Co-OP rule change

[DeletedUser734]

If pushing a single account is considered cheating/coplay abuse, then using accounts to push for an entire tribe should be considered cheating.

As the rules stand now, an inactive coplay account can be used to eat up barbs and grow them up to give to more active players. This is clearly NOT in the intent of coplay, and yet it slips by because it pushes multiple accounts instead of just one.

 

[DeletedUser255]

If pushing a single account is considered cheating/coplay abuse, then using accounts to push for an entire tribe should be considered cheating.

As the rules stand now, an inactive coplay account can be used to eat up barbs and grow them up to give to more active players. This is clearly NOT in the intent of coplay, and yet it slips by because it pushes multiple accounts instead of just one.

An account must be played for its own benefit, growing villages to pass them on is not for the benefit of the account.

 

[DeletedUser]

An account must be played for its own benefit, growing villages to pass them on is not for the benefit of the account.

The rules don't clarify that well.

 

[DeletedUser734]

It's a loophole, and one that needs to be closed.

 

[DeletedUser255]

I am not sure I understand, if an account is being played for the benefit of other accounts, then it is pushing. If it is being played and progressing itself whilst benefit the tribe then it would indeed fall outside of the pushing rule as the account is being progressed.
If you are able to track its history and show that what is doing is not progressing the account then pushing might be proven.

The question would be if the account is progressing or not.

 

[DeletedUser734]

If an account is being used to eat up barbs and then have other players noble them as they increase in points, I'd consider that non-progression wouldn't you?

Yet these accounts can't be banned, since they're technically not only helping one account (my understanding at least)

 

[DeletedUser]

If an account is being used to eat up barbs and then have other players noble them as they increase in points, I'd consider that non-progression wouldn't you?

It might be more along the lines of proof needed, You need to get enough evidence that is irrefutable that it's pushing.
Just like when you report other players on the game you need to supply Mods with proof or else they can't do anything.

I've heard of smaller players taking a village so that the enemy players are at a lower morale% against them and then they hand the village off to a larger ally to help the ally with further positioning along while at the same time still growing and progressing on their own, just at a lower rate to keep the morale%.

But this could not be the case, just showing an example.

 

[DeletedUser734]

Well last time I posted the links to their TW2 stats and my post got deleted... It's pretty clear when they eat 5 barbs and 5 of their 7-8K point villas got eaten the day before and this just keeps repeating...

 

[DeletedUser]

I am not sure I understand, if an account is being played for the benefit of other accounts, then it is pushing. If it is being played and progressing itself whilst benefit the tribe then it would indeed fall outside of the pushing rule as the account is being progressed.
If you are able to track its history and show that what is doing is not progressing the account then pushing might be proven.

The question would be if the account is progressing or not.

I know of accounts that were entirely ran by co-op, progressing in their own right but still allowed despite anti multi rules

 

[DeletedUser920]

Looks like I don't need to add anything to this discussion

 

[DeletedUser1507]

You could try

 

[DeletedUser]

Looks like I don't need to add anything to this discussion

WE could use a good preach, maybe the innogods can hear us

 

[DeletedUser734]

WE could use a good preach, maybe the innogods can hear us

With some more MODs explaining maybe we could figure out if this is actually against the rules or not?

 

[DeletedUser]

Hey, we are in the same confused boat as you >.>

 

[DeletedUser]

Please remain on topic, this is a discussion about co-op abuse.

 

[DeletedUser734]

I feel like a fundamental issue is defining what IS co-op and abuse and what ISN'T.

I was convinced this was co-op abuse, but seem to have been proven incorrect. It appears Yatogami also thought it was co-op abuse, however, since it appears to not be co-op abuse, I feel like we need to adjust the rules of co-ops to define this as co-op abuse.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree completely