Play Free War Battle Games Online, Multiplayer Games, Strategy Games, Top MMORPG

psg188 · **Posted:** Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:30 pm

It is wrong as defined by the game creator and the admins. Which is enough for me.

No one is making JD pay money. The punishment was in being unable to login, which resulted in him losing squads. Only someone blind to how punishments work would assume he should be compensated for it. That's ridiculous, which is why I'm not surprised to hear it from you.

mfreak · **Posted:** Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:40 pm

If someone defined it as wrong, then he is wrong. Whether it is the game creator or the admins. Agreeing to whatever the game creator or the admins say and being part of the "sheeple" does not justify anything. You gotta think about it before you speak, and its clear you dont do that. You simply go by whats written as a Dont. You dont question why it is a Dont, when infact it is just a "grey area" AT BEST.

Agreed JD lost his units because he wasnt able to login since he was banned, but the ban itself is wrong and abusive.

psg188 · **Posted:** Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:15 pm

The ban was because he conquered a slave colony for the crystal. That is well established to be against the rules.

Slave colonies are wrong, not "just because". They're wrong because they violate the mechanics of gameplay that BD is trying to represent. It is impossible to use game mechanics to prevent people from colluding behind the scenes to abuse things like extra income, free OPs, invulnerable spammers, etc. Since we can't use mechanics, we use admins. This is the result.

trevor1601 · **Joined:** Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:45 pm **Posts:** 939

i really dont see this as farming, placing a colony on a certain spot is not against the rules no matter where or when it is placed. it was not a multi of someone in the alliance. so i really dont see how this could be banning. maybe say somewhere in rules Seth where someone cant place and join an alliance late in game. It makes perfect sense to ban them because they are in a no place zone/sarcasm. i don't think auto admins would of banned him. since it is not against the rules to place a colony and join an alliance. if it is against the rules to gate to this member then why is he allowed a gate? it is a game mechanic to gate to members no matter where they are located. this was purely a strategic move nothing else.

littleconqueror · **Posted:** Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:51 pm

they wouldnt have i mean say it was me that made that colony and i was struggeling NO offered to let me into their alliance and asked me to help them fight against GIFT i say yes i had nothing to do with NO before this and they give me tokens to hurry and build up to help them out as much as i can honestly there is absolutely nothing wrong with that

and kane we all know you do this when you dont get your way but when you do that yourself which i'm sure you have you call it good strategy

Seth · **Posted:** Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:25 pm

The problem is that this was not some coincidental colony that just happened to already be there. All 3 colonies were recruited specifically FOR this purpose. This was not just some noob joining who was offered a seat AFTER they made their colony. They booted their members, and the new colonies were all made, and all of this at roughly the same time.
If it had been circumstantial like that, I would have been very hard pressed to notice it. The fact that I saw this and it even raised my eyebrow should indicate that this is not the case.

Again, I did not intervene here because I had the itch to ban someone, I intervened because there was something clearly wrong with what I saw, and I am charged with many a' player to be on the lookout for this very sort of thing!

This was not a case of "hey, look at that noob over there, we could really use him". No, this was "come join E4, and put your colony at *coordinates* so we can send you tokens to build up your structures quickly and become a gate for us in a matter of ticks, so we can gate to the enemy's doorstep in just a few ticks without having to fight our way strategically into that area". There is clearly a difference, and trying to make the argument that it was all circumstantial is completely wrong.

UPDATE:

I have removed the ban on GC and...that other colony :lol:

since the worst of this scenario seems to be passed and I see no reason to keep punishing them for this. Do not take this as "nothing wrong has occured", I am simply, in contrary to popular belief, not unreasonable to how much punishment should be dispensed for this.

Ilona · **Posted:** Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:18 pm

Just for the record...
All this players were an option to stay in NO. Just because they look as noobs who could get some tokens with that, doesn't mean they are noobs.
1 of the colony you mentioned here is a realy great player and i am sure all of those vets around would know him/her.
He/she was supposed to stay in NO and as i know she/he spend tokens on her/his own for that...
Also it was a strategical way. Like it or hate it.

For anything else, I don't want to post here. I have my reasons and explained to you also with PM.
You decided to keep on with that, so its okay for me....

aviturg · **Posted:** Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:06 pm

Just wanted to point out another thing about the banning of JD, and to correct you, Kevin:
the rule about farming specificly and clearly says that it is not allowed to conquer colonies for the SOLE PURPOSE of gaining resources. Here is the rule:

2.2.1. Farming: Participate in any activity within Services for the sole purpose of gaining Game Resources, without participating in actual gameplay; and/or acquiring Game Resources in order to sell them to other Users in exchange for cash, payment or other benefits; establishing Users for the sole purpose of transferring Game Resources to Your other accounts. You shall not solicit or endorse any 3rd party to participate in Services in order to convey Game Resources to You.

meaning, for example, if you move forward and i move backwards, i could conquer all the friendly colonies on the way so you can't take them and so they get stuck in your throat. it's not farming. pure strategic.

now... i believe that no one here could actually believe, that a player like JD, that boosts every cooldown period, conquerd GC to gain resources, right?... and sure not for the SOLE PURPOSE of gaining game resources. he was conquered, again, as a strategical move, to keep him as an available gate to us if we need him again. that is totally legit according to 2.2.1

what you did wrong, Seth, imo, is taking moral issues and grant them classification as rules. next thing, you would ban for breaking naps...

so you took the game 1 more step towards being a strategic game without strategic moves. just huge armies going head to head with each other. the one that falls asleep first, dies (assuming he doesnt share accounts...).

psg188 · **Posted:** Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:18 pm

Strategy is not about who can out-exploit the mechanics Avi. It's about who can maneuver the best. This was not a strategic maneuver, it was abusing slave colonies to get around having to fight through our fortified territory.

Twilightmask · **Posted:** Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:31 pm

You're describing a loop hole aviturg. That is also covered in the ToS

Besides, it's not what was intended, but what is perceived by the admin. It was a legit move up until the point JD conquered your guy, then it looked cheap and underhanded and Seth intervened with his own judgement.

If you're going to partake in questionable moral grey areas in BD strategies then you need to make sure you don't accidentally appear to break the rules. Don't even approach the possibility.

Seth didn't permaban him. I think it was a fair judgement.

Some Clown Locked The Topic