Tribal Wars newsletter - illegal command protection

Status
Not open for further replies.

tok dadad

Guest
Honestly, the easiest way for family members who want to play together on the same world is to play one account together. Having a shared connection is limiting and in my opinion more hassle than it's worth. By playing a single account together, you get the same enjoyment (personal opinion). If you really feel a need to play your own accounts individually, you could play separate worlds.
Hi Laura

The problem with those two suggestions are that we tend to have limited playing time and all want to play something on line at the same time, i.e. an hour after school/work before supper, so trying to play the same account wouldn't make sense, and if we all played on different worlds we may as well all go and play different games altogether.

I appreciate TW has a lot of loyal players and a lot of development time and thought behind it so the position on this is unlikely to change, I guess me and the boys will just have to see if we get any fun out of it and if not move on to something else.

Thanks

Da Dad
 

Dazrield

Guest
You could always play in different areas of the world. If none of you are that time committed you probably won't be around late into the world anyways.
 

Virini

Guest
No, this is defined as retaliation and is not legal. Here is the rule:

Retaliation from the same connection is illegal. This is when you attack a player who is already attacking someone on your connection, whether shared or sitting. These are just a few common examples of what is and isn't legal. Please submit a support ticket if you have any further questions.
If a player attacks you, it is against the rules for another player on the same connection to retaliate on your behalf. Both accounts are breaking the rules.
If accounts are sharing a connection (also via the sitting feature) and both are under attack by the same player, only one of the accounts may retaliate.
If you are sitting accounts under attack, only the account under attack may retaliate. If you want to attack the player who is attacking an account you are sitting, you must wait until 24 hours after the sitting has ended.
Sorry, back on this question. A is sitting B. A has been attacking X for a week or two, but X has not been attacking back at all. X then sends a few attacks at B. Will A now be blocked from continuing to attack X? And if so, will there be any number of attacks requirement for this to trigger, or will a single attack at B from X be sufficient to block A? Because to do so would seem to create a simple exploit to avoid further attacks...
 

LauraDestroya

Contributing Poster
The new feature does not block retaliation, it only blocks both people being able to send attacks within 24 hours of each other.

To answer your other question, it would not be retaliation if player A was already attacking player X.
 
Last edited:

jutetsu

Guest
i fail to see why I cant have a tribe mate who asks me to acct sit attack the same player as I am, as long as that tribe is listed as war. It stands to reason that anyone at war with our tribe should be hit more than once, and by all members of the same tribe. Also fail to see why account sit and my main acct cant both support the same player in defense. I could possibly see it as a hook to get paid accts, but, its across the board.
 

jutetsu

Guest
also fail to see why my troops cant support or counter strike on behalf of a mate I am sitting for if they are hit. limits the 'tribal' aspect of tribal wars if you ask me.
 

servy

Guest
When you are account sitting you are running multiple accounts. In effect it is a legal way to temporarily multi. These restrictions exist to prevent the account sitting feature from being abused. If these types of restrictions weren't there people would constantly be using sat accounts to benefit themselves, or even to have accounts be created for the sole purpose of setting someone else as the sitter so the sitter can have a "legal" multi. While rules such as permasitting, etc. make these acts illegal, they are very difficult to enforce on a large scale whereas restrictions such as these are far easier to enforce, are not grey or debatable when they happen, and still produce similar results.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.