Co-Plays

Status
Not open for further replies.

tjpterryp

Spearman
They REALLY need to put a limit on how long a co-play remains active. There are situations where the owner of the account is known to have quit and now the co-play is just using those troops and villages as a slush fund for his own personal campaigns. In essence, he doubled the size of his forces over night. If the account owner has not signed on for say 30 days, the coplayers should be given a warning that their access will be rejected after a certain period and then all those villages come under the normal "inactive" rules and go gray when their time comes. This issue is very widespread.
 

tjpterryp

Spearman
It seems as if this practice is perfectly within the rules. It shouldn't be. I personally know of players that have been "bullied" into giving co-play rights and then became so frustrated with the situation they just up and quit. Time limits on delinquent owner accounts would be an easy solution to this problem. 30 days the owner does not sign on and keep a superior ratio of play time versus the co-players, they would get a 7 day buffer with notice to let the tribe try to absorb as many villages as possible ad then the clock starts ticking as a delinquent account. Simple.
 

Tokano

Moderator
Tribal Wars 2 Team
It seems as if this practice is perfectly within the rules. It shouldn't be.
This practice is most definitely not within the bounds of the rules. If you suspect a player or players to be breaking the rules, submit a ticket and the staff with handle it.
 

tjpterryp

Spearman
I did. In the fray of our disagreement the moderator removed MY coplay rights. Whatever.
It is still my belief that a simple time limit on how long an account can exist without the original owner being active would solve many of the issues associated with this problem. Whether he is using co-play or pushing, It is clear one of my current adversaries has been the main player of an account that is not his for over a month.
 

Coolnite7

Paladin
I did. In the fray of our disagreement the moderator removed MY coplay rights. Whatever.
It is still my belief that a simple time limit on how long an account can exist without the original owner being active would solve many of the issues associated with this problem. Whether he is using co-play or pushing, It is clear one of my current adversaries has been the main player of an account that is not his for over a month.
If you have questions regarding any issues like this please contact support. If you wish to discuss coop feature then please do so however lets not refer to ticket related issues as that can be handled via support.
 

CoBr2

Mounted Archer
I did. In the fray of our disagreement the moderator removed MY coplay rights. Whatever.
It is still my belief that a simple time limit on how long an account can exist without the original owner being active would solve many of the issues associated with this problem. Whether he is using co-play or pushing, It is clear one of my current adversaries has been the main player of an account that is not his for over a month.
Well that explains why you've stayed in POI for so long.... Wondered why someone would stay in a defunct tribe all on their own....
 

tjpterryp

Spearman
Well that explains why you've stayed in POI for so long.... Wondered why someone would stay in a defunct tribe all on their own....
I stayed in POI for as long as I did because there were still a hand full of somewhat active players and I was the default administrator. Maybe there are some that just aren't designed to quit no matter the circumstances.
I had coplay on an account of 6 villages when the owners interest waned. I built it up to 25. NEVER used it's troops to support my own villages or attack in any of my campaigns and never personally took any. Your explanation is concocted based on what you would do.
 

CoBr2

Mounted Archer
False, our tribe eats up inactive coplays, we don't build them up so we have an extra account... which is coplay abuse.

My explanation was concocted to try and explain why you wouldn't want to have all the lvl 43 buffs HUG has. Could have taken over all your barely active friends.
 

Tokano

Moderator
Tribal Wars 2 Team
See, in S.S we instantly drop co-op to players we know quit and then eat them because rules 1 and 7 essentially say that if we do anything on that account after they quit, we're multi-accounting or pushing. Being the dominant force on 16, we know players will try and weaponize the staff and get us banned, so we have to play it as safe as possible.
 

CoBr2

Mounted Archer
See, in S.S we instantly drop co-op to players we know quit and then eat them because rules 1 and 7 essentially say that if we do anything on that account after they quit, we're multi-accounting or pushing. Being the dominant force on 16, we know players will try and weaponize the staff and get us banned, so we have to play it as safe as possible.
But in the original Coplay rules, it was specifically in there that your tribe could eat their villas when they go inactive in order to keep the villas in the tribe. Players would/do frequently give up their account to other players for this exact intent. You know you need to leave, so you give someone co-op to arrange your villas to be internalized.
 

Tokano

Moderator
Tribal Wars 2 Team
The Co-Op feature, from what I understand, is to be used to maintain the account only. Sure, when the player is active you can make decisions on their behalf that they would have made if they were online, but the moment you know that player has quit you're now breaking the push rule and the multi-account rule.

That's just my understanding/interpretation, however. I never quite grasped the rules for co-op, so I could be wrong.
 

Revedge

Swordsman
The safest way I have found to help players find the line in this COOP issue, is this, you are there to keep their account active and safe for the short term,it is a selfless act on your part, you can use the COOP to protect their villages, farm for their resources, help build up their villages, but you cannot use it to help yourself you cannot benafit from the coop in any way, if you use their troops to protect your villages, use their resources, pre-noble villages for you, eat up there villages if they quit, these would be against the rules. the key to this whole issue is the selfless act of helping a tribe mate without expectation of recompense.
 

Revedge

Swordsman
There are those people that live by the letter of the law, they look for loop holes that way they get what they want and yet don't break the rule. You know, they drive 5 miles over the posted speed limit.

Then there are those that understand the spirit of the law, they understand the need for the laws, they may not like them but they understand the need, they drive as fast as everyone else that way their not singled out and given a ticket.
 

Kinben

Axeman
The safest way I have found to help players find the line in this COOP issue, is this, you are there to keep their account active and safe for the short term,it is a selfless act on your part, you can use the COOP to protect their villages, farm for their resources, help build up their villages, but you cannot use it to help yourself you cannot benafit from the coop in any way, if you use their troops to protect your villages, use their resources, pre-noble villages for you,"""""""""""""" eat up there villages if they quit"""""""""""""""", these would be against the rules. the key to this whole issue is the selfless act of helping a tribe mate without expectation of recompense.
This section doesn't seem right? I thought for sure because I've seen this happen to 99% of all inactive players that the fellow tribe members eat up their villages?
 

DeChantal

Swordsman
Fellow tribe mates CAN eat up an inactives villages by conquering them just like anyone else -tribe mates or not. It is obviously in the best interest of the tribe to secure the villages for their own tribe - however, as Rev said, not by co-ops using the inactives troops to support their own villages, using their resources to supply the co-ops villages, using their nobles to secure other villages etc...

Running an inactive account as though it were your own is where it gets a bit sticky and can cause "opportunities".

Hope that helps.

DeChantal uses the word "opportunities" because she dislikes the word "problems".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.