Discussion regarding rule change

[DeletedUser]

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

Just wanted some clarification on these points.

1. Is the account defined as an "internal" have to be seen to be losing villages? I.e. If I suicide the troops on a sit and then (and only then) do I allow other people to noble it, is that legal?

2. Is it legitimate to use internals to noble barbs? Technically as the "nobles" are being suicided to noble the said barb. But on the other hand, the barb isn't a player. So can I ask for just some clarification?

Cheers in advance.

 

[DeletedUser]

Can I ask what support will do when the sensible duke just kicks the player out of the tribe and carries on regardless?

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes, we need clarification.

If you have a sit, fire off some nukes, and then a week down the line realize they're not coming back, is it forbidden for your tribe to noble them? Or is there something like the 24-hour rule?

2. Is it legitimate to use internals to noble barbs? Technically as the "nobles" are being suicided to noble the said barb. But on the other hand, the barb isn't a player.

(sorry for going off-topic) Why would you want to do that?

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes, we need clarification.

If you have a sit, fire off some nukes, and then a week down the line realize they're not coming back, is it forbidden for your tribe to noble them? Or is there something like the 24-hour rule?


(sorry for going off-topic) Why would you want to do that?

Urggh... don't get me started... ruddy noobs... :icon_rolleyes:

 

[DeletedUser]

Lovely, keep making the game easier to attract simple minded players e.g kids.

Just another rule change to make Innogames revenue from the PA system even more.

 

[DeletedUser857]

[gfx]I am curious to know how you came to that conclusion, Clamju.

How will the introduction of this rule possibly make Innogames more money?[/gfx]

 

[Nauzhror]

Lovely, keep making the game easier to attract simple minded players e.g kids.

Just another rule change to make Innogames revenue from the PA system even more.

How exactly does not allowing you to suicide a sat account's troops affect Innogames's revenue?

 

[DeletedUser]

[th]Ok, here are some clarifications:

• A sitter only was allowed to suicide troops in the past as long as he has a proof (like a support ticket or mail from the sat account, whilst the owner was playing it [timestamp will prove it]). That's nothing new, that didn't change.
• Using nobles to conquer abandoned villages isn't harming the sat account. Therefore it's not violating the rules. It's just forbidden to attack active accounts - unless they attack the sat account first (see last rule change) or the original owner clearly stated (ingame provable!) that he wants his troops being used to attack a specific target.
• If a sat player suicided troops "a week ago" and didn't rebuild any within that week, it's not for the account's benefit. It'd be punishable, if the owner comes back and reports this abuse.

And Clamju, you're telling me, you'd like InnoGames to encourage players abusing accounts, whose owners quit? Handicapping active players, favouring the ones, which left the game? Weird logic, really. But you're right!
[/th]

 

[DeletedUser]

[th]Ok, here are some clarifications:

• 
  
  If a sat player suicided troops "a week ago" and didn't rebuild any within that week, it's not for the account's benefit. It'd be punishable,, if the owner comes back and reports this abuse.

[/th]

So basically this is not designed to protect active players against tribes using inactive accounts.

the rule is purely there to protect account owners.

This means if an account owner leaves, troops can be suicided, then internalled a few weeks later, as the only complainant can be the account holder

 

[DeletedUser]

[th]Ok, here are some clarifications:

• A sitter only was allowed to suicide troops in the past as long as he has a proof (like a support ticket or mail from the sat account, whilst the owner was playing it [timestamp will prove it]). That's nothing new, that didn't change.
• Using nobles to conquer abandoned villages isn't harming the sat account. Therefore it's not violating the rules. It's just forbidden to attack active accounts - unless they attack the sat account first (see last rule change) or the original owner clearly stated (ingame provable!) that he wants his troops being used to attack a specific target.
• If a sat player suicided troops "a week ago" and didn't rebuild any within that week, it's not for the account's benefit. It'd be punishable, if the owner comes back and reports this abuse.

And Clamju, you're telling me, you'd like InnoGames to encourage players abusing accounts, whose owners quit? Handicapping active players, favouring the ones, which left the game? Weird logic, really. But you're right!
[/th]

Ok, so if an account has had its offence troops used against enemies, and theres a mail from the owner saying the nukes could be used, but not specifying a target, i.e giving the sitter discretion where to use them, is that allowed? If subsequently the account owner does not return, and the tribe starts internalling the account, is that illegal? How long of an absence would be considered reasonable to assume they have abandoned the account?

Theres an awful lot of scenarios this rule change affects, and those are just a few.

 

[DeletedUser]

Urggh... the net. push account rule seems so simple now hehe :icon_rolleyes:

 

[Nauzhror]

So basically this is not designed to protect active players against tribes using inactive accounts.

the rule is purely there to protect account owners.

This means if an account owner leaves, troops can be suicided, then internalled a few weeks later, as the only complainant can be the account holder

No.

