St A is....awesome

[DeletedUser]

you sound extremely bitter today

deacon was being nobled by enemies, as a St A member you could argue that it was in the St A member's best interest to have his villages donated to tribesmates rather than enemies.

if St A hadn't done this, deacon would have logged in today, rubbed his eyes, and went "WHY DIDN'T YOU DEFEND MY VILLAGES?"

Nah, I just don't like it when people who are continually beating their chest are, once again, exposed as unfair players.

I want to play a game where tribes don't gain advantages by bending the rules.

Got a problem with that?

And btw, the very large majority of those villages of deacon's that are being nobled are not anywhere near enemy territory, so the logic of your argument is flawed.

 

[DeletedUser3160]

Exactly. TW = Study Break. 1 hour midterm studying 5-10 min. TW. University increases my TW time, and makes it so I'm checking in almost constantly, not the other way around.

and thats what other people are doing to, in fact to such an extent that it effects their RL. Its pure stupidity to waste 2-6 hours on TW each day, peoples relationships, studies and work (like me now :icon_rolleyes suffers from it. Then you have to make a decision whats more important, your own life with the paycheck and girlfriend...or some stupid online game?

 

[walleye]

ok point taken about the location. didnt go into taht much investigation

i have to say this game will never be cheat-free
its just not going to happen

just do your best try and work around it

edit: lol bah! damn you Tazoslo, it was my turn! you jumped queue! (totally agree with you by the way). The above is directed an Idefix

 

[DeletedUser]

and thats what other people are doing to, in fact to such an extent that it effects their RL. Its pure stupidity to waste 2-6 hours on TW each day, peoples relationships, studies and work (like me now :icon_rolleyes suffers from it. Then you have to make a decision whats more important, your own life with the paycheck and girlfriend...or some stupid online game?

That's where being young can be an advantage, however, this is something that needs to be considered by every player that takes this game serious enough to have some kind of an effect.

If there comes a choice between life and a game, life must come first.

It's a bigger and better game anyways. :lol:

 

[DeletedUser]

The rule is the problem. If the rules for player/sitter where the same we wouldn't keep having problems like these. I'd rather put the onous on the player who is going to be awol to find a player he can trust; if they wreck your account, well you should have found a better sitter.

 

[DeletedUser]

By that logic I'm a drug dealer because I defend people's right to buy any drug they feel like injecting into their arms even though I've never even touched so much as a joint.

It's not necessarily that simple. Using your scenario and what I meant, it would be more....

By defending people's right to buy any drug they feel like, we can assume that you either, don't want anything to do with the topic of drugs and bans, or you're against the banning of drugs and feel free will should be acknowledged.

If you're accused of theft, and you pull a complete defense, it's going to arise suspicion. Either that or you're easily offended by such a thing in which case it would still raise some suspicion.

I think I know what I'm talking about, forgive me if I'm completely wrong.

^According to what I'm saying this shows that I have some doubt in my knowledge of this.

 

[DeletedUser]

Nah, I just don't like it when people who are continually beating their chest are, once again, exposed as unfair players.

I want to play a game where tribes don't gain advantages by bending the rules.

Got a problem with that?

And btw, the very large majority of those villages of deacon's that are being nobled are not anywhere near enemy territory, so the logic of your argument is flawed.

I have a problem with your whining and 'holier than thou' attitude. You mean Aten doesn't have any inactive players or people that have been sat for extended period of time that a decision was made to take over their villages? I'm shocked, you have over a thousand active players?

And your ASSumptions are off - not every account being nobled are ones that were being sat.

Examples -

1. The player announced he was quitting and arranged village takeovers without the use of a sitter.

2. The tribe monitors inactive members, and kills the troops and nobles the villages BEFORE they become part of the grey horde.

So please don't just ASSume that every in-tribe nobling is a player that was being account sat.

 

[kommissarwulf]

I have a problem with your whining and 'holier than thou' attitude. You mean Aten doesn't have any inactive players or people that have been sat for extended period of time that a decision was made to take over their villages? I'm shocked, you have over a thousand active players?

And your ASSumptions are off - not every account being nobled are ones that were being sat.

Examples -

1. The player announced he was quitting and arranged village takeovers without the use of a sitter.

2. The tribe monitors inactive members, and kills the troops and nobles the villages BEFORE they become part of the grey horde.

