• 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

DeletedUser

Guest
On w7 there is one to three players running 17 accounts. They use the small accounts as morale breakers and to set up towers/deathstars to invade. This has completely unbalanced the core and now my tribe has to decide we either sink to their level or we fall back and give up the core. A situation we have been put in by blatant abuse of a system not intended to in all shapes and forms multi account.
 

DeletedUser1260

Guest
So, Mario you would agree that there needs to be some limitations to either the co-played account or a limit on the time it can be co-played before it is shut down?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I am not sure how co play works (new to the game) but if you have do co play then since its on the same IP, I think that supporting your villages with their resources should be blocked. Same as in Forge of Empires. ( Same IP's can not donate to each others great buildings. )
Great points being made about the issue. But in my opinion I still think co ops need a time limit for the owner of their accound to at least log on to his/her account to keep it active.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I would agree that both limitations on capabilities and time allowed should be implemented.

Maybe reducing troop strength to 50% at 14 days would be an adequate compromise?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
50%..... you might as well make it barb. So anyone gone after 2 weeks, even with someone else watching the account basically goes faithless in every province? That's just dumb. 5-10% is more than adequate if you really want THAT MUCH of a benefit when attacking them, especially with officers and tribe bonus. At 50%, they'd just waste troops doing anything, and support would all be useless too, if it went to the level you're looking for. If you're really not good enough to defeat them without getting THAT MUCH of a combat benefit, you really shouldn't even play. You say compromise, but you went straight to the extreme..?

5-10% combat bonus against the account after week/month of inactivity with NO LOG-INS from the original account,
OR
Account will be removed from it's tribe after 90 days without original player logging on, because co-op'd accounts can't join tribes without the original player.

Those 2 would be the MOST limitations that should really be put on Co-op'ing. If you really need more than that, then I feel bad for you, or TW should just not have co-op'ing whatsoever, because basically killing off the account after 2 weeks is a terrible plan to keep people actually playing, Because apparently, according to your plan, they'd be better off just going inactive with no one on the account, and waiting the MONTHS to barb, but still have 100% faith and morale on Defense.
 

DeletedUser1260

Guest
I can agree 2 weeks is extreme, but we were originally talking about people that have completely quit, but the co-play partner continues to use the account. I think there should be limits on what the co-play partner can do on an account. As 9 Volt said earlier. I believe a co-player should be able to raid, send support only to the villages of the person they are playing for, put buildings and troops in the queues and that is the extent of it. So that when someone does quit while being Co-played, tribes can't hold onto these members.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I think more drastic measures are necessary to ensure an account isn't used to what amounts to multi accounting. Say for instance my friend left two months ago. I have left him with 11 villages far below the number my opponents have now I'm going to invade my opponents with that account and stack it with defense from my account. The village will now be a lightning rod. I will rinse and repeat that until I have a stake in all enemy provinces and can selectively target weak provinces.

This is what is occur on W7 right now by players who have been playing since W1. It is an abuse of the system which is sanctioned by the rules of Inno games.

It is going to extend the world by months to years unless it's put in check.
 

DeletedUser1260

Guest
Never thought about other people stacking the villages. Nice to see other views on the subject.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Ultimately it's the interaction between the account and the morale system that provides the situation for abuse limiting combat, the ability to noble, or the movement of troops can limit the potential for abuse. If you put a long time limit you will have individuals turning over username and passwords and skirting the system. You need a closer limit time frame to avoid this. If you were to limit my combat potential after 30 days I would go log in using username and password from a different IP to avoid a drastic combat bonus loss
 

DeletedUser1260

Guest
Well this suggestion got so much attention that it was decided for the devs to revisit it and it has been forwarded.
And this is how we as a community get things changed by getting many behind a suggestion. I hope that in the furture we can continue this type of organized discussion with a little less hostile wording from some. It is ok, to have a different view, just be practical in the way you present it. :)
 

DeletedUser1253

Guest
I wish I was not jumping into the conversation so late but if you don't mind passing my 2 cents on I'd appreciate it.

I am a member of a special forces team and we have a very erratic schedule. I can constantly play or not at all for various lengths of periods of time. This change would put the axe to me and several others in my shoes. I won't go further into it than that (my schedule I mean) because the main person pushing for this change in this very thread is the enemy my team has been kicking all over the map even when they were twice our size. He's realized that he has lost and is now looking for any way he can to gain the upper hand again. I assure you, coop is not damaging world 7 but instead it is keeping it alive.

With that being said. This would severely harm military members of all branches and countries as even just a check in might become an issue.

However, I do see the point of being able to use another player as an arsenal while they are on long term leave or have just plain quit the game. So with that being said I would support a combat penalty mechanic but I would never support their removal from the tribe or turning to a barb camp. I would recommend a 5% penalty for each month the original player has not logged in up to 25%. I'd even be willing to take the hit should I be on a 6-12 month tour. A 50% penalty after such a short period of time like 2 weeks as suggested above is insane. There are students who go into finals for several weeks, I know my family vacations longer than that and as I stated above military members.

