Cheating!!! Not right!! Watch your back!!

[EndStigator]

Vagrant SusansHot (Rank: 3008) (High: 3008) (Age: 2 years)
Birthdate: November 23rd 2009
Laborers: 60
Donations to the Gods: 0
Market Sales: 0
Market Purchases: 0
Battles (Offense): 3
Battles (Defense): 0
Soldiers Defeated: 398
Soldiers Captured: 9
Monuments Captured: 2

Cities and Monuments
gold Djedu (131N) (L1) emeralds Djedu (8N) (L1) Limestone Monument (L3) Limestone Monument (L4)
**** One monument has 1487 soldiers**** How can a player with only 2 level 1 cities that is only 4 days old here do this without someone shipping them all the supplies?? This particular one took one of Amon Ra II's monuments if not both.

There have been others, too, that have one level 3 city and one level 1 that pop up in the very nome on the second city to take a monument in that nome.
Then they are deleted a week later. I have the names of a couple, but they have been deleted, so I have no proof that anyone can go to and see.
One that hasn't been deleted yet who has only ONE level one city, but is on the way out is (who is also the one who took Amon Ra II's monument the other day when he/she was only 1 year old).

Vagrant Adamski (Rank: 2231) (High: 2227) (Age: 3 years)
Birthdate: November 15th 2009
Laborers: 30
Donations to the Gods: 0
Market Sales: 0
Market Purchases: 2
Battles (Offense): 3
Battles (Defense): 1
Soldiers Defeated: 0
Soldiers Captured: 0
Monuments Captured: 3
Cities and Monuments
gold Adamski (10N) (L1) Limestone Monument (L2) Limestone Monument (L4)

Watch the new ones in your nomes that have one level 3 city or less somewhere else. They are up to no good, I guarantee you.
Just watch this SusansHot. She will not build or last here long. She will be gone within a couple of weeks, if not sooner.
Nile residents, we have a cheater (or more than one, for that matter) here. What can be done about it?
These are not just players that are taking monuments as is fair in the game, but players that have another account, whether their own or whether it's someone's that helps them, that are taking monuments just to give the spoils back to the one who has enough to send and support the one taking the monuments.
I have been watching this particular activity quite a while now. I used to enjoy this game immensely. Now I don't. Too many duplicate accounts that are just blatant, yet nothing is done about them. I didn't mine losing a monument or two or three to another player who did it on his/her own, but to lose to a cheater? Over and over? That is too much. Yes, I know, just do without the monuments if you don't want to be attacked. I don't like cheating in the game and it to be allowed to remain no matter if it is towards my monument or someone else's.

[Topaz]

Have you reported this to the game controller(s)/administrator(s) with an account of any suspects you may have?

As an observer of the game, one suspect is obvious to me :(, but it wouldn't be right for me as a non-player to name names based upon my own suspicions!

Raiders are part of the game, but duplicate accounts to boost a player's position, or simply to irritate, are outside the rules and just not on - it spoils the game for honest players, some of whom are paying cash for scarabs. Proving the occurrence of duplicate accounts may be a problem, but surely this can be addressed for persistent offences? Maybe the standard of proof needs to be lower, particularly for players in the top 100?

Having gone immortal some time ago, I'm safe!! :cool:

[iCat]

There is something very strange going on. I suspect foul play.

You are right EndStigator. I was attacked early this morning by Bevus and SusansHot. You can see it was a very closely coordinated attack. If SusansHot is a multi-account then Bevus is the prime suspect.

I have posted the logs of the attack below. As you can see SusansHot, despite having only two L1 cities and being only a week old, managed to field an army of nearly 2,000 troops. The account's second city was built in my nome, I believe, specifically to target my monuments. In fact I'd go further and say that account was created specifically to attack me.

I don't mind being attacked, as long as it is on the level, but when people cheat to gain an advantage it makes me jolly cross. I think TM needs to crack down on the use of multiple accounts before the game is ruined for everyone. Especially considering Bevus is known to be encouraging others to follow his playing style.

You were attacked by SusansHot on 4:11am 11/27/2009
SusansHot sent 640 366 891
You had 76 3 328

Combat Details
SusansHot killed 67 3 328 of your army
You killed 26 198 35 of the enemy army
SusansHot captured 9 0 0 from you!

Result
SusansHot took over the monument plot!

You were attacked by bevus on 3:05am 11/27/2009
bevus sent 296 187 490
You had 0 0 81

Combat Details
bevus killed 0 0 62 of your army
You killed 2 20 3 of the enemy army
bevus captured 0 0 19 from you!

Result
bevus took over the monument plot!

You were attacked by SusansHot on 2:55am 11/27/2009
SusansHot sent 2 0 0
You had 78 3 333

Combat Details
SusansHot killed 0 0 0 of your army
You killed 2 0 0 of the enemy army
You captured 0 0 0 from SusansHot!

Result
You kept the monument!

You were attacked by bevus on 2:48am 11/27/2009
bevus sent 150 150 0
You had 100 0 400

Combat Details
bevus killed 45 0 67 of your army
You killed 127 147 0 of the enemy army
You captured 23 3 0 from bevus!

Result
You kept the monument!

You were attacked by bevus on 2:47am 11/27/2009
bevus sent 200 200 500
You had 150 0 350

Combat Details
bevus killed 128 0 203 of your army
You killed 39 200 99 of the enemy army
bevus captured 22 0 66 from you!

Result
You kept the monument!

[Topaz]

Icat, it does look like SusnsHot and Bevus were colluding at the very least and gives the appearance that SusansHot scouted out the resistance at one point with two troops prior to Bevus's successful attack.

SusansHot now seems to be in possession of both monuments.

If these are two players working together, rather than one player with mulitple accounts, is it outside the rules? :confused: This appears to be a contracted player somewhat similar to the role a subsidiary company might play in the real world in dodgy business dealings! Surely SusansHot's city must consist of barracks being fed the ingredients for troops and their manitenance? It seems highly unlikely that a brand new player would upgrade nothing but barracks or have the time in such a short space of time to upgrade wheatfields, bakery etc to provide for hundreds of troops standing around waiting for battle? Would this constitute a slave account in spirit, if not in fact?

[mobius]

It's not against the rules for two people doing this. This is most likely not the case. One of the people would eventually want to do something else than just build barracks and invade.

Report this to admins along with the combat logs of bevus and susanshot. It should not be hard for them to go in and track the shipments between these two accounts.

[Topaz]

Hopefully someone will contact the administrators - wouldn't know how myself, but then I dont' play any more - just an interested observer!

As you say, the transport logs would make things clear.

[Antikuity]

In my situation, I suspected it to be bevus at the time it happened. This 'deleted player' was BigTree, who had a level 3 as his/her capital and a level 1 founded deliberately in my nome, 285S, where my second monument was located. This player's 'birthday' was 10/07/2009.

You were attacked by [Deleted Player] on 6:49pm 10/10/2009
[Deleted Player] sent 700 143 739
You had 235 218 244

Combat Details
[Deleted Player] killed 235 218 239 of your army
You killed 194 143 120 of the enemy army
[Deleted Player] captured 0 0 0 from you!

Result
[Deleted Player] took over the monument plot!

My clues were, which may not make sense to anyone else, but they are crystal clear to me, considering all the previous actions and discussions of bevus.
When our relationship first began, I had griped him out because he took a monument of one of our friends while she was on VACATION. She is/was a college student who had to leave here for a little while because of her studies, which has nothing to do with the game. I understand that, but for her to return and find her monument gone while she had ANNOUNCED that she was not here, was a little tacky, and I don't care who tells me that it is part of the game. There should be common courtesy here as well as in real life. That is one of my opinions and I still stick to it. Players should not be attacked while they are on vacation mode.

So, the first clue...the moment this BigTree attacked me, the player immediately went on vacation mode, waving like a banner in my face, so I would either get my monument back by attacking someone on vacation status thereby being guilty of what I hae griped him out about or leaving it.

The second clue...bevus's rank dropped several levels right before BigTree's attack, then jumped back up many levels right afterward. I did not have a lot out there since I had been expecting it at any time, but not from BigTree. (Note added 11-28-09: I should have mentioned here that I was not the first monument BigTree had taken. In the three days before the attack on my monument, he already had taken 11 if I am not wrong. Mine made 12)

The third clue... I usually am on almost all the time, but my weather is spastic and since I am on satellite, I get knocked off for hours at a time when it is rainy. That particular night, I had been off for a long time. bevus had been on the General Wall earlier that week 'training' a new one to watch for the ones and when they are on and off. The being down is the only reason that I had anything out there. I got knocked off before I managed to move my 30,000 brick to my other city. As you can see, I had over 600 soldiers there (just for show, basically). My other monument had that many, too. And the bread was only sent tiny bits at a time, so when I say I didn't have anything there, it was not completely true. I kept just enough bread to support the soldiers and did lose some when I didn't ship it out fast enough.

The fourth clue...after I took my new site for a monument and started from scratch, BigTree disappeared, not by going inactive, but by deleting the account. Then there was another popped in and took someone else's monument. The same scenario, one level 3 city and one level 1, pow, over 1500 soldiers. bevus's rank soared again.

I observe players rankings all the time and never have seen any jump as fast as he can. He was way down in the 30's, then suddenly, he jumped over 10 ranks. This also coincided with another monument begin taken by a level 3 and level 1 cities player. NOW, I can't SWEAR that he is the only one doing this. I can't SWEAR that he is doing it at all, but I can ask that it be looked into and if it is not him, then I will owe him a huge apology. But, maybe it would be kind to the rest of us if the players that have the two small cities are looked into so we can feel like we are playing with other fair players instead of having to fight the battles over and over with multi-accounted players.
Just recently, and this is a fact, when Amon Ra II took HIS monument, bevus's, I mean, he dropped in rank down to 13 from 1, the next day he had dropped to 16, I believe, maybe just 15. I knew then that he had shipped out a lot of supplies. Then he dropped on down to 18. I began scouting for where a city may have been founded in Amon Ra's territories and found this SarahsHot character. Immediately upon her taking Amon's monuments, guess who shot up to #4 again????
If I am wrong, then I do apologize and would do anything to make it up. I just do nae believe I am wrong.
Also, thank you, EndStigator, for bringing this to light. It especially makes me feel good that someone else noticed the SarahsHot character being so small, yet being able to do so much when some of us, even at level 7 and 8 in both cities, could never have pulled that feat off.
Antikuity, who knows she will be in the firing line now for sure. That is why no supplies are stored at either monument still yet.

[Topaz]

I have heard that a Tilted Mill representative has said that it is very difficult to prove multi-accounting, but I have been told by a friend that in some on-line games it is very difficult to cheat in this way - I don't know how this is achieved, but if this is the case, perhaps Tilted Mill does not use the same sort of system as some other organisations? Perhaps if there is someone out there monitoring the threads, they could give some information on this?

[Caprontos]

I have heard that a Tilted Mill representative has said that it is very difficult to prove multi-accounting, but I have been told by a friend that in some on-line games it is very difficult to cheat in this way - I don't know how this is achieved, but if this is the case, perhaps Tilted Mill does not use the same sort of system as some other organisations? Perhaps if there is someone out there monitoring the threads, they could give some information on this?

some games like Cyber Nations can find out your a muti-account by IP adress i think, but they could just make it so if two people on the same IP try to trade with each other they get a flag for "cheating" for a few days (as a form of punishment, then people will know they tried it) and the trades not shipped out... then it'd be that much harder to muti-accoun.

also people on the same Ip can not attack each other - removing the *create account* *uncap* *delete account* stuff that goes on.

I know easily defeated if they can log in two different places.. but it'd help some.

Yes it would punish legitimate people who are playing with a family member, but they'd just not be able to help each other in game.

also maybe they should employ a soldier limit, so larger players can field larger armies, that way no new account can just magically get 1000's of soldiers. if a new player can only have 50 soldiers they wont be able to take a monument from someone with there 600 show soldiers

Punishes smaller players more I suppose, makes it harder for them to defend themselves.. (So maybe improve the amount with monuments?).

or make it so the palace level and barrack level are connected like the warehouse... so like you need a level 5 palace for a level 5 barrack. that would make it more costly to do it also.. since they cant "just" upgrade there barrack, though I guess could also hide it better?.. but the potential gain may not be worth the loss. which is the main point?..


some ideas on how they maybe could curb muti-account users ability to abuse the monument system...

[Topaz]

Some interesting ideas, Caprontos - I particularly like the last one. Hopefully, someone is listening who can do this!

[Caprontos]

also maybe they should employ a soldier limit, so larger players can field larger armies, that way no new account can just magically get 1000's of soldiers. if a new player can only have 50 soldiers they wont be able to take a monument from someone with there 600 show soldiers

Punishes smaller players more I suppose, makes it harder for them to defend themselves.. (So maybe improve the amount with monuments?).

Note this already exist in game really as if you can't produce the bread you can't have the troops anyway.. so it'd jsut make it so you can't exceed more then you could of fed anyway natrualy.. - so outside people sending you lots of food - you wouldn't have the bread to fed a large army anyway so it might not punish smaller players as much as I was thinking earlier.. while eliminating the use of a muti account to attack someone then send the stolen goods off to the home account..

its easy to tranfer 1500 troops btw - send them to a monument thats yours then have your second acount capture it then they get the troops no need to build any.. so just a barrak limit might not help anyway with out a soldier limit.. (which would cause all excess soldiers to disband)

[Salju]

Why not just make Bread untradeable with ships if it's between other players(but still able to send between own cities)... so that the only way to get bread is thru market or grow your own. this will slow down multi-account griefing as they cant get bread easily

[tutmoses ii]

The game admins at Ikariam did not have any trouble with finding out double accounts and were banning such players all the time. There were many complaints from people in a single family who played from the same home, but the answer was always the same: if you play from the same IP, first inform the game admins that you do that and don't trade with each other.
TM just doesn't seem to bother about it.
Edit: in Ikariam you cannot attack people in vacation mode, nor can you send goods to them. It should be so here as well. It's a severe oversight of the programmers that it's possible here. Attacking monuments of a player who is clearly in vacation, for whatever reason, is simply foul play.

[Caprontos]

Edit: in Ikariam you cannot attack people in vacation mode, nor can you send goods to them. It should be so here as well. It's a severe oversight of the programmers that it's possible here. Attacking monuments of a player who is clearly in vacation, for whatever reason, is simply foul play.

Maybe not though.. what if people go in vacation and don't come back? then those two monuments (provided they have 2) are untouchable - and if they have inactivity immunity then they will just stay like that..?

So you'd have to make vacation mode only last a limited amount of time to make sure no one can accidentally/purposely ties up monuments..

[tutmoses ii]

You'd have to fix that. You can make the switch to inactivity dependent on how long you have been in or on your palace level. For instance if you've a palace level 1, you get inactive after one day inactivity, with a palace level 16, then it'd take 16 days absence before you're marked as inactive. That's a very crude rule, but you get the idea. Ikariam uses a limit for vacation mode: after 2 or 3 weeks vacation mode a player is automatically marked inactive.
And why would you want to attack a player who's not present? How PvP is it to attack somebody who isn't there and can't prepare for battle? If you want PvP, then don't mistake player versus sitting duck for PvP; it's taking advantage of somebody. Attack people who are most likely on line, or scroll them that you intend to attack them, as one player I know does.

Edit: the data for a player in my capital nome on Sabah; I doubt that he laid down scarabs for immunity to inactivity:
Vagrant Acherousis (Rank: 1794) (High: 0) (Age: 80 years)
Birthdate: October 31st 2008
Yes, he's been inactive for more than a year!

[Caprontos]

And why would you want to attack a player who's not present? How PvP is it to attack somebody who isn't there and can't prepare for battle? If you want PvP, then don't mistake player versus sitting duck for PvP; it's taking advantage of somebody. Attack people who are most likely on line, or scroll them that you intend to attack them, as one player I know does.

If I'm attacking I want to attack when they aren't there... because Im nto attackign to get the monument i want whats in it :P It's sorta silly to attack someone when you know there on.. they will remove all the vaulables and you'll get nothing.. which makes the whole PVP hting pointless i think... why even attack if your not going to proift? i spent time and resorces on soldiers I want to get soemthing in return to outweigh my costs... or I'd not ever bother doing any attacking..

