Spam colonies have long been a thorn in the side of all alliances and as such demand that steps are taken to cope with the inevitable attack that comes when wars are ongoing.

I'm not sure that spamming could even be called an illegal tactic, it is unfair certainly but its a war game! Maybe we just need to give the tactic proper rules.

Where spamming crosses the line is when it is funded. Sending red tokens crosses the line and turns a borderline tactic into plain cheating.

Maybe anyone setting up a colony after say the first 250 ticks must wait 24 ticks to launch an attack - It shouldn't really affect game play but would make spamming much harder. They should also be banned from recieving tokens for 50? ticks.

Discuss.....

Don't believe it's Daemons first time, and sueing a game company just cause you are unhappy of the result of something that is against their terms, is just, well laughable.

There is one flaw in what your saying here. This "Spam colony" could be in the supporters alliance via different world or via other house hold where they could still have multiple colony's and transfer tokens either way before the rounds even started by simply waiting for the time requirement to be met on a different world. Your idea works only assuming that your tokens can only be used on one world.

What is the difference in what Daemon did and the use of subs? Does this not fit Andrew's explanation for the ban.

"I've banned the colony in question and the "sponsoring" colony that traded them the tokens. This kind of extreme situation is bannable even if there is no multi situation as it is circumventing the normal game mechanics/system by creating a colony for the sole purpose to strike at an opponent's weakspot."

Both ARM and KoH (among others) do this so can we ban the sponsers and subs?

The fact that you can give tokens to other players not in the alliance actually promotes this. So why punish a player for doing it? I would take a swag that this is allowed because of more money to be made by having this option.

Why is KoH being hit with this sanction and not others? Is it because of who is in the WAW alliance. Now that would be the true injustice. Having a set of rules for one and not across the board not only circumvent game mechanics its cheating.

Quick question..
Using my long term memory but wasn't there a player in the old client who tried to buy relics or something like that but he broke the rules somehow and he got banned and tried to sue BD but got denied.

The difference is, for a sub or getting a friend to play to help you, is that in those cases there is no exploitation of a rapid attack using the ability to place a colony anywhere and spam out squads.

Had that colony been placed in Africa and given tokens, no ban. It's the fact that it was purposely placed next to our relocation OPs and rapidly rushed out his attacks. He's not playing for himself, even a misconstrued notion of enjoying the game through helping his friend... he was used simply as a one-time tool for the sponsor alliance, and therein lies the issue.

If the admins were truly biased towards me I doubt Andrew would be sitting here telling me I complain too much and anyone who agrees with me should quit the game to find a more suitable community.

Figured I'd make a new post to address this, sorry mods for making double posts here twice now in this thread, please forgive me .

As with several things in-game there's grey areas which the ToS's specific guidelines for use and abuse may not directly cover. The ToS is not a list of things that are only against the rules and anything not specifically stated there is ok.

There are certain unethical situations which aren't included in the ToS and this is one of those. If we were to include every possible situation the document would reach hundreds of pages. For any issues not directly covered by a specific guideline the admins have to make a judgment call.

That's there this part of the ToS comes into play:
"6.13. Termination: Tacticsoft may, at its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement, Services, Application or any other service rendered by it due to any reason, including any fault or malfunction, for any User, including You, or with no reason at all or for any reason, including, without limitation, for lack of use or if Tacticsoft believes that You have violated or acted inconsistently with the understandings or spirit of this Agreement or for any reason decided by Tacticsoft as a cause for termination. Tacticsoft may also, in its sole discretion and at any time discontinue providing Services, or any part thereof, with or without notice. You agree that any termination of Your access to Services under any provision of this Agreement may be effected without prior notice, and acknowledge and agree that Tacticsoft may immediately deactivate or delete Your User Account and all related information and files in Your account and/or bar any further access to such files or the service. Furthermore, You agree that Tacticsoft shall not be liable to You or any third-party for any termination of Your access to Services."

I just don't like being dismissed because you think I'm being overly emotional, that is a logical fallacy and it irritates me. Based on your last post I'm willing to drop it.

I don't like a hard limit either, make it relic based. Relics on the field? 24 tick limit until attacks can go out.