Account sitting rule clarification.

[DeletedUser1728]

I know specific bans are not allowed to be discussed on the forum, however events today and an afternoon of head bashing, I feel there does need to be a clarification of part of the account sitting/sharing IP rules.

So Rule 3 paragraph I states "Article 2, paragraphs II. and III., must be adhered to, as if the accounts in question were sharing a connection."

Specifically rule 2 paragraph 2 states "No transfer of resources, coordinated attacks, support or attacks on each other or to the same player are permitted whilst connection sharing is in place and for 24 hours after it is ended or 48 hours after the last attack that was sent on the same connection has arrived."

It sounds quite simple; you pick up an account sit and are physically not allowed to co-ordinate for 24 hours anyway by the game.

You can attack the same player from the 2 accounts though once you have the sit provided the last attack from the first account launched has landed at least 48 hours previously.

However, when you read that rule it does imply that this sort of coordination is applicable from when you started an account sit/shared ip but not to attacks that happened before the sharing began.

From today's events, it is apparent that this is not the case.

If launching BEFORE accepting an account sit and then launching again from a sit is a breach of the rule, then the rule should be written in a way that makes that point clear.

 

[DeletedUser]

Can we please get clarification on this.
If a player fires his troops.
Then picks up a sit, and fires there troops.
To the reading of these rules, there is no breach, as there was no co-ordination between the accounts while the sitting was active.
Is this correct?

Also, while on this topic, the game prevents you from firing from the 2nd account until 24 hrs after the last attack has landed from the first account. The rule states you must wait 48 hrs. So from 24-48 hrs, there is no warning from the game. Is this 24 black spot intentional to catch out players who don't watch a clock and write down landing times?

 

[DeletedUser1728]

It's over 48 hours now, surely someone is able to clarify this point?

 

[DeletedUser]

[th]You're totally right. Having a system, which is preventing you from violating the rules "only half of the time" is pretty much useless. Although that's not completely right, because the majority of illegal attacks happened within the first 24 hours before the system block was implemented.

This given, we decided to change the period of times for illegal coordination. It will be 24 hours instead of 48 hours. So the system will block ALL illegal commands in the future. We'll still keep those paragraphs with the new time period within the rules as an explanation for why the system is blocking illegal attempts.

We'll change the rules soon, which will be announced ingame and in this forums. [/th]

 

[DeletedUser]

Thanks for that info Thar. While you are here...
In regards to the opening post.
There is nothing in the rules written in regards to what happens before an account sit begins.

Is it leagal or illegal to fire of some attacks from your account, then pick up a sit (accepting the sit not just loggin in) and then firing from the sat account at the same target.

To the reading of the rules, no co-ordination has taken place while the account sitting was active. Can you clarify this point too please.

 

[DeletedUser1728]

Thank you for clearing up one of the more airy fairy parts of the rule.

You would make a great politician though! The initial query though...

Player A attacks player B
Player A then accepts an account sit of dead account Player C
Player A uses Player C's troops to attack player B

His own troops had not landed, but he launched BEFORE picking up the sit and sharing IP.

Is it a breach of rules?

If it is and there is no block, thats fine. Its down to us players to know the rules, but have it written in a way that it is clear.

 

[DeletedUser]

[th]Co-ordinated, therefore illegal, operations never began before a sit started.

Since we have the system now blocking the invalid commands, people will not be able to send any illegal co-ordinated attacks anymore. As said, the rules will just keep those paragraphs as an explanation, why the system is blocking something. The only possibility for us to punish for violating this rule will be for players technically bypassing it.

[see explanation below as clarification. This isn't affecting the game play yet - unless the rules are changed and newly announced.][/th]

 

[DeletedUser1728]

[th][quote deleted due to correction and clarification below] [/th]

Thank you for clearing that up

 

[DeletedUser]

[th]Sorry. I stand corrected. It's not completely right, what I wrote earlier.

As per the acutal wording of the rules, it IS a violation of the rules, if a player attacks someone and then stops attacking the target, taking a sit and (ab)uses this sitting (solely) for continuing to attack the same target within 48 hours after the last attack from his own account hit the target.

That's clearly a case of co-ordination from the same connection (Sitter and sat account share one connection) with the actual rules. Both accounts are played from one connection and co-ordinate on the same target within 48 hours. Sadly this is one of the leaks, where the system block won't work.

As written before, we'll change the rule for sitting and the time period that way, that the start (not the landing) of commands are counting. And the period will be 24 instead of 48 hours. But that's not active yet! We'll announce the change ingame and in the public forums. Until then the actual rules are still active.

The change from starting a command to landing has to be done, otherwise some world-wide tribal operations in the late game could become a farce, if a sitter would have to wait several dozen hours until the attacks from his own account landed plus 48 hours on continent-wide operations.

Facit: Unless the rules aren't changed and announced, an attack from the sat account and the sitter's account within 48 hours after an attack from either account landed counts as illegal co-ordination.[/th]

 

[DeletedUser]

So to the reading of how you state this...

I can be banned and punished for :

Sending support to a tribemate under attack. He needs to go, so I sit and watch.
My support lands while I am sitting, therefore a breach of rules, since interaction has occured between two accounts from a single connection.

As the rules are written, there is NO mention of actions that happen BEFORE account sitting, therefore they should not violate any rules.
Are we going to start banning people for supporting tribemates too?

[th]
As per the acutal wording of the rules, it IS a violation of the rules, if a player attacks someone and then stops attacking the target, taking a sit and (ab)uses this sitting (solely) for continuing to attack the same target within 48 hours after the last attack from his own account hit the target. [/th]

So if its not solely for the purpose of attacking, it is ok?

 

[DeletedUser]

So to the reading of how you state this...

I can be banned and punished for :

Sending support to a tribemate under attack. He needs to go, so I sit and watch.
My support lands while I am sitting, therefore a breach of rules, since interaction has occured between two accounts from a single connection.

As the rules are written, there is NO mention of actions that happen BEFORE account sitting, therefore they should not violate any rules.
Are we going to start banning people for supporting tribemates too?

So if its not solely for the purpose of attacking, it is ok?

[th]Failed flaming is still fail. It is written in the rules: [/th]

No [...] support or attacks on each other or to the same player are permitted whilst connection sharing is in place and for 24 hours after it is ended or 48 hours after the last attack that was sent on the same connection has arrived.

[th]As for your example: Technically? Yes. Supporting a player, then sitting him whilst your troops are on their way counts as a coordination on the same connection, a violation of the rules as they are now - yet another reason, why we want to (and have to) change them.

BUT you could be punished for example for sending almost all troops from an account, which you're sitting after you've sent some (little) own support. If the owner comes back and complains that you've abused his troops against his instruction or intentions, you may get punished for sitting abuse, because you've emptied his villages and saved yours.[/th]

 

[DeletedUser]

Failed flaming? I did no flame.

It appears that I stand corrected for misreading that rule you quoted.
I assume I read it the same way that *star* did for the fact it doesn't actually say anything in reference to what happend before a sit.

An amendment for the time been until the rule is completely reviewed may be:

...support or attacks on each other or to the same player are permitted whilst connection sharing is in place and for 24 hours after it is ended or 48 hours after the last attack that was sent on the same connection has arrived, including actions that occured before the connection sharing was in place.

It appears that a simple addition like this, may have prevented the incident and this discussion in the first place.
So after a week of posts here we finally have a clear and understandable statement in clarification.

Thanks for taking the time Thar.