Is it legal for someone to donate all of his provinces and armies to some other player drastically changing the flow of the game?

  • Yes but who's to judge what is "an disturbance of enjoyable game play"? For his allies the fact that he quits the map is not enjoyable. And is increasing joy if he gives them his territory.

    I personally am of the opinion which I expressed before that if they worked weeks together and for some reason one of the allies need to quit that it's not a bad thing to do. And for the enemy it's easier to fight an army that dropped moral then when the ally would have stayed and fought on. However if this happens early game and the 2nd person never played on the map I find it a rule break. As with many things context is key.

  • TOS clearly states that if it may disturb ( not saying - disturbs) someones enjoyable experience - it is forbidden. It does not say a word about giving joy to others.

    From logical point of view every type of play that disturbs joy of play is forbidden. I will say even backstabbing goes under that. How many peopel already complained and left game because of that?



    if there was some lets say TIMER , that not allows you to attack allies or coalition players sooner than a week - then it would be fair. You declare break of relations week earlier, it is seen in a newspaper, and everyone knows what will happen. You do not lose whole country being backstabbed by some lvl 0 player who conquered you (ally) during the night and you do not face enemy 4 times bigger after you woke up a next day.


    simple solutions to stop lvl 0 players from wining the wars which they would have never started in the first place. I f there was a simple mechanism slowing their "conquer ally in 5 hours "rush to a point when such a rush is not profitable for a person with lvl 0 skills - problem would be solved.

  • Here is the thing about that rule. it is very broad and loosely upheld because of this. with all the complaints we have seen realistically there wouldn't be a game for anyone to play. backstabbing well even the elite AI can do that. Thats the reason why there is the option for team set up.

    As the word "refrain" doesn't mean that it is against the rules. which is why there are rules clarifying and having the option for features. We have seen the devs trying to limit the coalition member traitors with mix results.
    its quite complicated but if this issue is big than things might be done to try to prevent it but as of now there is no rule that prohibits such actions

    It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent. It is the one that is most adaptable to change. -Charles Darwin

  • limit the speed with which backstabber is killing a victim to a level where it is not worth risking.

    same with taking over friendly countries - simple rule in code- you cannot attack ally earlier than 3-5-7 days after you were allies


    or even better- you cannot leave coalition for 3-5-7 days after you pressed button LEAVE

  • or even better- you cannot leave coalition for 3-5-7 days after you pressed button LEAVE

    Does not work if the backstabbing was e.g. your ally selling information to the enemy then he is the backstabber but you can't do anything about it.

  • Also that would give the coalition members time to prepare to kill you instead with the leaving period. remember leaving coalition gives RoW status so they be able to place units inside your lands or keep them in the nation.

    It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent. It is the one that is most adaptable to change. -Charles Darwin

  • yep, so you will think twice before joining/ leaving coalition

    and joining and leaving coalition will be more realistic- now it is piece of paper which you can destroy in 1 second

    Coughs any coalition in history was basically just this. Also "you will think twice" only reason you got backcstabbed is because you blindly accepted alliances. So actually being backstabbed should be the que to think twice. If you join a huge coalition just because it's huge you can be quite certain at some point you'll be sacrificed for it's founding fathers.

  • You know what? Put a **** retire button somewhere so that the guy who wants out wont be scared about how his military stats will look and then state it clearly in the rules then who so ever does shit like this (basically donating provinces, I'm sure you have your way of figuring it out from the game logs)even if it is by war or by donation will be disqualified/banned.****

  • First of all mind your language when typing on the forum it can be frustrating but that language will get you nowhere.



    Secondly how so is it cheating if those 2 people actually decided to work together and suddenly for some reason one of both has to go and 'donates his regions'the loss in moral should actually MAKE IT EASIER for you to defeat that old alliance. As if that person would have stayed both his units and his provinces would have been at higher moral = more fighting strenght = more resources.

    Donations is limited to 1region/day 4region in deficit.

