This is obvious account pushing and in a Rush map with a clock you down to last 2 days it is wild west you can do anything you wish and no reports will be acted upon unless you can file report along with DM one of GO's or higher to look for this specific report, which is not Bytro policy all reports are to be investigated in order they are filed...
The real answer in any "wild west" situation and 72 hours to get response is lost cause in these event maps, is use all tricks you know in final days of any Event or Rush map and let the cards fall where they may... any predefined response of are you still having this issue or thank you for your report will not change outcome...what is worst will happen, possible strip some like us of a Medal, but these random cheaters and rule breakers will not be punished , if they are we will never know...
Wild West rules, shoot first ask questions later after smoke settles 
Perhaps BYTRO should implement policy to do all Event /Rush map reports in 1 day rather than usual 72 hours?
Ouch, this is a serious problem and I doubt if there's a solution other than Bytro implementing a policy where they can punish the cheaters after the fact. i.e. Taking Olympic medals back from athletes caught using drugs to enhance their performance.
Bytro's privacy policies won't allow them to let us know about that though so they need to really re-think their position on that too.
What I fear now though guys, we've just alerted cheaters to a usable loophole for them that they might not have thought of on their own.
it is a push but you will need wait till respond what make 72 h then map is gone:(
Account pushing is indeed bannable, please report players who you suspect is account pushing
Back in my younger days when I had hair, I was in the Police.
We were (jokingly) told at the Academy that when we were to give someone a warning before firing at them, the warning was to be:
"Stop! Or I'll" *Bang!* "shoot"...
That sounds even worse then wolf packing.
Had this come up the last few days.
Coalitions: (A and B) vs (C and D)
A decides he's going to quit the map.
A Attacks D with all of his troops.
B attacks and captures all of A's empty provinces.
C and D attempt to negotiate with A for a full day.
A declares he's going to attack everyone. Only attacks C and D.
B finally reveals, two days later, that A was quitting, and they did it that way to "keep the map balanced". None of this is revealed until after A is eliminated.
This is on days 21-24 of a 15 player map. Is the kamikaze approach to "I'm quitting but giving my coalition partner all my provinces while destroying/capturing his enemies" account pushing, or is it just unfortunate that we were on the wrong side of it?
Thanks!
Display MoreHad this come up the last few days.
Coalitions: (A and B) vs (C and D)
A decides he's going to quit the map.
A Attacks D with all of his troops.
B attacks and captures all of A's empty provinces.
C and D attempt to negotiate with A for a full day.
A declares he's going to attack everyone. Only attacks C and D.
B finally reveals, two days later, that A was quitting, and they did it that way to "keep the map balanced". None of this is revealed until after A is eliminated.
This is on days 21-24 of a 15 player map. Is the kamikaze approach to "I'm quitting but giving my coalition partner all my provinces while destroying/capturing his enemies" account pushing, or is it just unfortunate that we were on the wrong side of it?
Thanks!
From my understanding of the rules, this is not pushing. For it to be considered pushing, 'A' needs to join the game with the sole intention of helping B (General Game Rules). If he decides to quit only halfway throughout the game, then it would not constitute pushing..
From my understanding of the rules, this is not pushing. For it to be considered pushing, 'A' needs to join the game with the sole intention of helping B (General Game Rules). If he decides to quit only halfway throughout the game, then it would not constitute pushing..
I'm with Buddha on this one. It's not the fact of joining and quitting that's the issue, it's the effect on the map.
I think the kamikaze quit is as damaging as the join-to-quit, in some ways more so.
Display MoreHad this come up the last few days.
Coalitions: (A and B) vs (C and D)
A decides he's going to quit the map.
A Attacks D with all of his troops.
B attacks and captures all of A's empty provinces.
C and D attempt to negotiate with A for a full day.
A declares he's going to attack everyone. Only attacks C and D.
B finally reveals, two days later, that A was quitting, and they did it that way to "keep the map balanced". None of this is revealed until after A is eliminated.
This is on days 21-24 of a 15 player map. Is the kamikaze approach to "I'm quitting but giving my coalition partner all my provinces while destroying/capturing his enemies" account pushing, or is it just unfortunate that we were on the wrong side of it?
Thanks!
I'd ban B by Account-Pushing. Since A was eliminated from the round, he's pending from a game ban by the same reason and I'd make sure A and B never meet again in a new match. Day is irrelevant.
That case would be subject to the numeral 3 of the Anti-Pushing rule in the General Game Rules
I'd ban B by Account-Pushing. Since A was eliminated from the round, he's pending from a game ban by the same reason and I'd make sure A and B never meet again in a new match.
Thank you!
I opted to ask the question rather than file a report, since I wasn't certain to start with. It seems B has left the match anyway, as they "don't want to play with whiners", but I sent them a system message explaining your perspective on the rule. I'm comfortable that it was a misunderstanding of what is or isn't allowable in a particular map.
Thank you for your time.
On a related note, this happened in a Dominion map.
Player A contacts me, suggesting that he'll give me his remaining control points (we both had two) if I then join another Dominion map with him and give him the control points in the second map. I refuse. Two weeks later, Player B allows him to walk into the final control point (right of way, war, right of way), and they both fight me to prevent me taking any of his four points before the timer is up. I assume they collaborated on another Dominion map afterwards.
Pushing?
Interesting.. thanks for the discussion.
From what I see:
If this constitute account pushing, does this then means that:
If the above scenarios are not considered pushing, what is the distinguishing characteristics from the scenario described by Walrus?
I don't disagree with the rules, I just want to better understand it so I can adhere to them.
EDIT: to clarify that I am referring to Walrus's scenario in post #11 (i only saw post #17 after I made this post)
This is an interesting discussion because viewing the situation from both sides you can see where both sides are right and wrong. In the first scenario, should A have left the game and allow the chips to fall where they may or did he do the right thing to try and help his team mate? Before you answer, think about the botched situation with leaving Afghanistan and the "enemy" gaining 85 Billion dollars worth of military hardware. Same thing might have happened if A had simply left the game and C and D took over the land with whatever was being built.
The rules of ANY game cannot cover EVERY situation that comes up. THAT is why there are Game Operators who basically act as judges and like anything, not ALL judges interpret the law the same way. ALSO remember that you may or may not agree with the decision of a judge.
I'll provide another example for you. I'm currently involved in a 500p game with my GF who also happens to be in my Alliance as well as my Coalition in the game. We're fighting in Africa and I've taken over a specific area while she is still fighting to take over the area that we decided was her territory. Now, two things. When she needs resources and I have excess in that resource, I provide it to her for Shared Intelligence or Shared Map. Right now with her fight, I'm using my air force to help clear the path for her to advance and take land. TECHNICALLY this could be seen as Account Pushing and could be argued that way, however, I would argue that it is nothing more than helping out a team player. Note: I have not said whether the land she's taking is controlled by players or by the computer - think about that before you decide whether it's account pushing or helping.
I think the fundamental difference between in-map assistance and account pushing is that "assistance" is between active players in the map, who intend to both stay active, to the benefit of both players. "Account pushing" occurs when one player intends to leave the map, and plans that departure with the still active players.
Receiving assistance in-game can be a result of good diplomacy, good strategy, or external relationships. Account pushing, to me, is solely based on factors external to the game.