You cant remove suprise attacks from the game... thats still PVP, but attacking them while there in vaction mode is cheap :P

[Tinkerbell]

I'm glad to see some are finally noticing the game problems I have been posting about for months & months.

TM allows attacks on vacation mode, cuz it can be & IS used as an defensive exploit. Incoming attack? Go on vacation.

TM is no longer doing weekly server sweeps in Sabah to get rid of inactives. Last sweep was 9/21/09 which is why Sabah appears to be growing in number of accounts. It is bogus.

I still believe that the griefing problem can be solved by making PvP cost scarabs. It is the free accounts that introduces the temporary account that causes the exploits, especially the free account that last only a few days (Palace 1 & a Barracks sending one soldier) to uncap the other account or transfer bread/soldiers from one account to another.

These are not necessarily illegal multiple accounts ~ "Hey Alice, I need you to create a temporary Nile account for a few days". However, they definitely can be. After Alice's job is done, she deletes. Later, "Hey Alice, I need your help again".

The biggest problem with the free temporary accounts is the fact that when they delete, the monuments go immediately to rubble, instead of only losing one level. This can be devastating to the owner to lose an L5 so quickly & nothing to attack back. No L4 left.

[tutmoses ii]

Simply make going on vacation when you're under attack impossible and prob solved. Much better way to deal with exploits IMO.

[Salju]

so you want a newly created account to attack monument of high rank player with thousands of troop funded by another high ranked player then go on vacation so that the monument cant be retaken or rebuild by anyone else?
more exploit than the current one then

[tutmoses ii]

1. A lot of people say that there are too many monument plots anyway.
2. If vacation can't last longer than two weeks the mon will be free for attacks after that two weeks. If somebody keeps returning to keep a mon plot in vacation mode, you can report that as cheating and get that account banned.
3. People shouldn't keep so many resources in their monument sites. Tinkerbell complains about that and on that score I agree with him. Hear hear! If people only keep few resources there and more than enough soldiers to make attacking unprofitable (let defeated soldiers flee instead of getting captured), attacking monuments for the resources will not be profitable any more. Then just possession of the site is the thing to fight over. And in that situation announcing that you're going to attack is a matter of chivalrous behaviour - the same friendly behaviour that we see on the trade wall every day, where defecting is rare. Fight for sport. Don't be a lowly thief and robber.

It's not so hard to make rules to get around exploits. The problem is: do people really want the exploits to be taken care of? At the moment the ranking system is skewed in favour of the people who hold monuments (and therefore should be ready for PvP). If you don't like the PvP and therefore decide not to hold monuments, you're never going to be # 1. But who complains about that being unfair? I'd like to see that addressed.

[Caprontos]

These are not necessarily illegal multiple accounts ~ "Hey Alice, I need you to create a temporary Nile account for a few days". However, they definitely can be. After Alice's job is done, she deletes. Later, "Hey Alice, I need your help again".

The biggest problem with the free temporary accounts is the fact that when they delete, the monuments go immediately to rubble, instead of only losing one level. This can be devastating to the owner to lose an L5 so quickly & nothing to attack back. No L4 left.

not to mention theres no bandits int he monument plot (that you pointed out i think? and others possibly?)


I still believe that the griefing problem can be solved by making PvP cost scarabs. It is the free accounts that introduces the temporary account that causes the exploits, especially the free account that last only a few days (Palace 1 & a Barracks sending one soldier) to uncap the other account or transfer bread/soldiers from one account to another.

But if they have to spend some of there 10 free scarabs on something they will only need in that temp account it wont help anyway...

you'd have to make it so you must pay for the scarabs first.. but then there would be even less monument attacking when they wanted more?

1. A lot of people say that there are too many monument plots anyway.

limited to 2 per nome and it'd make more fighting for it.. and it'd make less need to uncap with temp accounts

[Tinkerbell]

not to mention theres no bandits int he monument plot (that you pointed out i think? and others possibly?)

Indeed. Another of my threads. ;)

But if they have to spend some of there 10 free scarabs on something they will only need in that temp account it wont help anyway...

In the extreme, a PvPer would have to be a Nile Supporter ~ meaning actually buy scarabs from TM.

Another possibility is to have the ability to either build barracks or PvP another player cost 11 scarabs at the scarab store (more than the ten free ones).

It would still be free to play a peaceful game. With the extreme barracks part, the peaceful player would have to either trade or buy stones from the market & also not be able to do Bandit Outpost Events (they are not exactly peaceful anyway, just not PvP).

you'd have to make it so you must pay for the scarabs first.. but then there would be even less monument attacking when they wanted more?

True! Getting free scarabs from quests introduces another exploit & even the temporary multiple account could be gifted that one additional scarab from the main account, if the main account is a scarab buyer Nile Supporter (free players cannot send scarabs to anyone).

I would prefer that there were no free scarabs from quests either, for many reasons, this one included.

I also dislike gifting scarabs at all, cuz it leads to illegal trading of scarabs ~ buying a quick rank.

A lot of the Nile problems are inter-connected & would require a LOT of new security programming from TM (not the least upsetting the free players). I doubt we will see any more Nile programming, so solutions need to be simple & not complex.

limited to 2 per nome and it'd make more fighting for it.. and it'd make less need to uncap with temp accounts

The two quarry plot cap that prevents us from PvPing is the source of the illegal accounts/legal multiple accounts anyway. Most of the time, these players are working around the cap, cuz they wanna PvP.

If the number of quarry plots was reduced, I believe that there would be more cheating, not less.

Unfortunately massive exploits are built into the game & the game is not policed at all. This is why I talk about playing an Honor Game & have found that Honor is not that common on the Nile. The old "Anything goes in the chase for fast & rank". I was shocked over this discovery.

Honor must be programmed into the game & not left up to players.

[Nameraka]

Edit: All fix'd.

also maybe they should employ a soldier limit, so larger players can field larger armies, that way no new account can just magically get 1000's of soldiers. if a new player can only have 50 soldiers they wont be able to take a monument from someone with there 600 show soldiers

Punishes smaller players more I suppose, makes it harder for them to defend themselves.. (So maybe improve the amount with monuments?).

or make it so the palace level and barrack level are connected like the warehouse... so like you need a level 5 palace for a level 5 barrack. that would make it more costly to do it also.. since they cant "just" upgrade there barrack, though I guess could also hide it better?.. but the potential gain may not be worth the loss. which is the main point?..

I wouldn't be too worried about this punishing lower levels. It would be just another incentive to produce and trade more and level up faster. The barracks and soldier limit should be tied to palace level, though; if the limit was just based on monument level, the griefer could simply grab hold of a L5 monument and the problem's solved.

Edit: the data for a player in my capital nome on Sabah; I doubt that he laid down scarabs for immunity to inactivity:
Vagrant Acherousis (Rank: 1794) (High: 0) (Age: 80 years)
Birthdate: October 31st 2008
Yes, he's been inactive for more than a year!

An 80-year old vagrant? Must be one wise man.

I still believe that the griefing problem can be solved by making PvP cost scarabs.

I like this idea when it's tied to the next one:

you'd have to make it so you must pay for the scarabs first..

Or just have the PVP option cost > 10 scarabs.

Unfortunately, it would leave the non-paying OCCers at a disadvantage. Maybe the scarabs acquired through quests can count too. (Rare as they are.)

The time required to get a "helper" account to level 7 for the quests to be available should be a good deterrent. (Edit: I forgot that scarabs can be sent to another player. See below.)

True! Getting free scarabs from quests introduces another exploit & even the temporary multiple account could be gifted that one additional scarab from the main account, if the main account is a scarab buyer Nile Supporter (free players cannot send scarabs to anyone).

Then in order for the PVP option to be enabled, the scarabs have to be linked to the account purchasing that option (i.e., not gifted from someone else). Maybe a bit too complex of a fix, though...

tl;dr

Easy money-making fix: Gold cities can PVP. Only $5 per griefer!
Complex fix: Scarabs that the account itself acquired (purchased or quested only) can be used to buy PVP option.

[Tinkerbell]

Nameraka, the problem is that a scarab is a scarab. The game cannot tell bought scarabs from unbought free scarabs.

We have had suggestions of creating two different scarab types, but that would be another massive programming change.

Solutions are not simple & some players will yell & scream regardless of what TM does.

It is kinda like gifting. Some players like gifting/team playing & some of us do not. Some players wanna be able to send their stuff to a "friend" to hold while they go Immortal/delete & get their stuff back in their new restart account, or pass their stuff off onto "friends" to push them to the top & some of us want players to die with all their stuff. Some players serially delete their start account until they get a resource/location they want, & some us do not want that to be possible. Some players wanna play for free & some of us do not want to have free players at all.

So far, I have only found about two things about Nile that cannot be cheated/exploited

1) Building upgrade times

2) Quest Profile Items

[Nameraka]

Nameraka, the problem is that a scarab is a scarab. The game cannot tell bought scarabs from unbought free scarabs.

We have had suggestions of creating two different scarab types, but that would be another massive programming change.

No wonder 11+ scarabs are required before someone can gift one. That's too bad.

Gold cities it is, then. Unless TM suddenly decides to link barracks and palace level.

[Tinkerbell]

No wonder 11+ scarabs are required before someone can gift one. That's too bad.

Absolutely! Before that bug was fixed, it was a disaster & we didn't have that many cheaters then as now with mature servers.

TM fixed that one very quickly. Kudos to them!

[PantherX]

I think the easy/simple answer is multiple servers with just a few minor tweeks in the code.

Free or Pay server - what we have now, no changes. Theoris

Pay only server - perhaps something simple like a one time purchase of the 25 scarab package or even the smallest package to allow access to the server. This will keep the more serious players together and should help eliminate the few griefers and multi-account cheaters. No changes to the game code required, but some method developed to require purchasing to log on.

No PvP more PvE Server, Simply a server without any PvP and increased PvE. Perhaps the bandits daily attack your monuments based on the quarry level. This would require you to have the military machine constantly creating troops to send to the monuments to replace those fallen in battle. If the machine falls behind and looses the battle then the bandits take the food and limes and leave, no monument or quarry destruction. Perhaps at some point the defenders realize they are beat and run into the desert only to return after the bandits leave with the spoils.
If the bandits show without any defenders, they take whatever spoils there are and perhaps one monument OR one quarry level and leave.
The time they show up with no defenders , no quarry, no monument they take over the monument and it becomes available for whomever next wants to try to hold it.
This does require some coding but since I am not a programmer nor am I looking at the code, it's just a guess as to how easy/fast/hard/slow it may take.

Either way, if it is not too hard to code, reduce the world size. I suggest that we goto a smaller world. The 24 hour shipping cap is fine but let's make the Nile smaller, 200 Nomes total ?? This is to keep everyone closer together for a more dynamic market and faster wall trading. If the world fills up, we can easily start another.

I would guess that with multiple worlds there would be quite a lot of people playing in each world. Also at this point we need to be able to log-in and purchase scarabs from a single "main" account and be able to log into any of the available worlds. Perhaps here Quest Scarabs do not transfer to the main account but rather stay in each world account.

Whatever TM decides to do, if anything, I hope it continues to make them money so they can keep working and making great games.:cool:

[Mr Ears]

The cap has to be removed, it's that simple. I haven't heard any good reason yet why the cap makes sense. Because the big players would take all the monuments and the small players won't have a chance? Wrong! The more monuments one has, the more costly it is to defend them. Even a Pharaoh will not be able to defend 10 monuments. He simply can't produce enough bread to feed all his garrisons.

And by the way, wasn't the monument game supposed to be a king of the hill game? Well, why the heck do we need three hill kings on each nome side? That's ridiculous! That's almost as many monument plots as there are active players in each nome!

Make it one monument plot on each side of the nome, and we will have something like a king of the hill game!

[Caprontos]

The cap has to be removed, it's that simple. I haven't heard any good reason yet why the cap makes sense. Because the big players would take all the monuments and the small players won't have a chance? Wrong! The more monuments one has, the more costly it is to defend them. Even a Pharaoh will not be able to defend 10 monuments. He simply can't produce enough bread to feed all his garrisons.

And by the way, wasn't the monument game supposed to be a king of the hill game? Well, why the heck do we need three hill kings on each nome side? That's ridiculous! That's almost as many monument plots as there are active players in each nome!

Make it one monument plot on each side of the nome, and we will have something like a king of the hill game!

the cap makes it so you can't get more then 10% bonus also...

you go far enough south or north no one will bother to take the monuments (and there would be nothing in them save you'd send limes to get it to level 5) and you could get really high production bonuses... you'd have to make it required to hold a garrison with the bandit attacks idea.

but people heavy on the attacking bit would have a field day with it... since the cap is the only thing stopping them.. and they don't want the monuments just wants in side... you can have it back after they take the stuff..

[Tinkerbell]

The cap has to be removed, it's that simple. I haven't heard any good reason yet why the cap makes sense. Because the big players would take all the monuments and the small players won't have a chance? Wrong! The more monuments one has, the more costly it is to defend them. Even a Pharaoh will not be able to defend 10 monuments. He simply can't produce enough bread to feed all his garrisons.

And by the way, wasn't the monument game supposed to be a king of the hill game? Well, why the heck do we need three hill kings on each nome side? That's ridiculous! That's almost as many monument plots as there are active players in each nome!

Make it one monument plot on each side of the nome, and we will have something like a king of the hill game!

Now this is rich. You have never built any monuments at all in your free Sabah griefing account to defend, nor your other free griefing Sabah accounts, nor your Theoris free griefing accounts.

You are King of the illegal upcapping account also.

You are precisely the reason why TM has the two plot cap. To stop players like YOU.

It is not hard to support lots of monuments when you would be the first player to have tons of illegal pushing & griefing free multiple accounts.

[PantherX]

I haven't heard any good reason yet why the cap makes sense.

Every time you open your mouth you show your ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance), Please continue!

Ignorance is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information.

[Jeff Fiske]

FYI-
From an electronic signature point of view, these are are individuals.

Some from different continents.


I know that there are many legitimate points in this thread, but I just wanted to comment on the fact that these appear to be unique accounts.

I will look into other aspects of this, such as overstocking an account and attacking from it and then going on vacation.


Jeff

[Tinkerbell]

Here ya go, Jeff. Enjoy this one from the sabah trade wall a few minutes ago.

Highlights

Athnotep I [SAC forum name] (83N) [3:26 pm [11/30/09]] » The best deal for a Scarab I've done is 500K bread along with 25K each luxury... That was pretty good! :)

Athnotep I (81N) [3:24 pm] » Oli! Just sent you 1K henna as a thank you gift! :)

Athnotep I (83N) [3:17 pm] » Tibony, I've received 100K bread or bricks for 1 Scarab!

Athnotep I (83N) [3:15 pm] » Well, I've bought Scarabs as well 'cause 10 is far from enough... bur I've traded a few for big amounts of bread and bricks... :)

Athnotep I (83N) [3:12 pm] » And even though I don't care much for ranks, I'm now ranked below 500... :) yay

EDIT: I admit that 500K bread means 5000 boats, so someone is stretching the truth here, obviously. That is unless there was a monument transfer involved. Player has two monument takes with defeated soldiers & no defends/lost monuments. Profile clearly shows a dishonest player. Waaay too advanced for 9 game years. ;)

[Jeff Fiske]

I was specifically trying to track down people who were creating new accounts and then receiving excessive goods for them to make an army with - which then gets used against a rival of either of these two players.

Granted they could do this through scarab purchase- and then gifting, but I doubt they would.

I frequently check the sale and gifting of scarabs for abuse, and by my definition many of these trades (like the chat mentioned) are not in the spirit of why we allow gifting of scarabs to continue. But they seem isolated and the same person does not seem to repeat the behavior habitually.

(A particular record is created every time scarabs are purchased as well as whenever a scarab is gifted. Should anyone get greedy to the extent where they gain a large advantage, the situation should be recognizable.)

Funny how hard it is to try and preserve a dynamic where you can't pay to get ahead, while other games try and encourage the player to spend to get ahead! One might even say that entire game designs focus on trying to get players to out-spend each other.

I think we are a long, long way away from that.

(though I will check it out- as u say about the individuals accelerated progress).

