GET RID OF THIS ALT STUFF!

    So this 24 hour ban is out of the question? I see...


    Well, like I said on page 1 of this thread: one server, one account would be excellent. Which steps do you think we should take to make this possible? I suppose we would need practical ones to have a chance to be accepted by others.

    Quote from Killjoy

    Step number 1: have global rules.

    We HAVE global rules.


    As I said before: been there, tried that.

    Time will tell, if and when it might be possible to persuade the deciders to tackle this again.

    Until then the status quo is what we have.

    pcmIK.jpg

    Am Anfang wurde das Universum erschaffen.

    Das machte viele Leute sehr wütend und wurde allenthalben als Schritt in die falsche Richtung angesehen.

    I see. After all this time, it's good to know you still believe in this "one server, one player" idea. I hope you find the opportunity to talk to the deciders. But I doubt it will be approved because of the big bullies. Ten billion gold and 32 million MS score aren't things someone would be willing to give up.


    But again, the victims will be those who play by the rules.

    The 11 multi-account rule was a concession. The more concessions you give, the more the player wants. They applied the 11 rule on every server and opened account. It is difficult to give up an account in mergers. A player with 11 accounts on 10 servers must reduce the 110 accounts to 44 accounts in the next merge. The question is, did he reduce it? Does he continue to play illegally with a VPN?

    9cj9lE.jpg

    Quote from Killjoy

    After all this time, it's good to know you still believe in this "one server, one player" idea.

    Me, personally, I am super conservative about these things. I will never believe in anything else than "one player, one account" :)


    Quote from Killjoy

    But again, the victims will be those who play by the rules.

    As always in life.

    pcmIK.jpg

    Am Anfang wurde das Universum erschaffen.

    Das machte viele Leute sehr wütend und wurde allenthalben als Schritt in die falsche Richtung angesehen.

    badidol, thanks for your response and for giving your rationale.


    Can you specifically address the idea of a ban on selling troops for 24 hours after v-mode? This does not seem like a maintenance nightmare (you could apply the policy on all servers), and unless I am missing something does not seem to really impact anything other than the viability of large gen bank accounts.


    Is this not going to happen simply because those in favor of gen banking are spending more money than those of us voicing opposition here?

    Quote from urbanachiever

    Can you specifically address the idea of a ban on selling troops for 24 hours after v-mode? This does not seem like a maintenance nightmare (you could apply the policy on all servers), and unless I am missing something does not seem to really impact anything other than the viability of large gen bank accounts.

    I personally see a considerable amount of bugs coming along with that one, plus, it's considerable amount of coding to add in a system that otherwise works just fine. It would also connect various systems within the game which currently aren't connected, we'd need to log things we're not yet logging, etc.

    It sounds trivial, but it isn't as trivial as it sounds. I am not convinced of this suggestion just yet, plus, I personally don't think 24h would be sufficient. Not the first time it's been brought up, though, it's already on my list of things to consider.

    pcmIK.jpg

    Am Anfang wurde das Universum erschaffen.

    Das machte viele Leute sehr wütend und wurde allenthalben als Schritt in die falsche Richtung angesehen.

    Quote from badidol
    Quote from urbanachiever

    Can you specifically address the idea of a ban on selling troops for 24 hours after v-mode? This does not seem like a maintenance nightmare (you could apply the policy on all servers), and unless I am missing something does not seem to really impact anything other than the viability of large gen bank accounts.

    I personally see a considerable amount of bugs coming along with that one, plus, it's considerable amount of coding to add in a system that otherwise works just fine. It would also connect various systems within the game which currently aren't connected, we'd need to log things we're not yet logging, etc.

    It sounds trivial, but it isn't as trivial as it sounds. I am not convinced of this suggestion just yet, plus, I personally don't think 24h would be sufficient.

    Got it, thanks.


    I'm a computer engineer, I understand the moving pieces involved with seemingly small changes.


    I also think 48+ hours would be better, but I figured we'd start small with our request :)

    badidol , I just want to know that why the gp accounts on the turkish server were not banned when there was a gp bug? my 70m gp account on the german server was banned, but the 300-500m gp accounts on the turkish server were not banned. when we asked the turkish administrator about the issue, he said that the banning authority was in badidol.

    lel952y.png

    Quote from urbanachiever

    badidol, thanks for your response and for giving your rationale.


    Can you specifically address the idea of a ban on selling troops for 24 hours after v-mode? This does not seem like a maintenance nightmare (you could apply the policy on all servers), and unless I am missing something does not seem to really impact anything other than the viability of large gen bank accounts.