    This is the hard part how to tell if the regions "donated" are of people who played honest and had rl issues and to not abandon his ally he gives him his resources and territory and a cheater who joined only to get his friend to victory. Often this cheater will not built out his nation very firmly as why put a lot of effort into a nation you wont use to end the game. On the stats changing territory to war spoils the "Provinces lost/gained" statistic so it's not a good thing to do and often not the reason people do it.


    The reason why honest people do it is mention above. Not wanting to abandon their ally fully even though they do no longer wish to play and as stated above that is not cheating as for you who was attacking this alliance this deal is actually a benefit for you, as it would be harder to have beaten the 2 players remaining. It becomes cheating mainly early game when people use it to triple their start nations size by day 3. That is when it really matters. And those account are used solely to get that one account boosted up early on.

  • alright


    So as I see bytro logic behind that

    I join a game 500 with lets say 15 friends , they are fighting, dying, taking over one another. Doing crazy things. I do not care. I sit with my 10 provinces doing nothing. Then where there is 5 of us left one has some vacation/family issues and donated me 90 provinces, resources, and mech units.


    Now my small war with neighbor 20 provinces looks completely different as I can take him over straight away and my opponent was not even expecting that. he spent GMs, time and effort to fight me while I decided to take troops from a friend and kill him. Alright , going further.


    Now I have 10+90+20 = 120 provinces. Now you are talking. I am starting to like it - no activity, no skills, no diplomacy- just overwhelming opponent with units from my friends. There is a guy 100 provinces- I start to threaten him to give me provinces otherwise I will attack. He refuses as he has strong deff position. I attack I lose everything he starts to conquer me. Luckily I ask my friend to give me resources and troops from their coalition. Alright now I have 2x troops and I crush opponent when he left his defensive position and started to conquer me. Without his nice position, caught in the middle of nowhere he is destroyed and I take his country. Now I have 220 provinces, no skills, no knowledge and easy win. Joy from wining against strong opponent is huge. I taunt and laugh at him. There are things you cannot buy, for everything else you have friends.


    so lets see I can actually win that map. Lets wait. Another friend leaves game giving me 400 provinces and everything else. Now I am 600+ and I just lack around 700-800 provs to win. I am not joining coalition of my friends as I want to win alone. But I am taking resources and troops from them. Seeing how easily I defeat enemies they decide to support me. One even decides to give everything to me. Additional 300 provinces. Now I am 900+ provs and one step from winning.


    But there is this fieldmarshal killing everyone with ease. K/D 22:1 , huge armeis of 10 000 arts adn 1000 BS. I am feeling in danger. We count with friends. Hmm. We cannot win as coalition (1500) but we can win as a single player (1000 points). SO as my friends keep loosing to Fieldmarshall we decide to give me all provinces left ant this should be enough to reach 1000 points and win a game for me. Fmarshall is very close he has already 750. There is 3 of us lowering his morale with wars. So I take their provinces. Farm capitals of my friends. send spies to destroy double provinces of FMarshall (FM). I send some troops on suicide missions to lower FM morale. Farm couple of AI capitals and win by default.


    Now it is the time to celebrate, I have not win a single war due to lack of skills and knowledge, but I had numbers in friends. I am the best on the map- I get Gms, medal, and strange feeling that I am better than FM and I can tell my story of great strategy and victory that brought FM down. I am hoping not to see him again anywhere near me. But still I am the hero of the next action and as agreed I will help my friends to win the next map. Deals done, cards played. Let's start another map. Our great strategy is spotless.


  • you are also at risk for gaining so many provs at a time that you would have a small military to begin with. thus harder to protect. Along with lower and unstable resources due to low morale. coming from experience when you have 100+provs taking a large amount of provs will mess your economy up and bigger maps you do not have the time to sit and build up your morale.


    and 10% of units a day isn't all that much so it be unlikely.


    for some strange reason a lot of players want good stats so overall giving land is hurting their stats and their troops that die waiting for their ally to take them also hinders the stats. so their is a punishment but only for those that care about their stats (which i believe stats should be hidden to prevent player discrimination). so a lot of players tend to run away with their units and become inactive.


    Put a retire button somewhere so that the guy who wants out wont be scared about how his military stats

    That will not help they could order their units to suicide or place them in areas to slow down the enemy from taking land.


