Wolfpackers In Game 4238686

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Wolfpackers In Game 4238686

      **********EVERYTHING BELOW IS CORRECT EXCEPT FOR THE WOLFPACKING, HE WAS ACTUALLY A MULTIACCOUNTER PLAYING AS THE 2 ACCOUNTS, NOT A WOLFPACK. HE LOST THE GAME TOO BTW :) ***********************

      yikessssss.PNG








      The following players are in discord "china89, cn1234, and pla321." playing extremely unfair and are cheating/wolfpacking giving each other info and strategies on enemy coalitions to unfairly win against them.

      In-game 4238686 they have been wolf-packing the entire game playing in other coalitions to provide information and cheat other players out.

      Player china89 playing as China in the game admitted this on the newspaper of Day 29 (2nd Photo), and the Philippines was in a coalition called "Asian Empire" which included the player*cn1234*< PHILIPPINES, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, and Greece. Notice that this is not including China *china89* NO LONGER CAN BE SEEN SINCE IT'S BEEN DISBANDED BY PHILIPPINES.

      The Bottom photos show evidence, the 1st picture is the coalition I was in for the first 14 days, the Philippines was not in here but China was. The Philippines was busy giving out information to China the whole time in discord in a DIFFERENT coalition.

      I apologize if there isn't more detail needed but if you can somehow go back in the game and investigate you'll see everything unfold, I didn't find out by China that he was wolf packing with the Philippines until the game was basically over. (hmm such good timing to let everyone know that you've been in discord the whole time but in separate coalitions. :/)

      (3rd, top left big photo is proof of the Asian empire, it is disbanded so you can no longer see it in-game now, but Greece and Australia with the Philippines, whom Philippines cn1234 were in that for like the first 20 days wolf packing with China in discord who was able to defeat them easily with information and other advantages by wolfpacking.) There is a spree of weird news letters by the players left across the game as well *see Mongolia*.
      asianempireproof.PNGWolfpacking is a ridiculous way to beat other players in the game, it's basically Multi-accounting.


      cheater89.PNG
      day14 coalition.PNG

      The post was edited 2 times, last by To0oooop ().

    • the rule itself might be too vague and individual moderator might have their own idea on it but
      at best, “you do not allow to organized join in the group of people more then coalition size of the map”

      im afraid that wolfpacking did not including betray, giving out information.

      is their action unfair? imo yes! is it against rule? imo no.
      this would be vaguely categorized as “diplomatic action”
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD
    • playbabe wrote:

      the rule itself might be too vague and individual moderator might have their own idea on it but
      at best, “you do not allow to organized join in the group of people more then coalition size of the map”

      im afraid that wolfpacking did not including betray, giving out information.

      is their action unfair? imo yes! is it against rule? imo no.
      this will be vaguely categorized as “diplomatic action”
      Awesome then, I will be getting a bunch of my discord buddies and start wolf packing telling them to join other coalitions and let me know everything on the game.
    • Indeed, as crooked and petty it may seem, there is nothing i see contradictory to the game rules.

      It's just that a group of 3 players that could win normally in a team, prefer to manipulate a bunch of teenagers.

      So, sadly, it's one of those cases where as a player i agree that this ludicrous style of gameplay is detrimental to the fun of everyone, but it falls outside of the boundaries of the staff.

      i Heavily sympathise... This kind of retards give me headache, even if i never suffer them (the joys of an alliance)
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Opulon wrote:

      Indeed, as crooked and petty it may seem, there is nothing i see contradictory to the game rules.

      It's just that a group of 3 players that could win normally in a team, prefer to manipulate a bunch of teenagers.

      So, sadly, it's one of those cases where as a player i agree that this ludicrous style of gameplay is detrimental to the fun of everyone, but it falls outside of the boundaries of the staff.

      i Heavily sympathise... This kind of retards give me headache, even if i never suffer them (the joys of an alliance)
      clearly we need a social credit system for players!

      being a good ally: +10 points
      using gold: +20 points
      invoking big G: immeasurable
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • I think it's hilarious.

      If I'm getting this right 2 or more guys are willing to be betrayers and lose, so 1 guy can win.

      Did I get that right?


      I mean no way I'm going to be in a loss on purpose just so my bud can win without me, that's not a very good bud.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Opulon wrote:

      Indeed, as crooked and petty it may seem, there is nothing i see contradictory to the game rules.

