You are right. it kinda sucks alot. even though i love this game, this s*** makes me angry. Though if his buddies are legit and are supplying him, you shouldn't have any problem because he didnt make double accounts and it was done with the consent of his allies. this is a wonderful game with a lot of potential. i hope that rare materials are available to purchase from the shop again because it sucks to have so much money and so less rare resources.

I prefer the term of Wolfpack to describe this kind of behavior, as it echoes pretty well how they see the average legit player as a prey, and not someone they share a common game. This kind of players read the rule, and try to find a way to abuse without being clearly outlaw. The spirit of the law is crushed relentlessly.

I applaud very loud the fact (it's rare to see it put that way) that you say : Even if they consent fully in team, we are not fine with it, because it's to the detriment of honest players (building their diplomacy through legit ways). Without speaking about trade or exhange, the solutions you are discussing to focus activity and reduce the "one man game" problem may benefit to the problem of pushers ---> With Guidelines and active reco of the newer games, Operators can obviously check several things that are symptoms of wolfpacks. And help you cut them nice and clean.

"time and again vocally active players have negatively commented about us closing loopholes for cheaters" ---> In truth, it's more "We closed the nightclub because of bomb threat", and we answer "And our Party ?!"

this^

in the case shown, a GO would be using other methods [which cant be divulged] to ascertain if cheating is occurring.
There are alot of methods and tools in place to enable a good investigation of each case, these of course cannot be publicly discussed..but we can at least reassure the players, that they exist

I hope some of the capable players in the CoN community feel encouraged to step up and assist the game by joining the support.
Human support staff can and will [given the opportunity] stop cheating and maintain a fair and fun game experience for all.


Everyone here loves this game and Im sure we all want the best for it

I support fighting with such nonsense. I know from other MMO games that teaming-up may become a decisive problem ruining the game for other players who had no interest in joining any alliances. Mostly because these alliances turn out to be hierarchic groups, making it impossible for you to play the game how YOU want to play it.

I asked about wolfpacks one moderator a long time ago - he stated that there is no regulations. I was incredibly surprised. As for given example - you could even turn off ability to trade provinces but that would not change the situation - there is a simple way to go around. Probably I was talking about that but I'll repeat: do the same what was done in CoW - player can have only XYZ number of alliances (except of roleplay games) per map at the same time. It really helps. It would not resolve all issues but will help. I would like to propose that number as 2 + let say 1 right of way (all of that counted only for active players so one could give RoWs to AI unlimited for example).

Another thing: empty maps. Resolution: as in supremacy 1914 for some types of their maps- one can't make new map if there is too much actually active and empty maps so is forced to wait or join already existed map/s. That will populate maps until you can get some advertisement to draft new players en mass.

My report or complaint wasn't about resources , it was about the ability of a person being able to have more than one country ( account)(same person) in a game. In my game this one guy had 4 accounts. I spent money to compete against a cheater!! This is not a new problem as I seen in a post from February in this forum. But I'm only maybe a little over a week into playing this game. Basically a Noob. I don't mind spending money to show my support in a game, but to spend money and have a cheater destroy the intent of the game and destroy my troops at an un-fair advantage is very upsetting to me and I'm sure to others as well. I spent $130 plus dollars in a few days just to keep up from the attacks. The sad thing is I made the reports about 3 days ago and this guys was still able to play and damage my troops etc. So I feel I have just wasted my time and money and probably just quit and find something else to spend my money on. Thanks and have a great day.Screenshot_374.pngScreenshot_382.png

did you proved that algeria had got provinces with trade and not anexed vs rage state?
and second, in cause of several cheaters, who are opften reported, you punish honest player? Why can not we jioin "ten days + old" games? if i am alone in 40/100+ days map vs AI and wanna action, i can invite 2 or more players and we could have action, what is wrong with it? If all reported and prooved cheaters would kicked and after several repeats banned, nobody would cheat again.

Hello,

I am sorry but I will not confirm if said nations was cheating as there may be still a multi investigation into the matter.
When cheaters are reported they are investigated (this often takes some time) With your argument about dead maps this is different you can invite other players to it to play and keep it alive nothing is wrong with that. The issue is if you are involved in one of the following;

1. You own and control each of the new accounts joining the game (Multi Accounting see terms of Service)
   
2. Others only join the round to give you the extra hand/advantage which is wolf packing whcih would help your averall stats and pad them if ranked game (which is clearly explained in this forum);
   

"Because the Game Master function is often overstepped and some players behave unfairly, the following rules are effective immediately to guarantee an enjoyable gaming experience for all players:

• It is not allowed to overstep the position of Game Maser to get new allies into the game during an ongoing conflict with other active players. It is also forbidden to join a game just to get another nation an excessive advantage or to damage another player.
  
