In this game:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9077108

Their profiles:
https://www.warlight.net/Profile?p=3951573806
https://www.warlight.net/Profile?p=3951615959

I tried reporting, but the reporting process isn't very helpful when it comes to this sort of thing. It just refers me to a wiki which states: cheating isn't possible. you must be confused.

This is sad.

Another one ^

The tale of a man in Warlight who had been bitten by a whole horde of rattlers at once, and had swelled so monstrously from poison that his body had finally burst with a pop.
“Y’aaaah! Y’aaaah! Go away! Go away! Go away, snake-devil!

They are not cheating in any way. The fact that just upon seeing their usernames you assumed that they're cheating based on preconceived notions alone does little but make you look foolish and incite hysteria. This is hysterical.

You should feel embarrassed, and if anyone should be reported it should be you for false allegations.

They're participating in the same game, and it's obvious they're colluding. The admin should IP check them.

There's no rules against players forming alliances :p

Hey Ryan, I just won. :*

Hey Ryan, I just won. :*

With the mighty of great Quetzalcoatl.

Yeah they definitely colluded. That's not against the rules, but it's a pretty cheap thing to join the same FFA game as a friend and collude from the start, even with the picks.

There is a rule
>You shall not operate more than one WarLight account in a way that gives you an advantage in a game, tournament or ladder.

Depends on if it's two different people or not in terms of it being rule breaking.

We're different people, not the same person. Also, people create alliances all the time. I believe the rule means one of the following situations:

• Playing from two accounts, one of them on the other team to spy on locations / orders.
  
• Playing from two accounts, one of them on the other team which is meant to surrender / get booted to result in an unfair game.
  
• Playing from two accounts, one of them on the other team which is meant to attack teammates to result in an unfair game.
  
• Playing from two accounts to unfairly gain achievements.
  

So even if we were the same person, I don't think that breaks the rules. (Edit: I was talking about team games, not FFAs)
Like I said though, we're not the same person.

Edited 7/12/2015 11:48:11

It would be against the rules if you were the same person.

The rule says "gives you an advantage in a game".

Colluding with someone before a game even begins and making picks so one of you can easily take Partha while the other holds off part of Asia and then surrenders after the other can safely take the Parthian Empire is what you guys did. That's an advantage. Unless Fizzer specifies the rule is actually as specific as you're claiming. Even then there are achievements simply winning a game would help you get (i.e. defeat a level X player, win a FFA with X or more players, etc.)

Alliances aren't the issue. The issue is that you guys went into a Free For All with an alliance that was decided before the game even began.

It's not against the rules as far as I'm aware, but it's extremely cheap and really takes the fun out of the game, regardless of whether or not you're two different people.

Edited 7/11/2015 10:17:30

Allow me to quote a couple of things you said.

---

It would be against the rules if you were the same person.

Only if it's a coin game, or if I gain advantage from it. I suggest you re-read the rules which state:
Multiple Accounts, as well as the setting up and operation of multiple Accounts, are prohibited if playing with coins.
And anyway like I said, we were different people. An IP check can be performed at any time to prove it.

---

The rule says "gives you an advantage in a game".

I wouldn't call starting in Partha and Asia advantageous, it's actually a disadvantage since no one gets the Parthanian empire.

---

Colluding with someone before a game even begins

I still don't see how it's wrong, alliances are formed all the time. Sometimes players can collude with each other 'before a game even begins' using PM's or even mail.

---

making picks so one of you can easily take Partha while the other holds off part of Asia and then surrenders after the other can safely take the Parthian Empire

That was never intended. We didn't pay attention to time, my partner had to go at exactly 10:00 AM (+2 GMT), if you check the history you'll see that's the exact time of his surrender. Not to mention I didn't use any help getting Partha, and history proves it.

---

Unless Fizzer specifies the rule is actually as specific as you're claiming.

I suggest you re-read the rules which state the prohibition of:
opening and/or using multiple Accounts; (x) purposely causing an interruption or error in order to influence a game, such as to cause the game to prematurely end

---

Even then there are achievements simply winning a game would help you get (i.e. defeat a level X player, win a FFA with X or more players, etc.)

That's still no different from any other alliance formed in a FFA. Not to mention such achievements are pretty easy to earn, I don't see why someone would need help to get them unless he/she is a terrible player.

---

Alliances aren't the issue.

Everything else you said says otherwise.

---

It's not against the rules as far as I'm aware, but it's extremely cheap and really takes the fun out of the game, regardless of whether or not you're two different people.

It is not. It is also not cheap, alliances simply add the skill diplomacy to the game. And in case you haven't noticed, I suggest you re-check the history. Green and blue were allied.

Not joining an alliance in a type of game where people form alliances almost 80%+ of time, can be called being dumb (or brave), not being cheap.

Edited 7/11/2015 11:22:41

Operating multiple accounts in an FFA game would always give you an advantage, and would thus would always be cheating regardless of whether it's a coin game.

