Time Limit on Co-plays

[DeletedUser734]

The current rules on co-play are there to prevent a player from effectively having a second account that solely aids them (can't attack the same player, or support yourself etc.), but they do nothing to address the fact that tons of co-played players never log on anymore. Instead they prevent two active players from working together when one can't get online in time to properly time his nukes/nobles. (something I believe to be more inline with the intent of co-play)

A smart player can simply avoid the rules and keep an inactive account going for months when it should have barbed out or been eaten. All the while he has two accounts that might be attacking separate players, but accomplishing the same goals.

I feel like if a player doesn't log on to his account for a month or so that co-play should be lost. At the very least they should appear red in the members list on tribe and barb out at the correct time regardless of co-play. (A warning to the co-playing player that this is going to occur soon would be nice, but the intent would be the same)

 

[DeletedUser1260]

I have to agree with you CoBr2 on part of that. The problem comes in when a player has a legitimate reason for not being in the game for longer than the 7 days it takes to go red in the tribe members list. Illness, possible deployment etc.
These players want to know that when they do come back to the game that their villages are still intact. So, in that vein, if the player were to inform the community manager of these instances, we can weed out the ones that just stop playing.

 

[DeletedUser734]

Honestly, I think there's a lot of room for debate on exactly how long a player should have until they lose co-play, but I just want to know that at some point they will actually lose it.

Even if you message the mods, there's a point where if you're going to be gone for so long that it's not really your account anymore. Regardless of your intent to return or reason for leaving.

 

[DeletedUser1260]

You do have a very valid point.
What does everyone else think?

 

[DeletedUser]

I think I am watching Co-Play destroy world 7. It is essentially sanctioned multi-accounting. My take personally is 14 days, at 14 days co-play should become disabled. CBS reported in 2014 the average American vacation days earned is 16 days. Chicago Business through a simple Google search claims that the average vacation length is 5.4 days. By limiting Co-Play to 14 days, you meet a mark between the average days earned by Americans and the average length of vacation. Additionally, full village builds typically take 14 to 30 days. This eliminates a large part of the abuse element as you could potentially get only 1 full nuke and a 14 day window in which to use it or donate all resources.

 

[DeletedUser491]

i would agree but...... i and my tribemates are currently co-playing top 50 accounts that had their owners get deployed and i would hate to see all their time and hard-work taken away for such a reason. yes i understand the need to end it at somepoint but sometimes this is just not an option and heck i even went on summer vacation with no internet and came back and i still had all my lands...i didn't expand very much but i managed to stay alive. you may think it is another form of multi-accounting but i believe that even if they did leave the game for a month+ an active player should in theory be able to take down a co-played account because it is hard managing a 300+ villa account let alone two/three.....

maybe after a set amount of days.... three weeks??? if the player has yet to comeback they will lose a villa a day (lowest points first,turned into barbs) so even if they are getting co-play assistance the co-player will constantly be losing villas and will have a hard time expanding but will be able to maintain the players villas which maintaining the villas is kinda the point of co-play (kinda).....and after 6-8 weeks it will turn to three villas a day after 3-4 months it will turn into 10 villas.....

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't think you can make an exception. Individuals will say they are deployed and really aren't. It is unfortunate that for those who are to have problems due to a blanket agreement however you can always join your friends in a newer world.

I promise you the military member is not thinking about TW2 when they are deploying or deployed.

 

[DeletedUser491]

idk i still like my idea...and it can be adjusted as well and it gives co-play a chance and penalizes them the longer they are gone but doesn't instantly destroy their work.

 

[DeletedUser1260]

Anyone else see pro and cons of keeping co-play indefinite?

Mario has a point the deployed members have better things to think about when they are deployed.

