Are you allowed to trade oil at 10k for .1 money in the market to help someone win?
Please log in to post a reply.
No, resource pushing is not allowed. 10k resources traded for $1 -- once is one thing, if you are caught pushing mass amounts of resources through games, you (and your partner) will be expelled from said games, and may even lose your accounts.
How is that any different than transmitting resources through the in-game trading system?WiseOdin wrote:
No, resource pushing is not allowed. 10k resources traded for $1 -- once is one thing, if you are caught pushing mass amounts of resources through games, you (and your partner) will be expelled from said games, and may even lose your accounts.
It isn't. If a player is asking to buy rare materials at, say, 1 money, and you sell him a whole bunch, that is certainly a red flag. There is a line between working together, and using other accounts to make sure one wins.MontanaBB wrote:
How is that any different than transmitting resources through the in-game trading system?WiseOdin wrote:
No, resource pushing is not allowed. 10k resources traded for $1 -- once is one thing, if you are caught pushing mass amounts of resources through games, you (and your partner) will be expelled from said games, and may even lose your accounts.
When I have been paired with strong allies, we have freely traded -- and freely given with no consideration in trade -- necessary resources and units. Very often, two countries are naturally paired as allies, when one has greater production of one resource, and vice versa (e.g., Canada and Northern States of America on the 22-player map). Never has the idea been to promote one player to be the winner, but to be a good ally, promote the team, and let the chips fall where they may to see whether the individual allies finish first or second based on who is in a stronger position to finish first at the end. Usually, I have played with a single ally, but on the 50-player Pacific map, I have also played with 3 and 4-player alliances.
In one case, I sent my entire air force into battle to save my ally, and then rebuilt half of his army when he got mauled by a simultaneous attack by three other players -- and I ultimately finished first, and my ally second. When you go through something like that with another player, you cannot buy that kind of loyalty.
If that's "cheating," I'm guilty as hell. I've finished first in 9 games, and second in 7 more, and in all but one of those games, I have had strong allies and we have shared units and resources freely. Not to promote a single player, but to promote the alliance. And in my opinion, frankly, that's how it should be.
So if you think someone is taking advantage of the trade system to get an unfair advantage......where do we report this and send the screenshot
i did do that once on the player chat trade option
when in alliance why is it cheating to boost one player? it is different to have second accounts boostin one, however, in terms of strategy since everybody is allowed to do it why you can not send resources to a player for either defensive or offensive reasons?
for example if someone has france and Germany, Italy, Uk and Spain are enemies. should coallition let him die instead of helping with resources?
true, some countries in ww2 did thatcchyt wrote:
when in alliance why is it cheating to boost one player? it is different to have second accounts boostin one, however, in terms of strategy since everybody is allowed to do it why you can not send resources to a player for either defensive or offensive reasons?for example if someone has france and Germany, Italy, Uk and Spain are enemies. should coallition let him die instead of helping with resources?
Excellent question.cchyt wrote:
for example if someone has france and Germany, Italy, Uk and Spain are enemies. should coallition let him die instead of helping with resources?
No doubt this "policy" started because of a situation in which several players joined the game of a friend only to "push resources" to one player in order to help him win. Somewhere in this discussion, however, WiseOdin (and others) seem to have lost the thread . . . .
That is entirely different from a legitimate alliance in which two or more players are competing to win the game, but are also mutually supporting each other against all others. That's called being good allies. A scenario in which one or more players join a game simply to push all or substantially all of their resources to another player, and not compete for themselves, only to promote the designated player's chances of winning . . . well, that's something else all together different and it is, in my opinion, cheating.
im so confused on this. i guess that having friends join and giving resources would be "wolfpacking", and indeed against the rules. Or using multi accounts to give ones self is of course against the rules. but, if i decide to say "hey montana, Ill give u 10000 oil if u attack x country", that should not be called cheating.