So please don't just ASSume that every in-tribe nobling is a player that was being account sat.

That may well, and one would like to hope, be true. However this case is a case of the player being sat, and seemingly having had his troops sent off on some adventure they'd never complete. This, in and of itself, will raise suspicion to those not in the tribe about your other in-tribe noblings, purely because we cannot know the scenario that surrounds every case.

Yes, Aten had inactive players, I recently helped deal with 2 players. I don't mind doing it even though it eats into my troop numbers hitting fully stocked towns, but it is an evil necessity. Seeing incidents of other tribes going against the game rules to make things easier in terms of taking other players towns rubs the wrong way with me, I don't like it...

 

[DeletedUser137]

I have a problem with your whining and 'holier than thou' attitude. You mean Aten doesn't have any inactive players or people that have been sat for extended period of time that a decision was made to take over their villages? I'm shocked, you have over a thousand active players?

We have many many players that are being sat. We also will contact all members via their e-mail address to see if they are coming back, check the forums to see if they said they are off for x time and also wait at lest 3 months before deciding to noble them out.
When we noble them out, we DO NOT clear the account via the sitter, we leave the account as it was as if it was still being played and we do not tell each other which villages are less defended, then noble it as if it was one of you, with plenty of attack armies and good old fashion nobles.
We play by the rules.

And your ASSumptions are off - not every account being nobled are ones that were being sat.

Examples -

1. The player announced he was quitting and arranged village takeovers without the use of a sitter.

2. The tribe monitors inactive members, and kills the troops and nobles the villages BEFORE they become part of the grey horde.

This is allowed

So please don't just ASSume that every in-tribe nobling is a player that was being account sat.

We never did.

I will not tar everyone with the same brush as there will be good, fair players in St A but it appears that alot of St A are cheaters and openly have admitted in this thread about it.

STOP CHEATING FFS!

 

[DeletedUser]

That may well, and one would like to hope, be true. However this case is a case of the player being sat, and seemingly having had his troops sent off on some adventure they'd never complete. This, in and of itself, will raise suspicion to those not in the tribe about your other in-tribe noblings, purely because we cannot know the scenario that surrounds every case.

Exactly.

And when it is a one million point player being nobled by a sitter emptying the villages, that amounts to 100 or more attack armies plus resources saved, which would otherwise not have been available to use against enemies, which in turn is a tremendous unfair advantage.

And what bothers me the most in this case is that it seems to have been done by the tribe's duke, who should be setting a positive example for the tribe re: adhering to the rules.

The whole thing is reminiscent of Cemedia's breaches of the rules.

 

[DeletedUser]

We have many many players that are being sat. We also will contact all members via their e-mail address to see if they are coming back, check the forums to see if they said they are off for x time and also wait at lest 3 months before deciding to noble them out.
When we noble them out, we DO NOT clear the account via the sitter, we leave the account as it was as if it was still being played and we do not tell each other which villages are less defended, then noble it as if it was one of you, with plenty of attack armies and good old fashion nobles.
We play by the rules.



This is allowed



We never did.

I will not tar everyone with the same brush as there will be good, fair players in St A but it appears that alot of St A are cheaters and openly have admitted in this thread about it.

STOP CHEATING FFS!

I'm not painting a broad brush over aten either - but idefix seems to desire this.

You choose three months, fine - we prefer not to wait that long. There is no right and wrong to what is a 'fair' length of time, it's whatever the tribe decides. Regardless, if there's no contact, and clearly there were attempts to contact deacon to no avail, then whatever length we decided to hold his account was to our discretion, not anyone elses.

Define a lot - we have 70+ players in our tribe (which with our consolidation, almost all are active and not being sat), a small percentage have posted here, and I fail to see where any of them broke a rule. The rules actually allow attacking 24 hours after a sit has ended. Prior to this the account sitter used the owners resources only to benefit the owner as he saw fit.