 

[DeletedUser]

I am new to TW2 and still dont know most things about it. This co-op thing is new to me. From what I am getting from reading this is someone has given someone else permission to log on to their account and have full access to building it and using troops as they see fit, while the real owner is away (work, vacation, etc.) And there is currently no time limit on this? What if that player does not return. That would mean the person controlling the village(s) would essentially have 2 accounts on the same IP address. Are there penalties for that, like in Forge of Empires where you can not donate to great buildings from the same IP address? (My daughter and I play and can not do that)
From what I am have seen, one player can have more than 10 villages. dual accounts mean 2-3x more than that. In agreement with Mariobrosfan84; One player should not be able to keep multiple accounts for more than 2 weeks.

 

[DeletedUser1260]

Now 9 volt has a good point, maybe the Co-play has too many permissions on a co-play account.
Maybe if the account you co-play can not be used for attacks, moving of rez, moving of defensive troops and basically can only be grown for the sake of the account they are co-playing. This would make it basically a dead member until the original player comes back online to support their tribe. This will make tribes think whether it is worth to keep the member in the tribe.

 

[DeletedUser491]

woah woah woah did you say can't be used for support?????? that is TOOOOO far...... i think the player leaving for a time would want to know that they are getting defended....

 

[DeletedUser734]

I kind of like that idea.

Maybe you get full use of an account as long as it's green (user logs on everyday), you're limited to current rules when it goes yellow, but if it goes red then you can't even use it to support other players.

This lets you plan OPs with an active player and use their nukes even while they're at work, but stops you from abusing their account if they're gone for awhile, but leaves the decision up to the tribe as to whether or not they want to keep a dead weight player who is going to be gone for a long time. Tribe can judge whether someone's reason is worth it to them.

 

[DeletedUser1191]

My feelings on Co-op are that it hurts the honest more than the cheater. Really if someone is going to put in the time by co-oping two accounts let him. It's the same as having three active players. I don't think that hurts the game as a whole and in the long run he has to maintain three accounts and that isn't efficient. Whereas, those of us that can't be on all the time are at a disadvantage due to co-op limitations on log-in etc. We had a player get banned for co-oping someone too much that works long hours and only checks in a few times a day. Really, whats the point of co-op if you aren't allowed to use it honestly to your advantage in protecting your tribe mates, etc. Really it's a BS system and they should have it unrestricted or not at all.

 

[DeletedUser]

But if you take away Co-Playing, then Omerta on W1 would only have maybe 5 players left. lol


In all seriousness though, even if there are issues with Co-Playing, it's vastly better than having players miss out on being able to play if unforeseen circumstances arise. For example, I was offline for a couple of months a while back as consistent hospital visits kept me from being online or informing others of my absence. Or if someone loses power in their area for an extended period of time, as I know some players who are overseas/on islands with limited connectivity have had happen in the past, you're essentially giving their account a death sentence rather than allow them the time to come back while someone else maintains it.
I don't know about you guys, but I have a hard time checking my nearly 500 villages myself (which I don't generally fully cycle through)
If I do co-play anyone, I am doing very little, if even working maintenance on their account. You still have to consider even if someone else is co-playing, it's not like they will actually use the account to the fullest anyway. No one aside from Omertans on W1 have time for that. It's still time out of your day you'd have to plan for, and if someone has the time and is willing to help out their mate, how is that an issue?

If you really want there to be some sort of advantage disadvantage system for co-playing, I think it would be better to give co-played accounts that are yellow a -5% defense/offense on all villages, and red a -10% defense/offense on all villages. At least then someone attacking would know that the account is inactive being co-played and therefore an easier target for their enemies. But as for the account just barbing, I honestly think that would be more counterproductive, and would cause many more players to throw in the towel far earlier than they needed to. I'm already sick of all the *ONLY BARB NOBLING* I'm seeing, if you really want more barbs to eat and sim then go do something else. TribalWARS isn't for you.

 

[DeletedUser1260]

Maintaing a village with co-play for a long period of time is one thing.
This would mean:
1. Filling Queues ie building and recruiting
2. Sending farming runs.
On the current system
There are no limits to the use of the co-played account. Some people leave the game indefinitely and this is where the debate starts. At what point is it an abuse of the system?
Some tribes are holding onto rank in this fashion, because they don't drop the co-played quitter. Isn't that then multi-accounting by abusing the co-play feature?

 

[DeletedUser]

Maintaing a village with co-play for a long period of time is one thing.
This would mean:
1. Filling Queues ie building and recruiting
2. Sending farming runs.
On the current system
There are no limits to the use of the co-played account. Some people leave the game indefinitely and this is where the debate starts. At what point is it an abuse of the system?
Some tribes are holding onto rank in this fashion, because they don't drop the co-played quitter. Isn't that then multi-accounting by abusing the co-play feature?

To say that this is multi-accounting is the same as saying Account Sitting as had happened with TW was multi-accounting. It still requires time to develop the players villages, and though I agree it is silly that tribes like Omerta of W1 were able to appear larger because of all of the co-op'd players, they also have a lower growth rate of any other main tribe because they still have the same amount of active players even with all the extra vills, and do everything on those accounts with the same amount of time, rather than having more active players.
Them having inactives and co-op's in their tribe base only hurts them. Even if they are co-op'd, because it prevents them from filling that member spot with another player(s), and the co-op'd account becomes an easier target because it's not checked as regularly, and whether or not it does anything at all depends entirely on another player.
I can understand where you guys are coming from, but really co-op'ing just delays the inevitable. If you have a tribe of 80 active players vs a tribe of 70 active and 70 inactive/co-op'd players, the tribe with 80 active players still has the advantage, because of the time they are able to set aside for building up their armies and villages.

And if you don't believe me, look at the map of W1. ETC has fewer members than any of the other large tribes, but more active/non co-op'd members, so they are growing more quickly, and can easily eat through the co-op'd/inactive players of the tribes who are 130 members +

Just because you have villages with your tribes name on it that are used OCCASIONALLY, doesn't mean you'll be any better off. Players only have so much time to play, and giving them another avenue to waste said time will only cripple what they are able to do with the primary account if they start spending too much time on the other. Co-op'ing an inactive is just as much of a detriment as it is a benefit.
Just a thought.

 

[DeletedUser734]

Okay, here's where the abuse comes in.

You've got one player with 5 co-ops. He eats most of the co-ops, and now has several hundred nobles at his disposal AND accounts that everyone has a morale penalty when they attack.

Perfect recipe to invade as many provinces as they'd like and abuse the hell out of the system.

 

[DeletedUser]

That would still require them to check all of those accounts, and again spread out their time amongst them. More villages to fill the barracks/spies/HoO/resources/queues. If they have the time to do so, I don't see the problem here. Small players have very little if any attack capability, and as far as I know, co-played accounts are still unable to accept tribe invites or leave a tribe, so even if they had these smaller accounts, they couldn't bring them with them if/when they left/joined/merged a tribe, and would in time also just become another target.

I can understand where you are coming from, but I know of 4-5 players now in W1 - Omerta who have access to 5+ accounts, at least, and the only thing it has done for them is give them another account to donate resources from.
Time is still a major factor here, and really who has the time to maintain all of that (what you are suggesting)
I don't even have time to check most of my villages, like many others, and rarely do check them all because of it. If you're suggesting someone would take the time to check not only theirs, but others, with no means to check them all at once/share reports/etc, then that person is already 10x the player any of us could be, and apparently have no life to boot.

But I still don't agree with you. Co-op'ing is a double-edged sword, you can't attribute all these hypothetical situations to it without considering the time and work it would take to get to that point.
I agree that some cessations could be made (offense/defense modifiers on inactives/coops) but the wide variety of circumstances that could keep someone from playing for any period of time is too vast to assume that just because they went co'op and don't get online often they have quit and should lose their villages or barb. They should at least be able to put up some semblance of a fight when you're taking over their villages, even if it is a co-player controlling them. Barbs are no fun. TribalWARS is the name of the game.

 

[DeletedUser1260]

Yes, Tribal Wars is the name of the game, but multi-accounting with the same I.P. is against the rules. Doesn't continuing to co-play an account, where the player has left the game for more then 6 mos. start to cross the line into that?