Legality of Merging of Accounts

DeletedUser

Guest
I would just like to ask if it is legal to ask "merge accounts". The idea is as follows:

Given that there are 2 people playing close to each other*

I ask a person from my tribe near me to noble my village.

then co-play the account afterwards.

This way, we essentially have 1 account with 2 relatively big villages early. Also, co-playing means more advantageous to both of us as we will have more time to play
 

DeletedUser

Guest
HUGE FACEPALM... you see... i can say that X account is played by me while Y account is played by my brother... although this is not in any case true... as long as i have this alibi... I DID NOT BREAK A RULE...

You can never noble someone who has been previously set as a shared Internet connection.

Pretty sure I've read that somewhere...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

DeletedUser

Guest
OK!... now i am pretty mad... please refer to my Hypothetical situation and tell me when did X ever noble Y... please, please, please...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

DeletedUser

Guest
The village that used to belong to account Y was then nobled by account X. Don't you think that when Marcus (for example) looks at W62 and notices that these two accounts that are in the same 20x20 on sic and that one suspiciously restarts for no good reason, then has the barb nobled by t'other, he wont suspect foul play? That's still against the rules. If you weren't breaking the rules, you wouldn't need to think up an alibi in the first place.
 
Upvote 0

Ack3rl3y

Guest
I know what zorro is trying to say, but I am sure that there will be failsafes in place to detect if a village that was previously on the same connection was nobled by the other on that connection (even if you did wait until it was barb first). Obviously the mods aren't going to let you know how they detect cheaters as that'd make it easier to avoid - but still.

It'd be suspicious having all of the same IP-played accounts ending up in one account, no matter how it was done. It's pretty much push-accounting.
 
Upvote 0

DeletedUser

Guest
I also understand what he's trying to say, but the fact of the matter is that in that situation you'd still be multying and you'd still be playing one account for the sole benefit of another. To quote 4chan; rules 1 and 2.
 
Upvote 0

DeletedUser

Guest
Thanks for your insight... I have actually considered it but ended up in a dead end... the reason is as follows

Lets say there is 1 person who have access to two internet connection and have done the Hypothetical situation...

For example, X account is only being played in the office while Y account is only being played at home... afterwards... after committing the "crime" the main account is now being played in both office and at home...

another more realistic example, X account is being played by a person living in australia; Y account is being played by an american living in america... after committing the "crime", these two people will then be co-playing the account

So to counter-argue AcK3rl3y's comment, I believe that if the original hypothetical situation is in fact illegal... dont you think the revised ^ hypothetical situation should also be illegal? However, this hypothetical situation cannot be refuted as this procedure is similar to "internal tribe nobling"
 
Upvote 0

DeletedUser

Guest
As to your hypothetical situation. You are breaking the rules. We have different ways of detecting multi-accounters and setting accounts on shared internet connection is not a fail safe to allow you to break the multi-accounting rules. Shared internet connection is meant for two or more legitimate people to each play a single account from the same internet connection, it does not allow you to play multiple accounts yourself, regardless of the "alibi" or excuses you make.

another more realistic example, X account is being played by a person living in australia; Y account is being played by an american living in america... after committing the "crime", these two people will then be co-playing the account
This is legal, as the two accounts were originaly played by two different people (one account per person).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

DeletedUser102496

Guest
My suggestion would be that whoever is doing the nobling, noble all villages and then the new player can join up with the account after two days to be on the safe side. Nothing illegal, never share Internet connection.
 
Upvote 0

master of the rangers

Guest
Okay, Understood...

Now listen to this.

Let's say I make 2 accounts, and i set them on "same internet connection"... so that is technically not breaking the rule
now, Let's say that those 2 villages are relatively close to each other...
Now, since "starting over" is available given that you only have 1 village. When those 2 villages are relatively strong enough (1 with alot of troops and noble, while the other only has high points no troops), I can start over the point whore account and take that village with the account with nobles...

will this be legal or not?

If the two accounts are being played by two separate people properly using SIC, and not just one person. If person A restarts, and the village goes Barb, player B can then noble the barbarian village, even though they are on SIC.

