Tribal Wars newsletter - illegal command protection

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vampire.Prince

Guest
Does this mean, my brother and I CAN trade resources now?
Sorry I don't get what is meant by the mail :icon_confused:
 

Krazzi Kid

Guest
i have to disagree with this rule. My brother and I started playing this game again just recently so we could help eachother out with resources and be part of a tribe together. We go on eachothers so we can grow strong quick. By doing this it basicaly takes away a helpful ally. Players see this being unfair but if you think about it, its like an ally thats always there for you. Bad rule and i dont agree with this at all. Something must be done or i think people will stop playing
 

LauraDestroya

Contributing Poster
i have to disagree with this rule. My brother and I started playing this game again just recently so we could help eachother out with resources and be part of a tribe together. We go on eachothers so we can grow strong quick. By doing this it basicaly takes away a helpful ally. Players see this being unfair but if you think about it, its like an ally thats always there for you. Bad rule and i dont agree with this at all. Something must be done or i think people will stop playing
Do you realize that's essentially multi-accounting.

The difference between two accounts on the same connection and two good allies are huge. Accounts on the same connection have the advantage of directly being able to interact with the other account holder so of course it would be much easier to coordinate. Working with people in your tribe who do not live with you is part of the challenge of this game, because a lot of it has to do with communicating and working as a unit.
 

naomin

Still Going Strong
What if I pass my sit to a tribemate, who has sat another tribemate, who was also in my 15x15? Then he can not farm for any one of the two accounts, because red msg will be flying. And we can not farm once we take back our sits. That does not work. Especially since we were a group of close friends who started near each other, and use scripts to farm. Now we have to devide farms? Or do not sit each other at all? How is attacking the same barb from two diff sat account giving us any advantage whatsoever? And why would that not be allowed? It makes no sense.
 

Lisa

Contributing Poster
The more I read , I cannot believe how many people obviously don't even bother to read the rules .
Having this enforced is therefore much fairer , as people have evidently been ignorantly breaking the rules all this time.

<3
 

anabolic11

Guest
A long overdue move, and one that should hopefully save a lot of well intentioned sitters from a ban.

If it's possible to achieve it, one minor modification to this rule would be helpful. Could the rule be amended such that the restriction on attacking only comes into force if the sitter has moved troops or resources in the sat account?

Quite often, especially following an upgrade, I or a tribes-mate of mine have sat another's account purely to assist a player sorting out a problem with scripts. In other circumstances, I have sat an account to advise someone about build strategies, to mark incoming or to check their work on planning a co-ordinated op.

None of these activities involve any direct effect on another player but, as the rules are written, incur the same restrictions as though the account were being fought.
 

LauraDestroya

Contributing Poster
What if I pass my sit to a tribemate, who has sat another tribemate, who was also in my 15x15? Then he can not farm for any one of the two accounts, because red msg will be flying. And we can not farm once we take back our sits. That does not work. Especially since we were a group of close friends who started near each other, and use scripts to farm. Now we have to devide farms? Or do not sit each other at all? How is attacking the same barb from two diff sat account giving us any advantage whatsoever? And why would that not be allowed? It makes no sense.
The rule does not include barbs, it's about players, so you are not prevented from attacking the same barb.
 

Cwolffgurl

Non-stop Poster
Considering my hubby and I have been playing for years together and this has always been a worry since we don't always tell each other every thing we attack, I love this new feature. Less worried now...
thanks guys
 

Praetorian97

Guest
What if two players on the same connection but in different tribes both attack the same player not for coordination? Then the player who attacks second knows what the other player is doing and this is sort of unfair.

Sorry, I don't mean to nitpick.
 

FruitFilledEvil

Guest
Considering my hubby and I have been playing for years together and this has always been a worry since we don't always tell each other every thing we attack, I love this new feature. Less worried now...
thanks guys
This is exactly what I was talking about in my prev. post. Long term connection sharers are going to think the monitored 24 hour warnings are gold and not worry about the 3 week rule. Am I missing something or does wolfgurl have it right?

Ahhhh semantics.
 

CodaAlFine

Still Going Strong
I have to say I am pleased about this addition to the game. My tribe once lost a valued member, who tried to help the tribe in any way he could, including sitting many accounts. He inadvertently traded with the same player from more than one account - he no doubt would not have if there was a red message. He did not have premium so his ban caused him to lose the account altogether. I am sure there have been zillions of other similar cases.