[Tinkerbell]

Sorry, Jeff. I added an off-topic post since you posted here & would read it. ;) I wouldn't want you to single out one player when the Nile has a lot of this. It is symptomatic of the late game bread/goods glut problem that results in gifting. This supposid scarab trade was in reality a gift from a high-ranking late gamer most likely.

Massive soldiers in baby accounts is accomplished via monument transfer along with incoming reinforcements being captured by new low-level owner. The monument is captured by low level player with only one soldier.

Precise timing is required.

No way can the low-level player make soldiers by self just with incoming warmats.

[Mr Ears]

@Tink: You're really chasing phantoms...

Why don't we rather rationalize than emotionalize and bring it down to maths: If there are aprx 7-8 active players in each nome, 6 monument plots is too much. Actually it's a real monument glut. So many abandoned monuments everywhere...

@Panther: You tend to emotionalize everything.... don't forget, monkeys use to do so, not human beings ;)

Lowering the monument "supply" would be a way to address this issue.

And about the monument cap issue: The more monuments one takes, it won't only get more costly to have them guarded - you will also will have more enemies who will target you, which means even more has to be spent on guarding a large number of monuments. So at the end of the day a system without the monument cap will be a self-regulatory system.

[Jeff Fiske]

Sorry, Jeff. I added an off-topic post since you posted here & would read it. ;) I wouldn't want you to single out one player when the Nile has a lot of this. It is symptomatic of the late game bread/goods glut problem that results in gifting. This supposid scarab trade was in reality a gift from a high-ranking late gamer most likely.

Massive soldiers in baby accounts is accomplished via monument transfer along with incoming reinforcements being captured by new low-level owner. The monument is captured by low level player with only one soldier.

Precise timing is required.

No way can the low-level player make soldiers by self just with incoming warmats.

Understood.

[Tinkerbell]

@Tink: You're really chasing phantoms...

Why don't we rather rationalize than emotionalize and bring it down to maths: If there are aprx 7-8 active players in each nome, 6 monument plots is too much. Actually it's a real monument glut. So many abandoned monuments everywhere...

@Panther: You tend to emotionalize everything.... don't forget, monkeys use to do so, not human beings ;)

Lowering the monument "supply" would be a way to address this issue.

And about the monument cap issue: The more monuments one takes, it won't only get more costly to have them guarded - you will also will have more enemies who will target you, which means even more has to be spent on guarding a large number of monuments. So at the end of the day a system without the monument cap will be a self-regulatory system.

You mean "teams" of exploiting players would take over the Nile & control the price of limestone. Right down your alley, Ears.

No thank you.

I want the cap removed, but not to be able to have more than two. Current number of plots is fine.

Special rule for you. If you don't own monuments ~ No PvP for you.

The player attacked must be able to attack back, not just take his/hers back; but actually come after the attacker & hurt him/her. I don't want cities to be attacked (cuz of peaceful players), so there must be some type of retaliation if I am attacked. Your attacks on me have never had this possibility, since you refuse to hold monuments (you actually get rid of them with illegal uncapping accounts), but only attack from your free griefing accounts repeated all over the Nile.

You previously claimed that you were the "puppetmaster" and these griefing accounts were your "puppets". that you "hired" them. Nonsense. These accounts were set up specifically to be griefing accounts via serial deleting until the capital was a warmet & then expanded to have the other two warmats until 10 free scarabs ran out. All four are identical, two on each server. They even have the same city names.

Three city low-level non-scarab buying warmat-only accounts that never progress, only sit there inactive until needed. Mr Ears, Arnold, Arnold II, Wayne et all on both servers. sunburn is the main account in theoris that buys scarabs & the one who took JuliaSet's monument in Theoris.

Who are you in Sabah, Ears? You are definitely not just Mr Ears. Which is the main account that does buy scarabs in Sabah?

Here is a good question for you, Ears.

How does TM change the game to stop YOU?

[Mr Ears]

Tink is emotionalizing, just like Panther, tssss.......

Why are you so afraid of letting it "react on its own temperature"? Why are you so afraid of letting the monument game regulate itself? Why do you want to have it all regulated from above, killing all the self dynamics that would be possible?

As I already said, an increasing number of monuments hold by one owner would exponentially increase the defense costs - a) by increasing total garrison, b) by having more enemies. It's simple maths.

Rationalize it to maths, not fears. Fears are fantasies, maths are real!

[mobius]

Different IP addresses doesn't mean much.

Good to see TM is looking into this.

@MR Ears
It is possible to have every monument produce an extra 1,600 bread. That means each monument can self-sustain 1,600 troops. Add that each monument also brings a 5% bonus to all other production. A player on bronze, leather, cedar, and some other resrouce has a huge advantage. That math is good to have lots of monuments.

The simple solution would be to cut the number of monuments available to players and kill off any incoming troops on a takeover.

[Mr Ears]

You are definitely not just Mr Ears. Which is the main account that does buy scarabs in Sabah?

MOAR lulz!! :D

How does TM change the game to stop YOU?

Running crying into momma's chest? :rolleyes:

[Tinkerbell]

MOAR lulz!! :D

Naw, Amun Nefer already has an account in Theoris to match his account in Sabah.

Both inactive

You are a cheap imitation, but DO try hard to copy including the clay gifts & pictures. You are European.

Try again

[Amrine]

You two shut up and sit down over there. This forum was not created for people to take pot-shots at each other. It was created for ideas and dynamite discussions.

Myself and maybe a few more do not care about your feuds, nor do we wish to have to see them above and beyond the real purpose of this forum. It is a game for all. It should not drive off new folks. It should encourage veterans of the game to post.

I am gonna regret this because I know the animosity is deep here. I am mourning the community I used to enjoy way before CoTN or NO. Respect others. Stop this crap.

Ammy

[Antikuity]

@Amrine, I am one of those players as I totally agree.

Now,
I see that the answer is not to change much at all, except possibly add a flag that when one player has taken, uumm, a certain number of monuments in one week, month, etc. that they can't attack again until a certain period of time has gone by, and/or they have to keep that one for a certain period for time. That would stop the reason for the second account to take it back off their hands so they can go get a new one.

OR don't let any player take a monument until he/she is over a certain level. There is no way that a level 3 player can afford a monument unless all they are using it for is to make limestone. None of the ones that took the monuments that were being discussed here took the monuments to do anything with them, but steal goods, then turn the monument taken over to someone else.

When I began this game, I found out too late about the fighting. I saw it meant that I could gain a monument by fighting someone else. I, personally, didn't want to go that route, but knew that others would and was not disturbed by the ones that took what I call 'legally'. As Tink has said, the Honor System is lost here. Too many players just use the game for the monument attacking and gaining the goods.
The 'blurps' for the game only talk about building and becoming Pharaoh.
Nothing is said about fighting at all. That misled many players, including myself, who would not have joined if they had known about the fighting until they were already here. Even then, they thought that since their cities could not be attacked, that they would remain because the game is really a good game to play in your spare minutes.
Just my two cents worth.

[Caprontos]

Nothing is said about fighting at all.

whats there to say?... Its not exactly that exciting.. the stuff is easier to talk of..

If how many battles you won/soldiers killed effected rank people might fight more and care more..But since those don't do anything beside make your profile look better? i guess... (or worse depending on how you look at it?).. no one really cares..

getting 60k limestone is more interesting...

New suggestion... maybe make it so you cant send stuff out of a monument for 24 hours after you have taken it? that way no one can just attack and take stuff then send it away and "here's your monument back!" and gives you a fair chance to win "your" stuff back.. and give purpose to have an army on hand.. in your town not just in monuments defending..

would need to make it so armies stay in the monument you just captured I think though..

this would also hinder the whole abuse thing a lot no?

Also remove the whole "capture the whole reinforcing army" thing .. its sorta stupid... what army gose out and say oh theyve taken the postion..oh well ! guess well switch sides.. even though they have no soldiers in the monument... and you have an army of 1500 :S... thy should just re-take it (if soldiers are kept in the monument upon taken it, which they should) then they just re-group then attack would make for sense..

I am aware thats prolly poorly written im tired.. and i cant be bothered to fix it..sorry:P

[EndStigator]

Well, she/he is on the 3 day 'away' status. Duh.


Vagrant SusansHot (Rank: 2120) (High: 2086) (Age: 3 years)
Birthdate: November 23rd 2009
Laborers: 60
Donations to the Gods: 0
Market Sales: 3
Market Purchases: 0
Battles (Offense): 3
Battles (Defense): 0
Soldiers Defeated: 398
Soldiers Captured: 9
Monuments Captured: 2
Cities and Monuments
gold Djedu (131N) (L1) emeralds Djedu (8N) (L1) Limestone Monument (L3) Limestone Monument (L4)

Also, notice the rank of a 7 day old player with only level 1 cities. Sure is interesting.
It's good that everyone is hunting for answers. Didn't expect that when I started with just a warning to everyone. Thanks, guys!

[Antikuity]

whats there to say?... (My point was not to talk about it a lot or promote it, but that the players that join are not expecting fighting of any kind, generally.)

New suggestion... maybe make it so you cant send stuff out of a monument for 24 hours after you have taken it? that way no one can just attack and take stuff then send it away and "here's your monument back!" and gives you a fair chance to win "your" stuff back.. and give purpose to have an army on hand.. in your town not just in monuments defending..

would need to make it so armies stay in the monument you just captured I think though..

this would also hinder the whole abuse thing a lot no?

Also remove the whole "capture the whole reinforcing army" thing .. its sorta stupid... what army gose out and say oh theyve taken the postion..oh well ! guess well switch sides.. even though they have no soldiers in the monument... and you have an army of 1500 :S... thy should just re-take it (if soldiers are kept in the monument upon taken it, which they should) then they just re-group then attack would make for sense..



I think you have some logical suggestions and agree with both of them. Anything is better than now, lol.

@EndStigator, thanks for bringing all this to our attention to begin with.

[Tinkerbell]

You two shut up and sit down over there. This forum was not created for people to take pot-shots at each other.

Then why are you taking pot-shots at me?

It was created for ideas and dynamite discussions.

And I create tons of ideas & dynamite discussions. In this very thread even. Did you even bother to read the thread?

I just reviewed your posts & you have contributed absolutely nothing.

Why don't you "shut up & sit down over there"?

Or better, contribute something. Anything at all.

~ ~ ~

Caprontos, capturing enemy soldiers reinforcing a monument they just took from me is one of my only ways to get spoils from my attacker & a bit of payback, since he refuses to have monuments himself. My two Sabah monuments are currently being guarded entirely by Ears' 400+ chariots. His other 400 chariots I sent to bandits. Yes, I captured 800+ chariots from stalker/griefer Ears & burned him badly. :D

You paying attention, Amrine? Read the entire thread this time?

It seems to me like we have players jumping into PvP threads who don't even understand the process. There are counters to PvP griefers & ways of protecting ourselves. It also appears that some players, & they are mainly peaceful players, want PvP removed totally from the game (some posters have an agenda). My point of view is different. I like the PvP although I am not a griefer myself. I play a defensive PvP game, cuz this is how it was designed. My goal is to reduce my losses & this leads to occassionally letting the griefer take my monument. When this happens, if the griefer is not very careful, I have counter-measures.

I like negative in my games & the challenge to deal with griefers. I definitely do not want it removed. If it wasn't for this, I would have abandoned Nile a very loooong time ago.

One thing a griefer never gets from me is spoils. My griefers always take a huge loss from attacking me. I lose at most, a bit of stones that are built into the monument itself. Building the monument back is easy if I only lose one level.

A player cannot play an offensive PvP game in Nile w/o cheating, cuz it leads to being quickly capped.

I feel Jeff's pain. It is quite difficult to remove an exploit & not also cause other effects that can make the game worse.

There are basically three types of griefers in Nile. Those who grief for spoils, those who grief for rank & those who grief for harassment. I have been griefed for only harassment & probably worse than most of you can even imagine. It is the harassment that I object to, especially the cheating. PvP w/o Honor. Ears/sunburn is such a player as was CBC abana and team. Most of them have sacrificed their accounts to grief me, while I progress merrily along. Nile is not only a PvP game & this is why Ears/sunburn is a terrible Nile player, as was CBC abana. They played a Nile based on anger, not a holistic game based on progression up the ranks.

We have seen lots of threads where high rankers complain about getting PvPed. I find it very difficult to feel pity for them. This is what being at the top of the ranks is all about. It is to be expected. It is how the game was designed.

One of my complaints about the PvP part of the game is not the PvP itself, but the asymmetry of it all. Some top rankers never get PvPed, while others get more than their share. I attirbute most of this to team playing (legal or illegal). Selective targetting. What amuses me is cheaters calling other players cheaters & this thread is no exception. I have talked with bevus & get a very different story about the so-claimed innocents in this thread. ;)

Who is telling the entire truth is anyone's guess...

Just for fun, I dropped EndStigator into my Theoris allies function & got player not found. My question becomes who is this player, why is forum account so young & what motivation caused this thread? Why is this poster involved? What is poster's agenda here?

[Caprontos]

Caprontos, capturing enemy soldiers reinforcing a monument they just took from me is one of my only ways to get spoils from my attacker & a bit of payback, since he refuses to have monuments himself.


But if you remove it along with making them have to wait to ship out, then you can win all your stuff back, except soldiers. So that point would be null. But if someone wants you to uncap them, then you wont be getting any soldiers most likely or stuff.. It'd also make monuments that are full of stuff fought over more.. if you attack a monument near max capacity or something even if they take it right back your gonna re-attack it to try to secure it for 24 hours- it'd add challenge to PVP... Aren't you the one who always wants some "challenge" back in the game?... right now PVP is just make a pile of soldiers sent it to a monument take it ship all the stuff out and leave it till someone uncaps you.. - the only challenge there is the person who lost there stuff will have to wait ot get it back and never truely had a fair chance to defend it. The initial defense is never enough, because I can see how many troops they have about so i just try to get double it...

Should also maybe remove that? and add in a "Scout" unit.. that's made with food and leather.. and you use the scout to check what the enemy has soldier wise and there's a chance they'd get captured/killed, then you have more chances to find out someones going to attack

I think both would balance PVP some... It'd mainly give defenders more opportunity to keep there stuff and defend thier monument..

[tutmoses ii]

Well put, Caprontos.

Now if the attacker could also see how many goodies there are in a monument plot, it would often spare a good player the loss of a monument - and the loss of resources, because even if he takes back the monument, it will take a lot of limestone and time to restore the monument to it's original state. And all because a robber is after some loot. Steal a monument for a few hundred limestone and ditto bread - it doesn't make sense.

[tutmoses ii]

Just for fun, I dropped EndStigator into my Theoris allies function & got player not found. My question becomes who is this player, why is forum account so young & what motivation caused this thread? Why is this poster involved? What is poster's agenda here?

Maybe he doesn't want to publish his in-game nick to avoid getting in trouble in the game, although it seems as if he already is in trouble there. Maybe he uses an in-game nick of an account where he went immortal already. Try to find tutmoses ii on either server now, you'll fail, for just that reason. But try tutmoses and you'll find me sure enough.

[Tinkerbell]

But if you remove it along with making them have to wait to ship out, then you can win all your stuff back, except soldiers.

Well, that's kinda one of the points about PvPing in the first place, no? To attack for spoils? It sounds like you wanna totally remove PvP altogether. I cannot agree with this one.

So that point would be null. But if someone wants you to uncap them, then you wont be getting any soldiers most likely or stuff.. It'd also make monuments that are full of stuff fought over more.. if you attack a monument near max capacity or something even if they take it right back your gonna re-attack it to try to secure it for 24 hours- it'd add challenge to PVP...

In that case, the challenge is to not lose the monument in the first place. I don't store goods in my monuments. There is no reason to. When goods don't fit in my cities any longer, I go Immortal & restart, cuz at that time the game is VERY booring.

I don't see why you wanna protect high rankers with tons of stuff. I want them hammered HARD by the game. Not only in their monuments, but also in their cities. High rank must come at a cost. The late game is too easy.

Aren't you the one who always wants some "challenge" back in the game?...

Actually, I am the one who wants challenge added to the game period. Right now & as designed, there is none at all. The only challenge is the start game that has been destroyed by gifters & the loong climb to 4th city.

