intentional maxing?

Started by Genevieve, April 10, 2010, 07:51:18 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Genevieve

 Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:14:35 -0600     Vargarth (#28)
Clan:    Bewj (#27)
Clan:    Guerilla Strike
Defense Held
Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:14:34 -0600    Vargarth (#28)
Clan:    Bewj (#27)
Clan:    Guerilla Strike
Defense Held
Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:14:34 -0600    Vargarth (#28)
Clan:    Bewj (#27)
Clan:    Guerilla Strike
Defense Held
Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:14:33 -0600    Vargarth (#28)
Clan:    Bewj (#27)
Clan:    Guerilla Strike
Defense Held
Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:14:32 -0600    Vargarth (#28)
Clan:    Bewj (#27)
Clan:    Guerilla Strike
Defense Held
Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:14:30 -0600    Vargarth (#28)
Clan:    Bewj (#27)
Clan:    Guerilla Strike
Defense Held
Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:14:29 -0600    Vargarth (#28)
Clan:    Bewj (#27)
Clan:    Guerilla Strike
Defense Held
Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:14:28 -0600    Vargarth (#28)
Clan:    Bewj (#27)
Clan:    Guerilla Strike
Defense Held
Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:14:27 -0600    Vargarth (#28)
Clan:    Bewj (#27)
Clan:    Guerilla Strike
Defense Held
Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:14:25 -0600    Vargarth (#28)
Clan:    Bewj (#27)
Clan:    Guerilla Strike
Defense Held
Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:14:16 -0600    Vargarth (#28)
Clan:    Bewj (#27)
Clan:    Guerilla Strike
Defense Held

The Purple Dragon

Looks like it, Varg and his players are really dumb though, they sent me a message saying if I ever land grabbed from them again they would kill me. :-\ shakin' in my boots from the kids with 24k land and 10mil net when not cloaked..
I have a Purple Dragon. I shall love him and I shall cuddle him and I shall call him Squishy. And He Breathes Fire.

"After stealing the TV, washing the dishes doesn't make up for it" - Wolf Bite directed at Sevz :D

"I got one!" - Revelation when he killed that one clanned account that never played and had 250 land:P

taekwondokid42

Is intentional maxing against the rules or just frowned upon?

Shadow

#3
It is against the rules, but he is pretty new and likely does not know that.

Send him a message maybe? I suspect you will just find that he was trying to kill the other guy's troops.
<=holbs-.. ..-holbs=> <=holbs-..

Sevz

Intentionally maxing someone is completely against the rules.

The only exceptions i've seen where someone gets maxed out and it's allowed was when Volkov kept trying to break my solid defense (we both got banned but let off) and another few times Shadow has killed around 20% of my leaders, left me untouchable and it's totally legal. Barely costs me a cent but meh.

At other websites usually 4 failed military attacks are allowed against a defensive empire before the admin give a once off warning followed with a ban til the end of the month. Redwall policy is inconsistent so there's no problems with doing it as long as it's not obvious.
Quote from: windhound on March 31, 2012, 05:10:16 PM
Coding out holes in the game is the best way to do things. 
Relying an the admins to patrol is a) time consuming for the admins in question b) unreliable c) only invites conflict
There is no conflict or "I didn't know any better!" excuses with a coded in rule.

Holby

Quote from: Sevz on April 17, 2010, 09:45:44 AM
Intentionally maxing someone is completely against the rules.

The only exceptions i've seen where someone gets maxed out and it's allowed was when Volkov kept trying to break my solid defense (we both got banned but let off) and another few times Shadow has killed around 20% of my leaders, left me untouchable and it's totally legal. Barely costs me a cent but meh.

At other websites usually 4 failed military attacks are allowed against a defensive empire before the admin give a once off warning followed with a ban til the end of the month. Redwall policy is inconsistent so there's no problems with doing it as long as it's not obvious.
Policy on intentional failed attacks is almost consistent.

Half a dozen failed troop attacks will probably get you investigated. In the case of Volkov, it turned out he was insane, and thought he could destroy troops that way.

Any leader suicides are permitted.

This is in contrast to the "Rule Change" thread posted in the News/Updates board, which says no more than 3 leader suicides are allowed. I don't know why this stopped being policy. Probably because it was hard to enforce.


I will not deleted this

Gen. Volkov

QuoteIn the case of Volkov, it turned out he was insane, and thought he could destroy troops that way.

Actually, it does destroy troops, but not as many as I thought it would. Also, not being able to break a defense when I had superior numbers of troops was driving me insane.
It is said that when Rincewind dies the occult ability of the entire human race will go up by a fraction. -Terry Pratchett

cloud says: I'm pretty sure I'm immune to everything that I can be immune to...brb snorting anthrax.

Sticker334 says(Peace Alliance): OMG! HOBOES

Sevz

Failed leader attacks are fine if open attack ops is successful afterwards. If not the player deserves a 3day ban. Best way to monitor it is when i gloat about being temporarily invincible.
Quote from: windhound on March 31, 2012, 05:10:16 PM
Coding out holes in the game is the best way to do things. 
Relying an the admins to patrol is a) time consuming for the admins in question b) unreliable c) only invites conflict
There is no conflict or "I didn't know any better!" excuses with a coded in rule.

taekwondokid42

Bans should be based off intention not result. If you were trying to kill him and you accodently solidified his lead... To bad.