The rule does not include barbs, it's about players, so you are not prevented from attacking the same barb.
that's a wonderful added bonus

I think that the no co-ordination within 24 hours of sharing a connection rule isn't that great. It prevents family members from helping each other if they are being attacked and it keeps experienced tribe members from being able to help less experienced tribe members send better attacks on a common enemy.
I agree with you, the rule is kind of overkill, but it can't be halped. The rule is there to prevent people from playing more than one account and using them to have an unfair advantage over another player. Can you imagine how unfair it would be to be attacked by several players, all controlled by the one person? And unfortunately there is no way to tell that scenario apart from several players - family members, school, workplace, etc - all playing from the same connection. That is why they have to have these strict rules, and unfortunately they also affect people that are being above board and legitimate.

i have to disagree with this rule. My brother and I started playing this game again just recently so we could help eachother out with resources and be part of a tribe together. We go on eachothers so we can grow strong quick. By doing this it basicaly takes away a helpful ally. Players see this being unfair but if you think about it, its like an ally thats always there for you. Bad rule and i dont agree with this at all. Something must be done or i think people will stop playing
Do you realize that's essentially multi-accounting.

The difference between two accounts on the same connection and two good allies are huge. Accounts on the same connection have the advantage of directly being able to interact with the other account holder so of course it would be much easier to coordinate. Working with people in your tribe who do not live with you is part of the challenge of this game, because a lot of it has to do with communicating and working as a unit.
I don't agree, his scenario would be perfectly fine if the 2 had their own connections. That is the only problem with it. I don't see why having the same connection and being able to communicate directly is any different to players getting on skype etc. OK it's slightly quicker not having to type - but really, not that different at all. His scenario is just another case of people who legitmately play on one connection being disadvantaged by the rule - but, as I said above, I see no way around haing the rule. It is just a shame that people have to be disadvantaged so that we can prevent cheats...

What if two players on the same connection but in different tribes both attack the same player not for coordination? Then the player who attacks second knows what the other player is doing and this is sort of unfair.

Sorry, I don't mean to nitpick.
but that's illegal...?
 

Shadryk 01

Still Going Strong
Excellent addition.

Does this also protect against retaliation? If not, we need it in a bad way. Even if we keep exacting records on every night-sit that passes through our hands, it's still too easy to breech.
 

pkiwarrior

Guest
I don't agree, his scenario would be perfectly fine if the 2 had their own connections. That is the only problem with it. I don't see why having the same connection and being able to communicate directly is any different to players getting on skype etc. OK it's slightly quicker not having to type - but really, not that different at all. His scenario is just another case of people who legitmately play on one connection being disadvantaged by the rule - but, as I said above, I see no way around haing the rule. It is just a shame that people have to be disadvantaged so that we can prevent cheats...
The main problem with his situation wasn't the number of connections. It was the fact that they stated "We go on each others [accounts] so we can grow strong quick." Knowing the password to more than one account on a world is against the rules. Account sitting is the only legal way to play someone else's account.
 

inflrc

Still Going Strong
Thanks, TW staff, this will save many of us from unintentional bannings.

But I think that we need a clarification about "supporting".

Does it only refer to when you send support, or does it also include when one withdraws or sends back support between two players who are sharing a connection or are one sitting the other?
 

whiserd

Guest
Ok, so just to be sure I know how this whole thing works. If I am sitting Player A and their under attack By players C, D and E and player A is also attacking them. Now, while Im sitting player A I become enraged at what I see, and Wish to attack players C, D, and E from my account aswell. As long as I don't launch anything from player A can I send attacks from my account too?
 

dshultz58

Guest
So now you can identify an individuals computer. That is a total invasion of my privicy. They now have ways to tell if you have run more then one account one a single PC even from different location. Wow Maybe it is Windows 7. Such measures is outragous. You totally have lost me as a paying loyal player... Too bad I just bought another 6 months worth of points.
 

Krazzi Kid

Guest
Do you realize that's essentially multi-accounting.

The difference between two accounts on the same connection and two good allies are huge. Accounts on the same connection have the advantage of directly being able to interact with the other account holder so of course it would be much easier to coordinate. Working with people in your tribe who do not live with you is part of the challenge of this game, because a lot of it has to do with communicating and working as a unit.
But see the communication in this game isnt that good. If you ned support you need to message tribemates for suport or in the forums. Theres time were they dont notice the help till the next day andby then its too late. Having a close ally befits there. Maybe in the communications have something like facebooks has. If you add tribemates as friends you can talk to them through a small message board at the bottom right. Makes talkin on facebook easier then writing messages and writing on there walls. I think if we had that then would make the players happy and the game more fun cause it will take alot of stress and pressure off players scared of attacks
 

jayy68

Guest
can i sit a player,totally defend for him,not attack anyone whatso ever from that acoount and give sit back and feel free to attack anyone from my own accont not worrying whom he has attacked in the last 24 hrs
 

s1234567890m

Guest
So now you can identify an individuals computer. That is a total invasion of my privicy. They now have ways to tell if you have run more then one account one a single PC even from different location. Wow Maybe it is Windows 7. Such measures is outragous. You totally have lost me as a paying loyal player... Too bad I just bought another 6 months worth of points.
they haven't mentioned non-account sit or non-shared connections....
 

ultimaone

Guest
so when will you make it so ppl can't attack NAP's or allies
can't be that much harder to do.

then the naps and ally means something....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.