..besides the desperate Quest MONKEYS !!! chase...<g>...

right now PVP is just make a pile of soldiers sent it to a monument take it ship all the stuff out and leave it till someone uncaps you.. - the only challenge there is the person who lost there stuff will have to wait ot get it back and never truely had a fair chance to defend it.

As designed, there is no offensive PvP in the game at all due to the 2 plot cap. The only players who have the resources to PvP cannot. The result is only nuisance attacks from low rankers which results in the cheating/multiple accounts used by high rankers. Players who can PvP are not able to by the game as designed.

The initial defense is never enough, because I can see how many troops they have about so i just try to get double it... Should also maybe remove that? and add in a "Scout" unit.. that's made with food and leather.. and you use the scout to check what the enemy has soldier wise and there's a chance they'd get captured/killed, then you have more chances to find out someones going to attack

That might be interesting to try this! No one can know how much defense a player has at monuments until a single soldier is sent to spy. Hmmmm. By the way, we use this already. Not just to spy, either! :D

If not, I wanna be able to spy on Ears' cities. Fair is fair. My biggest problem with PvP in this game, as I posted, is players who only attack from cities for harassment, never keeping a monument themselves. Never wanting to actually progress in the game, that is not their purpose to exist, they are not really playing Nile at all. They use illegal uncapping accounts to lose monuments & the game, as designed, encourages this. :(

I would like to see the game changed so that if a player doesn't own a monument, the player cannot PvP at all. The only other possible solution w/o this is to allow the griefing of cities that I really do not want, cuz of looking out for peaceful players. This is why I have also suggested a Flag on player's profiles. Player can choose to play a peaceful game but cannot own quarry plots. If player chooses the warmongering option, then player's cities can be attacked.

I think both would balance PVP some... It'd mainly give defenders more opportunity to keep there stuff and defend thier monument..

TM would like the defenders to lose their stuff & especially the monument itself. (This is their claim anyway. The game itself is the best argument that TM's claim is bogus). You would have to ask TM why they designed the PvP this way. To me it looks like the design is to protect the high rankers & this is backwards. L5 monuments give a hugh bonus to both rank & production. They are supposed to be hard to keep.

The biggest problem with PvP is its asymmetry as I posted. Few are getting picked on & most of the rest by far, never see any PvP at all. This is proof positive that PvP is broken.

Remove the cap, TM. Release the hounds.

[Mr Ears]

Remove the cap, TM. Release the hounds.

Finally the right conclusion!

I hope that Jeff registers this suggestion!

[Caprontos]

Well, that's kinda one of the points about PvPing in the first place, no? To attack for spoils? It sounds like you wanna totally remove PvP altogether. I cannot agree with this one.

Yes, and its not removing PVP its making PVP more involving and requiring more of your time to actually do it. Making it more challenging to win big. and gives both parties a fair shot at the stuff in it.

Right now if i have no monuments I can make an army in little time, take two peoples monuments potentially get a good bit of stuff, and that's it for my PVP... that's hardly PVP... That's player vs sitting duck (to steal something someone said earlier to me :D) now that I think about it... because what can the defender do to defend his monument? nothing... sure I can not store stuff in it, and sure I can put 2000 troops in it or something like that, but doesn't stop anyone who decides they want it from taking it.

Making the attacker have to actually hold the monument themselves would make it more PVP - not remove it as both players would have their chances to keep it - not just one player doing a hit in run and you have clean the mess up..

They wanted king of the hill style play, not raiding parties?... King of the hill requires you to hold the hill for a set amount of time to win. (At lest in some versions of the game)

In that case, the challenge is to not lose the monument in the first place. I don't store goods in my monuments. There is no reason to. When goods don't fit in my cities any longer, I go Immortal & restart, cuz at that time the game is VERY booring.

but the problem is lots of people do.. we can't use you as the "average player"... but your - if they all played like you why even have PVP? it has little reason to be in the game if there nothing to have to fight over.

It might be less boring with a good war? War eats up resources and is fun.

I don't see why you wanna protect high rankers with tons of stuff. I want them hammered HARD by the game. Not only in their monuments, but also in their cities. High rank must come at a cost. The late game is too easy.

You need remember while they are fighting over the monument they are destroying it still and wasting up troops. - that would make them have to lose the whole level 5 monument if the other player(s) attacking the person can keep destroying it - and if they chose to abandon it they lose the stuff. Also limestone production would be halted and theyd be forced to make more soldiers right away, meaning you are using more resources to try to protect there own.

It would make high ranking people who have to much in there monuments a target, and would attract more attacks - and could potentially hurt the high ranking people more then lower ranking people. (since low rank people don't have to much in monuments they wouldn't be targets most of the time)

It would add to the late games problems more so then benfits, not necessarily giving them to much protection (remember every soldier they have to produce/keep on hand eats up bread), I think but if you think it would maybe be a bit much, maybe also add in a certain percent of the stuff to be destroyed in the fighting- that way the person still loses just not all of it all at once. - or make it so you can remove a certain percent each hour you keep it?

Then a bunch of attacks on the high ranking person would cause them to lose there monument's bonus and cause them to have to build soldiers to keep the monuments with there stuff in it. and that should effect there rank. At lest slow them down..

Actually, I am the one who wants challenge added to the game period. Right now & as designed, there is none at all. The only challenge is the start game that has been destroyed by gifters & the loong climb to 4th city.

..besides the desperate Quest MONKEYS !!! chase...<g>...


You'll get a monkey eventually...

As designed, there is no offensive PvP in the game at all due to the 2 plot cap. The only players who have the resources to PvP cannot. The result is only nuisance attacks from low rankers which results in the cheating/multiple accounts used by high rankers. Players who can PvP are not able to by the game as designed.


But that would be removed, if there was reason to have to fight over the monument and hold it. Since I would have to hold your monument not only capture it - it removes the whole need for someone to uncap me, but if you add incentive to keep it/have people counter attack then it would work out to a drawn out fight for the monument.

You could even maybe even remove the cap limit, or increase it. Few people, if any could wage a muti-front war anyway- and it would be more of a war not just a hit and run battle.



That might be interesting to try this! No one can know how much defense a player has at monuments until a single soldier is sent to spy. Hmmmm. By the way, we use this already. Not just to spy, either! :D

yeah ... i send 1 solider a few times just to get rid of it... suicide mission...

But i was thinking make it so if you attack with one guy he wont see how many soldiers they have, only the scout could do that.

TM would like the defenders to lose their stuff & especially the monument itself. You would have to ask TM why they designed the PvP this way. To me it looks like the design is to protect the high rankers & this is backwards. L5 monuments give a hugh bonus to both rank & production. They are supposed to be hard to keep.

but there not hard to keep... the above idea, would destroy there level 5m monuments maybe down to 0 and hurt the high ranking person even if they win the fight.

Personally I'd be more interested in the PVP if it was more like the above.


and while I'm at it if they did add this - to make for even more drawn out wars - you could add the ability to construct forts of cedar in a nome (limit of 1) to act as a base of operations, the fort can be attacked and destroyed (it isn't captured) and the person who destroys it gets like 10% of he cedar it takes to make it.. and have them max at a level of 5? with defense bonus like the monument.. And allow a single barrack plot (spear men only? since its the middle strength troop) - in which case the bronze/leather in it would be capture-able? but make it so any troop in a fort is counted as "away" at all times - so it cost 2 bread per solder to maintain? to add a drawback to forts? They make it so you can attack someone far away at a price..


I am aware this should be in the suggestions forum.. but maybe we can work out the issues here then present a better suggestion there? if its not proven to be severely flawed..

[Tinkerbell]

Finally the right conclusion!

I hope that Jeff registers this suggestion!

Yes, but we don't agree on the how, Ears. Keep the two plot max, but not end PvP with two monuments.

Example: Player with 2 quarry plots attacks another.

Monument & quarry loses a level
Previous owner loses ownership
Attacker gets all spoils
Monument loses all workers
Monument now populated with 110 original bandits that both servers began with

By the way, this is how it should work when a player deletes or goes Immortal also. A player should not be able to take a monument from another on their way out the door & delete another's monument to rubble L5 to L0 just by a single attack. A New Player should not be able to take a empty quarry plot with one soldier. This is a HUGE bug in the current game.

I would prefer that when a player deletes or goes Immortal, his/her monuments go back to original L1 quarry L0 monument 110 bandits, but the delete exploit PvP attack has to be taken into consideration & a lot more programming (possibly impossible to tell the difference) be put in to prevent this "on the way out the door" exploit. This one has been done to me FOUR times.

[chucklesII]

I have talked with bevus & get a very different story about the so-claimed innocents in this thread. ;)

Who is telling the entire truth is anyone's guess...
If you're expecting ANY truth from the bevus, you must be an optimist. ;)

I am close to one of the aforementioned "innocents" in this thread and know for a fact that they are fairminded and innocent of some (if not all) of the accusations. Additionally, they were helpful to others to almost a fault.

Have you given them equal time?

----------------------
With regards to the first post in this thread, this forum and game are severely understaffed by TM.

Secondly, the "bevus" issue should have/could have been dealt with in the past. However, it seemed easier to delete my post instead of looking into my allegations made months ago. I merely asked for it to be closed!
----------------------

In a similar incident in another game, my roommate's account was deleted due to "pushing" although in spirit it was a "thank you" for help received earlier in the game.

Making gifting illegal opens other isssues in the game. How does one go about securing Cedar for their fist ship if none is available in their market?
That being said it should be fairly simple to see if spoils of warfare are being shipped to a new player for the express purpose of expoiting the rules. However, this cannot be done if one is understaffed.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but kudos to bevus for showing a knack for expoiting this game, if for nothing else. If rules were changed; if the ranking system is tweaked, doing this specifically for RANK wouldn't happen.
If bevus is stupid enough to broadcast his plans openly on the General Wall which supposedly is monitored, a warning should be issued if not a ban.
How many innocent players were roped into giving this person a ego and rank boost?

Just my two cents.

btw, don't bother plugging this ID into the game on either world - I go by a different name.

[Tinkerbell]

Making gifting illegal opens other isssues in the game. How does one go about securing Cedar for their fist ship if none is available in their market?

1) Cedar is always available at ANY market. That is why TM added Nubian Traders.

2) The gifting issue is not a binary question. If you know me from ANY of my 4 Nile accounts that I have had (two Immortalities followed by restarts on each server), then you would know that I was the Origianl Gifter of 26 cedar for a New Player's first boat & that has definitely NOT changed.

NOT 100 cedar.

26 & only 26

You just made a bogus strawman argument.

[Mr Ears]

Yes, but we don't agree on the how, Ears. Keep the two plot max, but not end PvP with two monuments.

Okay, let's talk maths once again.

The variable x is the total amount of garrison that you feel you need to protect your monuments with.

Now, what is variable x dependent on?

a) The more monuments you have, the larger x will be.
b) The more enemies you have, the larger x will be.

(1)=> You only have one monument and no enemies you can think of? => x(1) will be a very low number.

(2)=> You have two monuments and no enemies) => x(2) will be larger than x(1).

(3)=> You have one monument and one enemy in your neighborhood that you know of? => x(3) will be larger than x(1).

(4)=> You have two monuments and also enemies? => x(4) will be larger than in all previous cases.

So x is dependent on the variables a and b. => x=a*b.

Now, the more wealth one acquires, the more enemies one gets. That means, with more monuments will come more enemies who will want one of your monuments. That means, the larger a becomes, the larger will also become b.

We know, x consists of these two variables. Since these two variables are simultaneously increasing with a growing number of monuments, the total garrison needed (variable x) will not only increase constantly -
==> it will increase exponentially! Like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Exp_series.gif

That means, the guarding costs will not only sum up, but they will explode!

And that means, a system without a monument cap will definitely regulate itself. One player simply cannot have an infinite number of monuments, because the constant increase of bonus will be beaten by the exponential increase of guarding costs.

[Tinkerbell]

Okay, let's talk maths once again.

Your math is wrong, Ears.

Let's talk team playing, multiple accounts & pushing. Your game. The way you play. The way your buddy, CBC abana played.

She even suggested making Dynasties via gifting/pushing/making multiple accounts legal & this is exactly what would happen, especially with your suggestion of only one quarry plot per nome.

:rolleyes:

The difference between you & me is that you don't wanna make the game better, you just like CBC abana, want even MORE exploits added to the game.

My goals with my posts are always trying to make the difference between the New Player & the #1 Ranker smaller. You wanna do just the opposite. If the New Player never has a chance to catch up, that New Player will abandon the game. This ties in nicely with my suggestion that old players must die with their goods & restart.

TM is not that stupid, but nice try again.

[chucklesII]

1) Cedar is always available at ANY market. That is why TM added Nubian Traders.

2) The gifting issue is not a binary question. If you know me from ANY of my 4 Nile accounts that I have had (two Immortalities followed by restarts on each server), then you would know that I was the Origianl Gifter of 26 cedar for a New Player's first boat & that has definitely NOT changed.

NOT 100 cedar.

26 & only 26

You just made a bogus strawman argument.
I didn't include Nubian traders for several reasons.
A new player usually cannot afford their high prices which border on extortion. I would rather upgrade my market before I buy from them. I suspect most newer players would feel the same way. Not everyone here was here at the very beginning when there were no or few players to trade with. Paying twice (sometimes thrice) the going rate is not good business.

[Tinkerbell]

I didn't include Nubian traders for several reasons.

Dishonesty is the reason. You should be ashamed.

A new player usually cannot afford their high prices which border on extortion.

It was me who hassled TM first to create Nubian & then also to lower the prices TWICE.

You posted nothing, cuz you like most others love to be able to exploit New Players in the Wilderness via market manipulation. I teach New Players to not buy from the market, but to build boats & TRADE.

I take it that you also love gifting. I'm not surprized. Gifting is another huge exploit & would like to see removed, but that is nearly impossible.

Gifting is a curse on the game & an issue that Jeff Fiske will refuse to touch.

[Mr Ears]

Your math is wrong, Ears.


That's just an empty claim. You have said nothing that invalidates the arithmetics. Just your usual abana...Ears....multiple accounts babbling.

[Tinkerbell]

I think I now have managed to smash all my best stuff about Nile into one thread.

Happy Trading, Egyptians!

Good Night & Good Luck! :)

[PantherX]

Mr. Ears, thank you for your previous comments.

Removing the 2 monument Cap.

I do like the idea of removing the 2 monument cap, there are some questions to be answered though..

There are 3 things to consider, Rank, Monument Bonuses and Quarry production. I would tie rank to monument bonus since the quarry produces a product.

I think the Monument bonus is an easy puzzle to solve. First thing that needs to be decided by the developer is how much bonus do they want to be made available in game? And how much rank/prestige to add along with it. Currently the production bonus is a 10% total, and only TM knows the rank bonuses for sure. :cool:

If that number needs to stay the same then the Monument Bonus would have to stop after 2 complete monuments. You could have more but would receive no bonus.

So lets say TM picks a new bonus % from monuments and removes the cap.

Similar to CotN (for obvious reasons) each monument (or monument level) should give less bonus, I would reduce the total bonus by some percentage for each monument level in your possession.
Currently you get 1% per monument level, for a total of 10% correct?
Presuming we will be increasing the total to 20%...
Simply you could reduce the bonus % as you get more monument levels. I am not highly skilled at math but I would guess you could subtract 5% off each level bonus per level.

So level 1 gives 1% bonus, Level 2 gives an additional .95% bonus, Level 3 gives an additional .90% bonus, etc...
And perhaps the bonuses need to be reversed and assigned as a % of the total bonus?
L1 = .05%, L2 = .10%, etc...

This should mean either way that after 20 monument levels (4 monuments) you no longer gain any bonus. This needs to be experimented with to find a somewhat happy balance after the total bonus available is decided

Whats a good number of monument levels to actually get bonuses from? In CotN it seems like you lose 50% of the possible bonus every time you place another object.
And if the cap is gone you can have more monuments and get small rank additions but no more bonuses on production.

The Limestone riddle seems a little tough to work out since Limestone is part of the economy. I do not think anyone wants a Limestone Lord. :eek:
I am pretty sure that if the monuments were uncapped we would have a Limestone Lord in short time. Do we have to limit the number of quarry levels a single person can control? Perhaps that would work..