    Quote

    But there is this fieldmarshal killing everyone with ease. K/D 22:1 , huge armeis of 10 000 arts adn 1000 BS. I am feeling in danger. We count with friends. Hmm. We cannot win as coalition (1500) but we can win as a single player (1000 points). SO as my friends keep loosing to Fieldmarshall we decide to give me all provinces left ant this should be enough to reach 1000 points and win a game for me. Fmarshall is very close he has already 750. There is 3 of us lowering his morale with wars. So I take their provinces. Farm capitals of my friends. send spies to destroy double provinces of FMarshall (FM). I send some troops on suicide missions to lower FM morale. Farm couple of AI capitals and win by default.

    There you would get banned from game as you would be capital farming active players.



    coming down to it we simply can not moderate the number of "friends" that can be in a game. reason why how do we know if they are really friends? a response would be "Look at alliances". well not every friend can be in a alliance and if this would to happen you can easily get around it. And with allies in game can be considered as friends thus we still can not limit.


    limit number of provs taken, we still can not do so as you would hinder real wars. Along with players could easily be able to get around said limit. they could claim it was a border/personal dispute. or they still comply to the rules and take lands while your ally still defends/suicides we still can not moderate.


    however if its a large amount of land than something might be up report it and the gos will look into it.

    As we have stated many context is key if we find evidence of rule breaks than we will take action.

    It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent. It is the one that is most adaptable to change. -Charles Darwin

  • I attack I lose everything he starts to conquer me. Luckily I ask my friend to give me resources and troops from their coalition.

    You can trade 10% of your army /day and they drop moral significantly... Bad decision to make if you lost everything and you're fighting a user that knows what he's doing... You will not recover with such small trade.

    I stated before but I believe in a different chat. We'd allow for an ally to give away his nation if he quits. However when multiple allies give away land to 1 account... It flags us as then it smells a lot like wolfpacking. The chances you have multiple allies "having personal issues and needing to leave" is small. But it proofs that the human factor is very important (I mean the GO's) you can barely automate the checks our GO's do As the cheaters use all tactics alliances would use too just a little bit off.

  • the guy who was in 2nd place realized he cant catch me and threw a tantrum and donated all of his possesions to a smaller player that was in his sphere of influence ,basically creating a player almost as powerful as me thorugh no merit of his own .

    I take grave exception to this, being the player in question. Believe it or not, it had nothing to do with you at all Edy. As I already told you by PM before you started this moanfest, this was my first - and probably last - Dominion type game. When I joined, I wasn't aware of the 'there can be only one' philosophy behind it. I wasn't enjoying it, there were some new 'Free For All' games (which I've enjoyed in the past) starting up, and I decided to spend my limited game time on one of those rather than continuing with this game.


    Tantrums had nothing at all to do with it.


    Sorry buddy, but my purpose in life isn't to continue playing a game I'm not enjoying just so YOU can get YOUR jollies...


    As the manner of my leaving, I'd been working with the two other players all game. In my book, a good ally doesn't leave his allies in the lurch but ameliorates the impending loss of his support for them as much as he can before he goes. Ever since I started playing Supremacy I've seen this happen: players leaving what they can to others, players leaving what they can to me, and occasionally me leaving what I can to allies.


    If you're not the lucky recipient of this in a game, you just have to adapt to the new political situation as best you can. It's part and parcel of playing Supremacy and not something that can be sensibly legislated against.


    I've also seen many instances of players just dropping from games without letting their allies know and leaving then completely in the lurch. Frankly, I have much less respect for them...


    So, in short, I'd decided to leave the game and chose to leave as a good ally rather than leave my allies in the lurch.


    I make no apology for that.

  • There you would get banned from game as you would be capital farming active players.


    This should help with this kind of problem as if they are doing it on live subjects I am not able to react.

    But more often, to avoid live subject, they will wait till friend becomes AFK with all his remaining army far away on the sea... They sunk ( I saw it on my yes) 25 000 000 infantry with BBSes LCs and planes. This were top players from my national server and I kill them with ease if ration is not more than 5:1 in their favor. They gain high status solely to the "dachshund strategy" where you need no skills.You just surround yourself with friends ( 5,10,15) and play what I described above winning very easily with very very good stats but you need to remember not to fight wars 1 vs 1 but 5 vs 1.



