Andrew wrote:
There's no way we can enforce this and and Tom's posts earlier on in this thread are bang-on.

Also comparing subs to multies is apples and oranges so please compare things fairly.

Sub alliances are a natural progression/result of the game, everyone has different ways to play the game and stopping grouping like this beyond being unfeasible is just plain interfering too much in the freedom in the game.

-Andrew

So I noticed this in one of the locked following locked suggestion thread viewtopic.php?f=77&t=10590&start=40. I was wondering how subs can be support when they are a form of farming. If you look at the first part of farming it states. "Participate in any activity within Services for the sole purpose of gaining Game Resources, without participating in actual gameplay"

Well the name of the game is to win/highest score or 10 relics depending on the world.

The purpose of a sub is to save the main/master from taking as many loses. While this is game play when you combine this with other parts of the farming section of the terms of service like the next two parts of the farming rule: "and/or acquiring Game Resources in order to sell them to other Users in exchange for cash, payment or other benefits; establishing Users for the sole purpose of transferring Game Resources to Your other accounts."

A sub gains the benefit of not being attacked (thus a higher over all position) and being let live in trade for being a shield if an attack comes either a complete shield freeing up the masters units to be else where completely. Giving the main a few extra ticks to get back to defend or not have to go back and defend at all. Thus effectively giving them resources in the form of armies. Less loses for the main means bigger armies since less resources need to be spent rebuilding the losses taken.

Now this being said I would like for an admin to explain to me how this isn't a form of farming? I have pointed out how it violates the second and third parts of farming while still complying if only marginally with the first part since playing to be a shield isn't the purpose of the game but it is still technically playing.

Edit: I am not trying to revive a thread I am trying to wrap my head around how subs are not a form of farm.

I wasn't intending opening a debate I was asking for an explanation on how a rule and a part of the game go together. Wasn't sure what section to put it in but since it was asking for clarification on a rule/part of the game figured this was the right one. Hence the reason I asked for an admin to respond. If I wanted a debate I would go post this down somewhere else like noobie/veteran questions.

If it isn't the correct forum for this please move it to the right one. But note that this isn't meant to be a debate only want to know from an admin how it avoids the rule of farming.

Your logic falls down where you assume that 'participating in gameplay' means 'trying to win', it does not.

Also, "Thus effectively giving them resources in the form of armies.". By that same logic anybody who attacks anybody is 'giving resources' to the enemies of the alliance that they attack.

The problem is you have totally misinterpreted the rules of the game. I could apply the similar loose logic to the same rules to draw a ludicrous conclusion in order to illustrate this point (as is often my style). But I think it'd be insulting and frankly I haven't the energy.

Oh, and topic moved to discussion and debates.

OK Tom since you moved it and Seth appears to not want to answer since he ignored the question. We can turn this into a debate or discussion.

I would pose you this. A sub technically does what the main master tells/ask it to do. While this doesn't hold true in all cases it is the general purpose of a sub. Since asking a friend to spam is forbidden as farming. The same should techincally apply. You are asking a much bigger group but the same result occurs. Is it right that a friend not in a sub should get banned for spamming for you while a sub does the same thing on a much bigger scale?

An allied alliance attack someone by no means would be construed a sub by the fact that they don't do as the main alliance asks they are doing what they choose. Yes a sub has the right to choose but if they want to remain a sub they really don't have that right to choose they must do what the main asks. Thus protection possibilities of a higher rank are traded for a throw away army.

Allied alliances don't normally throw away there armies though occasionally they do. Not because the main alliance asked them to but because they made a mistake/got tired of the round/weren't active enough or a whole host of other reasons.

Also my logic in saying participating in gameplay means trying to win. Is sound please tell me of one game where the goal is to come in last or any other place than first. Granted as I even said my last paragraph techincally suiciding an army can be considered game play. but when you combine everything. The main telling the sub what to do. And the sub doing it is the same as a friend asking another person to do something for them. Hence farming.


Edit an example.

Person one asks person two to spam for them. = ban farming

alliance one asks sub alliance to spam for them. = no ban not farming.

err seriously?

A sub is simply an alliance that has made an agreement with their 'main', they are free to act however they want.

A 'farm' is a colony which does one or all of the following:

• Built purely to be conquered by a particular player/alliance
• Joins an alliance with the sole intent of supplying another player with resources via the ingame trade
• Does/offers to do either of the above in exchange for money, tokens or similar services on other servers.
• Built purely to provide a specific advantage to another player/alliance, eg: op spamming

You need to understand that while you could accuse a sub of doing the fourth thing, they are still playing with intent. They have a goal, usually something like a top ten finish, or promotion to the main/a higher sub.
Subs are simply an ally, a friendly alliance. If you try to claim that subs helping a main is farming then technically any alliance helping any other alliance is doing the same thing. Hell, you could even accuse alliance members of being 'farm's for their leader.
You have to draw a line on where these rules are defined, the line is that a colony purely built to be a slave. A player/colony with no ambition other than to aid a specific alliance/player with absolutely no regard for their own position in the game. Subs do not fit this requirement.

As I said before, your major flaw is that you consider the only definition of 'playing the game' to be aiming to win. This is not the case at all.

So if i am playing on an alliance world and my goal is to finish top 100 without an alliance. And I get asked to spam someone both players would still get banned. Are you saying that it is ok to then create an alliance and say I am a "Sub" of the alliance the person asked me to spam for them. Then because we have "an agreement" between alliances it is ok? Because I still have "a goal".

I mean I had one when I was a non alliance player aswell. But I would have been banned if I was asked to spam and did.

So now how do you ban anyone for spamming since it is a function of the game and who knows what some peoples goals are? Sometimes they are to come into a world just to find one person and conquer them that is a goal the admin cannot see. See so as long as they have a goal they can spam. Then it should be legal to ask someone to spam for you without getting banned. Since presumably they do have a goal although you cannot see it.

Edit:

So now if I ask someone to spam for me. Hopefully and presumably there only goal wasn't to wait for someone to ask for them to spam and now since they have more than one goal and one doesn't follow with farm oh no you can no longer ban them.

I am just pointing out through your logic how all of the sudden current bans are now suspect.

While I am using the current logic, as far as i can tell, applied to single players and applying it to alliances.

I believe the admins or atleast andrew would disagree with parts of this statement. since I have seen him ban people this era on E1 for farming when they asked someone else to take OPs from another alliance.

Is an agreement where a sub agree to help defend the main alliance and the main agrees to not conquer the sub mutually beneficial yes I will give you that. What is the purpose of creating a sub? Isn't it to help the main normally through defence or offence when the main is dealing with other wars? Isn't that the main purpose of a sub allaince. Where secondary purpose is to rise as high as possible?

Where a single player who is spamming has the goal of taking the OPs, downgrading them, maybe raze them if they can? They have other goals as well. So how is it that we ban players whose primary goal is to alliances/other players but not alliances which are in the same position? Because what is an alliance but a group of players. If you are joining a sub what goes through your head? I believe that answer is I am saving myself from this alliance but in return I am agreeing to help them in anyway possible.