Reporting Cheaters

    • Reporting Cheaters

      My question is very simple but I would like the reply of staff as well as the opinion of other players.

      When cheating is suspected, even slightly, should we (the players), still report it to staff?
      I ask because in a some 100 player games I play, people seem to spread abnormally quick, this raises the suspicion in my mind that they either:
      1.) REALLY know what they're doing
      2.) Are REALLY lucky
      or
      3.) REALLY like multi-account suicide
      Thanks for replies that I'm sure will come quick and plentiful
    • if you suspect about someone that is breaking the rules, report it to the support team so they can check it and see if he is breaking the rules or not, you'll also get out of doubts and may reduce the amount of people that break the rules
      Estoy dispuesto a darlo todo, a luchar por lo que soy, a ser libre dentro de mi, a guerrear mientras viva.

      Manual: Básico y Machiavelli

      ¿Buscas alianza? BKE está reclutando: Reclutamiento activo
    • An early expansion can be caused by things other than cheating. Gold use allows people to spam units, research and province resource production. Extra units help early expansion especially against AI controlled countries and inactive players. Also players who know what they are doing can expand quickly if that is their intent especially if they spend cash to speed things up.
      "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

      "Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
    • Here's my question.

      Were up against a coalition we KNOW is using gold. No big deal. Were on day 24 and they have not only used gold and tons of it, but we have a bunch of trades for "share map" and "1 food".

      My coalition helps each other out when resources are low, but that is not what is happening here.

      100,000 cash for 1 food and things like that over and over and over. In addition, three other players we took out (looks to be the ones that were sending them the resources) took troops off to a far away place. I.e. colorado took 6 tanks and sent them to attack one of the marshall islands to keep a country at war with us. Texas, and Kentucky did the same exact thing. Now, could all be coincidence but come on!

      I haven't reported them, because I didn't see enough there to know for sure. Where is the line? Cause when I see trade dumps like that... like five in a row all for one food?
    • CharlieSheen wrote:

      Here's my question.

      Were up against a coalition we KNOW is using gold. No big deal. Were on day 24 and they have not only used gold and tons of it, but we have a bunch of trades for "share map" and "1 food".

      My coalition helps each other out when resources are low, but that is not what is happening here.

      100,000 cash for 1 food and things like that over and over and over. In addition, three other players we took out (looks to be the ones that were sending them the resources) took troops off to a far away place. I.e. colorado took 6 tanks and sent them to attack one of the marshall islands to keep a country at war with us. Texas, and Kentucky did the same exact thing. Now, could all be coincidence but come on!

      I haven't reported them, because I didn't see enough there to know for sure. Where is the line? Cause when I see trade dumps like that... like five in a row all for one food?

      Only question is see is "Where is the line?"

      First, gold use is to be commended. Someone has to pay for this "free" game. If your opponent has such faith in your abilities that he (they) are spending gold, good job.

      Second, "trade dumps" as you describe them are a normal part of the game. When coalitions work together, they are more successful. Recently, as part of a coalition, I had a surplus of food due to my assignment to run a naval and air campaign. I routinely "dumped" my excess food to my coalition mates. Nothing wrong with that.

      Third, I have, in the role of senior coalition leader, made extra efforts to ensure that all coalition members survive. The opportunity to recover core provinces and rebuild a coalition nation is more powerful than simply capturing that same land. Keeping enemies of my enemies alive is part of that same technique.

      So, I don't see a line crossed. If you want to have a better understanding of what is and is not ok, read through

      Terms of Use
    • I have had some other players complain that I buy gold. AS I knew, the creators of this "free" game probably love it every time I do because I'm spending REAL money, and it would appear, too much of it. But I was given Soviet Union in the game I am in, lots of territory, lots of potential enemies around me. Need units, resources, etc; I do not consider it cheating as I am spending MY real money which keeps this "free" game alive and pays whoever is earning a salary at Bytro Labs Company. I have yet to even see why cheating at these games is even necessary. If you know tactics, you'll win. I'm in my second game and plan on coming out the winner in that one as well. :P
      :tumbleweed:
    • "Gold" is part of the game, and publicly calling out another player in the in-game newspaper, chat or forum for that player's gold use is an explicit violation of the Call of War terms of service, and will get you banned and your comments deleted. And, yes, the sale of gold is one of the revenue sources that Bytro Labs uses to support this for-profit enterprise. In other words, no bucks, no Buck Rogers. Gold isn't going away.

      I have bought and used gold, and I am smart about how I use it. That said, we all know, including those of us who buy and use gold, that the near-unlimited use of gold by a small minority of players to gain an overwhelming advantage by spamming large "instant armies" strikes many if not most other players as unfair and unsportsmanlike.

      Bottom line: in a better, more perfect Call of War, there would be per-day and/or per-game limits on gold use that would reduce if not eliminate the most abusive uses of gold. Sadly, Bytro Labs is completely opposed to imposing any limitations whatsoever on gold, and refuses to even discuss such limits in any form. C'est la guerre.
    • I liked the idea of charging a gold amount to join a game that either had limits or was gold free for the purchase price. But alas until I retire, become a programmer and start my own game company, it is not likely to happen. :)
      "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

      "Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
    • Peter Mat wrote:

      I liked the idea of charging a gold amount to join a game that either had limits or was gold free for the purchase price.
      Hello, @Sasri. We would like to buy more gold and give it right back to Bytro Labs for the privilege of playing in games that (a) have pre-set limits on gold use, or (b) have no gold use at all. We are willing to pay per-game fees for those options.

      Personally, I would gladly pay $10 to $20 to play a gold-free game, or $15 to $25 for a game with pre-set limits on gold use so I could test my Call of War battle skills against experienced opponents on an absolutely equal footing. So, why won't you offer these options and take our money? I was under the distinct impression that Bytro Labs was a for-profit company, n'est-ce pas?