Display MoreDisplay MoreDisplay MoreIt's not lazy, it's intentionally strict. While in your scenario it's you and your wife playing, there's plenty of scenarios where one person would use two accounts to take advantage of those situations.
OK, but don't call it FLEET contact then. And you wouldn't be allowed to trade those goods between the 2 accounts anyway. And yes, we do both play/exist and have IP sharing enabled
It can easily be fleet contact, though. She ships res to player X and then you attack player X to get the res.
It might not be explicit fleet contact, but it is potential fleet contact.
It also prevents someone from 11 accounts attacking 1 person.
Before IP sharing, you'd simply get warned/banned/etc if you both attacked the same person.
And if my grandmother had wheels she could become an automobile (I cleaned up that joke). But potential is not actual and as you say, warnings and bans would still be available. Sorry, I'm going with lazy on this one. Not worth prolonging this thread hijack; have the final word if you want 🙂
What's easier from a solution perspective? A GO to manually review reports every time there's fleet contact or an automated solution that simply prevents you from doing it? The automated solution. Just because you wouldn't abuse it doesn't mean everyone else wouldn't.
Again, it is fleet contact, so don't pretend like it isn't. Your wife is interacting with the account with her fleet, troops, or spies and you can't interact with the same account at the same time.
Ok, I was going to let this drop, but I object to the word pretend. Uncalled for. No pretense, it simply isn't. Call it something else if it makes you feel happy. And saying it is easier to be automated - which it is, naturally - just gives my original remark about the current implementation being a lazy remedy extra weight. I'm through with this, even if you insult me again.