Seth cannot perm ban him for this. Clearly Seth was wrong. What intended game mechanics are you guys going on about? There is nothing "intended" or "represented". Its a strategy game and you have options laid out in front of you. You have to choose what you think is best. Labeling one form of strategy as abuse, and another as legal is just plain stupid.

Now as Avi said, clearly this was not a case of farming. Also Seth, you are wrong when you say we have to strategically fight toward Africa. Can you show me one document or any document for that matter, that says, "In Battledawn you cannot directly gate to the enemy's hive, but have to fight your way to them". This is a tactic available ingame, and NOTHING available as an option in the game should be a violation. Yes, in cases of farming players misuse the game, but this isnt a case of misuse.



Questionable Moral Grey areas dont become violations. There is no room for morality here. There are only such things as fair play, and game abuse. Even if there is a grey area, then the benefit of the doubt has to go to the player. We are not running some kind of a religious institution to be worried about morality for Christs sakes. Attaching Morals to a game is laughable.

There are rules in Chess to prevent a rook from taking the King in the first move isn't there?

So is there rules in BD to prevent silly exploits. Otherwise Michael wouldn't be patching it.

You are only comparing our move to a "slave colony". In reality it isnt. Its a valid tactic. And there isnt any rule which terms this invalid.

this is no different than mass inviting people is enemy hive and one of them joining. this is not breaking the rules.

@Kevin:
if you ever open a good book of military strategies, you will find landing behind enemy's lines at the 1st chapter. the only problem with it is that it is hard to do. it is pure strategy, and you can tell me that it wasn't the game creator's intention, sorry, but this is not a legit claim. if so, game creator should have blocked that option. we are not the first one who used it in BD. it was used before, no one got banned and no one blocked that option.

@Fallen Angels
you can tell yourself any tales you like. but if you move forward against me and i move backwards, i can conquer all the friendly alliances on my way back to prevent you from taking them and to leave them stuck at your back as you move forward. it's pure strategy. it's not farming, it's not low and it's not nothing. The fact that i will also get resources from it is irrelevant.
in our case, again, im sure that even seth doesnt really think that the resources were even the slightest issue in JD's conquering GC.
but anyway, while you could still argue about it, the banning of the colony in africa, is sure unacceptable and not fair by any means.

Again, im not talking about moral issues. my moral is irrelevant to this discussion and non of your business. i am only concerned about the rules, and none of them was broken in our move, yet it resulted in 3 banned colonies, and practically the end of the era for no reason.

I have read more than my share of military history, and no where in it do I see teleportation.

Game mechanics are supposed to model a set of rules that resemble to some degree an ebb and flow of conquering territory, and what you did was purposely setup a throw away colony to break that ebb and flow. Like a rook taking the king on the first move of chess, that'd make chess fairly boring wouldn't it.

Slave colonies have been well established as against the rules.

Who says Game mechanics are "supposed" to follow certain rules and resemble conquering territory? No one said that, and it is not the game creators intention. If it was infact the game creators intention, then he wouldn't have coded in concepts like gating for example. You would have to fly for everything. And consequently be forced to occupy territory before moving forward.

If Strategic moves have been established as being against the rules, the rules are wrong and abusive. Its time to change them. If you feel certain mechanics ingame are wrong, then its time to remove them, than provide the option ingame and making everyone whine about it, when used.

Gating is supposed to represent quick transportation through controlled territory. Just like Railroads added to warfare in the mid-late 1800s, and aircraft added in the mid 1900s. This has a sci-fi twist, but by no means was aimed to allow quick transport through hostile territory. That's the reason gates require control ticks to operate.

Who said? The game developers and the admins, along with simple logic to what is balanced and what the game mechanics are attempting to represent. Who said it doesn't? Just your team. I think we found the bias.

That's why it will be patched in the next update, and why you were punished for knowingly abusing not the loophole, but the slave colonies. Had you gotten someone from G1FT to leave the team and join you, that is a betrayal and entirely allowed. What you did was setup slave colonies which you know to be against the rules as several of you have been banned before for it.

I wonder how this "bug" will get patched?
If i recruit a member, who build unfortunately in the enemies hive, I can't gate units to him to defend him? Or just defend but never attack?
Being able to gate into an alliance colony can never be a loophole or a bug.

There is no room for supposition here. Gating does exactly that. Allow quick transportation. Gates may require control ticks, but in this situation it just so happened, that the gate didn't require it, simply because that is the way it has been coded into the game.

What balance are you even talking about here? There is nothing that the game mechanics are attempting to represent. The game is based on strategy. The game DOES NOT represent any sort of real life scenario, though often times people like to make that association. It DOES NOT operate on certain conservative methods that are perceived as strategy, and certain other unconventional ways that are perceived as abuse. That is entirely a fictitious definition, that is abusive, and has been practiced for quite sometime now, and its time we change it.

When a certain feature is not supposed to be in the game, simply because you feel it can be "abused", then change it. Unless changes are made, it is by no means a violation to use existing tools at hand.

It is just you that has been saying for the last two or three posts, that the game is attempting to represent something. In reality it is not. If you think it is, that is just a figment of your imagination, probably because that seems entertaining to you, but not true. It is just a game, and you have certain options available to you. You use them in the best way you can, to achieve a desired result, and that is exactly what we did. If someone was banned for it, then that was abusive and has to be handled differently.