If the villages are being internally nobled it's obvious that whether or not their troops are suicided beforehand has no affect on the account owner, it indeed, as Tharg stated, has an effect on the active players.

Urggh... the net. push account rule seems so simple now hehe :icon_rolleyes:

Both servers have identical rules for push accounts. This is related to account sitting restrictions, and not the definition of a push account which is still defined as:

Operating a push account is forbidden. This is defined as regular resource transports from a weaker player to a stronger player.

 

[DeletedUser6599]

A sitter only was allowed to suicide troops in the past as long as he has a proof (like a support ticket or mail from the sat account, whilst the owner was playing it [timestamp will prove it]). That's nothing new, that didn't change.

So if a tribe has a mail from the owner of the account saying 'do as you wish with the troops and internal me', does that mean that the person who he sends that account sit to can kill the troops off and tribe internal the village?

 

[Nauzhror]

So if a tribe has a mail from the owner of the account saying 'do as you wish with the troops and internal me', does that mean that the person who he sends that account sit to can kill the troops off and tribe internal the village?

No. It means that the sitter may allow the player's villages to be internally nobled, but the rule still remains that the account's troops may not be suicided beforehand.

 

[DeletedUser]

Sorry.

I thought i'd be the one to be the hater on Inno. xD

 

[DeletedUser]

Just wanted some clarification on these points.

1. Is the account defined as an "internal" have to be seen to be losing villages? I.e. If I suicide the troops on a sit and then (and only then) do I allow other people to noble it, is that legal?

Cheers in advance.

I dont think this question has been answered clearly enough, and for once Ade has made a valid point...

I understand how a sitter can send troops at an enemy then a tribe mate nobles the sat village, then from this point on its classed as internally nobling so you prevent all attacks being sent at any other player from sat account...

But what if, (and I think this is the point Ade is trying to make), if the account holder decides to quit and says we can attack our current enemy then internally noble him...

If we send out all troops on a "suicide" mission for example from 20 vills, then once they have hit ( cos so far there has been no internal nobling), then the rest of the tribe all send nobles to all the vills and take them, how would you be able to stop that, and is it legal ??

 

[DeletedUser3642]

so surely, an account sit can still be played if people are uncertain if a player is coming back?.. ie, send the nukes and rebuild them... and then at 59 days if they've not returned, empty the villages.... that way its neither suiciding the troops, or deliberately damaging the account. from a player/tribe perspective you give them time to come back if you have no information to the contrary... and then when times up you internal...

if thats still allowed, then i don't see that much has really changed other than forcing account sits to be treated as live accounts if you do not know the whereabouts of the player... or requiring a quitting player to simply send out all their nukes before they leave...

 

[DeletedUser6726]

I shall put this how I have interpreted it (no doubt there will be some disagreement about this).

If a players account is being sat no actions may be taken to harm the account - Simple enough

An account sitter may use the accounts troops to attack/noble other villages - As above

If an account is to be internally nobled the troops cannot be fired off against another player if the villages are to be taken by tribe members(or friendly tribes) - I suggest a time frame after troops being sent out as an attack against another player.

If an account is being internally nobled sitters must be able to provide proof of the original owners consent via in game mail or notebook (should the moderators ask for it) - again a suitable time frame should be set for this not to be required (eg, an account has been sat for 90% of the maximum sit time)

QUOTE=timmyhill;257410]Can I ask what support will do when the sensible duke just kicks the player out of the tribe and carries on regardless?[/QUOTE]

In this case it as with all the rest it would be the sitter who is punished as they are carrying out the illegal action of suiciding troops, as some tribes allow members of other tribes to sit their members.


I hope i covered all the points made above.

 

[Nauzhror]

so surely, an account sit can still be played if people are uncertain if a player is coming back?.. ie, send the nukes and rebuild them... and then at 59 days if they've not returned, empty the villages.... that way its neither suiciding the troops, or deliberately damaging the account. from a player/tribe perspective you give them time to come back if you have no information to the contrary... and then when times up you internal...

if thats still allowed, then i don't see that much has really changed other than forcing account sits to be treated as live accounts if you do not know the whereabouts of the player... or requiring a quitting player to simply send out all their nukes before they leave...

Yes, using troops (and rebuilding them) in an intelligent way that would benefit the account owner should they return is fine, but once internal nobling has began the troops can be dodged but they can't be used to attack.

 

[DeletedUser]

No. It means that the sitter may allow the player's villages to be internally nobled, but the rule still remains that the account's troops may not be suicided beforehand.

Think this rule is not complete!
Please add following - noone is aloud to attack the member while being internally nobled. something like beginners protection. Think that would be fare. Otherwise it does not make any sense. Still the account needs to be played.

Yes, using troops (and rebuilding them) in an intelligent way that would benefit the account owner should they return is fine, but once internal nobling has began the troops can be dodged but they can't be used to attack.

What difference does it make really?
Isn't it enough with the rule where you can't attack the same player from two different accounts?