Zorg you stated...


Let me see:
Player A buys account from Player C whilst already having an active account.
This is multiplay, no need to read further. It is not allowed.

So I ask this...

But Player A (regardless of who it is) was paid by Player B for the account of Player C with sole intent to crash Player C.......surely this is wrong?

For example, my mate has a huge account.... I get my other "mate" to buy it and I pay him (paypal for example, no proof).....then I crash the account obtained by my "mate" whenever I choose (I don't even have to access the "new" account).....am I not feeding myself? Sorry if that seemed confusing but I just want to clarify those points so simple people like myself can understand exactly what the rules are.

Can we please have some clarification on why we have a max cap on protection for noobs? Instead of a layered protection such as someone over 5 times my points cannot attack me, or I cannot attack someone 5 times lower in points? This should work for all players - and it would generate more interest in the game for new and experienced players alike. New players would be more likely to stay around longer to learn the rules and become veterans like so little players you have now.

I would like to know if a moderator has the right to view the game logs
for example to detect multiplay or any other inconsitent behaviour of players?

Sprog wrote:Player A (regardless of who it is) was paid by Player B for the account of Player C with sole intent to crash Player C.......surely this is wrong?

For example, my mate has a huge account.... I get my other "mate" to buy it and I pay him (paypal for example, no proof).....then I crash the account obtained by my "mate" whenever I choose (I don't even have to access the "new" account).....am I not feeding myself? Sorry if that seemed confusing but I just want to clarify those points so simple people like myself can understand exactly what the rules are.

There is no difference for administration if the crashed account is a purchased one or not.
Why a "retiring" friend crash should be legitimate but a "purchased" account's not. Which is the difference?

If you ask me, it is poor play. Both of them.

Administration who has to work with rules applicable to all, will resolve any such case as you describe into 2 categories:
A)Is the sale legitimate or worth of penalties/ban?
B)Is the retirement legitimate or worth of penalties/ban?

This is what happened in the specific case that you have in mind. Administration investigated separately and found that
A)Sale is not something that we should concern ourselves with (Note, in case of a violation, 2 accounts would be banned here, the selling and the seemingly buying account).

B)Retirement crash is legitimate (This means the gifting account is banned. In different case, 2 more accounts would be banned here).

Zorg wrote:

Sprog wrote:Player A (regardless of who it is) was paid by Player B for the account of Player C with sole intent to crash Player C.......surely this is wrong?

For example, my mate has a huge account.... I get my other "mate" to buy it and I pay him (paypal for example, no proof).....then I crash the account obtained by my "mate" whenever I choose (I don't even have to access the "new" account).....am I not feeding myself? Sorry if that seemed confusing but I just want to clarify those points so simple people like myself can understand exactly what the rules are.

There is no difference for administration if the crashed account is a purchased one or not.
Why a "retiring" friend crash should be legitimate but a "purchased" account's not. Which is the difference?

If you ask me, it is poor play. Both of them.

Administration who has to work with rules applicable to all, will resolve any such case as you describe into 2 categories:
A)Is the sale legitimate or worth of penalties/ban?
B)Is the retirement legitimate or worth of penalties/ban?

This is what happened in the specific case that you have in mind. Administration investigated separately and found that
A)Sale is not something that we should concern ourselves with (Note, in case of a violation, 2 accounts would be banned here, the selling and the seemingly buying account).

B)Retirement crash is legitimate (This means the gifting account is banned. In different case, 2 more accounts would be banned here).

I would say it all depended on who paid originally for the crashed account even if it was through a "third party"......So you are stating I can actually do what I suggested above then?

Marius wrote:Can we please have some clarification on why we have a max cap on protection for noobs? Instead of a layered protection such as someone over 5 times my points cannot attack me, or I cannot attack someone 5 times lower in points? This should work for all players - and it would generate more interest in the game for new and experienced players alike. New players would be more likely to stay around longer to learn the rules and become veterans like so little players you have now.

We agree. This is a faulty design by start. We have took initiative and raised the caps for all universes but we did it modestly.

However, universe major rules changes are subject to playerbase approval. Perhaps we can create an in-game voting for this for your universe of interest. A suggestion prior to this where we can discuss it in detail and catch the pulse is required.

Valhalla_Thor wrote:I would like to know if a moderator has the right to view the game logs
for example to detect multiplay or any other inconsitent behaviour of players?

Forum mods get NO in-game buffs. Mods used to see IPs in the forums, now even this is no longer possible.
Generally speaking, forum mods have nothing to do with the game.

If they have something to do, then it is their ability to moderate wars (still, only at the forums).

Administrators that do this in-game (me included) do not actively play the game and do not speak with any player in private.

Sprog wrote:I would say it all depended on who paid originally for the crashed account even if it was through a "third party"......So you are stating I can actually do what I suggested above then?

If you want to do this (requirement A) and you can pay for this (requirement B) and you can find someone willing to sell his account (requirement C) and you can find someone to play the middle man (requirement D) then administration will have no say unless there is some fishy background in the traded account.

As you clearly see, why administration should play the police guy when at least 3 players approve of this with their own actions?

Thanks for swift replies Zorg....always helps clarifying rules etc.......

One thing I forgot to ask clarity on was this.....

Is it not true that retiring switched accounts is officially illegal.....just found your own post on this very subject..

"3.Switched accounts are not allowed to crash their fleet on retirement."

http://www.zorgempire.net/forums/viewto ... =5&t=10406

Yes. We have reversed all earnings in a similar case before while we still banned the gifting account.