Not open for further replies.


Mounted Archer
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".
See that's the way I've always interpreted the rules, I just wanted to make sure that's still the correct interpretation.

That said, more than anything else regarding coplay, I wish they would go red regardless of a coplay logging in. I know of at least one case where a player didn't realize he was playing an inactive account as the co-op had told him he was barely logging on so he didn't notice the transition to total inactivity.


This is the most complete discussion I have found anywhere regarding Co-Plays. But why is it buried on "The Town Square" , "Jester's Delight"? There are multiple other more appropriate places to include a complete discussion on the rules regarding Co-Plays and I honestly have no idea how a newer player is expected to find it where it has been hidden. If this is the definitive list of rules, post the rules under the "Game Rules" link.

So, the information I have found that seems to be related to co-plays actually posted under the game rules and not buried under a series of unrelated threads is as follows:

Rules and restrictions

There are some rules and restrictions for playing coop though:
§ A maximum of 2 coop players is allowed to play together on one account (one primary user and up to two co-op players)
§ A player can have a maximum of 9 coop accounts, where the player is the coop
§ Your coop partner must be in the same tribe as you are.
§ If you leave your tribe, all coop partners are removed from your account
§ After removing a coop partner the slot is blocked for 7 days. During this period you cannot invite another player to this slot.
§ A coop partner cannot mint coins. But he can recruit nobles.
§ If the account owner gets banned, all coop partners are removed from his account
§ Account partners have no access to your crowns. But they can use whatever is in the account's inventory and spend their own crowns.
§ Coop partners will not have the ability to delete reports, delete messages, create forum posts or threads, edit tribe forums or threads or delete tribe forums or threads.

Additionally, I have found the following information officially posted in the Game Rules section regarding "Item 7. Pushing":
* It is forbidden to use one or more accounts that solely exists to advance the progress of another account.
* It is forbidden to create trades in any form (resources, attacks, favors etc.) that involve multiple worlds and/or servers.
- Transferring resources or troop support frequently to another account or other accounts to solely push their progress instead of your own is forbidden.



From this email string it is very clear that there is wide confusion to what is and what is not permissible regarding co-play accounts. Just sorting through this discussion string, two Senior Moderators have unknowingly contradicted one another regarding what is okay and what is not.

Oct 13, 2016 – Revedge (Senior Moderator) states “but you cannot use it to help yourself you cannot benefit from the coop in any way, if you…eat up their villages if they quit, [this] would be against the rules.”

Another Senior Moderator – DeChantal liked this post.

The very next day (Oct 14, 2016) – DeChantal (Senior Moderator) states “fellow tribe mates CAN eat up villages by conquering them just like anyone else” which contradicts what Revedge stated and DeChantal endorsed by liking it.

So if you believe a tribemate who you have co-opt privileges has quit, what are the appropriate next steps? Also, what if you really don’t know if they are still active or coming back which realistically is most often the case?


The Veteran
Revedge was saying "as a coop", you can't eat up their villas, and DE was just further explaining that by saying the coops can't internal, but other can, and the only way for the coop to internal is if they drop coop with that player, and then they can internal.
Am I right here DE or Revedge?
Also, I do think it is wrong for using the other accoun'ts troops to help you out as being against the rules. For me personally, I coop other players near me, who are also on the front, I check to see if they have any attacks, and I move their troops around accordingly to fight off attacks and I'll send my troops to support them with defending.
But if they were not gone, they would have sent support my way to assist me in defense like any good tribe player would do, so using their troops to help you out in my opinion shouldn't be illegal, cause in reality, the tribemate would send support if they weren't inactive. So there is no difference.


The way Kiki explained to us, As long as you're not nobling the target and your co-op is active, You CAN send their troops to attack a target. As it's not "Pushing" either account.
For internals, You can have your tribe internal your co-op, so long as you don't. You can also follow up behind them and eat the villages.


The key here is inactive co-ops. If an account owner is no longer logging into their own account and the co-op is running the account like it is a second one to their own, that is where most of this comes into play.

You can not run a second account (or more) as your own... this is hardly different from multi accounting the only difference is that instead of creating multiple accounts on one world, it is inheriting them through the co-op option.

As you quoted Vivienne, Rev is right -you can not use your co-op rights to benefit yourself. This is pushing. Keeping an account appearing active at the benefit of the co-op .... additional troops at the co-ops disposal, resources, potential villages.... As a co-op you cannot conquer your inactive co-ops villages for yourself.

When I said as a co-op you can conquer villages just like anyone else, I meant that you can drop the co-op and fight your way in by killing off the troops just like you would conquering any other village. "Like anyone else" is like anyone who would be trying to conquer a village. Removing the troops to assist you in conquering is not allowed, putting support troops in your own villages is pushing (advancing yourself by your rights as co-op). My apologies if I did not word that as clearly as I had intended.

TFox you are correct. I get that you all want to secure your tribe from enemy poaching of inactives. Drop the co-op and conquer just like you would any other village. If you drop the co-op you do not have an advantage.

In response to your other part TFox, and Coldog, if the account owner is actively involved in their own account (logging on, showing activity) then as a co-op moving troops is allowed. Again it is when that account is inactive it becomes an issue.

In answer to Viviennes last question: So if you believe a tribemate who you have co-opt privileges has quit, what are the appropriate next steps? Also, what if you really don’t know if they are still active or coming back which realistically is most often the case?