This is the point I was trying to raise, and absolutely should have been more clear with how I worded it. Trading resources is not against the rules, nor is helping an ally by giving them free resources to fortify a front or push back an offensive in a collective war.MontanaBB wrote:
That is entirely different from a legitimate alliance in which two or more players are competing to win the game, but are also mutually supporting each other against all others. That's called being good allies. A scenario in which one or more players join a game simply to push all or substantially all of their resources to another player, and not compete for themselves, only to promote the designated player's chances of winning . . . well, that's something else all together different and it is, in my opinion, cheating.
Having one account; whether yours or an.. erm.. Friend's, that is specifically there to help another account by pushing resources, land, or armies? That is cheating and is not allowed.
Also, yes, I "lost the thread," or at least had one heck of a weekend 
apologies for the delay in a reply.
@WiseOdin: Okay, then we are in complete agreement.
I was getting ready for another one of Sasri and Freezy's "we just destroyed aerial reconnaissance as it has always existed" moments.
Would this spy report be considered "strong evidence" of resource pushing?
Last personal trade:
Right of Way
-
Right of Way successful
46200 Oil
-
1 Food successful
104000 Metal
-
1 Food successful
4500 Rare materials
-
1 Food successful
13000 Food
-
1 Metal successful
21000 Goods
-
1 Food successful
-
1 Food successful
Alta
-
1 Food successful
300000 Food
-
Right of Way successful
100000 Oil
-
Right of Way successful
Right of Way
-
Share Map successful
Right of Way
-
Right of Way successful
10000 Metal
-
Share Map successful
20000 Oil
-
Share Map successful
Varna
-
Peace successful
Peace
-
Peace successful
Peace
-
Peace successful
Oslo
-
1 Money successful
3614 Rare materials
-
Right of Way successful
100000 Money
-
Right of Way successful
100000 Money
-
Right of Way successful
100000 Money
-
Right of Way successful
100000 Money
-
Right of Way successful
21241 Goods
-
Right of Way successful
100000 Money
-
Right of Way successful
100000 Money
-
Right of Way successful
Peace
-
Peace successful
30000 Metal
-
Right of Way successful
30000 Food
-
Right of Way successful
30000 Goods
-
Right of Way successful
30000 Metal
-
Right of Way successful
30000 Metal
-
Right of Way successful
30000 Metal
-
Right of Way successful
30000 Metal
-
Right of Way successful
30000 Metal
-
Right of Way successful
21476 Oil
-
Right of Way successful
100000 Money
-
Right of Way successful
30000 Oil
-
Right of Way successful
100000 Money
-
Right of Way successful
30000 Goods
-
Right of Way successful
30000 Food
-
Right of Way successful
30000 Food
-
Right of Way successful
30000 Oil
-
Right of Way successful
Minsk
-
1 Money successful
Intercepted communications:
Received from XXXXX
thank. oil, boxes, rocks?
This just happened in game 2487919, was reported, and the game moderator responded with he sees no evidence of cheating.
That is because the two players involved were 2 different players, not someone multiaccounting and pushing resources to himself. It was also not a case where a player joined just for the purpose of pushing resources. This was a case where a player felt he was defeated, and gave his resources to his ally before he left the game. That is not considered cheating.
It's pretty damn close to cheating IMOStormbringer50 wrote:
That is because the two players involved were 2 different players, not someone multiaccounting and pushing resources to himself. It was also not a case where a player joined just for the purpose of pushing resources. This was a case where a player felt he was defeated, and gave his resources to his ally before he left the game. That is not considered cheating.
Ever hear of the lend-lease act? If not google it. I dont recall Germany reporting UK-US to the moderators for cheeting...
Spy reports typically only show one side of the transactions, not both. So there could be an equal number of transactions in the other direction that were not revealed by spies.
When my game operators check for signs of cheating they consider the timing of such trades, and other activities between the accused players. I won't reveal all of the things that we look for so as not to tip the cheaters off to our procedures.
If you wish to revisit a case you can send me a message and I can review it.
Please log in to post a reply.
