Duplicate account suggestions
I've found (and dealt with) a handful of accounts that consisted of the following:
Account "A" playing the game.
Account "B" created. All new funds sent to account "A". Account "B" mines a bunch of jewels, trades them in (at a great prices), send them to Account "A". Repeat.
It's easy enough for me to sniff those out, but I'd rather not spend my evenings dealing with this crap.
One possible solution is to not allow users to deposit funds in another player's account until they've accomplished "x" (troops, day, etc). Any thoughts?
Licensed to Ban
I would suggest banning those players....they had been warned at the start of the RESET.
Originally Posted by Mickey
I agree with no transfers until one has established independent play....possesing a city, movement of several armies,etc. This will penalize newbies joining new alliances but it may only be a short term problem. I suspect there are only a few bad apples out there---the same ones who were scripting after the ban in BETA I.
honestly pre reset i had only two armies and no cities, i say put a system in that peridocally checks whos sending money where, and what there doing. if there just mining Jewls and not setting anything else, thats an obius red flag
Allow transfers in proportion to the difference between the two players' G/J ratios.
For example, let's say one player has a ratio of 2:1, and another has a ratio of 1:1. You would allow a transfer of 1/2 of the geos.
If the ratios were 2:1 and .7:1, then the amount allowed to transfer would be .7/2. For 1.8:1 and .9:1, then .9/1.8
Then limit the frequency of such transfers.
This would make it easy, easy, easy for a powerful player to help out a noob. But it wouldn't make it easy for a "noob" sock puppet to "help out" a powerful player. ;-)
Of course, a creative player would find a way around this. If attacking an enemy were the concern, the sock puppet would just build the army and go attack, weakening the foe enough that the "front" identity could then mop up. Would evidence of consistent "softening up" and "coup de grace" moves by "two" players eventually seem suspicious? Yes. But IMO, smart players would find other methods of letting a poor but G/J-rich player spend geos to help another player. It would basically be a really tight alliance.
Last edited by rasqual; 10-17-2005 at 04:03 AM.
good idea rasqual, or maby again, tie it to cities and/or fought battles, these 2 are things an active player does/haves.
we could tie it to the activities / moves made by the player...
not counting jewel hunting and converting including resources......
you're basically able to see how active a player is...
my 2 cents any way...
how bout cookies... that report back to you to see if the computer has been used to login to googleearthhacks; and to tell what user ids have been used...
That might redflag some of the multiple account users. But it doesn't help those who have to share computers...