If the monument plot was uncapped how do we stop a single player from producing 30k+ limestone daily?
If this Limestone Lord is selling/ trading daily all this limestone, what happens if he stops or goes on vacation for a week? I am not sure how this would effect things but I am sure that the fluctuations would not be fun, especially for the new players.

If we can answer some of the questions, TM may actually consider some changes. All this fighting and arguing gets us no where and makes us all look bad.

[tutmoses ii]

The limestone link to monument plots is exactly the problem here.

PvP should be just an option in this game, as valid as non-PvP. I respect the players who want to fight over monuments; I just ask that the PvP lovers respect the pacifists.

There's a catch however with the monument plots. Holding monument plots is not just an option: if you want to be independent of price fluctuations or price manipulation, you'll need your own quarry, or a dependable trade partner; and monuments do influence rank, so if you want a high rank, you're forced to accept the PvP part, a point that PvP players conveniently forget to mention. :rolleyes:

@PantherX: If the limestone trade is in the hands of the PvP lovers with an unlimited number of monument plots, then I don't think you'd have to worry about players producing 30 k limestone per day. You'd have to worry about limestone lords hardly producing any limestone to drive up prices. Players with 4 towns and fully upgraded palaces don't need to produce limestone at all. But they can afford to hold a lot of unproductive monument plots (they only need to pay the upkeep of the soldiers parked there), severely lowering the limestone output. At the moment there are many players who don't understand that fine point, severely overproduce limestone and then sell it at 66 % of its cost price. I admit that such practises make the game too easy, but I don't like the prospect of a limestone cartel or monopoly either.

[chucklesII]

I didn't include Nubian traders for several reasons.
A new player usually cannot afford their high prices which border on extortion. I would rather upgrade my market before I buy from them. I suspect most newer players would feel the same way. Not everyone here was here at the very beginning when there were no or few players to trade with. Paying twice (sometimes thrice) the going rate is not good business.Dishonesty is the reason. You should be ashamed.



It was me who hassled TM first to create Nubian & then also to lower the prices TWICE.

You posted nothing, cuz you like most others love to be able to exploit New Players in the Wilderness via market manipulation. I teach New Players to not buy from the market, but to build boats & TRADE.

I take it that you also love gifting. I'm not surprized. Gifting is another huge exploit & would like to see removed, but that is nearly impossible.

Gifting is a curse on the game & an issue that Jeff Fiske will refuse to touch.

Dishonesty? :)
You know nothing of me or how I play.
I have many boats and had several daily trading partners early in my game.
As noted elsewhere, the trade wall is not the friendiest to the new player. Sometimes it seems that the person in need of 100 of something is left out of the mix while others are trying to impress by moving k's of material. In spite of what you think, not everyone has the luxury of waiting hours for a trade to be accepted. I will no longer wait over three hours for that.

If you have seen me expoiting new or any player on the Nile, please bring your proof, or else keep your unfounded accusations to yourself.
In my past forum experiences, your behaviour would have been dealt with long ago. Contrary to what your inflated sense of worth tells you, this is a game and NOT a religion; there is more than one WAY to play the game - even if it is not yours.

It's not like every bit of advice you have ever given one could take to the bank. Perhaps thats what your problem is?

[Mr Ears]

@PantherX: If the limestone trade is in the hands of the PvP lovers with an unlimited number of monument plots, then I don't think you'd have to worry about players producing 30 k limestone per day. You'd have to worry about limestone lords hardly producing any limestone to drive up prices. Players with 4 towns and fully upgraded palaces don't need to produce limestone at all. But they can afford to hold a lot of unproductive monument plots

And what will the problem of these limestone lords be? Their problem will be that they will have a lot of enemies. And what will these enemies do? They will try to take the limestone lord's monuments away.

As you can see, the system regulates itself. It will stay in balance by itself. It doesn't need to be regulated by a cap like it is now!

[deano]

how would people be cheating there is no cheats to the game i have looked and found none

[chucklesII]

I think you'll find that Tinkerbell considers many things as cheating if they do not conform to his way of playing the game.

You may get used to it, but probably not. ;)

[PantherX]

There are many ways to cheat in this game, just because you and I are not bright enough to find them does not mean they do not exist. ;)

[EndStigator]

PLEASE READ THE BEGINNING SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD ALL THOSE WHO DON"T UNDERSTAND.

Who I have been, am, and will be has no significance as far as cheating goes.

I didn't start this thread for the same ones to bring up all their old feuds, but it has turned into that
as it seems to do in any thread that is posted here since 2007 or so, if anyone else would like to check back
that far. I also am very aware of how posting in a forum brings you many enemies even though this is
supposed to be an OPEN forum, meaning you can state your own personal opinion with no thought
of vengenance as long as it is not knocking someone else's method of FAIR or LEGAL playing. This is
one reason Ihave not post ed before now. The same old ones just hop on the bandwagon and make the poster into
an enemy of everyone so they can bring up the same old tired arguments that if they haven't had any
effect since the first posting probably will not have any effect now, either. Looks like they would learn, but
guess they think, 'the squeaky wheel gets the oil'. I, personally, would just as soon take the squeaky
wheel off and get a new one that doesnt' squeak so much. It gets rather irritating after a while. Of course,
if one or two of them are the official spokesman/woman of TM, then that is a different story, or if they have
been voted in as the **official training person of the entire game**, that would be a different story, too.
When someone is accused, then the one doing the accusing needs to have proof or shut the H*** up.

That is why I didn't name names, I can't because I don't have PROOF of who is the support behind all these
low level monument takers. But I can show the pattern and warn the legal, fair players how they are
being taken by the unfair or cheaters, whatever any of you want to call them.

If my first posting concerning the training of pirates in the game (which failed the whole point, too, as the same old
arguments by the same tired players took over as I have already said about this thread, too) can be
posted and some can say that that is the way to go, then I should be able to post MY agenda as training, too.

My agenda was to bring to the attention of the other players on here to see how to maybe see an attack
coming out of nowhere. Sorry if that is beyond some other's understanding.

I didn't start it to have some players singled out, but if what is said is true, the players that posted had a
right to post whatever they wanted to and seem to have valid reasons for doing so. Again, do they have
proof? Probably not, but they have pretty good strong suspicions, it seemed like to me.
At least, their comments went along with this thread which was concerning how some players USE
the game, unfairly, to get what they want.

I also had said I had other names that were awfully suspicious, but I didn't use them because they are
deleted now. Well, the name of one was connected with the name of the one that has been accused,
whether fairly or not.

First, a player called Jackman, again one of the low level brand new playres, who is deleted now, duh?, took one of bevus monuments.
Then bevus took one of Amon Ra II's, then jackman took the other one of Amon Ra's monuments, so jackman had two
monuments and so did bevus again. Then bevus got rid of the one he took of Amon's someway and took
the one back from jackman, so he had his two originals back again. Awfully nice of jackman just to come
here to take bevus and amon's, then disappear after bevus gets the one back again. Looks like the stress of the game just got to him. All that attacking and all, then losing one of the hard fought for monuments.
Now, dig through this posting, you players that like to just tear down others and post all your old arguments again.
I'll patiently wait for the regular slop from the overflowing bucket.
Also, I thank all the commenters on the thread that do have something helpful to offer and the suggestions concerning the problems of the fair minded players. A good DISCUSSION is always welcomed to most people and not the same old DECLARATIONS that everyone should adhere to.

Oh, and I regret that I don't live here like some of you do, so my posts are not as rapid fire as others. I do have another life that I have to live.

[PantherX]

Oh, and I regret that I don't live here like some of you do, so my posts are not as rapid fire as others. I do have another life that I have to live.

Oh say it ain't so..... ;)

And I do agree that everyone should be taught how to avoid cheaters and scammers. Caveat emptor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor)

I am always on the lookout for cheaters although everyone has their own perception of a cheater. I am happy to say I have not been scammed since 1986. That was in real life and so far I have not been scammed online and I have been "online" since 1984 calling BBS's and 1995 with the internet. I buy from websites monthly but always watch out for link mis-directions.

[chucklesII]

@ EndStigator
http://www.phpbb88.com/across50kc/images/smiles/a_goodjob.gif http://www.phpbb88.com/across50kc/images/smiles/a_bravo.gif

[EndStigator]

Anyone remember #2? Rhialto?? I think he/she was in #4 before the fall!

Pharaoh Rhialto (Rank: 34) (High: 2) (Age: 55 years)
Birthdate: March 8th 2009
Laborers: 5465
Donations to the Gods: 11735
Market Sales: 2608
Market Purchases: 1903
Battles (Offense): 2
Battles (Defense): 5
Soldiers Defeated: 425
Soldiers Captured: 1
Monuments Captured: 2
Blade Golden Blade Armor Skins Linen Flowers
Gems Monkeys Quartz Basalt Statue Hammer Wine
Cities and Monuments
gold Centerplace (42S) (L22) gold Aurum (42S) (L22) leather BreadBarracks (42S) (L22) kohl TradePost (66S) (L21)

gull currently occupies this monument plot! Defeat the defending army to take it from them.

Enemy: Approximately 464 soldiers
(Remember this is AFTER the TWO battles. It showed 502 when I first started examining the scenario. Only 3 at the other monument.)

Villager gull (Rank: 1407) (High: 1407) (Age: 2 years)
Birthdate: November 28th 2009
Laborers: 155
Donations to the Gods: 0
Market Sales: 0
Market Purchases: 4
Battles (Offense): 4
Battles (Defense): 1
Soldiers Defeated: 351
Soldiers Captured: 19
Monuments Captured: 3
Blade Golden Blade Armor Skins Linen Flowers
Gems Monkeys Quartz Basalt Statue Hammer Wine
Cities and Monuments
oil Djedu (161N) (L4) leather Djedu (42S) (L3) Limestone Monument (L4) Limestone Monment (L4)

Both monuments were in the same nome and where did gull build his second city???? Same pattern, just little higher levels.

Need I say anymore?

[Tinkerbell]

Need I say anymore?

Another non-scarab buying low-level free griefing account. Another stalking account also, just like Mr Ears in Sabah.

The multiple account/team playing is just more obvious in this thread. The player(s) are just more openly mocking the game here cuz he/she/they are going after top 10 rankers.

Mr Ears is not this sloppy. He shows some talent at least. ;)

This is why I asked you your motivations. It appears like you just noticed this & you are only apparently interested in the top 10 rankers, when this has been going on in both servers for ages, definitely not only involving high rankers & you didn't say a thing about it until now. You post like you are an outside observer, but your posts have set off my alarm bells about you. You are involved, probably a "friend" of one of those attacked.

[Post #17] I'm glad to see some are finally noticing the game problems I have been posting about for months & months.

Anyway, again, Thank You for this thread. :)

[chucklesII]

Is it paranoid in here? Or is it just me?

[PantherX]

Paranoid? / quickly looks over shoulder... :D

Nope, not me...
Actually I believe that there is a lot of cheating/pushing going on. Luckily for me I don't care what other people do.

And since I get to make a guess I will guess that less than 1/2 of the active players are actual main accounts and that the other 1/2 are pushing accounts. That's to say nothing of the inactive pushing accounts (inactive and over about level 5) that come active only when needed. Now please do not assume that because I picked 50% that I think everyone is cheating, not at all. I would guess that those that do cheat, have many accounts. I believe that most people are honest depending on the circumstances.

Fortunately I only really care about my own personal goals and do not play against other people so they can push their accounts all they want.:p

I will be going immortal for the 2nd time in Theoris any day now. My personal goal this time around was to finish as the youngest pharaoh. Unfortunately I was gifted/pushed a couple tons of goods that accelerated the opening game so much that I feel I have not earned the glory, even if I do manage to make it. Oh well, that's ok I will try something different next time.

I'm looking for a new challenge for the next round, any ideas?
;)

[Tinkerbell]

I'm looking for a new challenge for the next round, any ideas?

All three of my Theoris II cities are each 24 hours from the others. I am now doing the looong climb to 4th & it will also be 24 hours from every other city in my empire.

It's a HOOT !!!

:D

[mobius]

Paranoid? / quickly looks over shoulder... :D

I'm looking for a new challenge for the next round, any ideas?
;)


There are several way to do this challenging. Anyone can do
Don't use the trade wall
Don't use the market
Don't make bricks after your first city gets to level 5

The only real challenge is getting to immortal the fastest possible without accepting any type of gift.

[tomnobles]

There are several way to do this challenging. Anyone can do
Don't use the trade wall
Don't use the market
Don't make bricks after your first city gets to level 5

The only real challenge is getting to immortal the fastest possible without accepting any type of gift.

Now the third one (Don't make bricks) could be a challenge.

[thechris]

or go for quad 1s!
*cough* TWM *cough*
for once, i think i SORTA agree with ears, i think there should be no limit but the max production bonus is 10%, if you can control every single monument to be able to control the price of lime thats pretty imprsive

[Caprontos]

How about no lux raw challange? beat the game using all bricks/pots/baskets/bread

[PantherX]

How about no lux raw challange? beat the game using all bricks/pots/baskets/bread

Can I use a Cedar City? and Cedar? That would be fun! tons of trading raws - lol

[Tinkerbell]

Can I use a Cedar City? and Cedar? That would be fun! tons of trading raws - lol

Immortality w/o using market nor trading. No market building, no quarry plots, & no exchange. Gifts only.

<ducking>

:D

Edit: No barracks either ~ No Nome Events.

[Farmer]

Immortality w/o using market nor trading. No market building, no quarry plots, & no exchange. Gifts only.

No making anything but boats to found 2nd 3rd and 4th cities.

[PantherX]

Immortality w/o using market nor trading. No market building, no quarry plots, & no exchange. Gifts only.



Ouch! That Smarts...;)

[EndStigator]

This is why I asked you your motivations. It appears like you just noticed this & you are only apparently interested in the top 10 rankers, when this has been going on in both servers for ages, definitely not only involving high rankers & you didn't say a thing about it until now. You post like you are an outside observer, but your posts have set off my alarm bells about you. You are involved, probably a "friend" of one of those attacked.

Anyway, again, Thank You for this thread. :)

How do my motivations or who I "REALLY" am involve you? I am a poster, just like many others here. For your important information, I have just realized about these monument raiders and how they work. It is a coincidence that I found the ones that I have. Yes, I began watching the nomes of the high ranking players simply since they are the ones that are more apt to be attacked since they would logically have more stored than the lower ranked players. I repeat, since it seems to be lost somewhere along the line, that I posted in order for ANYONE to watch their nomes for this type player. Have you thought that maybe I was taken down by some just like these? And why do you just want to know WHO I am so badly? There are several reasons that I can see why you have to know. I'm sure others here can see them, too.
I am EndStigator, name chosen for the very reason that it sounds like it does. I am glad that you like this thread, even if it was not done for you, in particular.
You know, it's strange that I come here and try to warn others by posting strange players and the actions to watch for, and have to defend myself against you as a poster in this forum. That makes no sense to me at all. Why can't you just accept me as EndStigator and leave it as that? What is this about your 'alarm bells going off'? What alarms? What have I done? Explain it in plain English, please. Who exactly am I supposed to be harming? Is this another challenge to you that you have to solve? Well, I hope that you don't get ulcers and gray hair thinking about it at night when you should be relaxing or sleeping. I just cringe thinking about upsetting you with such a mystery. By the way, do you know every one of the other posters here personally? Am I the only one you are not familiar with? And have I asked you who else you have, are, or will be? I accept you as Tinkerbell, no matter what I think about you. You are a poster whom I can either agree with, be indifferent to, or disagree strenuously. It's amazing to me that you have never posted these blatant events or stats of these small players if you have been noticing it ever since Sabah.
Maybe I never had a reason before. Maybe I did notice, but it has gotten worse. Maybe I didn't have time to post before. Maybe I didn't WANT to post after seeing all the crap that gets posted when someone has a serious thread and wants honest opinions, not the same old arguments, name calling, and BS, for lack of a better description. Maybe I am not a political person, but suddenly realized a way that others could watch their nomes for these players and couldn't disregard it anymore. I'm sure that you, youself, can come up with many reasons that I am as I am.
I say, either take me as I am, or leave me alone.