The fact that you are arguing that "even if we were the same person" you are not breaking the rules really casts doubt on everything else you say.

You two are stinking rats and cheaters and I'll tell you why!! You claim that this was an alliance? That is certainly not true. Of coures, sometimes players form alliances in FFA's, but sooner or later they must start fighting each other, beacuse only one of them can win the game. So they have a ceasefire but they stil treat each other as enemy. This has not happend in this game! check what the grey has done in turn 7 - after he grabbed a big chunk of middle-east (israel, egypt), he gathered all troops in "Alexandria" province, while leaving with only one troop in other provinces, and then he surrended. Therfore his seccond account could easily grab leftovers from gray that were protected because the only way from the other side was blocked. This mean that grey player wasnt playing in temporal alliance with purple. Instead, he intendedly surrendered in such a way, that his second account could easily grabb his all territories. So the only purpose for grey in this game was to help his seccound account and not to win. It is obvious that this two rats were certainly cheating and this was not the alliance.


I have already blacklisted them, I propose u do the same. Soon Ill create a forum thread containg more such cheating rats so that more people can blacklist them.


I suppose your parents must be a filthy person if the taught you to cheat like that.

Edited 7/11/2015 11:49:24

Section 13. A. Subsection (ix) opening and/or using multiple Accounts;

-is listed as something prohibited under Online Conduct and Abuse. That doesn't specify coin games, and neither does this wiki link https://www.warlight.net/wiki/Rules.

The subsections(ix) and (x) are different prohibitions, not the same thing. Why are you posting them together?

Not that that matters if you're two different people, but you don't seem to understand that part of the rules.

>I wouldn't call starting in Partha and Asia advantageous, it's actually a disadvantage since no one gets the Parthanian empire.

What's advantageous was your friend blocking off Alana/Alexandria so you were free to take Partha and not worry about anyone coming from Africa. You got the Parthian Empire later on and now you're saying "oh it just happened that my friend had to leave so I could conveniently take the entire Parthian Empire". Even if your friend actually did have to go, having both Partha and Asia controlled by the same alliance is very advantageous. I strongly doubt blue and green agreed to not attack each other before the game. Again, this isn't the issue, even if you're claiming my issue is with alliances themselves.

>Not to mention such achievements are pretty easy to earn, I don't see why someone would need help to get them unless he/she is a terrible player.

Sure. But you were claiming the rule only applied in specific cases, one of them being achievements. That's not the point.

The rest of your post seems to be your justifying it as "Agreeing to an alliance before a game even begins is just as fair as forming an alliance in the middle of the game because of circumstances". That's really a subjective thing whether or not someone thinks it's fair.

Games where the alliances are decided beforehand or at the very start before placements are usually called Team Games. Free for alls, in my view, are supposed to start off with no alliances, and players agree to them later on based on their circumstances. Again, I'm aware this is subjective, but I think it'd be interesting to see how the Warlight community as a whole feels about pre-determined alliances in FFA's and basing your territory picks on those alliances.

what is going on? neither of them have names. did they get banned?

I'm assuming they chose blank usernames because of how cool/mysterious it is.

@smileyleg I actually agree with you, I should have mentioned I was talking about team games, not a FFA. This is why in my earlier reply, I only mentioned team games and not FFA's:

We're different people, not the same person. Also, people create alliances all the time. I believe the rule means one of the following situations:

Playing from two accounts, one of them on the other team to spy on locations / orders.
Playing from two accounts, one of them on the other team which is meant to surrender / get booted to result in an unfair game.
Playing from two accounts, one of them on the other team which is meant to attack teammates to result in an unfair game.
Playing from two accounts to unfairly gain achievements.

I later said even if we were the same person it would be fine, however I forgot I was talking about a FFA here.

---

@Kain

stinking rats
I suppose your parents must be a filthy person if the taught you to cheat like that.

First of all I suggest you read my reply well before throwing insults and making a fool out of yourself.
I explained that earlier:

That was never intended. We didn't pay attention to time, my partner had to go at exactly 10:00 AM (+2 GMT), if you check the history you'll see that's the exact time of his surrender. Not to mention I didn't use any help getting Partha, and history proves it.[/b]

Second of all, we were surely going to fight once we eliminate common enemies, just like most alliances unless there was a huge income gap pre-declaring a winner.

Edited 7/11/2015 12:16:40

@Ryan
1.

Colluding: Players working together is not against the rules, and you should not report players for doing so. To avoid collusion, play in 1 v 1 games where collusion is impossible, or in team games (since then the collusion is pre-arranged), or just play with friends you trust.

2.


I strongly recommend you read the game rules and game settings very well before posting anything else, you complained about something and called it 'cheating' when the rules clearly say it isn't.
You also complained about something that could have been avoided by simply checking settings before joining a game / creating your own games.

Edited 7/11/2015 12:13:37