shared connection problums and chat

[DeletedUser]

sometimes to meny rules can cause more problums than thay can solve
as i and my brother have had a few issues about this matter i will start a chat to prove to everyone that it isnt cheeting and it has more drawbacks than advantages and i feel it need to be addressed and changed...
this shared connection issue has more drawbacks and rules againt it..lets start buy addressing the issue of the 48 hrs and the fact thay cannot attack both the same target..
we all know that if 2 players share a connection that cannot assist eachother in enyway when attacking a single player a lot of people may think this should be the way ..but in reality it is more of a disadvantage as in the gaming play of most alliances other programs such as skype are used where bye other can call in others to help and assist with attacks and also can support....in the case of a shared connection this cannot be done so right away thes to player are being victomised for just sharing a connection..now most people may think thes connections are one of the same player...and i do think in some cases thay are but at the same point these accounts must both be maintained..i see no difrens other than speed that thes 2 players may have over eny other players in alliances that help and assist there own players more to the point of them being victums of there proxsimity to each other.....
lets put it a difrent way what if thes 2 player where not in the same alliance and where in difrent alliances thes 2 players could still not attack eack other so we would have a no win sinario and a pointless game....i do however think that thes to player if thay are in the same alliance and rightly so should not be able to attack eack other as this would have a direct advantage on them both this and the fact that thay cannot share resorces is in my opinion be the only 2 rules that thes player should have to consern themselfs with the rest of the rules regarding shared conections should in my opinion be throwing out the window as thay serve no purpus other than to restrict people who share a connection
i would be intrested in all comments here and we may have a constructive conversation about thes problums and matters

 

[DeletedUser]

i fully understand ben ..and mistakes are easyly made if you have a doppy brother like me

 

[DeletedUser]

Shared connection rule is there for a reason, and a good one at that.

For example, we've all seen people leave the game and offer their account to someoen else which is cool of them. But let's say they give it to someone with 50+ cities and the dude who was gifted the account turns one account into a defense account for himself and use his own account for attack, would that be fair?

And maybe then the same player gets gifted another account and uses that for LS alone. This is just hypothetical of course People can make up plenty of excuses, brothers, sisters,spouses, gf's, bf's etc. I think the rule is there to stop people taking advantage in this way and it's a great rule if you ask me.

I can see how it can be annoying if 2 of the people are in the same alliance and can't help each other out, or help the same player out but i think the pro's heavily outway the cons.

 

[DeletedUser]

this is why talking over thes problums are good as there is always an argument for both sides...as for your coments gerdir you have valid points
where bye in my opinion your coments fall down is it makes no difrence how the accounts citys are stacked all the citys must still be defended..so even if one account was stacked for attack and the other for defence it would only make organisation a little easyer...im also not talking about giveted accounts im talking about 2 people from the same connection sharing it ..to me i would think that more care has to be taken as to what the other is doing so the grounds for co-accounting canot be adheard to as both thes players must make it known to eack other exaclty what thay are about....
what i think you are on about is some one person using 2 or more accounts this is not the point in question here we are talking about 2 seporate players sharing the one connection

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm talking about both Tang. None of us are foolish enough to think that people don't multi-account and say it's a relative etc, that was my point about the rules.

I agree Ben, people sharing the same connection should be allowed break a siege. I can't see why they shouldn't be allowed, it seems to put alliances who have people using shared connection at a disadvantage. I can see why they can't trade, use favour, attack and support each other and why they can't attack the same person but I think they should be allowed to break a siege.

I can see a problem though. If people were allowed break sieges there would be some problems. Let's say Ben that you and I had a shared connection and were in the same alliance and someone said on the internal forums that they are under siege but didn't post the time the siege ends at and you can't get into contact with the player. We wouldn't want to let our player lose the city so we would ofc try break the siege. Now I know the person who didn't post the end time would be at fault but what if his city was lost and our attacks landed then. That would mean we both attacked the same person within 48 hours.

It would be the same if the person who attacked the city pulled his CS out with our attacks underway, we would both be attacking the same player, even though he would be in our alliance.

So although I would like shared connection players to be able to break sieges, I can sort of see why GM's wouldn't want the hassle of letting us.

 

[DeletedUser]

you are actualy making our point for us here gerdir you are seeing the irelevence of eny gain here the only gain would be if the 2 shared accounts where to attack each other
also lets take it from your point of view and talk about it as mulitaccounting as in that respect if a player had 20 accounts it still would not matter as every city needs to be maintaind and for one city or one accout to be treated eny diffrent to anuther is wrong no matter how you look at it as long as thes accounts are not used for self gain ie:-attacking each other then i see no other difrence to enyother member or player within an alliance but as the present thes accounts and players are being vicamised and limitashons put on them that no other accout or player has to adhere to
so the only gain a mulit account player could gain is if he attacked himself for battle point gains

 

[DeletedUser]

Did you read my post Tang?

Who else shares your views, since you said,

"you are actualy making our point for us here gerdir"

From what I can see, Ben just made the point that he didn't like how people sharing connections not being able to break sieges together. I agreed with him but i said I can see a reason why GM's might not allow us.

I re-read what you wrote and you seem to think that shared connection players should be allowed attack and defense the same person and so far I haven't seen anyone agree with this.

So I'm not making anyones point, I'm just giving my own

 

[DeletedUser]

the our refers to myself and my brother or should i have sead me and it???