[Tinkerbell]

EndStigator, I did not attack you. I was just interested in your motivation.

You got very defensive then, in your second post & now in your last post. That sets off more alarm bells.

All this from two lines I added at the end of a post? Please.

[EndStigator]

EndStigator, I did not attack you. I was just interested in your motivation.

You got very defensive then, in your second post & now in your last post. That sets off more alarm bells.

All this from two lines I added at the end of a post? Please.

I did not feel defensive and don't think I sounded defensive. Why are you interested in my motivation? That is a question that you didn't answer.

What alarm bells can be set off by a posting? I asked about those and now you seem to have even more going off. Wonder if I cause that same sensation in the other posters here?

You say that is not attacking?
Whatever.

[Caprontos]

Can I use a Cedar City? and Cedar? That would be fun! tons of trading raws - lol

I was thinking no raw's at all, save wheat/clay/reeds for bread baskets pots and bricks and trading those for the lux goods you need. I just included cedar in with them (because I always think of cedar as a lux good even though it isn't technically used in a lux..)

Cedar would be easier I think simply because you could be up to producing 200+ an hour rather quickly where as bricks and such takes longer since you need to upgrade more then one building to produce them.



all cedar could be fun to though.. from level 1.. you'd have a little bit of a hard time starting out.. to get the bricks and pots and baskets you need to get higher level palace, with out gifts.

since workers do produce at half speed with out bread right?(I'm not positive on this) - you could even do a strictly cedar run? and just hope your cedar sells for the necessary bread on the market to keep them producing at full productivity.

[chucklesII]

Vagrant Bingo (Rank: 1977) (High: 1977) (Age: 28 years)
Birthdate: July 30th 2009
Laborers: 65
Donations to the Gods: 0
Market Sales: 0
Market Purchases: 27
Battles (Offense): 6
Battles (Defense): 4
Soldiers Defeated: 36
Soldiers Captured: 4
Monuments Captured: 5

Cities and Monuments
Fam2 (141S) (L3) Monument (L4)
More mons captured than levels reached?

[Caprontos]

What if they added a "Recent histroy" section to our profiles?

That would simply show the past 5 trades in and 5 out, past 5 monuments taken (and from who)and past 5 market buys and past 5 market sells.

Since it in no way hinders anyone who is playing and not cheating.. If an account has has everything coming from a single "mother account" and all the monuments are being taken from the same account.. it'd look a little funny huh?

Then non-mod players could do there own surveillance if they suspect something and take note - and report to a mod/admin with some grounds for their accusation rather then so much speculation..

Since that stuff is already all logged, it'd just make it displayed on another page also right?... Not sure how complicated that all is..

[Antikuity]

What if they added a "Recent histroy" section to our profiles?

I think that would be a marvelous idea! It would sure curtail some 'suspicious activity'.
If ye run for public office, ye will hae mine vote.
I also do nae think that the coding would be that hard to do on this idea.;)

[Tinkerbell]

Interesting idea, Caprontos! However, it could be used both ways. A player who targets you now can also target your friends.

I admit it would be interesting to be able to make public, private trading networks. Those players we never see on the wall. The ones who play in secret (and you know who you are). Who has daily trades with who? How they do their markets.

Fine with me, cuz I have nothing to hide. Others do!

As an example. This thread opening poster won't even tell us who he is & you want all his business to be made public? Many forum posters refuse to reveal who they are & that is just their ingame name.

Still like this idea? ;)

[Caprontos]

I've nothing to hide.. I only do a single ems for gold daily trade 1.4k ems for 1.4k gold atm.

Well you still won't know who he is.. =/ mystery man.... might be a girl.. who can say?..

Theres nothing really to hide if your playing the game fairly. Only people who really have a reason to reject it are people who don't want it easier for people to see what there up to...

oh note- you would need to exclude any trades between monuments/cities because that could be exploited much to easily.

as for targeting friends.. they can but that gives more logs to note for if there legitimate - and by owning a monument friend or not they agree to being attacked..

[Tinkerbell]

What I said it that you won't get very many takers on your idea.

[tomnobles]

I admit it would be interesting to be able to make public, private trading networks. Those players we never see on the wall.

LOL!!!

I thought we dropped this aeons ago.

So, you show me yours & I'll show you mine.
:D

[Tinkerbell]

And the reason many players want their business to remain secret has nothing to do with griefing either!

:D

...tomnobles is an alpha...

[tomnobles]

...tomnobles is an Beta also...

And will help TM anytime they want it.

[Tinkerbell]

...tomnobles is an Beta also...

And will help TM anytime they want it.

LOL !!!

...tomnobles is also my very good friend...

:D

[EndStigator]

More mons captured than levels reached?

Thank you, chucklesII. This is what this thread was all about. For others to search out the "suspicious players" and just watch them.
This particular player may be completely honest and only have one account, but they might be a threat to others, too. The ones who trade and do business with them could comment and tell us whether we should watch them if they are close to us or the ones that had their monuments taken could speak for them or against them to give the rest of us a better idea of why they have managed to do what they have done.
I am not saying that everyone that is "suspicious" are dishonest. Some get talked into taking monuments by someone else that doesn't want to keep the ones they have. Like this one that only has defeated about 35 soldiers. 5 monuments and only 35 soldiers defeated? That is only about 7 soldiers on the average at the different monuments. captured 6, so that would make an average of one more at each monument, giving us 8 a monument.
I don't think it happened that way.
With 6 offensive battles and 4 defensive battles, I would think that this person has the same monuments that they started with and that the 5 monument count is from taking and losing the same monument(s). That the soldiers lost and captured are primarily from the original first "bandit occupied" monument that probably only had about 35 soldiers to begin with and that the other battles are to help a different player to get the limes, brick, and/or bread by shifing ownership of the monument.
I take a monument with only
30 soldiers there (1st offensive +30 defeated),
get it filled up, someone takes it from me with
one man, (1st defensive - whatever I had there), I get it back
(2nd offensive + 1 soldier give me 31 defeated now.), fill it up again (or it is being filled for me), lose it
(2nd defensive), etc. until I have it for the last time for a while and that would make my 5 and 5 battles, the 6th being one that had NO soldiers there to get the second monument at some time during all this.
Lots of ways to do things here that may look suspicious, but aren't really.
But, if it is brought to our attention, we - that are close to that one - can hae the heads up to watch how they progress.
I only say thanks again, chucklesII, for posting something that really goes along with the thread I intended this to be. A place to warn players and how to watch for things.

[Antikuity]

I think ye hae the right idea 'bout this. I can see ye logic in this particular one and will hae to agree that all that LOOK suspicious are nae really crooked, but, at times, misled, and, at other times, just playing howe'er they play, nae intending any harm to others.

[Antikuity]

This was just a moment ago and the player, grunt, deleted immediately after the attack on the second monument that I managed to keep since I had reserve soldiers in the town and had time enough to get them out there. Several of my friends and allies here think this will soon make the game die.
I regret I did not get his statistics soon enough, he attacked from a level 6 city, but had one other lower, and also was up in the 1000's..sooo...form your own conclusion.
I am not worried as I will be going immortal in just a few minutes so I will show as the #4 rank when I am viewed later. So....I win in the end!!
I am just tired and worn out from being harassed. It's not fun to me.
I did get the first monument back, but since he deleted his account, the sphinx was razed to the ground. lol...so much for that one.
Beware the Penguin!

To all my friends, if somehow I missed scrolling ye, I apologize, but ye shall see me as another before long. And to mine enemy, just try to figure out who I am to be now.

You were attacked by [Deleted Player] on 10:04am 12/20/2009
[Deleted Player] sent 200 0 300
You had 200 200 200

Combat Details
[Deleted Player] killed 57 200 57 of your army
You killed 152 0 207 of the enemy army
You captured 48 0 25 from [Deleted Player]!

Result
You kept the monument!

You were attacked by [Deleted Player] on 8:15am 12/20/2009
[Deleted Player] sent 200 200 200
You had 100 100 100

Combat Details
[Deleted Player] killed 83 100 90 of your army
You killed 64 128 32 of the enemy army
[Deleted Player] captured 17 0 5 from you!

Result
[Deleted Player] took over the monument plot!

[Tinkerbell]

repost of Post #17 in this thread...

I'm glad to see some are finally noticing the game problems I have been posting about for months & months.

TM allows attacks on vacation mode, cuz it can be & IS used as an defensive exploit. Incoming attack? Go on vacation.

TM is no longer doing weekly server sweeps in Sabah to get rid of inactives. Last sweep was 9/21/09 which is why Sabah appears to be growing in number of accounts. It is bogus.

I still believe that the griefing problem can be solved by making PvP cost scarabs. It is the free accounts that introduces the temporary account that causes the exploits, especially the free account that last only a few days (Palace 1 & a Barracks sending one soldier) to uncap the other account or transfer bread/soldiers from one account to another.

These are not necessarily illegal multiple accounts ~ "Hey Alice, I need you to create a temporary Nile account for a few days". However, they definitely can be. After Alice's job is done, she deletes. Later, "Hey Alice, I need your help again".

The biggest problem with the free temporary accounts is the fact that when they delete, the monuments go immediately to rubble, instead of only losing one level. This can be devastating to the owner to lose an L5 so quickly & nothing to attack back. No L4 left.

another sample from a different thread...

The monument you sent the attack against? If you take the monument before you delete, the monument goes poof with your account deletion.

No monument any longer at all, not just one level lost.
Quarry goes back to L1, again not just one level lost.
Quarry plot reverts to bandit plot w/o bandits.
Quarry plot warehouse now contains 60 bread & 40 bricks just like a new/additional city.

It is used as an exploit by especially multiple accounts/team playing to raise monuments to rubble. They call it "Going out with a bang!"

No Honor at all

[Muad'Dib]

Oeh, this a real brainer, wonder who it could be....

[PantherX]

Antikuity, don't let it bumm you out because then the terrorist wins. You know he/she is smiling at this post because you made them famous. I saw a few min ago you retired at 4 anyways so that's cool. (see other thread)

Perhaps a cap on the total amount of solders you can feed based on your palace level? This makes sense i think it would help eliminate this behavior. Or at least it would make it more time costly.

[Antikuity]

Antikuity, don't let it bumm you out because then the terrorist wins. You know he/she is smiling at this post because you made them famous. I saw a few min ago you retired at 4 anyways so that's cool. (see other thread)

Perhaps a cap on the total amount of solders you can feed based on your palace level? This makes sense i think it would help eliminate this behavior. Or at least it would make it more time costly.

lol, this time the terrorist did nae win. He hae to delete his account, lost all the goods in the second monument as I hae secret soldiers to send, lost all the goods in the first monument as he deleted afore he could get them all out, I am sure, so I won by going immortal before the next ranking change...next round, anyone??
I see that they do nae hae the ability to become famous as e'ery time they take a monument, they are as another and canna take claim for the fall of the one that they think they hae defeated. I hae the large monument, so I am most pleased.
And that one hae lost what he thought to gain.;)

[chucklesII]

http://www.phpbb88.com/across50kc/images/smiles/a_goodjob.gif Congrats Goddess Antikuity http://www.phpbb88.com/across50kc/images/smiles/notworthy.gif

[EndStigator]

lol, this time the terrorist did nae win.
And that one hae lost what he thought to gain.;)

I see that you were taken down as many others here have been. Sorry about how it all happened, but I also see that you were the victor!! Even if you had to go on immortal. Hang in there and come back soon. I admire you a lot.
A secret friend of yours.
EndStigator

[chucklesII]

Oeh, this a real brainer, wonder who it could be....
http://www.phpbb88.com/across50kc/images/smiles/a_doh.gif You were attacked by [Deleted Player]
That's the infamous "[Deleted Player]" I might add. They've done it before and mark my words, they'll do it againhttp://www.tiltedmill.com/forums/images/icons/icon4.gif
;)

[Muad'Dib]

And he strikes again.. TFO was nr.1 got attacked by the infamous deleted player... seriously.. how long will TM close their eyes for this guy?? We all know who did it, he made several ppl quit the game already, how long do we have to put up with this?

Conclusion:

BAN BEVUS!!

There... i said it...

[chucklesII]

Well, I don't know how you've jumped to the conclusion it is bevus other than they have outlined how to do this move in General chat. Everyone can guess all they want, but if TM is interested in stopping this behavior (which they don't seem to be [:confused:]) they have the means of finding out.

That being said, there are other behaviors that at least should elicit in the least a verbal warning, such as abusing the trade wall. Unfortunately, he is not the only player that thinks Trade Wall means "My Personal Channel". :rolleyes:

An example:
bevus (333N) [10:53 am] » yea they do
WSC (78S) [10:53 am] » WTT 2k gold for bronze
mcritch (81S) [10:53 am] » i'm all out of raws. They sell fast at the market.
kingjm (182N) [10:53 am] » wtt perfume, jewelry, comsetics, pots, baskets and limes for bronze, leather and oil
bevus (333N) [10:52 am] » you got aany of those
bevus (333N) [10:52 am] » but ill take raws
bevus (333N) [10:52 am] » i cant take lux
bevus (333N) [10:51 am] » aww rats
mcritch (81S) [10:51 am] » Sweet. I have 7K cos, 5K perfume, 2K jewels at 7:1.
bevus (333N) [10:50 am] » I HAVE BREAD
mcritch (81S) [10:50 am] » Hey Bevus
bevus (333N) [10:49 am] » mcritch ?

[Saa]

At 1.32 am on 26th December I was attacked by a 'player :

[12/26 @ 1:33 am] You were attacked by Djedu (kellytrip) and lost a monument plot! See combat log for details.
[12/26 @ 1:32 am] You were attacked by Djedu (kellytrip) and lost a monument plot! See combat log for details.

Having noticed the appearance of the second city of a player with very suspicious statistics (only a L2, L1 and already having had an offensive and defensive battle) in my home nome, I sort of suspected that I may be attacked soon, but I was genuinely surprised that someone could be of such ungenerous spirit to do this on Christmas night. The account was then deleted so the monuments were raised to the ground to do as much damage as possible.

Combat log :


You were attacked by [Deleted Player] on 1:33am 12/26/2009
[Deleted Player] sent 246 162 295
You had 101 103 105

Combat Details
[Deleted Player] killed 101 102 105 of your army
You killed 67 123 41 of the enemy army
[Deleted Player] captured 0 1 0 from you!

Result
[Deleted Player] took over the monument plot!

You were attacked by [Deleted Player] on 1:32am 12/26/2009
[Deleted Player] sent 250 150 300
You had 106 102 111

Combat Details
[Deleted Player] killed 93 90 111 of your army
You killed 65 121 41 of the enemy army
[Deleted Player] captured 13 12 0 from you!

Result
[Deleted Player] took over the monument plot!

If the account were genuine, why would anybody do such a thing? I was in about 11th - so no blaze of glory from taking out the number 1 player. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that this a purely malicious act by another player setting up a second account to do me damage. Personally, I don't think that there is any coincidence involved in the matter of who is being taken out and as nearly everybody I have met in this game has been friendly and honest, it limits the number of candidates. As far as I am concerned there is a short-list of one - Bevus.

Obviously I don't have access to the IP address of the character or characters involved in taking down players in this and similar ways, but the Tilted Mill people do have. It is a shame that some people feel a need to act in a childish and cowardly fashion. It is outside the rules to attack just to annoy someone. I can see no other reason for this action against me. I don't expect anything to be done. It is a shame that Tilted Mill has abandoned this game.

I'm still enjoying playing it, but the number of accounts is decreasing. given the number of people permanently inactive and on seemingly permanent vacation, I do wonder how few of us there are and how many new players are put off the game when they discover that players are allowed to get away with underhand tactics.

[PantherX]

I love TM, unfortunately Nile Online is dead, we have not seen nor heard of any updates or bug fixes since Reed left. This single bug should be enough to at least have one small fix, don't let deleting destroy the monument.
Another major issue is that there are too many cases where quad 22's will not even do small trades. I have seen 2 cases where they actually refuse to do a shipment under 4-5k.

One person was called out while I watched and it was funny that the quad22 person just shut up and went away. (rather than trade with someone)

With almost all the the top 55 players having Quad 22's and 2 monuments the game is top heavy and is falling over. New players are quitting at level 3 because they either get no trades or have tons of goods dropped on them.

