• Hello, Guest!
    Are you passionate about Tribal Wars 2 and like to help your fellow players?
    We currently have open positions for Forum Moderators!

    >> Join the Tribal Wars 2 Team now! <<
    We would love to hear from you!

Time Limit on Co-plays

DeletedUser720

Guest
Agree with Jaded-One. The account owner still needs to log in Periodically for the account to be considered active. so if the limit is set to 2 months, then that should hold, regardless. Once the account is considered stale, it should be locked, coops kicked, and the villas should transition to barbs, etc.
 

DeletedUser1253

Guest
I've done my fair share of programming and I think the largest problem would be displaying the 25% weakness in a way that the player who has the troops in his villa can actually see.

Additionally, a 25% penalty doesn't prevent you from invading with a weak player that you know they'll have a 50% or greater morale penalty against

Edit: For the record, I'm not so much against the penalty idea as trying to poke holes to see if we can solve them. My current thoughts on 25% penalty is that the easiest way to implement it would be to cut the farm size by 25%. Instead of adding math to the battle sim and making it more confusing to defend, maybe we just cut the number of units an inactive-coplayed account can have. (just spit-balling here)

Although I do feel like at a certain point (whether it be 6 months or a year or whatever) you should lose co-play. Even extenuating circumstances have a limit.

Ok if it's too difficult to display the penalty then yes perhaps the loss of coop rather than kicked from tribe or going to barbs. I could support a the loss of coop so long as it's been a few months type of ordeal. I just saw some other numbers thrown out in this thread that was around 2 weeks and that hit my panic button.
 

DeletedUser1260

Guest
We all at times get caught up in not reading an entire post and jump at the first thing that strikes us as wrong. I really believe that all that percentage in attack strength is not what would work the best. I really believe in cutting out the rights of what you can do with a co-play account would work better.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
If you were to just limit troop mobility solely to the owners troops own villages and disable attacking it would effectively eliminate all problems with Co play
 

DeletedUser734

Guest
If you were to just limit troop mobility solely to the owners troops and disable attacking it would effectively eliminate all problems with Co play
So then you can't even noble barbs with a co-play account?

And active players co-playing to help each other can't launch attacks while one is at work for a couple hours?

I feel like this would be a punishment I'd slap on after an account has been inactive for a month.
 

DeletedUser1253

Guest
What I enjoyed most about the post was watching someone without military experience claim to be special forces :)
Lol, I have absolutely nothing to prove to you shipmate. This horrible attitude you have is why half your tribe has left you and dedicated their time to taking your villages.

I think the best part of the thread was the positive engagement by original poster and a few others. You, once again acknowledged your failure as a leader and decent human being and attempted to manipulate this thread and make harsh restrictions that you think would personally benefit your situation.
 

DeletedUser956

Guest
In most regards, I dislike co-play in general. It makes it hard to differentiate between multi-accounting... And just regular co-playing.

Most players do not respect the actual rules of co-playing and it is can cause headaches for both moderators and players alike.

Likewise, I think the co-play idea is a good one, but it is still too into its infantile stage to be rated as a completed part of the game. There is too much allowed, that in my opinion shouldn't be.

In reality, I think it should only last up to 2 weeks (normal length of a vacation) then have a cool down timer of 2-3 weeks, before co-play can be activated again. I think if a player is going to be gone from the game longer than 2 weeks, we should have a option available for that player a 'vacation mode'. But the mode is only accessible after contacting support and letting us know about the extended length of time. I also think that once 'vacation mode' is in place it freezes the account, so no one can access it, but keeps 'protection bubbles' over all villages to keep them safe for the duration indicated to support. I also think that the max vacation mode can be held open should be a month.
 

DeletedUser956

Guest
I think if a vacation mode were implemented instead of strictly co-play it would help keep the rule breaking to a minimum. Because co-play wouldn't be abused the way it has been. And accounts wouldn't be run by co-playing players if a player jumps ship from the game.

Likewise, a vacation mode would take time to be put on your account. I think if the mode was activated after 3 days of notice it would keep players from turning on the mode just for the sake of avoiding attacks on villages.

Though all support should check before hand to make sure no attacks are inbound on said villages before setting up the mode. This would keep players from abusing the mode and hiding behind it to avoid major attacks.
 

DeletedUser734

Guest
My problem with vacation mode is in late game when you're trying to take villas to trigger end game and players realize there is a gap in attacks and immediately try and trigger it to stall out the game longer.

It's just too easy to abuse in my mind
 

DeletedUser956

Guest
I can see where you are coming from, all I am trying to do is come up with an alternative for co-play. I dislike co-play for all the headache it causes.

Maybe all of us should brain storm for an alternative?
 

DeletedUser1253

Guest
I can see where you are coming from, all I am trying to do is come up with an alternative for co-play. I dislike co-play for all the headache it causes.

Maybe all of us should brain storm for an alternative?

It's going to be interesting so see what they do with it then because I think it's the best feature ever added to the game.
 

DeletedUser1260

Guest
Co-play is not the problem but the people that abuse it. I think we need co-play, because activity is so important in this game to stay ahead of the other players. I just think the co=player just has too much power over the account. Adjusting the tasks allowed would be a start and add a way for Moderators to see the difference in activity between the main player and the co-player to determine if the main player is still part of the game or absent longer then a 30 days period. I chose the 30 day period because that is the amount of time a normal account without co-play expires and turns into a barbarian village.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser142

Guest
I think co-play should be limited to a seven day period. Having it any longer than that gives the possibility of serious abuse. One player in control of two good accounts could certainly cause an in-balance in a localized area of the world.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
What if you had a cumulative system with an algorithm that monitored activity and once activity from the Co play exceeded what the original player was averaging logged into the game on a given time period, penalties/restrictions are applied? I think the general consensus is 14 to 30 days which is a great baseline. I think if a numbers guru could analyze big tribe village counts since copay has been implemented we could see statistically if coplay has the impact many of us believe it does.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I think co-play should be limited to a seven day period. Having it any longer than that gives the possibility of serious abuse. One player in control of two good accounts could certainly cause an in-balance in a localized area of the world.
I'm a Co-Player of the #1 and #9 account on W9, where I sit at #12. We are Co-playing each other to get things don during our different sleeping times and work times. This would punish us, as we would have to periodically re-send invitations. What would happen if we planned an OP bit I had to be at work? My co-play would jump in. But lest say his "Week" expired, then what? I'm unable to participate in a tribe wide OP because of some stupid week limit? No.
 

DeletedUser670

Guest
One solution could be to publicly display who is coplaying an account. That way an enemy can take advantage of that situation.
Another solution would be to disallow nobling and adjust the morale of the player to account for the coplaying, thus eliminating the advantage.

I got it:
When mass recruiting of troops gets implemented (which I hope is a top priority), the mass recruiting of troops and coining in the academy should be disabled for the cooping player. That way a player's account can be maintained but will be very tedious to grow and expand. Also the morale should adjust to the cooped morale if the owner doesn't sign on for a week.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser734

Guest
I fail to see how that solves the problem. People aren't going to spend less time on this game. If you create mass recruiting and make it user friendly, it just means they'll have more time to play the co-played accounts.
 
Top