I must stress though, If you are only one person playing the two accounts, you will be found out :)
 
Upvote 0

DeletedUser

Guest
If the two accounts are being played by two separate people properly using SIC, and not just one person. If person A restarts, and the village goes Barb, player B can then noble the barbarian village, even though they are on SIC.

I must stress though, If you are only one person playing the two accounts, you will be found out :)

since you are a moderator, i would be inclined to your opinion... however, how can you detect if only one person is playing the two accounts?... who am i kidding... you guys will prolly say "we have our ways..."

Just saying... if everyone does this in-game (although that is only a hyperbole)... Tribalwars will sink like the titanic
 
Upvote 0

master of the rangers

Guest
since you are a moderator, i would be inclined to your opinion... however, how can you detect if only one person is playing the two accounts?... who am i kidding... you guys will prolly say "we have our ways..."

Just saying... if everyone does this in-game (although that is only a hyperbole)... Tribalwars will sink like the titanic

Hehe, i doubt half the people would want to build up a decent village and then restart just to give a family member an advantage... Why would it sink, it would merely mean there is a lot of barb nobling?

We do have our ways indeed, which we would not be willing to divulge.




Edit : also Zorro, i would stop with the American bashing, you will be lucking not to get infracted at least. As for Americans not being able to reason, they have the same reasoning ability as any other race on the planet. You will always come across people who can't reason, and people who can. If you think this is just Americans, and all Americans who cannot reason, you are very, very close minded.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DeletedUser

Guest
hypothetically, although highly unlikely, if this was done in a larger scale... like having a premade with 80 people ending down to 40 after the first nobling then... this could really pose a threat to the game...(*given the fact that the stronger you are the better)
 
Upvote 0

master of the rangers

Guest
hypothetically, although highly unlikely, if this was done in a larger scale... like having a premade with 80 people ending down to 40 after the first nobling then... this could really pose a threat to the game...(*given the fact that the stronger you are the better)

Nope, you are not better if you are bigger. By nobling a village that size, you are not stronger, you merely have more points, you may still have half the amount of troops another player has, and once you split them troops to try and protect your newly nobled village, you can be easily taken out.

I fail to see how this poses a threat at all, if players need to do this to win in the game, or to take villages, they will fail in the end, good players dont have the time to waste on this (normally) and would rather take out a potential threat in their area, rather than a slightly higher point barbarian.

Obviously, if the player grows his village too much, and doesn't bother with troops, it will probably be nobled before he restarts.
 
Upvote 0

DeletedUser

Guest
by definition... a noob is a person new to the game, hence newbie... As you can see... i have made this account 2009, thats almost 3 years ago...

if you have enough reasoning ability... you should have reasoned... or at the very least "sense" that there is no way a person playing the game for roughly 3 years can be a noob...

To answer the question "what is wrong with americans"... you just answered it... american's in general are "too american"... Most of them do not have the ability to reason... However, my opinion is very bias so if you get offended... "my bad"

A newbie and a noob are not the same thing. A newbie is what you described; a person that is new to the game. Most of the time, newbies are willing to learn and are not afraid to ask questions when they get stuck. A noob, which is what PP named you, is a player that thinks they are awesome at the game, a player who will not take on board advice and thinks they always know best, even though they are shit.
 
Upvote 0

DruidEarth

Contributing Poster
Reaction score
8
A noob, as I've heard it defined, is also one who refuses to learn. That would include someone who keeps insisting that it must be legal to break the rules, despite what the rest of the players and the moderators say.
 
Upvote 0

DeletedUser105742

Guest
CTRL + F illegal, about 20 hits... Why so much illegality? Everything should be allowed... It would boost your external scores, tribal wars staff... You'd have "ten times" as many players as right now.
 
Upvote 0

DeletedUser93439

Guest
CTRL + F illegal, about 20 hits... Why so much illegality? Everything should be allowed... It would boost your external scores, tribal wars staff... You'd have "ten times" as many players as right now.

Don't forget the drop of innogames income from premium imitating scripts, bots/macro's and the thousands of multi-accounters.

Maybe also mention the continuous whining of "players" who play "fair" after some other bot rimmed them.

Yes, I know: trollllllll
 
Upvote 0
Top