    You can trade 10% of your army /day and they drop moral significantly... Bad decision to make if you lost everything and you're fighting a user that knows what he's doing... You will not recover with such small trade.

    I beg to differ completely in that one. There is a huge difference between donation of 100 inf < 100 ACs<100 arts<100BBS<100 bombers. Funny enough Mechs do not lose stance at all while been transferred .

    Even if you get 1 000 000 inf with low morale it is all about harvesting morale with proper strategy - and we both know you can rise morale of such a stack from 50% to 100% in couple of hours if enemy is doing "lemming attack"


    You can trade 10% of your army /day and they drop moral significantly... Bad decision to make if you lost everything and you're fighting a user that knows what he's doing... You will not recover with such small trade.

    you underestimate wolfpacks greatly. this are not some random Bobs having fun. these are fully specialized wolves with armies, arts and LCs in position. They have troops located in every small bot town. So if they need 40% up- they take down 4 islands on the pacific. I have a feeling that neither you nor Narmer have seen this strategy used by the finest marshals in our game. well I have seen it in top30 edition and it is impressive. Making a country with 800 points gain 200 points in a day and win a game is 100% possible.


    ---------------------------------------------------


    Same goes for lowering morale- dachshunds can lower morale up to -25 % per day so in some circumstances it means loosing 5-15 % of points per day for an unlucky target. This is even bigger threat IMHO. Friends are friends, good dachshunds are useful in lowering morale of your opponent. I lost couple of 500 games on my national server due to that fact I was not able to grow above certain size. I was pretty ok to fight on pair and keep at bay guy with 1200 provinces having 200 mine and morale 37% but my production of resources did not allow me to make enough mechs to call an offensive. I was also not able to many new lands due to morale problem. In the end I killed all dachshunds, with some of dachshunds eaten alive for capitals by the dachshunds' owner. But it was to late to change outcome of a game. As you can imagine dachshunds and their masters ( fieldmarshals ) were never banned and they continue to do the same all the time. This is why my national server player base is dying since years because of similar people being allowed to play. And as you can imagine there is only way to counter it- prepare your own dachshunds' team which is below any moral standards.

  • these are fully specialized wolves with armies, arts and LCs in position. They have troops located in every small bot town.

    that there isn't a problem, AI capital farming is not against the rules as its not a active player that volunteered and that you still have to kill the units for the AI. That is a common strategy but this has its downs to as it takes manpower away from the real action. unless i misunderstood

    I have a feeling that neither you nor Narmer have seen this strategy

    oh i have but this is very rare case but i can kill those 10% traded by sns and by split stacks along with location and other tactics. to be honest to beat a bigger enemy you need experience and activity. but yet again you could do what ww1 did and send waves of units... however sending 10% to ally player isn't that good unless they plan on leaving as they have more troops that can deal damage to the enemy which is much more helpful to their ally.

    in some circumstances it means loosing 5-15 % of points per day

    there is tactic behind it now lets say they are small nations not doing much that could be seen as wolfpacking. report it.

    But more often, to avoid live subject, they will wait till friend becomes AFK with all his remaining army far away on the sea...

    that sounds more like them leaving the game. now if they were to go AFK that be less effective but if they were to return and its repeated that would be considered as active activity. report it. but even then they moved all their units away into the sea well there is a plus you don't have to worry much about those units fighting unless they were ordered to go on a suicide run.

    It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent. It is the one that is most adaptable to change. -Charles Darwin

  • that there isn't a problem, AI capital farming is not against the rules as its not a active player that volunteered and that you still have to kill the units for the AI. That is a common strategy but this has its downs to as it takes manpower away from the real action. unless i misunderstood


    it was counter-argument to you when you said morale of new provinces will be a problem- it will not be a problem as you can farm 4-5 AI capitals using 4-5 x [1 infantry and 1 range unit per town]. Everyone can sacrifice 5 LCs and 5 infs to do that...

