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

Hey, people, there is no need to talk with this guys. It is obvious that they didnt form the alliance, instead they planned from the verry begnning that one of them will surrender to give his ally even greater chances (this not an alliance). I dont believe in this bullshit that one of has hass sccidentally surrender, because it is obvious for even retards that it was all planed. I feel like vomiting when I look at those two creatures. Dont talk with them.


Balcklist both of them

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

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

Edited 7/11/2015 12:36:29

@Kain I don't need to waste time proving anything, the game was fair and no rules were broken.

If you don't like that, all you can do is blacklist and trash-talk. Grow up.

Edited 7/11/2015 12:56:52

I'm acutely on the lv 12s side.

So they hop between Romania and Germany to take their turn, do they?

Still a very cheap move by the pair, the others were disadvantaged from the start. If you guys played them and realised they were a team before the match, wouldn't you guys think it was unfair?

Just play team games if you're a team before the game even starts.

We were the first two players to join the game. Whoever joined the game surely noticed we both have the same name, level and country.

I'm pretty sure it was easy to guess we were playing together, it was simple to just avoid joining that game if they had a problem with two people teaming up. The proof to that, is that Ryan started crying about us 'cheating' before the game even started.

Also please notice turn 6 and 7. I did not expand, obviously respecting gray's territory which clearly proves he was not planning to surrender. Like I said, it was a disadvantage, not an advantage.

Edited 7/11/2015 18:17:19

Most people do not bother to check your profiles for foul play, some might have and they probably did not join.

Ryan should of just left the game then.

Also that does not mean anything, you could of been respecting it so he had the income to create that dead stack in Alexandria. So in my opinion it was an advantage in some ways still.

He did not even try to defend Partha, why would he go back there through Alexandria. Check his orders, didn't deploy a single unit or even try to run first turn (for two turns). I doubt a stack in Alexandria made any difference, since his income was 10 while mine was 33 at the time anyway.

Edited 7/11/2015 19:00:48

Ryan, if you go and report them, someone will check the IP, if it's from the same IP, considering it is a ffa, and not a team game with both people of the same IP on the same team, they will be warned or punished, as it is against the rules to operate more than one warlight account in that manner as one person.

the stack in alexandria was to help you to defend from west. And to prevent players from west from taking over the remains of your "friend" after he has puprosedly surrendered. You are cheaters and rats. And if you are too weak to win the game without cheating, maybe u should try sth easier? I propose Ms Hearts. Or at lest play with the AI only - you wont disturb real players with your stinking cheating.


and stop bulshit me and other players that it was accident that your friend has surrendered (exacly in the turn when he blocked the west passage to Partha). Only idiot would believe in such a naive line of resoning. People like you should not play the multiplyer games. You are disgrace for your countries, families and humankind.


and Ryan wasnt "crying". He pointed that yopu are cheteing and he was absolutely right, as it is right to alarm everybody when you see a thief stealing sb's wallet. If u had at at least a little bit of honour you should have surrendered then. But of course you didnt.

I hope more and more people will track this thread and blacklist you.