[DISCUSSION] New rules

[DeletedUser]

but you could mess with peoples PAs

Cheating and hacking are mildly different. Messing with PA would involve a bit of hacking or getting their password.

Anyway this is off-topic. :icon_confused:

 

[DeletedUser8115]

Its not a crime to break TW rules... its just that. Breaking rules. Its not a criminal offence unless it involves hacking into INNOGAMES financial stuff... but for game-related issues, I doubt its a crime to "cheat" at the game. Just against the rules and therefore shouldn't be done.

I thought the rules drawn up were based on the UK version of the game, ergo "hacking" is considered and Illegal activity in this country. This is what i thought War Champion" was getting at?

 

[Nauzhror]

Illegal means against the laws of the country. I suggest this is reworded to be something like: "It is against the rules of the game to gain access...."

Illegal, or unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited or not authorized by law or, more generally, by rules specific to a particular situation (such as a game).

What is a greasemonkey?

A firefox add-on that can be used to automate actions.

 

[DeletedUser]

Account sitters that intentionally destroy or seriously damage an account they are sitting will be punished. This includes suiciding troops (No Attacks), downgrading buildings, or supplying information about the account to a third party.

Clarification on suiciding troops needs to reflex the action of no attacks

The rest look like the standard stuff, specific enough to keep control and vague enough to make sure that you can slap anyone if you need to.

 

[DeletedUser]

(2) Addendum for accounts, which owners quit or left the game:​

• Players who quit the game and leave their account to the tribe for internal nobling, must send in a support ticket notifying the Ingame Staff. No extension to 30 day account sits will be allowed. The sitter is then free to use the account as he sees fit providing all actions are within the rules

​

[/INDENT]

So players who set a sitter and do not return unexpectedly are not allowed to be internalled?
If you begin nobling within 30days, you are damaging the account, and are punishable, by not acting in the accounts best interest. So no one is allowed to have the sit to gift an account of a non-returner?
I really disagree with the wording of that rule. The rules have changed during this rewording.

Perhaps at the 30 days, lock the account as per normal so as not to allow external interaction, then end the sit at 40 days, thus giving a tribe 10 days to act upon a non-returning player's account. 10 days is a short amount of time, especially on larger accounts.

I'll end my thoughts here before i go of on sarcastic and abusive angles.

 

[DeletedUser]

Why are rules not open for debate anyway? A lot of us are paying good money so why should we not have some input into how the game is managed?

 

[DeletedUser]

http://uk5.tribalwars.co.uk/page.php?page=inbound&screen=info_player&id=-1 on 14.09. at 19:05
Dear player!

Please, have a look at the discussion about the wording of the rules, which will come into effect soon. -> Discussion thread.

It's your chance now to help us rephrasing unclear parts and ask for things, which aren't easy to understand. Join the public forums and participate the discussion. If you're new to the public forums, use -> this link to register your account.

Kind regards,
Andreas
("Thargoran")
Administrator

Phail :lol:

OT

§3 Account sitting

(1) general​

• Sitting an account for the sole purpose of supplying resources to others is forbidden.
  

.... Of using it as a 'push account'....

That's all I can think of really.

 

[DeletedUser]

Push account rules were done away with ages ago. It got culled down to resource sending only.
There is no longer a rule against using a gifting account to take villages. As its in the best interest of the account to take villages. Even though, it is been internaled.
Against the spirit of the game, but not against the rules.
UNTIL these changes came into effect. Now a sat gifting account cant take villages, as you cannot attack, unless its a counter attack. Attack includes barbs.
BUT a player who is self gifting can do as s/he sees fit, without consquence (unless its sending res only)

 

[DeletedUser]

and what about accounts, where a player sets a sitter, and doesnt return? How long do we have to wait before we can reasonably start internalling it?

 

[DeletedUser]

some official replies would be nice...

 

[DeletedUser]

Phail :lol:

OT




.... Of using it as a 'push account'....

That's all I can think of really.

Absolutely agree. Internals should be used for internalling, not helping another account.

 

[DeletedUser1410]

this 24 hour rule is crazy anyway, If I wanted to send an attack at some one and a member of the tribe wanted to do the same we can
so whats the difference if I'm sitting that account? None

 

[DeletedUser512]

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. A coordinated attack means two or more players sending attacks or support to the same player.

Surely if I send an attack as a sitter to a player which take 80 hours to get there, then I cant the same player for another 128 hours which takes out the point of setting a sitter to send an attack for a tribal op because then the sitter cant send attacks. It should be no attacking or connection for 24 hours after not 48 hours after the last attack was sent.


Another question, if the original player has sent an attack at player A, then I get the sitting do I still have to wait 24 hours to attack player A? seeing as the sitting was sent after the attack was sent.

• Account sitters that intentionally destroy or seriously damage an account they are sitting will be punished. This includes suiciding troops, downgrading buildings, or supplying information about the account to a third party.
• Any sit account being internally nobled can have its troops moved to allow nobling but no attacks (no "suiciding") against any other players are allowed

As stated in a post before, surely if a player quits and gives the account to the tribe sitter, then surely the sitter should be able to suicide the troops at other players to help the tribe. Also the support from the quitting player should be able to support other tribe members. otherwise, what is the point in sitting the account may aswell just set it as delete as you cant do anything for it anyway.