I am enjoying the beginning game for the 3rd time and using a new playing style.
Don't know what I am trying to say, just don't let anything online bug you, it's just a game.

[Antikuity]

Don't know what I am trying to say, just don't let anything online bug you, it's just a game.

First off, I am so sorry, Saa. Wish there were something I could do, but we all know it's not going to go away easily.

I agree that it's just a game, but, if this is so, why should people be allowed to do things to take away the FUN of the game. Taking monuments is part of the game, but is destroying them? We don't even get the opportunity to take our own monument back before the attacker can get rid of all the goods. That should be part of the game, too. Retaliation, but we don't get the chance to do anything.
We are being hit by guerrilla warfare where they drop out of the sky, trees, forest, whatever, fight, take over something, then just disappear into the underbrush leaving us with no way to get satisfaction that we have done our best.
It is frustrating, irritating and, if it were a game being played by my family, for instance, or friends, no one would play with the one that was doing these actions, but would leave them out the next time it was played, so this is not JUST A GAME. It is being dishonest, unfair, and tacky. I don't have the advantage to block another player here, but have to take their smart comments, their accusations, their badmouthing me to anyone else that will listen, and put up with the monument destruction, not just TAKING it, but totally destroying it. Who wins that way? No one, that is who.

And, as far as being bugged by something online, we begin the game, be it this one or another, expecting to be treated with respect as we treat others, but it's not that way here, not by everyone, of course, but only by a few.

There have been people here that have had diseases that are killing them, and/or high blood pressure, heart problems, and other things, who want to play and enjoy the play, but have been belittled, bullied, and persecuted. The belittling, the bullying, and all are not part of the GAME, but are mental games being played within this game and are expressly prohibited, supposedly, by the rules of the game when you sign up.

Many have quit the game because of the above mentioned actions. I know of four right off the top of my head. Others have mentioned that they want to quit, but just haven't yet...yet being the word to ring the alarm.

Solution? I don't have one. I have things that I think could be done, but they have been mentioned, but no one has done anything, so I am not going to repeat them here. Maybe someone else can make things happen. :(

[Caprontos]

Another major issue is that there are too many cases where quad 22's will not even do small trades. I have seen 2 cases where they actually refuse to do a shipment under 4-5k.

while I see the general problem with it.. it is there choice to do it.. we can't make it mandatory to take small trades...

[Antikuity]

while I see the general problem with it.. it is there choice to do it.. we can't make it mandatory to take small trades...

When I first came to the Nile way back in March of 2009, no one on the wall..wait..let me change that...MOST on the wall (Randy Spanx, PantherX, Cannon Fodder, and Tyan did trade small trades with me and were friendly. There might have been one or two others, but I don't remember any more right now, lol) would not even acknowledge that I was on the wall at all.
When I became one of the 'higher-ups' I traded small trades as well as huge ones, remembering how I was treated.

That is also why I didn't mind gifting. I didn't send out huge gifts even when I was large, just the same small items. While on that subject, the reason they can 'gift' huge quantities and not trade for small ones..lol..they want to get rid of their overage and not add more to their already full larders, most likely. This is NOT gospel, these are just my thoughts.

It's just (I think) because they are trying to get all their things maxed out and don't have patience to take or do a small trade. They are looking to move quickly and get rank faster. As always, I could be wrong. Also, when several move along together, they get used to trading with each other, so kinda fog the smaller ones out...lol..mist on the Nile, more or less.

Then everyone has their own thoughts about why they do it, too.

[Tinkerbell]

The claim that wall traders won't do small trades is just a lie. Some people just have no patience at all. They put up an offer & leave 5 minutes later.

Are there some late gamers who ignore small trades? Absolutely! However, they are few in number & screw em!

The secret to successful trading is to spam the wall every 15 minutes & have patience, especially since we have wall hoggers. Scroll wall traders too after posting on the wall, or if a wall trader "seems" to ignore you. They might have left!

Please keep in mind that some of us late gamers are not really ignoring small trades, we are leaving them for others so we don't hog all the trades. This is why you need to spam & not give up! If I see a trader being ingored, I most certainly will jump in with the 2nd wall post from that trader.

Try different times of the day & night. The walls have shifts due to world time difference. Different players on different time schedules due to real life!

Next point. The Trade Wall is not all there is to successful trading. Scroll your neighbors & build up your allies list. Waaay too many traders "think" that if something is "rare" on the wall, it is rare on the Nile. This is just garbage. Everything is always available in large quantities everywhere at all times. It just takes hard work & patience at times.

Live by the wall. DIE by the wall.

Good Luck, Traders! :)

[chucklesII]

I for one have spent up to 3.5 hrs for something I really needed. I generally offer multiple items so a choice is usually available.
There is this thing called "REAL LIFE". I am not about to devote 3.5 hrs to the trade wall ever again.
The claim that wall traders won't do small trades is just a lie.The opposite claim is also a lie.
What is it with you with cheating and lying?

[Antikuity]

The claim that wall traders won't do small trades is just a lie. Some people just have no patience at all. They put up an offer & leave 5 minutes later.

Good Luck, Traders! :)

I get a bit tired of ye trying to put this woman down, as well as others, howe'er tactfully it is done. I hae spoken from experience and I am nae a dumb bunny, nae matter who thinks so. I do nae lie as I hae told this forum afore. Ye can make it into whate'er ye wish, but since I am nae wed to ye, I do nae hae to take it.
I do nae cheat. I do nae hae double accounts. I do nae lie. Find someone to tell ye different and hae them show the proof.
When I went to the wall, how many times did ye trade with me? Ye were there when I first arrived also. And, ye hae nae the patience with the smaller ones then as I can recall wondering if all were rude and unfriendly as ye were with more than just me on the wall. The wall scrolled fast then, nae slow as it does now, and it was hard to keep up with till one got used to it. But, say what ye will, the larger ones, for the most part, IGNORED the smaller younger traders. I know, as I was one of them, now, do ye worst again to take away this stigma. Pour it on...I hae broad shoulders and a clear mind, nae matter how silly Antikuity seems to be.
Several weeks afore I went immortal, ye and I did some trading, but it was always large quantities since we both were large.
I do nae understand what ye get out of always putting others down and forcing ye own opinion of what is right here and what is wrong. Can ye say yeself that ne'er hae ye hae the duplicate accounts? Swear it on the Bible or whate'er ye believe in, well, other than yeself.
I did nae use the wall for the first several months of mine life here, after the first experiences, which were nae done fast, but patiently, as ye preach so wonderfully, but was taught quickly to scroll my nearest neighbors and when they went immortal nae too long ago, we were still trading.
This 'forum clown' is nae so much a clown in real life and she feels very sorry for ye....and am nae sure that ye are nae also EndStigator, who ye seem to like to persecute, too, concerning who he is...
What is that saying? The one that protests the loudest is usually the culprit??? Ye hae set mine 'alarm bells' ringing in more than one situation here.
That would be a crowning scenario for ye to be him and also yeself to fight back and forth here...hhhmmm???:eek:

[DustysMomma]

With the exception of the first line. I agree with Tink. I'm a late gamer myself, so I'm just not on the wall that often anymore because I don't "need" much. However, when I get on there & I get started trading, I tend to end up sending out most of my ships before I leave. What usually prompts this is when my warehouses are nearly overflowing with lux goods & I need to make space, so I load up on raws all at once. I'll actually be doing this again sometime today, I hope, but it's usually about once a week.

I'm always willing to help the "little guys" because I know how hard it felt when I was OCC. (I sometimes will post something like "if you don't find what you need, scroll me" if I can't hang around or just don't use what they are trading.) When she finally joined Theoris, my best friend would scroll or IM me that she felt she was ignored on the wall & had to scroll neighbors to get what she needed. It was a bit more tedious, but she ended up with some great allies that way. Having come over on "opening day" for this world, knowing so many from Sabah and landing on bronze here, I really didn't have that problem in Theoris.

When you're new to the game, it can sometimes be a little tedious to get those first few great allies though. When I reincarnated in Sabah, I told a precious few who I was because I wanted a challenge & didn't want to be "labeled" by anyone. Even though the game has slowed in Sabah, things are still going well & I can get anything I need without too much work. As Tink said, trying the wall at different times of the day is key. When I come on & have a few minutes & a need, I'll peek on there & if there's not much recent activity, I may just come back later. Patience & planning ahead is everything in Sabah now.

Another thing that I did when I started in Theoris that reduced the number of frantic "I need this NOW for an upgrade" is taking an attitude of "I'll take anything for what I have". By trading a lot like this early in the game, I've almost always had what I needed come upgrade time, even if I just had to move it from another city. It also kept me from limiting myself to only close trades, which makes you lose out on great allies. Some of my best/favorite traders are 24 hours away!

[SlipperyJim]

There are a few clowns who won't do small trades. When I see someone refuse a small trade (especially if it's my small trade :rolleyes:), I add that person's name to my Papyrus Scroll. There are two names there currently:
Lukefon & scaj only like big trades; ignore them.
Plenty of other big-time players seem to be happy to take small trades. Personally, I have made many small trades with TheFirstOne, gambitrc, and other top-ranked players ... as well as many other players who have gone immortal now.

I think that Tink is at least partially correct. The key is patience. Just keep offering your goods, and someone will probably take them sooner or later. Try the Trade Wall at different times of day. Be persistent.

Also, don't forget the Market! If you really need something right away, place a Buy Order for it, and see what happens. You'll probably get the goods a lot faster than if you have to wait 24 hours for a Wall trader's ships to arrive....

[mobius]

There's two solutions to fixing the monument harasser.
Don't let troops be captured. Kill them off. This will prevent new accounts from getting a ton of soldiers to harass other players. This would work since there's a soldier cap limit based on your acutal ability to maintain.

The second way is to track monument takeovers through trading of goods and soldiers. Logs have to be kept after some deletes an account.

Tracking IP addresses doesn't work. That's an easy work around. I would be willing to show any TM employee how easy it is to mask an IP address.

Now something different.
Advice on trading. Trade anything you have for anything else you don't. Somebody will trade for things you want. The market is there for the times that nobody is trading the goods that are needed right now. A high level market saves bread.

[Tinkerbell]

There's two solutions to fixing the monument harasser.
Don't let troops be captured. Kill them off. This will prevent new accounts from getting a ton of soldiers to harass other players. This would work since there's a soldier cap limit based on your acutal ability to maintain.

Interesting suggestion, mobius!

Up to this point, capturing a griefer's soldiers has been one of my ways to get revenge on griefers. :D However, I agree, this would be one way to stop the cheating & I would gladly give up this one to stop the cheating!

The problem would be, how can the game differentiate captured soldiers from normal reinforcing? Let's say I reinforce my monument from distance, but my monument is lost in the middle. I take it back before they get there to save my incoming soldiers. So I now lose my reinforcements as being actually now flagged as captured?

I still say that stopping the cheating is best done on the scarab end. Make it cost scarabs, cuz the griefing is done from free accounts. Either it costs scarabs to PvP each time, or it costs more than the 10 free to build barracks in the first place.

An alternate is to tie military to the Palace. Limestone is not needed until P12 upgrade. Perhaps no monuments until capital is P11. This one is not a total solution, but would slow em down. This one has the added benefit of adding more challenge to the game. Most players, including me, take monuments too early & quarry limestone on the cheap & this leads to the limestone glut.

[PantherX]

An alternate is to tie military to the Palace. Limestone is not needed until P12 upgrade. Perhaps no monuments until capital is P11.

I think this is an excellent idea, also I would tie the barracks level to the palace level and the number of solders you can control to the allowable laborers for the barracks.

It's totally "out of the mood" for a level 3 or 4 pharaoh to be able to command or even just to lead hundreds of troops.

Hmmm.. I just looked at the spreadsheet (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pVCbvAD0bIIQeql8S7ZU9dw&gid=15) and I think it would work simply...

Barracks level can not be more than 1 level above Palace
Each barracks can only produce/feed/house as many solders as allowed Laborers per level.

Once you send out the troops the barracks could then start producing solders again.

This would mean that a Level 10 Palace could have 3 Level 11 Barracks and can hold 104 solders each for a total of 312 solders.
Multiply that by 4 cities and you can amass a great army.

Also, When you ship out your solders , you can apply 100% labor and if you have the goods you could even re-grow the army in a single hour. (A little unrealistic but what the heck)

Still very powerful but I think it would really slow down the griefers..

I suppose this does not stop you from stuffing the monuments though. Can you attack from a Monument? If you can then perhaps make is so you can not attack from a monument.

It still has holes for the griefer but I think it makes it more expensive in time and if you wanted to amass thousands of solders it would cost real money.

Am I incorrect in thinking that it is only the Griefer that would need to amass an army of thousands?
:cool:

[EndStigator]

Now, can we find someone somewhere to program some of these ideas into existence?
It also is not understood how someone can jump in the rankings 14 ranks at a time.
Hope everyone's holidays were good. Mine were, but I'm glad to be back.

[Caprontos]

I think this is an excellent idea, also I would tie the barracks level to the palace level and the number of solders you can control to the allowable laborers for the barracks.

It's totally "out of the mood" for a level 3 or 4 pharaoh to be able to command or even just to lead hundreds of troops.

Hmmm.. I just looked at the spreadsheet (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pVCbvAD0bIIQeql8S7ZU9dw&gid=15) and I think it would work simply...

Barracks level can not be more than 1 level above Palace
Each barracks can only produce/feed/house as many solders as allowed Laborers per level.

Once you send out the troops the barracks could then start producing solders again.

This would mean that a Level 10 Palace could have 3 Level 11 Barracks and can hold 104 solders each for a total of 312 solders.
Multiply that by 4 cities and you can amass a great army.

Also, When you ship out your solders , you can apply 100% labor and if you have the goods you could even re-grow the army in a single hour. (A little unrealistic but what the heck)

Still very powerful but I think it would really slow down the griefers..

I suppose this does not stop you from stuffing the monuments though. Can you attack from a Monument? If you can then perhaps make is so you can not attack from a monument.

It still has holes for the griefer but I think it makes it more expensive in time and if you wanted to amass thousands of solders it would cost real money.

Am I incorrect in thinking that it is only the Griefer that would need to amass an army of thousands?
:cool:

the issue is all that is easily bypassed by Griefer leaving an empty monument - reinforcing it with like 1500 troops then alt account takes the monument.. and 1500 troops are their's instantly, no need for a barrack at all...

so you would also need to remove that (which it shouldn't exist anyway). then you slow them down..

now the "Can you attack from a Monument? If you can then perhaps make is so you can not attack from a monument."

But whats to stop me from having my two city's fill up a monument on soldiers then ship them back to a town then attack form the town?

maybe if you have more soldiers under your control then you can actually handle and any you get over it (through capturing, game wont let you build over it) are "let go" that way you simply can't have tons. and this is barrack level X 2?

so at level 1 you can have a max of 10 (5 in city and 5 in a monument)
if you have 6 level 1 barrack's in two towns its 60. 30 in each.

Even just same as barrack level since we don't need to defend the towns anyway, and who realistically needs more then 1316 troops?:P

[PantherX]

the issue is all that is easily bypassed by Griefer leaving an empty monument - reinforcing it with like 1500 troops then alt account takes the monument.. and 1500 troops are their's instantly, no need for a barrack at all...


I'm missing something here, we have the griefer (presuming quad22's) captures a monument, sends solders home to leave the monument empty.
Alt account (newly created free account) comes by with one solder and captures the monument. so now the alt has a monument but no troops.

If the griefer has 1500 troops at the monument the alt can not just take it.

How does the griefer get the troops? :confused:

And yes I would think the overflow of solders should wander into the desert. The Alt is not high enough level to control that many.

I also like the idea that you can not even take a monument plot until Level 10 or 11.

And perhaps being a supporter should be a requirement, no specific scarabs required to goto war, but you must be glowey :)

Having the barracks the same level as the palace works also.

Ahhh....

If you have a monument you can only send so many troops based on the Quarry and Monument levels.

roughly, perhaps starting at 50 and adding 20 solders per Q&M level which would cap at a total of 250 solders. Maybe this is not enough, perhaps 1500 total for a fully developed plot.

This would require waves of attacks if a plot was fully defended.

