Game Rules Review

[MadMikael]

Tighten the grip on shared accounts. Yes it says it's against the rules but rarely anything is actually done from what I can tell, as most of the higher lvl players I've met are all shared.

I'm not positive, but i think the issue here is, that it is difficult to prove whether an account is actually shared or not, unless the player admits to it. And I'm not in favour of rules that encourage players to be deceptive. Perhaps, this rule should be re-evaluated.

I see no difference than 2+ people playing the same account and one person playing but setting it up to afk when they sleep. Both allow a character to grind for much longer than a standard 1 player account, giving an unfair advantage. Actually more so than being afk, because when you're afk you have no chance of defending yourself.

There is a big difference. One is actively playing, the other is not. I do agree, there is an unfair advantage; and again, maybe the rule should be reviewed.

Slack off on language. Yes obviously severe language and threats etc need to be dealt with but when a player gets killed by someone 10x their level they should be allowed to trash talk about how pathetic they are only preying on defenseless people

I have to disagree. This game is rated for everyone on google play. This means, there is a tight restriction on language, as kids are allowed (and do) play this game. If anything, I want to tighten the rule on language. You can always trash talk in whispers; it doesn't need to be public. That's my opinion, you don't have to agree.

No but seriously if a player 10x my level preys on me over and over, you can bet your donkey imma be insulting his affinity to only attacking the weak. I think any human being would when dealing with some of the fertilizer in this game and when I see someone getting scolded for saying crap or a little mild trash talk, that's just too lovin much.

Again, trash talking can be done by whispers instead of public chat. Also, you are warned of not having PvP protection in clans; the general (undesired) answer here is: you can always leave your clan. This also is a standard game mechanic; only compbatant can change it, and he has been begged/pleaded with/asked/cussed/threatened over the years, and it still has not changed. At this point, I don't think it will be.

As far as rules go I think that's it for me, the rest is mechanics/gameplay. Obligatory intentional pet killing but is there an actual way to tell the difference between purposeful and accidental from a GM standpoint?

Pet killing isn't against the rules, so it doesn't matter if its intentional or not. I think, the reason is because pets are an optional feature, and not necessary to enjoy the game normally, and thus not covered under rule 9.

[Cashew]

I know it's hard to tell but surely upon logging in there is some sort of ip, device name, etc that is shown on the server with timestamps. It'd be a lot of work but maybe that's why.

And I see the main account holder as the player, and the shared person as his bot. He is not playing, something (in this case someONE) is playing for him. That's how I see it as no difference.

I'll concede on the language bc I didn't think of whispering but not to strengthening it even more, it's already tight enough imo lol.

As for pets I have to disagree. Yes pets are technically optional, but at the same time they're realistically not. What I mean by that is its extremely hard to advance in the game without them. So much to the point if you have no means to obtain them you might as well just pick a different game bc you're not going to get far at all.

Not only this, but pets are purchased for real money and AFAIK the other real money purchases are protected like items, so why not pets too?

If better pets were made purchasable with gold I'd not care about it as much, but this is real money were talking about not just pixels.

[MadMikael]

Yes, there is IP logging, and stuff... but, this will not catch all offenders.
For instance, my gf plays this game too, from the same location, and thus has the same IP and other information.
The GMs would not know this if I had not told them. Even if we're logged on simultaneously, this could just be multiple devices with one user.

If the sharing rule were enforced like you propose, it would be an even more unfair rule IMO, allowing some players to break it, while others couldn't.
No, I think it best that the rule be reworded to reflect what is actually enforced. I will add this to my proposal to the GM team.

As for the pets, I will agree with you; they are paid items and as the trend goes, should be considered protected; however, like the spawn killing rule, it would be very difficult to enforce without actually catching the player in the act. More importantly, this decision to not protect pets was made from higher up, and I don't think it will be changed. We can, as a community, always try though.

[Arashiko]

Actually the IP addresses of the FT clients used to address an account will normally be visible to software on the server, and a wide spread of IP addresses being used on the account (especially if from different countries) would suggest the account is being shared.

[madmaniacal1]

Actually the IP addresses of the FT clients used to address an account will normally be visible to software on the server, and a wide spread of IP addresses being used on the account (especially if from different countries) would suggest the account is being shared.

Actually, this is not entirely accurate. My mobile data provider uses a dynamic IP system, cycling available IP addresses through individual users. At one point, the IP address on my GM account was a perfect match to another player. This caused a bit of panic regarding security, but was resolved.
The point is, multiple IP addresses does not necessarily mean shared, nor does the same IP address mean the same player. DaHobbit and his son login from the same terminal, yet are 2 different people, similar to the situation described by MadMikael.

[Arashiko]

Hmmmm. You're right.
Pity. It would have been useful.
And people can always hide behind a VPN, come to think of it. Or if they're really paranoid, a Tor server...

[Cashew]

I understand the complications into obtaining indisputable evidence, I'm a stickler for making sure I'm 100% before I call someone out on something or throw accusations so I'm going to concede for now, with the note that it still ain't right/fair.

As for the pet issue, I think if we had ways to better protect our pets besides running (err, walking dreadfully slow) or logging and hope they make it out alive then the issue wouldn't e as problematic. Let us heal them with some type of food, already said something similar in another thread.

[nt300]

Actually the IP addresses of the FT clients used to address an account will normally be visible to software on the server, and a wide spread of IP addresses being used on the account (especially if from different countries) would suggest the account is being shared.

Not necessarily, it could mean the user is using a Virtual Private Network. And I am sure there's over 50% using a VPN. And that is a good thing.

I have a recommendation about this AFK Rule:

"""{NOTE: If a GM suspects a player is AFK, the GM will say something to that player. The player must respond to a GM. If the player does not respond, the GM will assume the player is AFK, and punishment will result.}"""

This doesn't make any sense, nor is it fair. You can be battling away, with an Auto Spawn, not responding to the GM doesn't mean the player is AFK. Because I had one GM apparently trying to get a response from me, but I couldn't tell he was talking to me, I was in Private Chat and browsing my Bag, checking my items, then PM'ing all while my Character was Grinding. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. My Point, the GM shouldn't assume somebody is AFK because he hasn't answered back.

FYI, while grinding with Pets, your character's HP lasts longer if you do not attack at all. As soon as you continually attack, the HP starts dropping fast. That is what I realized while Grinding.

[blitzcraig]

I'm sure much has changed since I was a GM, but don't worry about the afk issue in that way - not responding to a GM was only the first of several steps to ensure a player is afk... if a GM has decided a player is afk (or using autoclicker for that matter) he/she has taken steps to ensure they are

however, please don't use this as reasoning to ignore a GM... that's still against the rules in its own right

[nt300]

I'm sure much has changed since I was a GM, but don't worry about the afk issue in that way - not responding to a GM was only the first of several steps to ensure a player is afk... if a GM has decided a player is afk (or using autoclicker for that matter) he/she has taken steps to ensure they are

however, please don't use this as reasoning to ignore a GM... that's still against the rules in its own right

Well of course, nobody should ignore a GM. That is not right, regardless.