Thank for your consideration. Am willing to speak to anyone skype/phone as needed.

Also-- Mario is not truthful about the 1-3 players playing 17 accounts. I know exactly who and what he is talking about. He's easily deceived and is finding any way he possibly can to inch his team back into control.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Dreg tell me this, if the individuals on world 7 lost access to their Co play would they have more or less villages than they gave now?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
We are 50M BP above our closest competition and that is not you Dreg. We have been playing since world 1 of tw2 and understand how the mechanics work. Coplay is a mechanic that needs to be addressed for the sake of game balance.
 

DeletedUser734

Guest
dreginkt said:
I wish I was not jumping into the conversation so late but if you don't mind passing my 2 cents on I'd appreciate it.

I am a member of a special forces team and we have a very erratic schedule. I can constantly play or not at all for various lengths of periods of time. This change would put the axe to me and several others in my shoes. I won't go further into it than that (my schedule I mean) because the main person pushing for this change in this very thread is the enemy my team has been kicking all over the map even when they were twice our size. He's realized that he has lost and is now looking for any way he can to gain the upper hand again. I assure you, coop is not damaging world 7 but instead it is keeping it alive.

With that being said. This would severely harm military members of all branches and countries as even just a check in might become an issue.

However, I do see the point of being able to use another player as an arsenal while they are on long term leave or have just plain quit the game. So with that being said I would support a combat penalty mechanic but I would never support their removal from the tribe or turning to a barb camp. I would recommend a 5% penalty for each month the original player has not logged in up to 25%. I'd even be willing to take the hit should I be on a 6-12 month tour. A 50% penalty after such a short period of time like 2 weeks as suggested above is insane. There are students who go into finals for several weeks, I know my family vacations longer than that and as I stated above military members.

Thank for your consideration. Am willing to speak to anyone skype/phone as needed.

Also-- Mario is not truthful about the 1-3 players playing 17 accounts. I know exactly who and what he is talking about. He's easily deceived and is finding any way he possibly can to inch his team back into control.
Click to expand...

I'm the one who started this thread and I'm military as well actually. Based on W2, W3 and W4, it seems most common for a world to have about 1 year of good gameplay, and then have it start to stall out as one tribe becomes overly dominant. Right now it feels like co-play is vastly extending the length of W3 solely by keeping dead accounts alive and eating barbs with them to keep village counts from dropping too quickly.

Now I can understand you have deployments, I specifically started playing when I knew I would have a 18 month period without a deployment, but if you're going to be gone for a full year, then you're missing half of the world's life expectancy. That account isn't yours anymore and it's ridiculous to argue otherwise.

And how would a 25% combat penalty be implemented? If your troops supported another player would that player defend at 25%? I just don't see any way of showing that your troops are less effective in a manner a player could calculate to know what he's defending with.
 

DeletedUser1253

Guest
I'm not going to talk the length of a world seeing as none of them have ended yet and the end game currently in place is silly since on several worlds the wars are over, it's just a formality to reach the 80% the game gods want to see but I think you partially pointed this out. I too play on W4 (we're over 70% there but the devs still have not begun end game, new players can join) but also W5 and W7. My responses were intended for the W7 player who is using your thread and ideas to his own gain (which it still won't save his tribe from fading into nothing). On world US5 we are at 75% and coop play on the enemy side is slowing us down yes. But you know what we're doing about it? We're killing them as normal business and we might even close before some earlier worlds. This could be avoided by the Devs changing end game from 80% to 70% and if the intention of your post was to win a world which was just revealed then perhaps you should make a thread about end game standards rather than coop because quite frankly 80% is ridiculous, once you get over 60% really the war is over and it's just going through the motions.

The account is still yours, even deployed. I still would not support auto-barbing or auto-disbanding from tribe.

I would implement the penalty for all the inactive players troops. Whether they be support or attack. Their troops would fight with that 25% penalty when defending someone else as well while the owner's troops fight at it's normal strength. If the devs can code they could easily code that but I am not a programmer and assuming you are not either.
 

DeletedUser734

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser491

Guest
no......that would probably be worse....people would rather go without co-play than have it and have reduced troop count
 

DeletedUser734

Guest
KLuv said:
no......that would probably be worse....people would rather go without co-play than have it and have reduced troop count
Click to expand...
This is only if you don't log into your account at all. If you're active and using co-play properly (for the times you just can't be online) then you would receive no penalty.
 

DeletedUser491

Guest
oh....cause that would be horrible lol
CoBr2 said:
This is only if you don't log into your account at all. If you're active and using co-play properly (for the times you just can't be online) then you would receive no penalty.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top