely you can get a better guideline and ruleset before 150. eliminate relocation item as I've stated before as that is the huge culprit for allowing all this pushing.

on non PP worlds the main things pushing is merges and push account farming. i've stated how push account farming should be handled and how it needs much more increased punishment because atm its a joke. account merges/internals should just be 3 months limited and don't just let 1 player eat force the tribe to spread it around to everyone then (ie <50% of caps allowed to the account merging into) to prevent people who do it for rank etc. merges should only be there for time coverage benefits and you should be happy to get a coplayer you didn't plan to merge into and just not for the points.

there is a problem this creates in situations of force internals early game as well as dumb mods deciding to punish some people and not others etc, honestly not super sure how to handle the force internal stuff as it generally happens even early on for players being bad etc would have to think more about it.

I do not think pushing can be stopped there will always be some excuse that inno will allow it to happen in some sort of grey area and a bunch of losers will mass push to compensate for their poor ability in this game

this was about as pg as i could keep it.

Really good post.

Limit co-playing after the world starts if you hop account. Or should only be allowed hop one account per world. Just need to get stricter tbh!
How can't tw staff think like a pusher and just restrict tribal direction.. invite a friend etc. REMOVE ALL THAT BS and you're good!

 

[SirCharles40]

It's really simple, if you want bragging rights for accomplishments gained in the game make it a level playing feild.

Eliminate co-playing and account sitting so that every account grows at its own pace the best they can.

That eliminates the 24/7 growth over the solo players who have to shutdown at some point.

Also there would be no more merging of accounts.

Tribes will actually have to grow together instead of expanding in different directions with several mini tribes made of co-played accounts.

Worried about losing some villages from attacks from behind ? To bad you should lose some. Eliminate the threat in front of you then turn your attention to those attacking you.

 

[chanevr]

I don't think Co-playing will ever be stopped. Is the future and we are in it. Mentors should immediately advise sole owners to rather join into co-played accounts as they are at a time and exposure disadvantage if they do not. My opinion is that TW should be forced to announce to new joiners the fact that co-ownership is permitted and even advised.

 

[Lady Madelina]

I disagree with one thing - coplaying. It's more or less ruined the game for most of us. For example, on 131, the tribe HARD has a bunch of players - and every one of them, I am advised, is coplayed by a good number of people. There is no time when any of their accounts is not active, and they use that to destroy any 'normal' players in the area. How do I know this? Two of their members (both who coplay different accounts) have confirmed it, I believe one account has 17 people coplaying it!

Inno, if nothing else, restrict the number of people who can coplay an account. I'm not a software expert, but I believe this can be done by registering players to an account using verifiable data. Then enforce it.

My tribe is known for superb defense, but it's like David up against a slew of Goliaths, and only one stone...

 

[SwedishBlueCheese]

imagine not having 16 ppl in your account chat!
Coplaying wont be banned, this topic is about account pushing, youre in the wrong thread mate.
Soloplaying is non viable for a lot of ppl if you want to be more than a random rim shitter. Some ppl manage to solo accs but they are few and most of them got either no jobs or a work that supports being able to be online at work hours

 

[SirCharles40]

imagine not having 16 ppl in your account chat!
Coplaying wont be banned, this topic is about account pushing, youre in the wrong thread mate.
Soloplaying is non viable for a lot of ppl if you want to be more than a random rim shitter. Some ppl manage to solo accs but they are few and most of them got either no jobs or a work that supports being able to be online at work hours

Your crying about account pushing being a cheat while using co-play which is a cheat also.

If you want one stopped surely you want the other stopped as well right ?

 

[Bobah]

which is a cheat also

 

[SirCharles40]

View attachment 12736

There is no doubt that the first account to use co-play did so as a way to cheat the system and gain an advantage over other players in the game.

Since cheaters follow cheaters once shared what they were doing it leads us to where we are today in the game.

 

[Vanquisher.]

There is no doubt that the first account to use co-play did so as a way to cheat the system and gain an advantage over other players in the game.

So was the first player to use farm scripts and macro's to time noble trains and almost all other features added later to the game.
All of that is just part of the game now.
You can complain about it but its not a cheat anymore.

 

[Lady Madelina]

1. What is pushing? What is it to you? -
   1. How would you define pushing? - Not so much pushing, per se, but cheating nonetheless..... how about 'pushing' several players together on a single account, so they can keep that account up and running 13/7/365, have players designated to keep the Premium Market cleaned out, all donate so big money can be spent without any one person being hit with a big credit card bill... and don't get me started on PP farming. PPs 'farmed' on a world should only be able to be used on that world. I know Inno is just looking at the bottom line of the profit and loss sheet, but all this stuff has more or less ruined the game for many who have played for years and years. (Some of us just play to keep in touch with the friends we've made over the years, and to try to make it a bit less pleasant for the cheaters.)