[somewhat off-topic rant]Personally, I think account sitting rules are crap to begin with. I've played this game for over a year, went on vacations, and probably have had my account sat for less than 3 days - TOTAL. Name me any other game where you can just walk away for months at a time and come back and pick up where you left off, or even be in a better situation than when you left. I can see vacations for even up to 2-4 weeks. But beyond that, you've quit, and that's the way it should be handled. You want to come back - then start over[/somewhat off-topic rant]

 

[DeletedUser]

I see so many people saying things like "get a girlfriend and spend some time with her instead of playing TW"

like... how much freaking time do you people spend with your girlfriends?

 

[kommissarwulf]

Define a lot - we have 70+ players in our tribe (which with our consolidation, almost all are active and not being sat), a small percentage have posted here, and I fail to see where any of them broke a rule. The rules actually allow attacking 24 hours after a sit has ended. Prior to this the account sitter used the owners resources only to benefit the owner as he saw fit.

I fail to see how sending all the troops from several towns to a distant town that wasn't under attack, dropping the account, and then days later having your tribe speed noble the towns is entirely within the rules, as it in no way advantages the sat account. If you want to take the towns you have to clear them yourself, not empty and drop the account.

 

[DeletedUser137]

I'm not painting a broad brush over aten either - but idefix seems to desire this.

You choose three months, fine - we prefer not to wait that long. There is no right and wrong to what is a 'fair' length of time, it's whatever the tribe decides. Regardless, if there's no contact, and clearly there were attempts to contact deacon to no avail, then whatever length we decided to hold his account was to our discretion, not anyone elses.

Define a lot - we have 70+ players in our tribe (which with our consolidation, almost all are active and not being sat), a small percentage have posted here, and I fail to see where any of them broke a rule. The rules actually allow attacking 24 hours after a sit has ended.

You are not allowed to use information about any accounts you are sitting for attacks from your own account, or provide this to other players, even after the sitting has ended.

You knew the account was cleared, you were told by the sitter. You used the info to save 100's of attack armies.
You cheated.

mmk?

Prior to this the account sitter used the owners resources only to benefit the owner as he saw fit.

[somewhat off-topic rant]Personally, I think account sitting rules are crap to begin with. I've played this game for over a year, went on vacations, and probably have had my account sat for less than 3 days - TOTAL. Name me any other game where you can just walk away for months at a time and come back and pick up where you left off, or even be in a better situation than when you left. I can see vacations for even up to 2-4 weeks. But beyond that, you've quit, and that's the way it should be handled. You want to come back - then start over[/somewhat off-topic rant]

I was rank 16 on world 1 and I forgot to set a sitter, week later and RoBAC took out my tribe because they realized I was gone.

 

[walleye]

I see so many people saying things like "get a girlfriend and spend some time with her instead of playing TW"

like... how much freaking time do you people spend with your girlfriends?

the emphasis is on the choice between girlfriend or TW.

"no sorry sweetie id love to have coffee with you, but gotta send an attack in 44 minutes. love ya"

 

[DeletedUser137]

the emphasis is on the choice between girlfriend or TW.

"no sorry sweetie id love to have coffee with you, but gotta send an attack in 44 minutes. love ya"

With me its more like "sorry sweetie, I'll just go set a sitter so I can spend all night long with you" *goes and comes back 1 min later*

 

[DeletedUser]

the emphasis is on the choice between girlfriend or TW.

"no sorry sweetie id love to have coffee with you, but gotta send an attack in 44 minutes. love ya"

well, there was that one time when I used mel's laptop to check tw while she was asleep but shhhh

seriously they've never clashed for me

 

[DeletedUser]

You're under a false premise. The distant village was under attack. The guy that took it even posted about it in this thread. So now we're down to debating whether stupid is agaist the rules/is a person a cheater or just stupid? Ie Big should have known the troops wouldn't make it to the village in time, therefor he was cheating. Versus if he hadn't... Big was breaking the rules because he didn't even try to defend the village under attack.

 

[DeletedUser3883]

what they need to do it get rid of account sittign all together will stop all this if somoene really needs to leave for a bit they should be able to submit a ticket ask them to bann them for the time frame they want and if they don't come back in that time the cs unlocks it to be nobled down

 

[walleye]

well, there was that one time when I used mel's laptop to check tw while she was asleep but shhhh

seriously they've never clashed for me

im sure it happens though
only time ive given priority to tw over a friend is with a girl that i hate, or near enough to hate.
i was like "should really send that attack...dont want to see the girl....:icon_cool:"