Great question. If you are not seeing any activity from your co-op.... you have not heard from them in chats, when you log in to their account the only activity you are seeing is your own.... I would suggest trying to message them and give them 24 hours to respond. If they do not respond, I would notify your leadership that you suspect a player may be inactive. Log out and do not log back into that account as leadership can tell if that account starts to go inactive by their leadership rights. Most players that are actively playing log in at least once within 3 days.

At that time if that is the case (no activity by account owner), moves can be made to secure those villages by the leadership and tribe mates. I would suggest as the co-op, you drop the co-op of an inactive account. My suggestion. Not a rule. For sure, at the time they show inactivity do not do anything that could be considered pushing.

As far as them gone and not knowing if they will be back, account owners really need to communicate that with their tribe leadership if they plan to be gone any length of time, and at the very least their co-op so the co-op can be aware of what is going on.

Co-op was meant for short term assistance to the account owner. Away at work, school, out for the weekend, even vacation....

Obviously the co-op option has its faults and while it was meant to be a good thing and in many cases it is, it also can be abused and that is where we have to watch what we are doing.

I know you can look at what I said here and rip it apart of take it as you want it. You asked for answers and I am trying to give them.


Gotta admit, this is convoluted and crazy. So in order to know precisely what you are permitted and not permitted to do with a co-opt, you basically have to reach out to Game Support and consult them to ensure what you are doing is okay?

It's a major feature in the game that is utilized widely in mature worlds. The rules should be very clear and the developers should be able to put in controls such that they reinforce the clearly stated rules. The only posted rules I've found are what's posted above. It seems folks have theories regarding the spirit of what a co-opt should and should not be, but even those are inconsistent.

Is it really that difficult to clearly define the rules, post them in the "Game Rules" section and then let us do battle? Is asking for and expecting clarity unreasonable?


I have asked for things to be made more clear Vivienne. Some things are out of our hands however I can assure you it is being discussed. You wanted answers and I have given them. I am trying to make it as clear as I can.


DeChannel...I appreciate your very detailed response and it actually is very helpful. I was posting my last response prior to seeing what you just posted.

I'll be frank with you, what you outlined is very detailed and nuanced. If those are the expectations, that's completely reasonable, but nowhere on this Forum, the official rules sites or anywhere else have I even found as complete a description as what you just provided, so thank you that.

Folks are actively being banned for not operating within these admittedly murky guidelines that are not officially outlined as eloquantly as you outlined above. There is real money involved, so that's very concerning to me. Thank you again for taking the time to weigh in on this topic.


Folks I am all for open discussion of the game and conditions of the game. We get tickets from players saying player A has attacked me from his COOP account then nobbled me after the attack, we research the ticket to find it was not the case we are not permitted to tell you if the player A did it or not, we are not even allowed to tell your player A and is does or does not have a COOP with the attacker they may be well coordinated in their attack. For those of us who played the game before COOP's we know a well coordinated attack is possible in fact necessary, that has not changed.


The coop rule as well as the pushing rule will be looked into further and once received will be posted in the appropriate place.

jim bob

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.
I have a lot of issues with how the coop system currently is being enforced. I know there will never be a rule that covers every situation and I don't need it spelled out to try to find loop holes, but as it currently stands there are a lot of people being banned under the generic "pushing" tag while not understanding why. Tokano's post above is utterly ridiculous in the fact that that situation not only can, but does exist. How is it legal to weaponize a rule? Yet it happens quite often. There are many players famous for using these tactics repeatedly with no repercussions. They get into a tight situation and the first thing they do is start pumping out support tickets about whoever is killing them. We've had people admit it to us in messages. Spamming another player with messages is illegal, but spamming the ticket system is not? Realistically, the only way your tribe is safe from an unwritten interpretation of the rule is by not allowing coops. Almost any action can be twisted to be considered pushing.

While researching what is pushing I came across a couple other posts talking about what you can and can not do.

This first post is about a coming crackdown on pushing on EN servers posted in April 2016 by Kengi9.

This next post is in reference to the first asking if that is coming to the .us servers. Coolnite7 confirms it has essentially already been in effect on .us servers. This was also in April 2016.

This post is again from Kengi9, but in October 2016 following the fallout from the bans following the crackdown on pushing. It is by far the most comprehensive list of what is and is not pushing.

This last post is very interesting because of #4 and #7. #4 spells out the banning process, which if followed actually makes it very hard for a person to get to the perma ban step. #7 specifically says that internalling an inactive is perfectly and makes it easier since you can move troops out of the way. But here we are being told that is not legal. Mods contradicting each other is killing me on this.


All I can say is WOW...thank you for posting this information Jim Bob.

Is it possible for the administrators of this game to implement a moratorium on banning folks for co-opt related abuses? The contradictions and conflicting information on this topic are everywhere.

As Jim Bob astutely noted in a different thread, in some instances there is real money involved.


The perspective behind the ruling of coop's and pushing are as follows: If you are maintaining an account for the purpose of assisting your own personal account then you are in violation of the pushing rule and essentially abusing the coop feature. Players who abuse the coop feature are violating the idea of fair play which is essentially what we want for all players. It is important to remember that the coop feature was designed to allow players to temporarily assist players who need to be away from the game for a short period of time, not for players to keep accounts of inactive players and use them to their advantage. This thread will be closed, should anyone have any other questions, you are able to get assistance through our support system.
Not open for further replies.