 

[DeletedUser]

On internal nobles there is no need to suicide the troops just send them elsewhere it has the same effect

 

[DeletedUser]

this 24 hour rule is crazy anyway, If I wanted to send an attack at some one and a member of the tribe wanted to do the same we can
so whats the difference if I'm sitting that account? None

I wouldnt say there are none, and you could also argue what difference does it make if the sit is given to someone who wouldnt be in a position to attack in the first place, ie someone on the other side of a k, i dont really see an issue with it.

You can co ordinate better and more effectively if your playing both accounts.

You could clear villas with the sit and then noble them yourself.

You might defend your account with the sits troops over the sat account.

If 1 player is good and 1 mediocre there enemy might stand more of a chance than if the good player takes over both accounts to perform a co ordinated op.

At the end of the day I think these rules will have only a small impact/occurance in the game, infact I don't think things like 24hrs wait is any different to whats ingame already, whereas if there not there I think the impact would be greater/more frequent.

Its only right that the rules are predominantly geared towards those actively playing the game rather than those who are quitting or barely active, and being able to hit an account with troops you might not have had / been less likely to want to kill shouldn't really be allowed, as its impacting someone elses game and putting them at an unfair disadvantage.

Personally I don't see how this impacts people so much, accounts shouldnt generally be sat for so long that things become an issue, in my mind sitting is for when i am on holiday, in which case all i want is someone to make sure i dont lose villas. And if a player quits they can still suicide their own troops so long as they do it themselves, unless i have mis read, or the sitter can continue building the villas and just move troops out when villas need nobling.

 

[DeletedUser1410]

I do see the point to it, but what can an attack from 2 accounts do with 2 different player on them and 1 player
If both send there attacks to land at the same time is that not unfair too?
just because one player is doing both account doesn't make a difference in my eye's really
one members attacking or 2 or more
soon this game will be like only one member of a tribe can attack another? Because TW think they are doing whats right for all player of all skill levels they have to make it harder for the good or elite player ( me being ok) and easy for the new players.
But in light of the rules not being clear something has to be done and soon!
There are still loop holes, that have happened even when they should have been stopped. But Hay Ho!
As for one player taking anothers as a sit to help IE snipe a train it happens we all know it does, but there isn't a rule about that Yet!
Anyway rant over

 

[DeletedUser512]

Its only right that the rules are predominantly geared towards those actively playing the game rather than those who are quitting or barely active, and being able to hit an account with troops you might not have had / been less likely to want to kill shouldn't really be allowed, as its impacting someone elses game and putting them at an unfair disadvantage.

Whats the difference from a the actual player sending attacks or the sitter left in charge of the account sending the attacks.

If a player quits, they obvioulsy dont want to play anymore so they cant be bothered to send out all their nukes to attack or defences to defend so they the sitter to do but atm the sitter cant do it.

Its not really giving the victim an unfair advantage just mean they dodge all the nukes lol most sitters of quitters dont send nobles out as that is pointless.

 

[DeletedUser]

I do see the point to it, but what can an attack from 2 accounts do with 2 different player on them and 1 player
If both send there attacks to land at the same time is that not unfair too?
just because one player is doing both account doesn't make a difference in my eye's really
one members attacking or 2 or more
soon this game will be like only one member of a tribe can attack another? Because TW think they are doing whats right for all player of all skill levels they have to make it harder for the good or elite player ( me being ok) and easy for the new players.
But in light of the rules not being clear something has to be done and soon!
There are still loop holes, that have happened even when they should have been stopped. But Hay Ho!
As for one player taking anothers as a sit to help IE snipe a train it happens we all know it does, but there isn't a rule about that Yet!
Anyway rant over

Timing is a skill on TW that many players don't have. Timing with two people is harder than timing with one person. Therefore there is an advantage if you you were hypothetically able to attack with your own account and a sit. When I was a noob on w14.net, I attacked with a sit and my own account at the same time (illegal I know, but I didn't know at the time), and the level of devastation I created (despite being a mediocre player) was significant. If the original owner was playing the account, I wouldn't have done any damage.

For example now on UK4, if I sat a few accounts on my frontline, I could probably rim my enemies' largest player in one shot given enough accounts to plan the attacks. I'm certain I would succeed or at least reduce him to the point of uselessness. These rules prevent a high calibre player multiplying his superior talent and getting more free firepower due to sits.

Whats the difference from a the actual player sending attacks or the sitter left in charge of the account sending the attacks.

If a player quits, they obvioulsy dont want to play anymore so they cant be bothered to send out all their nukes to attack or defences to defend so they the sitter to do but atm the sitter cant do it.

Its not really giving the victim an unfair advantage just mean they dodge all the nukes lol most sitters of quitters dont send nobles out as that is pointless.

The quitting player should make an effort to send his/her nukes out. "Can't be bothered" is not an excuse to penalise active players because of a quitter.

 

[DeletedUser512]

The quitting player should make an effort to send his/her nukes out. "Can't be bothered" is not an excuse to penalise active players because of a quitter.

Why should the quitting player make the effort? if you quit something you dont suddenly go, oh wait I have to do this for the game which I have just quit.

 

[DeletedUser]

Why should the quitting player make the effort? if you quit something you dont suddenly go, oh wait I have to do this for the game which I have just quit.

Out of respect for your tribemates who should be your friends on this game too. Ofc, some players don't have ethics.