      It's just that a group of 3 players that could win normally in a team, prefer to manipulate a bunch of teenagers.

      So, sadly, it's one of those cases where as a player i agree that this ludicrous style of gameplay is detrimental to the fun of everyone, but it falls outside of the boundaries of the staff.

      i Heavily sympathise... This kind of retards give me headache, even if i never suffer them (the joys of an alliance)
      thanks for the clarification, I'll definitely go with fewer solo runs in casuals. first time ever actually dealing with an exploit like this sad to say xD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      I think it's hilarious.

      If I'm getting this right 2 or more guys are willing to be betrayers and lose, so 1 guy can win.

      Did I get that right?


      I mean no way I'm going to be in a loss on purpose just so my bud can win without me, that's not a very good bud.
      they can just team up in the end and get rid of superfluous coa members?
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      I think it's hilarious.

      If I'm getting this right 2 or more guys are willing to be betrayers and lose, so 1 guy can win.

      Did I get that right?


      I mean no way I'm going to be in a loss on purpose just so my bud can win without me, that's not a very good bud.
      That's why I originally thought it was another multi-accounter using a VPN idk

      just felt cheated af lmao
    • Teburu wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      I think it's hilarious.

      If I'm getting this right 2 or more guys are willing to be betrayers and lose, so 1 guy can win.

      Did I get that right?


      I mean no way I'm going to be in a loss on purpose just so my bud can win without me, that's not a very good bud.
      they can just team up in the end and get rid of superfluous coa members?
      bffcucks.PNGThats actually exactly what their plan was lol
    • Well the usernames still suggest a little lack of inspiration still pointing towards a multiaccount...

      Anyway if you complain on day 33...i would say in German "Der Drops ist gelutscht" : The cheese is eaten!

      Next time (and not on a 4x match) give me a hint and i join and we beat them up....
      @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.
    • GrandInquisitor wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      I think it's hilarious.

      If I'm getting this right 2 or more guys are willing to be betrayers and lose, so 1 guy can win.

      Did I get that right?


      I mean no way I'm going to be in a loss on purpose just so my bud can win without me, that's not a very good bud.
      they can just team up in the end and get rid of superfluous coa members?
      bffcucks.PNGThats actually exactly what their plan was lol
      Well then still hilarious, sad for you tho you got taken in (even if by association in one of the compromised coalitions) but an excellent if underhanded piece of strategy.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      GrandInquisitor wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      I think it's hilarious.

      If I'm getting this right 2 or more guys are willing to be betrayers and lose, so 1 guy can win.

      Did I get that right?


      I mean no way I'm going to be in a loss on purpose just so my bud can win without me, that's not a very good bud.
      they can just team up in the end and get rid of superfluous coa members?
      bffcucks.PNGThats actually exactly what their plan was lol
      Well then still hilarious, sad for you tho you got taken in (even if by association in one of the compromised coalitions) but an excellent if underhanded piece of strategy.
      i beg to disagree. Being IRL friends that can be 100% sure they play together, and use that fact to get the edge over players that just have to do with the cards they are given, can't really be considered a strategy.

      It would be equivalent to me to say that my diplomatic strategy is to come on a map with my alliances players.

      "Excellent if underhanded strategy" sounds a bit odd in this context.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Opulon wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Well then still hilarious, sad for you tho you got taken in (even if by association in one of the compromised coalitions) but an excellent if underhanded piece of strategy.
      i beg to disagree. Being IRL friends that can be 100% sure they play together, and use that fact to get the edge over players that just have to do with the cards they are given, can't really be considered a strategy.
      It would be equivalent to me to say that my diplomatic strategy is to come on a map with my alliances players.

      "Excellent if underhanded strategy" sounds a bit odd in this context.
      While you are correct about this "i beg to disagree. Being IRL friends that can be 100% sure they play together, and use that fact to get the edge over players that just have to do with the cards they are given, can't really be considered a strategy." - what I was referring to was their each joining separate coalitions, ratting them out, and then joining for the win, THAT is the "excellent strategy"

      And this ""Excellent if underhanded strategy" sounds a bit odd in this context" simply means I can admire the efficacy or design of a strategy, even if I think it is dishonorable, or evil.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD