|
Lord_S
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: June 10, 2008, 18:41:50 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 10, 2008, 18:42:35 PM by Lord_S »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bilko1
Guest
|
|
« Reply #61 on: June 10, 2008, 18:45:01 PM » |
|
And only that? OK. thanks radooo... You know I had some strange posts, but it's just becouse I want to learn as muchs as I can and as soon as I can (and as I said in a post before, where you were showing me  face, in R38 you can't join an alliance without invitation - there is just no join button!). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
reni
Tricky Knight
Major
Karma: +105/-185
 Offline
Posts: 950
|
|
« Reply #62 on: June 10, 2008, 18:50:54 PM » |
|
pushing account means fixed battle  Nope... In IO there is a new meaning for that. It is called IP match. If that don't exist then you are "clean". At least this is the official answer i get every time. To all: Mates, you are repeating a long long debate. I have been in both parts and in both parts IO is wrong. Part 1: They don't punish cheaters without IP match. They don't even bother to analyze anything. Part 2: They refuse to remove rules for "pushing accounts" and limit their self on IP match. They like to have the rule there. The only reason in the world i find for this incoherence is: They want the rule there, because there are cases when they will have to use that. This is translated: They will apply the rule when they want.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Radooo
|
|
« Reply #63 on: June 10, 2008, 19:01:25 PM » |
|
sometimes they banned people for fixed battles without having the IP match |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I am the one and only!
|
|
|
|
k_mihai
|
|
« Reply #64 on: June 11, 2008, 00:06:57 AM » |
|
well, if it were for me, i would consider Trojan horse cheating, for all the reasons stated above. but, since admins disagree, is no cheating. i think in the beginning, some people were punished for that, but not anymore. besides IP match, there are other ways to see if an attack was sent by the same computer.
but, is true, almost the only rule breaking that is punished here are outside wars fixed battles, like money transfers or pushes of mil ranks and honour, but only when they see that there is a coincidence like IP match. sometimes, hacked accounts are punished also. fixed wars and babysitting usually are not punished, even if they are forbidden. there were cases on the old forum, even when the offender confessed, but nothing happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
funesto
Private
Karma: +4/-0
Offline
Posts: 26
|
|
« Reply #65 on: June 11, 2008, 02:41:15 AM » |
|
 that's ok my friends...we can say the concept of honour has been respected,i don't know if the reason of the ban here is if she/they was/were babysitting/fixing battles(from when she was making that then?),i can see one is banned and one in vacation , what a coincidence  however thanks to all those who understand the circumstances,not being my ally in the allysranking top 3 race(7),but who knows,playing only throught honourable actions,making this game having a sense with fun-
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
funesto
Private
Karma: +4/-0
Offline
Posts: 26
|
|
« Reply #66 on: June 11, 2008, 02:49:10 AM » |
|
then what would be the use of locking the alliance??  then what would be the use of the accept in the ally option? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
reni
Tricky Knight
Major
Karma: +105/-185
Offline
Posts: 950
|
|
« Reply #67 on: June 11, 2008, 03:02:38 AM » |
|
sometimes they banned people for fixed battles without having the IP match Properly. I hate this. Sometimes means that they ban the people want to ban and not the others. The case i denounced 5 days ago was pretty clear. I'm curious to see what was the case you was speaking Radooo... Do you have any old link?... or battle report... anything that can help to understand the case... Thx! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Radooo
|
|
« Reply #68 on: June 11, 2008, 09:13:16 AM » |
|
then what would be the use of the accept in the ally option? Every player that enters your alliance must be accepted (in old versions of alliances)  Properly. I hate this. Sometimes means that they ban the people want to ban and not the others. The case i denounced 5 days ago was pretty clear. I'm curious to see what was the case you was speaking Radooo... Do you have any old link?... or battle report... anything that can help to understand the case... Thx!
As far as I know they banned people for pushing honor and I don't think they had an IP coincidence  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I am the one and only!
|
|
|
allanon
Lieutenant
Karma: +4/-5
Offline
Posts: 103
|
|
« Reply #69 on: June 11, 2008, 12:03:01 PM » |
|
Every player that enters your alliance must be accepted (in old versions of alliances) Yes they need to be "accepted", but they can enter and do their fixed (ok, ok, "unfixed") battle even without being accepted. maybe they can just fix that part of the alliance system so we wouldn't have this problem. if the player needed to be accepted before his battles count for the alliance, then problem would be over. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Radooo
|
|
« Reply #70 on: June 11, 2008, 12:43:16 PM » |
|
close your alliance...what's so hard? Can't you press a button?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I am the one and only!
|
|
|
urka73
Private
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 6
|
|
« Reply #71 on: June 11, 2008, 16:39:12 PM » |
|
close your alliance...what's so hard? Can't you press a button? It's easy but this is not the problem. for the manual this is a fixed battle and the fixed battle are prohibited the problem is that at someone is permitted use trick and a someone else not. it's a game and we want to have the same chance. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Radooo
|
|
« Reply #72 on: June 11, 2008, 17:05:53 PM » |
|
I heard they were banned...or one of them...anyway with that message I answered to allanon's message |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I am the one and only!
|
|
|
|
