Broaching a sensitive topic here but..

Re: Two accounts.. As a potential developer who's trying to figure out how some of these cool things like dual layers work, it would be incredibly more convenient for me to just open another account and test play my completely unworkable first attempts.  I have read somewhere that Dev games count for nothing and can be terminated at any time, which would be my intent.  I certainly don't want to inconvenience play-testers with my incompetence.

Thoughts? Comments? A slap on the wrist for even mentioning it?

What in the world did you do to your post M57 :P

(Tried to fix it, hopefully I didn't delete anything)

M57 wrote:

Broaching a sensitive topic here but..

Re: Two accounts.. 

I have a second account (Yurog) just to test Fill and layering or to make sure I understand some Rule correct.  Anything beyond playing private Dev games with both accounts I think probably crosses the line (even playing both "separately").  Dev games don't count towards anything (no stat changes except for a Board's Games Played count I think), although Public Dev games can be seen in the Games List of a board.

Yertle wrote:

M57 wrote:

Broaching a sensitive topic here but..

Re: Two accounts.. 

I have a second account (Yurog) just to test Fill and layering or to make sure I understand some Rule correct.  Anything beyond playing private Dev games with both accounts I think probably crosses the line (even playing both "separately").  Dev games don't count towards anything (no stat changes except for a Board's Games Played count I think), although Public Dev games can be seen in the Games List of a board.

Yep I've got no problem with that - as long as the accounts never appear together in a public game. At some point I'll implement a play testing system for developers which will allow them to play as each player in one of their own test games.

Whew! Thanks.. I was going to have to do it anyways and risk (no pun intended) getting banned for life..

tom wrote:

Yep I've got no problem with that - as long as the accounts never appear together in a public game. At some point I'll implement a play testing system for developers which will allow them to play as each player in one of their own test games.

That would be amazingly helpful. We should start a thread to discuss how such a play-testing system should work (unless it's already been started?).

Kjeld wrote:

tom wrote:

Yep I've got no problem with that - as long as the accounts never appear together in a public game. At some point I'll implement a play testing system for developers which will allow them to play as each player in one of their own test games.

That would be amazingly helpful. We should start a thread to discuss how such a play-testing system should work (unless it's already been started?).

Definitely!   It makes the dual-account rule less, shall we say, open to interpretation.  I'll gladly turn in the scumbag who opened a second account in my name (Wait, ..that might be me!) when that developer tool appears.

how does the site stand on someone not in a game trying to manipulate players in a game to gang up on another player?

 If that makes sense

Kibitzing? Cool! How?  By e-mail? Instant message?

on someones wall

I could see that happening in a tournament - encourage everyone to gang up on the leader so the rest has a chance to win the tournament, that sort of thing. Not something I partake in personally, but, if it's acceptable to go into "crab mode" in a game, I don't see why it wouldn't be acceptable to pull that in a tournament.

Outside of a tournament, I really don't see any compelling case for doing this, nor do I see a compelling case to honor such a request.

I think if you are going to do that you should invest in a premium membership and use private messages! I mean do it right and support the site at the same time!

I can think of one other reason Oatworm.... if you have a personal vendetta. Someone you really don't like that you just can't stand to win even if you aren't even in the game. That could be a reason!

wurzel133 wrote:

how does the site stand on someone not in a game trying to manipulate players in a game to gang up on another player?

 If that makes sense

There's nothing in the terms and conditions against this - negotiation with other players is considered  part of the game as long as it is not abusive in any way.

AdamN wrote:

I think if you are going to do that you should invest in a premium membership and use private messages! I mean do it right and support the site at the same time!

I can think of one other reason Oatworm.... if you have a personal vendetta. Someone you really don't like that you just can't stand to win even if you aren't even in the game. That could be a reason!

i havent done it, i have had it done to me
 i just found it a bit childish and pathetic

tom wrote:

wurzel133 wrote:

how does the site stand on someone not in a game trying to manipulate players in a game to gang up on another player?

 If that makes sense

There's nothing in the terms and conditions against this - negotiation with other players is considered  part of the game as long as it is not abusive in any way.

thanks

wurzel133 wrote:

 i just found it a bit childish and pathetic

For the most part I would agree with this.  A player trying to get others to gang up on another when they are not in the game sounds annoying.

An exception or two, I think Oat has a good point where it may be more strategizing as in a Tournament or possibly a board ranking, but probably still on the annoying side but the difference would be strategy rather than being a jerk. For example I would definitely be okay if everyone attacked you on Risk vs Reward even if I'm not in the game since you have a high rating (jk...kind of)

wurzel133 wrote:

AdamN wrote:

I think if you are going to do that you should invest in a premium membership and use private messages! I mean do it right and support the site at the same time!

I can think of one other reason Oatworm.... if you have a personal vendetta. Someone you really don't like that you just can't stand to win even if you aren't even in the game. That could be a reason!

i havent done it, i have had it done to me
 i just found it a bit childish and pathetic

Sorry my humor is sometimes hard to get. It was clear to me that you were a target and I was joking while referring to someone who might like to gang up on you but in no way was I taking sides. Sorry if that didn't come across. It was just my attempt at humor!

Cheers.

Yertle wrote:

wurzel133 wrote:

 i just found it a bit childish and pathetic

For the most part I would agree with this.  A player trying to get others to gang up on another when they are not in the game sounds annoying.

An exception or two, I think Oat has a good point where it may be more strategizing as in a Tournament or possibly a board ranking, but probably still on the annoying side but the difference would be strategy rather than being a jerk. For example I would definitely be okay if everyone attacked you on Risk vs Reward even if I'm not in the game since you have a high rating (jk...kind of)

it was risk and reward it didnt work, but i still lost the game played it badly

Does this seem like a big, steaming load of BS to anyone else?

Purple and green have hardly attacked each other from the very start, except some necessary continent-securing attacks. For the past two turns, they haven't broken major continents despite having common borders with one unit each.

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/50711

Looks like they didn't want you joining their game.   Not a very appropriate response in my book, but I suppose they are allowed to do it.  I just made them enemies so I don't accidentally join their games.

Actually, the more I think about it, they should have made it a private game.  What they did is against policy.