Worlds Without co-play

DeletedUser8020

Guest
Hi,

Just wondering if there were any worlds where co-played accounts are not allowed?
I'm finding this whole co-play thing a bit unfair, especially when the rules also state one player per account. It gives certain accounts an unfair advantage over others as the account has the ability to never sleep - Whereas a single player will have to sleep, or work, or eat... Or do stuff outside of TribalWars. But why bother worrying when your buddy halfway across the world can look after that stuff for you, right? It's outside the spirit of the game and it's completely killed it for me, so I'm looking for a world where this is banned and I can be on a more even playing field with some of the bigger players.

I will also point out the unfair advantage of merging accounts in to a co-played account as well. If you have 2 players advancing at the same rate and they decide to merge when they both hit 10 villages each - well now you've got one account that has little downtime and 20 villages. It's not a strategy, it's blatant cheating to gain an unfair advantage over people playing the game normally - Read: Properly.
 

Foxtrot

Active Member
Reaction score
69
There is no proper way mods can enforce banning co-playing I don't think. They could make accounts stick to 1 IP address but then what if the same person wants to log on phone while they're out and about? I can see the point you're trying to make but just don't think it'd be possible.

ut why bother worrying when your buddy halfway across the world can look after that stuff for you
Me and my w29 co's are all from UK, yet account is covered 24 hours a day ;)
 

Marcus the Mad

Senior Forum General
Staff member
Administrator
Reaction score
120
Unless the developers lock the game to a single mac address (to account for dynamic IP's), this is not possible.
Not because it's technically impossible, but because it is not realistically achievable, nor desirable.
 

Executioner

New Member
Reaction score
10
Personally i think NB times the worlds should sleep meaning no logging in till end of night bonus, this would make it a lot fairer on all players..
Yo would need to spend all res before NB starts.
 

DeletedUser920

Guest
Personally i think NB times the worlds should sleep meaning no logging in till end of night bonus, this would make it a lot fairer on all players..
Yo would need to spend all res before NB starts.
I think that would lead to some very odd unforeseen consequences. It might make it impossible for defensive players to save for an academy. Why should you lose the resources that youhave saved anyway ? Some players would be unable to launch at some opponents because launch or land times would be in NB, for example if a land time was set at 6pm and you have a 16 hour travel time. The only obvious way to make it work would be to have both production and troop movement stop at given times, so troops effectively stop for the night on the way (maybe there should be new 'stopping villages' - that would be a complication). That would allow troops to travel freely without having attacks land between midnight and 8am, so if you send troops on a five hour journey at 11pm, they would travel 1 hr, rest 8 hrs, then continue for 4 hrs to arrive at 12 noon, returning at 5pm. Those of us who finish work late would still be able to put buildings in the queue or train troops, but production would be halted until 8am (some concession for the auto-complete might be needed if you need to rebuild a wall though, maybe not)
 

DeletedUser4753

Guest
nb should deffo be protected sometimes, like if u wanna be nerd n log on all day, or get co's to be on, thats fine, still a level playing feild, but as soon as a account becomes 24hr the only way to compete would be to be to have all accounts co-played.
At least if you could log in during nb but not take any actions or smth then a single player could compete.
 

DeletedUser13859

Guest
Don’t you think that would be unfair on UK players that work dodgy shifts. There’s plenty of players here that are only around at night and it would be pretty harsh evicting them to play with the yanks.
 

DeletedUser14806

Guest
There are plenty of world options to please players in the UK. With regards to non-co=play world, TW could instigate a world with a sleep mode option akin to what they use in Speed Rounds. For those unaware, Sleep Mode puts your account on hold - it cannot be attacked nor does any growth, recruitment or buildings happen. And every player has to engage in Sleep Mode within a 24 hr period. Co-playing would still happen but it would be less advantageous. I would expect the game speed of such a world to be 3 or 4 to compensate for the lack of build time.
Another option would be something like the attack break we get at Christmas. Between set hours, attacks cannot be sent, even to barbs. This would have to be discussed so as to accommodate players in a tribe who's distance by ram from a target is greater than the time allowed to attack. It may encourage more diverse village nobling or tribe commitment to bring such players to the 'frontline' but IMO, if you clustered on the rim, your a defensive player :)
Some thoughts for discussion, anyhow.
SR
 

DeletedUser13448

Guest
Only if the sleep mode takes place at the same hours for all players
 

Marcus the Mad

Senior Forum General
Staff member
Administrator
Reaction score
120
Such options are not very likely.
Sleep mode for everyone at the same hours greatly impacts those who play in varying shifts (early, late, night). Forced "peace mode" is a non-option for the glaringly obvious problem with timing, attack stops etc.
Variable sleep mode as in speed rounds is not going to stop co-playing, the thing that makes co-playing so attractive is that you can take a break from the account for a day and the other person is still taking care of it. It gives you the option to be active a lot without the need to do all of it yourself, shortening the time you need to be online is not going to change that.