Wolfpacking - Additional information request

    FYI - I have read the game rules and understand what has been said there. This thread is a request for more information as I believe the rule is not clear on wolfpacking.


    I will give a brief picture of the round I am currently in for context.


    500 player map


    An alliance has joined with around 30 members. I know that this is not in itself a breaking of the rule.


    Since the start of the game they have been joining various coalitions and the stage of the game has now progressed to the point where they have started to gather together yet some are still in other coalitions not together with all alliance members. I know that they have been sharing map and using outside communication methods to coordinate. Effectively, in my opinion, they are account pushing by feeding each other intelligence, resources, land and money while at the same time using other players to go to war with eachother to benefit their own alliance.


    With careful correspondence I have been told that they will only allow one of their own alliance members or coalitions to win the round. I have also been told that if I attack one of any of these members in the round that they will all declare war on me or trade embargo.


    So I, like a fun-loving individual, called them on it and what was said happened.


    Most recently one of their members told me this, "My alliance mates each gifted me 100k silver" to aid in his war against me. So that's about 20 active players who funded this war against myself. He also told me that he is "drumming up support on (various social networks) which is where we coordinate attacks on players like you".


    So I have a few questions...


    1. Can this scenario be considered wolfpacking? (Even if it has only been done, to me, in the one round?)

    2. Can this scenario be considered a form of account-pushing? (Even if it is other active alliance members pooling resources not just joining a game to give land/money/resources or attack adjacent enemies)

    3. Can an alliance join a game with such a large number of members and all share map with eachother without it being considered wolfpacking or account-pushing?

    4. Will using other communication services to coordinate attacks on such a large scale also be considered wolfpacking or account-pushing?

    5. If these alliance members are in different coalitions is it breaking a rule to send land/resources/money or intelligence to other alliance members in other coalitions?

    6. If these alliance members all declare war/trade embargo on you is that considered wolfpacking or account-pushing?


    To be honest, I am asking this more for my personal knowledge so that I will not be accused of breaking any rules in the future as I have created my own alliance for players to just have fun together. Thank you for your time.

  • Ahrcanne

    Approved the thread.

    to answer your questions


    1. Yes, it is considered wolfpacking


    2. No, its not a form of account pushing


    3. No, it is wolfpacking


    4. Yes, that will be considered wolfpacking


    5. Yes, as it is considered wolfpacking


    6. Yes, that is wolfpacking



    if a Scenario like this is seen, i highly recommend sending a game report

    “𝕮𝖔𝖒𝖊 𝖍𝖆𝖛𝖊 𝖆 𝖌𝖔, 𝖎𝖋 𝖞𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖍𝖎𝖓𝖐 𝖞𝖔𝖚’𝖗𝖊 𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖉 𝖊𝖓𝖔𝖚𝖌𝖍.” - Tanith low, Skullduggery Pleasant Book Series.



    Ahrcanne

    English Senior Moderator

    Supremacy 1914

    S1914 - User profile (supremacy1914.nl)

    wolfpacking isn't only the harassment across multiple games, but when a group of players coordinate to take control of a public match to ensure that only one of their number can win. which is also the case in your scenario

    “𝕮𝖔𝖒𝖊 𝖍𝖆𝖛𝖊 𝖆 𝖌𝖔, 𝖎𝖋 𝖞𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖍𝖎𝖓𝖐 𝖞𝖔𝖚’𝖗𝖊 𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖉 𝖊𝖓𝖔𝖚𝖌𝖍.” - Tanith low, Skullduggery Pleasant Book Series.



    Ahrcanne

    English Senior Moderator

    Supremacy 1914

    S1914 - User profile (supremacy1914.nl)

    Alliances are a game-balance issue.

    In addition to the behaviour mentioned above, I saw cases of kamikaze for the benefit of other members - I assume taking turns between maps.

    I would be in favor of limiting the number of same alliance players in each map.

    Thank you for the swift reply. It is truly appreciated.


    I will attempt to communicate this breach of the rules with the concerned persons because they may be unaware.


    A game report, I hope, is unnecessary. But, we all must do our part to maintain balance and uphold the spirit of the game.


    Knowledge applied is wisdom.

    I also seen it before and its not a nice way of playing. When players of my alliance play together in a map, mostly a 100 map, we arent allowed, just to make it fair to other players in the map, to play with more then there is in a coalition. So if we play a World in Flames (100 players) maximum members that play that map is 5 players of my alliance., most of the times its with a group of 3.

    that is also how my alliance is known to play. no more then enough users for the one coalition.

    “𝕮𝖔𝖒𝖊 𝖍𝖆𝖛𝖊 𝖆 𝖌𝖔, 𝖎𝖋 𝖞𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖍𝖎𝖓𝖐 𝖞𝖔𝖚’𝖗𝖊 𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖉 𝖊𝖓𝖔𝖚𝖌𝖍.” - Tanith low, Skullduggery Pleasant Book Series.



    Ahrcanne

    English Senior Moderator

    Supremacy 1914

    S1914 - User profile (supremacy1914.nl)

    If you check the official rules thread it does state that any number can join as the game will allow (from a particular alliance). I would assume then, that it depends upon the integrity of the individuals to uphold the rule and to not dominate the game thereby breaking the rule; which graciously has some freedom worked into it as to not condemn one without evidence first.


    This providence for fair-play also would allow alliance members, who enjoy playing together to do so in a public match and face each other as friends. Also, for teaching and learning purposes.