    Sometimes 1LC/Plane having all small tropicco style countries in range - is enough.




    oh i have but this is very rare case but i can kill those 10% traded by sns and by split stacks along with location and other tactics. to be honest to beat a bigger enemy you need experience and activity. but yet again you could do what ww1 did and send waves of units... however sending 10% to ally player isn't that good unless they plan on leaving as they have more troops that can deal damage to the enemy which is much more helpful to their ally.


    this one goes for activity player rather. only thing they have are friends and activity. So if you fought a heavy war and inflicted casualties on your enemy.- even though opponent won he will be weakened and probably armed with leftovers. He can be easily cleaned by couple of BBSes or planes. deployed on the right time/location. Imagine your wars Edwylm and your opponent getting planes/BBses in number that is 10-50% of his pre-war army size ( everything depends how big are his friends). I saw guys fighting me and losing 8 mln troops 800 arts and they were receiving additional 4 mln + 250 arts from friends .... Troops stationed in their towns which I could not see with spies.


    and counting that you can sit longer than enemy and win against him only if his S&S is weaker than your- this is not a good idea but gambling with luck.



    there is tactic behind it now lets say they are small nations not doing much that could be seen as wolfpacking. report it.

    does it mean it is forbidden if their only goal is to support overlord and weaken his opponents with wars?





    that sounds more like them leaving the game. now if they were to go AFK that be less effective but if they were to return and its repeated that would be considered as active activity. report it. but even then they moved all their units away into the sea well there is a plus you don't have to worry much about those units fighting unless they were ordered to go on a suicide run.


    true, but even with inactive player this gameplay destabilizes situation on the map. All of these friend's packs are destroying eco balance. whole wolfpack is sponsoring chosen region with most of their resources and you can be the best S&S player this game has seen but it will not help you in the first 2-3 weeks of the game. I saw specialized wolfpacks at 100 and 500 maps. They showed me facebook page, description of their activity and other things- somehow, with all this details noone was banned due to lack of evidence.... if they are supplying all details and this is not enough - I do not know what kind of evidence is needed.


    IMHO this is one of the biggest threats to normal players. Multis are multis - it is hard to manage all of them equally good. But if you have 15 different people cooperating secretly - then victims of wolfpack have a serious problem.




    -------------------------------------------------------

    System is simple.

    They go to map in different locations to quickly overwhelm opponents in different regions with superior resource production . Australia is logical first target as a save resource base. You send good players ( 1-3), give them 5/15x more resources so they can produce tons of cavs. They win everything, set up eco base and produces resources for other guys who then decide which region will be secured as a next one. After choosing region - players there receive resources to secure it and so on. Mostly they choose Europe and Arica after Australia. System destabilizes thin line of balance as wolves are having many times more resources to invest in military. with 15 players you can invest up to 15 times more in military than opponents. You do not have to worry about eco as you victims are producing that.And this is not one time bonus- they have 15x more resources every single day till region is secured. This is how I got my stats and skills- by trying to survive on corrupted maps and fighting them. But in the end it turned out I need at least 1 friend to have my back to even have chance to see the end of map on 500.


    They also have hidden agents in every single coalition that matters to use this moles for gaining information before and during a war, troops dispositions, orders, sometimes moles take resources to build troops for coalition while secretly sending everything

    to their overlord. When the time is right they back-stab empty countries of their coalition previously playing less active player busy in RL. Now this for sure does not make game enjoyable , especially if they laugh in your face and say they will do it again and again and no one will stop them- what was sadly true.

    There should be still ticket in kayako about that and I am happy to help in finding it if someone is interested in solving this case. Around 15 people were in this wolfpack. 15 out of 100 on the map = 15% of the map.
    I am happy to discuss this thing in PM with someone able to do sth about that after 2 years. Same goes for smaller wolfpacks (5-10) from the last 2 years.

  • With respects to this thread, we and the Smods have decided that it be best to close and move this topic to archive. Providing a link in the thread in "Limits for number of frriends supporting each other on the map" as they cover the same issues. Please continue the conversation in in the link provided.

    It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent. It is the one that is most adaptable to change. -Charles Darwin

  • Edwylm

    Closed the thread.