Where are the real PvP guys, what do you all think?

I would think that the best battles should take 5-10 waves of attacks and perhaps at least a couple days. :eek:
Real King of the Hill!

[Caprontos]

I'm missing something here, we have the griefer (presuming quad22's) captures a monument, sends solders home to leave the monument empty.

Alt account (newly created free account) comes by with one solder and captures the monument. so now the alt has a monument but no troops.

If the griefer has 1500 troops at the monument the alt can not just take it.

How does the griefer get the troops? :confused:

No see the alt account takes it before the 1500 gets there so the entire reinforcing army is "captured". its just about timing it really
(which is weird cause there's no one at the monument at the time.. but there just magically "captured"...)

[PantherX]

No see the alt account takes it before the 1500 gets there so the entire reinforcing army is "captured". its just about timing it really
(which is weird cause there's no one at the monument at the time.. but there just magically "captured"...)


I that's right I remember that bug now... Ship the solders but before they arrive the alt takes the monument. it needs to be squished, where's the RAID?

[tutmoses ii]

I'm impressed. That's some way to disrupt the game. You'd almost think TM actually wants this game to fail. :confused:

[Tinkerbell]

I that's right I remember that bug now... Ship the solders but before they arrive the alt takes the monument. it needs to be squished, where's the RAID?

Technically it is not a "bug". It is an exploit. To remove it would have consequences to legal Honorable reinforcing of our monuments, as I posted above & over & over.

Please be careful with "simple" suggestions. There is always a trade-off.

To stop the new griefing techniques will also remove options for Honorable players.

Basically, it is what are we willing to give up to try to stop the illegal "team" griefing?

As an example, the illegal griefing we are talking about in this thread is basically a subset of gifting & team playing. You ready to make gifting illegal? Make team playing illegal?

[Saa]

Whilst I was asleep last night a thief and cowardly cheat stole my monument:

You were attacked by yukake on 12:02am 01/09/2010
yukake sent 1096 655 915
You had 410 365 423

Combat Details
yukake killed 312 348 422 of your army
You killed 311 568 150 of the enemy army
yukake captured 98 17 1 from you!

Result
yukake took over the monument plot!

You were attacked by yukake on 11:58pm 01/08/2010
yukake sent 1 0 0
You had 410 365 423

Combat Details
yukake killed 0 0 0 of your army
You killed 1 0 0 of the enemy army
You captured 0 0 0 from yukake!

Result
You kept the monument!


These are the player details before the attack:

Vagrant yukake (Rank: 2875) (High: 2867) (Age: 2 years)
Birthdate: January 4th 2010
Laborers: 60
Donations to the Gods: 0
Market Sales: 0
Market Purchases: 0
Battles (Offense): 1
Battles (Defense): 2
Soldiers Defeated: 2
Soldiers Captured: 0
Monuments Captured: 1

oil Djedu (9S) (L1) henna Djedu (133N) (L1)

The account is now 'on vacation'

It is plain to see that this is the slave account of a cheat!
It is obvious that a mon troop transfer has occured.

There is a simple suggestion that would hinder this form of cheating;
Don't allow 2nd cities or monuments until the 1st city has reached lvl7 or the account is a 4 years old.

This game is dying at the hands of a tiny minority of cheats.
TM do not care and will do nothing.

I have been doing this game the hard way, without spending my money, I have spent other peoples by buying scarabs in the game. I have a great deal of sympathy for people who have wasted their money on a game where blatant cheating is allowed! Can TM be reported to trading regulators in it's country of origin, for the failure to provide a proper service. I think you should all get your money back.

I will no doubt have my monuments stolen again, as the game is stacked in favour of the cheats. If they could beat me fairly they wouldn't have to cheat!

Last time this happened I was of the opinion that bevus was the obvious suspect. He denies this in private, but does not have the courage to defend himself in public. If he is not running several accounts for the purpose of cheating, as appears to be the case, then he should say so in public. If they existed, the game moderators could look at the veracity of his claims, they have the data after all. I am still of the belief the this is the work of bevus and believe he should be banned.

A further suggestion; There are many players of this game who have unstained reputations. Many of these players have sufficient experience to act as moderators. If TM does not wish to do the work, maybe some senior players could. There are people who care about the reputation of this game, even if TM is prepared to see it's name tarnished by allowing cheating to continue.

The most annoying thing is that the person who attacked me is so cowardly that they will not admit it. It is a great shame as most people you meet in this game are impressively honest and honourable. As in real life, there are always a tiny minority who's selfishness spoil things for the rest of us :(

Saa.

[thechris]

a real player doesnt need a army of over 100, theres plenty of monuments to take with 0 or 1 troops that are lvl 5, so if you have over 100 troops and someone attacks you you know its a greif, unless its another high ranker trying to lower your rank

[Tinkerbell]

oil Djedu (9S) (L1) henna Djedu (133N) (L1)

The account is now 'on vacation'

It is plain to see that this is the slave account of a cheat!
It is obvious that a mon troop transfer has occured.

There is a simple suggestion that would hinder this form of cheating;
Don't allow 2nd cities or monuments until the 1st city has reached lvl7 or the account is a 4 years old.

This game is dying at the hands of a tiny minority of cheats.
TM do not care and will do nothing.

Where-o-where are you, Jeff Fiske? :mad:

[Caprontos]

Technically it is not a "bug". It is an exploit. To remove it would have consequences to legal Honorable reinforcing of our monuments, as I posted above & over & over.

Please be careful with "simple" suggestions. There is always a trade-off.

what you even talking about? - like this made no sense to me at all..

No one is asking to remove reinforcement were asking to make our reinforcements reinforce our monuments and not to just switch sides for no reason at all. despite the monument being wide open for attack!, the reinforcement army should turn right in to an attacking army and re-take my monument. - or give a 5min delay for them to regroup then attack.

Its removing an exploit and making it function better and more accurately.. Nothing is lost for legitimate players, only stuff gained (and a new way to fight wars)

[Tinkerbell]

what you even talking about? - like this made no sense to me at all..

No one is asking to remove reinforcement were asking to make our reinforcements reinforce our monuments and not to just switch sides for no reason at all. despite the monument being wide open for attack!, the reinforcement army should turn right in to an attacking army and re-take my monument. - or give a 5min delay for them to regroup then attack.

Its removing an exploit and making it function better and more accurately.. Nothing is lost for legitimate players, only stuff gained (and a new way to fight wars)

The reason TM did it this way was to give the defender the possibility of capturing the griefer's soldiers since they return home after capturing & have to be sent back to try to keep the monument. The defender can take the monument back easily & quickly.

Remember our monuments are closer to our cities in time than to the griefer. We have the reinforcing time advantage.

Your way will move the balance more toward the griefer's advantage. We went through this in the early beta days. Griefer's hop-scotched through far away nomes. Your suggestion is now making every soldier sent by a griefer an attack force.

Again, things are not so simple. Changes have consequences.

The game as currently designed works well for honest playing & even honest griefing. It is the temp tiny multiple accounts that are the problem. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

My options against a griefer are limited enough as it is. You want to remove one of my big ones. ;)

My griefers never get spoils & if they are not VERY careful, I will take their soldiers. The most I lose is a few stones to rebuild levels, while they pay dearly to build & feed their soldiers.

Griefers are only successful cuz other players store bread in their monuments, thus allowing the griefer to continue the rampage. Stop doing it!

This thread is about the temp tiny free multiple griefing accounts that can be created in a few days easily & get soldiers from a 2nd main high level account via monument swapping. Tying griefing to high palace level sounds like the best solution. Not a total one, but it will definitely slow em down a lot. I don't see how your & PantherX's solution will solve this problem at all.

[Saa]

Tinkerbell suggests not keeping bread in monuments. That's all very well, until you get near to the top, when you have no choice but to store bread, bricks and limes in monuments in increasing quantities the closer to the top you get. There's simply not enough space in the cities to keep the amount of stuff you need to get your ranking above the other top players' rankings!

It would be nice if my suggestions were addressed - they were suggested to stop the current rash of slave tiny cities with vast numbers of troops. Without these, it is very difficult for the cheats to harass other players. I know my suggestions might be ignored by TM, but it would be nice to have some support from players!

[Tinkerbell]

Tinkerbell suggests not keeping bread in monuments. That's all very well, until you get near to the top, when you have no choice but to store bread, bricks and limes in monuments in increasing quantities the closer to the top you get. There's simply not enough space in the cities to keep the amount of stuff you need to get your ranking above the other top players' rankings!

Saa, you sure stuff in Monuments counts in rank?

The griefers want you to believe it. ;)

Would you be interested to know that the player right next to you in rank has nothing in monuments?

[Caprontos]

The reason TM did it this way was to give the defender the possibility of capturing the griefer's soldiers since they return home after capturing & have to be sent back to try to keep the monument. The defender can take the monument back easily & quickly.

Remember our monuments are closer to our cities in time than to the griefer. We have the reinforcing time advantage.

Your way will move the balance more toward the griefer's advantage. We went through this in the early beta days. Griefer's hop-scotched through far away nomes. Your suggestion is now making every soldier sent by a griefer an attack force.

I get you now.. ok.. :P for a little I almost though you didn't understand what we meant... but i wasn't looking at it the way you were completely..

perhaps, instead of making them(reinforcing army sent that arrives after they already took it) capture the monument have them return home (since the monument changed hands) then they keep it like now but don't get the soldiers.

every solider sent isn't an attacking army but instead

inconjunction with making you require level 10 or so for a monument.. would hinder muti-account greifing since they can't
1) have monuments with out building up(so it is more costly)
and
2) they cant swap large numbers of soldiers between accounts.(more costly and more time consuming cause now they need to upgrade barrack's and so on)
3) they can't just make an account uncap and go there way

and the loss?

you will no longer capture soldiers who are incoming they will just return home to rethink the strategy.

its a small trade off there.
But how often do you even capture soldiers like that? only from players who want the monument, not the people who do not (like greifing people).

the griefer might actual retake the monument again quickly after you and steal your soldiers and supplies you sent to resupply. so it benefits them that way to if there quick.

[Saa]

'Would you be interested to know that the player right next to you in rank has nothing in monuments?'

I would be interested if they are as young as me. If they are old they have had more time for upgrades. You are presumable talking of my rank now, not when I was higher.

[chucklesII]

Would you be interested to know that the player right next to you in rank has nothing in monuments?

I would be interested to know how you can say this with any degree of certainty.



;) Inquiring minds and all...

[Saa]

To answer your query, Tinkerbell, yes, I have played around with moving stuff about enough to be quite certain that the amount of stuff in the cities and monuments counts towards your rank, with stuff in transit or on the market not counting towards it.

Perhaps it is a different game than it used to be, with measures now necessary that were not necessary in the past. The old characters have been playing practically since the game started and have had more time to upgrade etc, which also appears to benefit your ranking. If younger players are simply to wait their turn, rather than gain places through trading merit, it's a pretty pointless game!

Younger players must adopt different strategies to overcome the disadvantage of starting later (back to the old chestnut of players not going immortal at number 1!) - paradoxically, perhaps this is one of the reasons behind multi-accounting and rampant piracy.

[mobius]

I'll back up Saa on more stuff means more points. I didn't try to confirm it but that is the way it appeared to me when going immortal for the first time.

[Tinkerbell]

I would be interested to know how you can say this with any degree of certainty.



;) Inquiring minds and all...

The player is a friend of mine, as are a bunch of #1 Immortals. ;)

I also tinker in the Lab.

To answer your query, Tinkerbell, yes, I have played around with moving stuff about enough to be quite certain that the amount of stuff in the cities and monuments counts towards your rank, with stuff in transit or on the market not counting towards it.

Good Luck! :)

[Antikuity]

I would be interested to know how you can say this with any degree of certainty.
;) Inquiring minds and all...

I hae also wondered how one player could know for sure what another player hae in their monuments....want to elaborate on that statement, Tink? This will give ye the perfect time to share with us all ye great wisdom in these technical matters.

It does nae matter if one is just beginning or hae been here forty times, in MY opinion. The whole thing is just to trade, buy, sell and/or take until ye are ready to leave, be it as #1 or #1000. The only difference I can see now is that the monuments do nae hae as many bandits and there are more players than when the first ones began here. Another thing I do see is that a few of the 'beginning' players seem to think that they know the game backwards and forwards, so they need to keep telling the others where they are wrong and what they need to do to make advancements the same way they did. Well, it's not exactly the same even tho the general rules and ideas and methods are. Some of us were nae in on the testing of the game. Some of us hae only played in Theoris and ne'er in the beta one. Mayhaps that does nae matter since new players only join in order to play a game. They are nae expecting cheats here...as why would anyone WANT to cheat?? Only thing I can see is that they are a disruptive sad person in real life that wants to be a thorn in people's sides that they do nae e'en know. What kind of personality do these people hae? All this hae made the game nae near as much fun to this simple woman as it was when she began last March.
Antikuiity

[Tinkerbell]

I hae also wondered how one player could know for sure what another player hae in their monuments....want to elaborate on that statement, Tink? This will give ye the perfect time to share with us all ye great wisdom in these technical matters.

Easy. I ask them.

[tutmoses ii]

Easy. I ask them.

If I had 10 K bricks, bread and lime in my monuments and a neighbour would ask me how much I have there, then what would I reply? :confused:

[Ivy]

Ok, fair point. People might not want to reveal that they were keeping goods at monuments. However when I went immortal at rank #1 in Theoris, I had nothing but a few hours worth of limestone and maybe a day's bread in each monument. Tink asked me about that and I told him. :)

This was a few months ago though... if I had stayed playing I might have been forced into storing goods at monuments by now.

[Antikuity]

Easy. I ask them.

Ok, are ye saying ye go around and ask all the top players? Or ye just happened to have a friend by Saa that did nae mind you knowing and also did nae mind ye sharing with the forum? And did ye ask Saa when ye were collecting all the top players stats or monument stuffing?
Oh, those 'alarm bells' are going off for this simple woman now, but this time it's ye knowledge that is causing them. Hope ye pal, EndStigator, sees this pretty soon. Might give him another person to watch carefully as he does others. :D

[Tinkerbell]

Ok, are ye saying ye go around and ask all the top players? Or ye just happened to have a friend by Saa that did nae mind you knowing and also did nae mind ye sharing with the forum? And did ye ask Saa when ye were collecting all the top players stats or monument stuffing?
Oh, those 'alarm bells' are going off for this simple woman now, but this time it's ye knowledge that is causing them. Hope ye pal, EndStigator, sees this pretty soon. Might give him another person to watch carefully as he does others. :D

You really need to see a shrink

[chucklesII]

Tink, no offense, but I hope you don't do jury duty anytime soon.
Hearsay is not proof.

[Antikuity]

You really need to see a shrink

I shall go round and ask all the high ones to donate bread so's I can afford to pay the shrink. Do ye hae any inside info for me so I do nae waste time approaching ones who are bread poor?

[chucklesII]

I'm sure all the high ranking players freely admit to you to storing goods at their monuments, just as I'm sure making themselves a target is how they achieve their high ranks.
I can't believe how rude you were to Antikuity.

[Tinkerbell]

Tink, no offense, but I hope you don't do jury duty anytime soon.
Hearsay is not proof.

It is not heresay to get evidence from the player in question.

Heresay would be if a friend of a friend passed on info.

Counselor, please do try to get a refund on your tuition to law school. You were ripped off.

[Antikuity]

I can't believe how rude you were to Antikuity.

Thank ye kindly, ChucklesII, but ye know that good breeding always shows.

From King Henry V
Once more unto the breach

In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:

(and farther down in the passage to which some one person should take careful heed.)

let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not.

[chucklesII]

Tink, what you think you know, isn't necessarily WHAT you know.
Not that I'd guesstimate you'd know the difference....

If you did not see with your own two eyes then you know nothing about what other people have except what they tell you.

You are the one fond of throwing labels at folks, like Cheater for instance, which encompasses a lot of territory in YOUR book - all because people don't play the game like YOU do.


So to truthfully answer my original question you just couldn't admit that you did not know. Like the Earth would cease to spin on it's axis if the all-knowing Tinkerbell did not have an answer.
http://www.phpbb88.com/across50kc/images/smiles/icon_lala.gif