  

Currently the Wolfpacking rule means the following;

• It is not allowed for the game admin to kick inactives to invite friends to help him out
  
  
• It is not allowed for players to invite friends to help them out (if slots are still available)
  
  
• It is not allowed to join games just to help someone out.
  
  
• Players that violate this rule will be removed from the respective games."
  

We do not just kick or punish "honest" or innocent players who are reported for cheating! we have our methods that allow us to determine if cheating takes place in games (which I cannot go into detail about)

Hope this helps to reassure you we only luck and punish for the following cheats;

• Multi Accounts.
  
• Wolf Packers
  

All the best have fun playing!

ShawnMorton
it's also possible that your map have option: no anti-cheat

Dr. Leipreachan
so
a) number of alliances on a map is unlimited?
b) If I would start a new map and invite let say three of my friends to play there from the beginning
or
c) I would join a new map and tell my three friends to join it also so we could have alliance on that map
: would that be violation of anti wolfpacks rules? I hope you can see my point.

ok then, but personally I consider it a wolfpack - 3 or more players in an alliance on a map. In my opinion you really should consider limiting number of alliances on a regular map. 3 or 4 players working together from the start of a map, are generally unstoppable.

3-4 coordinated friends or brother-in-arms from the same alliance, that is. This is another form of map farming. However, as there is not yet a solid "alliance network" and the structure to encourage Alliance vs Alliance games isn't laid in stone, hurting this kind of group may prove counter-productive (while i agree on the meta).

Once Coalitions and expanded alliance feature are implemented as well as the activity focused into system-generated maps (future 100 map <3), it will be easier to propose those players to do alliance games, while on "single-player maps", Coalitions will balance themselves a bit by nature.

What (i think) worries Eternus is that on Supremacy, if you come on a 500 map with 2 or 3 of your alliance in neighbours countries, and if you are all of you 3 correctly trained (as it's usual in competitive alliances), you need only to be discreet and calm in the early game. When the clock hits "mid-game", you can go on a unending conquest-rampage that absolutely no coalition of solo player will be able to stop.

Mutual Trust + Eco-Military training (A young player trained for a month is usually in the 70th percentile of players) + Above average activity (usually, high-activity) + Off Map support (Teammates brainpower) + High Communication Level (Skype/Discord/MP) end in the situation where you end in laughing to the idea the solo players will gang against you, even 3 vs 15. You know you will crush them, Anglo-Zulu war style

They usually are only stopped or rivalled by another teams of this kind. In theory (In utopia :D), entering a 500 game should mean i have a chance over 500 to win, modified by who i am and how i play. If i enter with some of my good "blades", i'm 50% sure i will end on the podium.

While you are not responsible for this, let's just say that this course of events didn't help to make Supremacy more rich.

Hopefully, CoN has a gameplay that naturally reduces this kind of "i know how to play i can take you all with one hand" event, but still, interesting to keep that in mind

I don't want to argue with you Germanico but some of current Devs ideas like no possibility to trade units, money, certain resources, are in my opinion far away from ideas of strategic game. What I'm always thinking is balance. I remember situation from CoW where 4 players teamed up from start of the map. It was regular map, not the big one. They were clever about their alliance, communicated off the map, didn't share map (they did that when they started great conquest part of game) and regularly removed all of trade offers between them so it was impossible to be 100% sure they are working together. I came to that map late, in second week so before I realised what was going on all me and other players were doomed. On other hand another map in CoW: there were 5 of them, but I was there from the beginning and wolfpack was not so clever so I was able to detect them and make alliance of three and we won. As far I remember there is (at leas was while I were still playing) a rule in CoW that you can't have more than XYZ alliances on the same time. It's a rule against wolfpacks. There are reasons why there is that rule. Main issue is: it's hard for regular player to detect a wolfpack before it became unstoppable. I'm not worrying about myself (I can win without much hassle with 3 regular players against myself and prefer to play solo - meet new people and ally with them rather than drag my old friends on every map, where is a challenge in that?), I'm worrying about regular players - and you Devs are telling us that there is a wolfpack infestation on CoN so I'm trying to give you some hints how you could deal with that.

Yeah, no debate to have on cheating

For the rest... I'm on the good side of the stick, but still...

either way: wolfpacs infestation or cheating. I don't believe what you did will help, but wish you luck.

lol i m happy with only 1 ally. But it should be a useful one. Not the one who just allies with you just because you are powerful. I mean, in a game, i m serbia and i own almost all countries in europe , Congo in south africa and some russian states too and guess what, a guy allied with me and started threatening people in my name., he would have doomed himself and me with him too. Thats why i dont trust allies. i just stay in a secluded corner and mind my own business from now one. There is that one guy that i trust. i have joined 3 games with him and he is very trustworthy and the only ally i have.i met that dude on this game.