    Is this not going to happen simply because those in favor of gen banking are spending more money than those of us voicing opposition here?

    that's exactly the solution.

    lel952y.png

    Quit putting words in my mouth. I've never said multis were ethically wrong. There's nothing ethical about having multis or not having multis. You think having multis is ethically wrong and that's fine, don't pretend like *everyone* does.

    As I said in another thread, if you want 48h, ask for 48h. Asking for 24h is how you end up getting 12h.

    Quote from badidol
    Quote from User12996

    It'd be the same version, just a feature flag of IP sharing enabled/disabled, similar to how other servers have a variety of different bonuses.

    Read the whole post though. Version was not the only thing mentioned.

    Yes, I read the entire thing and I was simply pointing out that each server already does have their own rule set, ever since the bonus system has been added.


    I don't see it as a maintenance nightmare, either, because of how the game currently works.


    IIRC, if you don't have the IP sharing flag enabled and use the same IP, the system automatically flags you to a GO and the GO explains that you need to enable IP sharing. If you don't, you get banned.


    In a server with IP sharing disabled, as the IP sharing treaty can never be set, the same system warns the GO in the same way, but in this instance the GO simply bans both accounts and that's it.


    The biggest problem I'd see is when an account gets GY'd. If they already have an account on that server with that IP address the system would have to actively prevent them from GYing to it.


    It's just an option, if the player base is split 50/50 on it, that's one way to resolve the split.

    Please, read the whole thing. I said it SEEMED we all came to the conclusion. I know you are against it and I said you have all the right to have this opinion. You are giving ideas to have a win-win situation, so I came to the conclusion that you agree that something must be done.

    No, I don't agree that something must be done, but it's simply that in a game like Ikariam, that's server based, there's no reason to not have a lot of different servers with different rule sets. Everyone can, to a degree, get what they want, and it doesn't harm anyone.

    I suggested the idea of sending transfer requests to GOs. This will demand less coding and will provide more security, I believe. Taking 24/48hrs to check key indicators seems to be a good strategy.

    Quote from badidol
    Quote from urbanachiever

    Can you specifically address the idea of a ban on selling troops for 24 hours after v-mode? This does not seem like a maintenance nightmare (you could apply the policy on all servers), and unless I am missing something does not seem to really impact anything other than the viability of large gen bank accounts.

    I personally see a considerable amount of bugs coming along with that one, plus, it's considerable amount of coding to add in a system that otherwise works just fine. It would also connect various systems within the game which currently aren't connected, we'd need to log things we're not yet logging, etc.

    It sounds trivial, but it isn't as trivial as it sounds. I am not convinced of this suggestion just yet, plus, I personally don't think 24h would be sufficient. Not the first time it's been brought up, though, it's already on my list of things to consider.

    While it's not as trivial as it sounds, it could be implemented like this:


    An account level field called "EnableBlackMarket" is added as a DateTimeOffset.


    During the process of when vacation mode is deactivated, the field is set with a DateTimeOffset plus 72 hours.


    SQL
    1. UPDATE UserActivities
    2. SET EnableBlackMarket= DATEADD(HOUR, 72, SYSDATETIMEOFFSET())
    3. WHERE UserID = 123;

    The trickier part is anytime anything with the Black Market is invoked, the cooldown is checked on the back end and if it is off cooldown a 502 would be returned.


    On the UI, the Black Market would have to say something like "Frozen until X date and time."


    As long as someone couldn't list or buy troops on the Black Market from both a back end and front end perspective, that should resolve the issue without changing the underlying black market functionality.


    Now will this solve the problem? It would, likely, simply make general banks smaller, but each additional 24h would make the general banks smaller still. The biggest issue, to me, with a change like this is giving the player base an adequate warning and adequate time to adapt to the change.


    The good news is that, at least from GF's perspective, is that smaller general banks are much less likely to be brought up as only the advanced players of the game would understand how they operate.

    Edited 5 times, last by User12996 ().

    Quote from badidol
    Quote from User12996

    specific servers for both.

    Not gonna happen. That'd mean different rules per server and we're not going to do that.

    I am not going to open up a situation where each server has their own version, rules, etc. That's a maintenance nightmare.

    ah that's a shame I thought that was a possibility when we talked before the last merger.

    Seems like the fairest way of doing it and side steps the problem of people having to eliminate accounts.

    Sounds like we're stuck then, I can't see a fair way of liquidizing otherwise legit accounts down to 1 player 1 account unless there was some substantial reward in some sort of account melt down recycling merging thingy..

    Diplomat for Raging Kings [RK] - Eurydike (US)