 

[DeletedUser]

I guess the rule is fine... Imagine an internet shop with 20 computers operating and all the players on that shop play grepolis, and in one alliance? Or a group of friends with own account, not counting those who are multiaccounting and as gerdir have point out using members of family as the user of the account, playing grepolis at the same time at the same internet connection but with different computers? I will not point what will happen, you imagine the wreck they can give to any player or alliance... Imagine if those player have 50+ cities each, imagine how coordinated they can be playing shoulder to shoulder with each other...

As for not breaking the siege on the alliance member, i think it is also fine as only one player from that shared connection need to know what is happening in the alliance and then he can call all his friend(not counting if he knows the password of those players) he shared connection with to stop the siege, where in those who are not sharing connection will wait till their members log in and see what is happening to the alliance...

 

[DeletedUser]

we do agree on difrent things and always will thats just right ..but we also must remember peoples civil rights and peoples right to equel opertunitys ..yes we all new the rules but rule are never set in concrete thats why that are writen on paper so thes thing can be changed
after all my £+$ are the same as your £+$ the only people that are getting the advantage here is the people on single connection accounts..and that a fact thats not made up that the fact lol

 

[DeletedUser]

lol
We do it a little different here in rdlm, we Skype so once someone is online under siege it doesn't take long for the message to get out, a lot of us also have each others mobile numbers so if trouble occurs we text for support... so your point above about waiting for someone to logon is not relevant really and only applies to an alliance that does not coordinated well.

Still you need to wait for a member to log in skype.. what if your members are from different countries, okay let us say you'll still call them long distance, if the one you are calling long distance have friends who shares connection with him then your call to one make it a call to all his friends he shared connection with...

 

[DeletedUser]

OK let me say something are stupid that there is no advantage and there are with other.

Let me put this as an example I have a brother on my connection lets say I was to put stone on the market place and my brother was to do it now lets say someone in building chariots and really needs stone and takes both loads that would be a ban now I would see past it if we were to say send scorp and alliance member diff materials say I was to send him wood and margowicz was to send him silver to his LS factories (without the market) then you can say ok they are gaining the advantage.

say someone is multing and attacking a support a/c and passing resources to and from their accounts then you can see the unfair advantage.

However I can see grepos way lets say again I was multing and I wanted to give scorp resources then what would stop me saying ti scorp in private mail to look on market place and he takes them - that would create a legal loophole.

 

[DeletedUser]

Imagine you can do all that ben, what if you are sharing internet connection with a member of your family, how much more damage you and your family can give?

Imagine how fast we can connect to each other in any part of the world, what more if we are connected in the same connection?

Imagine if those high points member of our alliance quits and give their accounts to all the members of my family, then i'll be sharing connection with them, imagine the havoc one's family can give to any player or alliance?

 

[DeletedUser]

My point being it is just as easy to get in contact with someone in the modern world of a 'always connected' environment (sms, skype, facebook, twitter, email, linq, msn) as it trying to get hold of someone that lives in the same house. As one would if it is two people on the same connection they live separate lives so go in and out a different times etc...
__________________
as you sead this is also my view so the 48 hrs rule is pointless in this day and age but i would not have to ask then not to send things becaws i was sending them like i would have to do with someone i share a connection with or stand over him making sure he didnt attack the same thing i was attacking so even in a bad day of cominicating you can get support from most of the peo;ple within your alliance within the 12 hr peoriod where thay get 48 hrs from boggles me

 

[DeletedUser]

Another thing getting to organise 70 cities on the one a/c are real hard let alone 100+ on 2 accounts

 

[DeletedUser]

People can make up plenty of excuses, brothers, sisters,spouses, gf's, bf's etc. I think the rule is there to stop people taking advantage in this way and it's a great rule if you ask me.

quote unquote...

Mobile, msn, or any other means of communication still will make you wait till the person logs in or read the messages you send them, there is much different than just tapping the the shoulder of the one beside you(that is if it is really a different person playing the account), what if you are sharing with yourself?

Rules are there to keep people from abusing multi accounting...ro:

 

[DeletedUser]

I think the 48 hours is to give the attacked player a chance to rebuild. If it was 12 hours and 2 people using shared connection were attacking every 12 hours, the person being attacked wouldn't have a chance to rebuild from the first hit so the second attacker would be at an advantage since, which is what I think the GM's are trying to stop. I don't think they want shared connections having big advantages, else it would encourage multi-accounting.

 

[DeletedUser]

your not realy understanding this are you gerdir lol let me give yo a sinario
if you where to attack me my brother couldent assist me but frogi could althow frogi and my brother are both in the same alliance ...or if you attacked frogi i could assist him but my brother couldent
or lets say me and frogi deside to attack you both of us can...so you can call on lets say storm and james both them can support you so we wont to up the presher we cant cos my brother cant attack you for 48hr
also if i was playing and my next door naighbour was also playing we both could attack you but my brother still couldent also if you had to retaliate from a difrent city as i am attacking you my brother couldent help defend me also if you attacked
also if 4 of yous attacked me my brother couldent attack eny of you 4 now you see where it gets pathetic

 

[DeletedUser]

No Tang, your obviously don't understand, that's why you have been banned twice.

If you read my last post, I was simply giving my opinion on why I think the time between attacks from shared connections is 48 hours.

 

[DeletedUser]

yea and i was only telling you how bad the 48 hr rules was man i could fly to amaerica and kick my team m8t outa bed put him on his pc make him retaliage and still make it home for tea fact i could fly enywhere in the world faster than 48 hrs just telling them to get real
.

No Tang, your obviously don't understand, that's why you have been banned twice.
.
and 2xs ive been provan inocent
dont worry grepolis will get sick of your grassing