Post by Bluesonic1 on Jun 15, 2017 13:46:18 GMT
This post marks 2 months since Knights Reforged was released; this event's news blog also includes some large updates that require attention. If you have not been following our news updates, this is a good time to catch up and follow them:
We have a very important update to our Terms of Service that players will need to familiarize themselves with. This new clause will target the increase of abuse noted when it comes to the ability to have multiple accounts, with these extra accounts being used for the sole benefit of a “main” account as opposed to being played and built like a regular playing account should be. Some terms (though not limited to) we’ve heard used to describe these kinds of accounts are “boosters” or “pushers”- accounts that are purely used to increase the abilities or statistics of another chosen account(s), normally by spamming attacks so the benefiting account gains false experience and wins.
This new clause is encompassing accounts being abused rather than played. We’ve decided to add this clause in to compromise as opposed to straight reverting players to only being allowed to have one account per device. The main reason this type of account abuse is being targeted is because we are seeing abuse levels that almost rival those seen in script or “bot” users. We hope players can understand why we have decided on this course of action, and that its intention is to protect both the game and those playing within the guidelines of our rules/Terms of Service.
You can read more about this change, and others that follow it, more in-depth on this news blog and below.
The clause itself encompasses 2 different elements to it:
Misconceptions regarding the new clause:
Breakdown of the clause:
The first part of the clause addresses people creating "throwaway" accounts simply to provide wins to a single or specific set of accounts (whether these accounts are owned by the same person or not). To avoid being constituted as a "throwaway" account, players should be engaging in the game as it was intended to be played. This includes, but is not limited to, things such as:
The second part of the clause addresses people "abusing" their secondary accounts so they primarily benefit another account or set of accounts above all else in their actions. What constitutes abuse won't be defined on a numerical value as it is not our intention to remove all freedom of playstyles from the game, and likewise provide a "target" of sorts that people can aim for. The following is instead provided on how to avoid abusing your alternative accounts:
Why has this clause been added?
This kind of "win giver/pusher/booster" behaviour mimics that of scripters, and the clause was put in to address this early before it became a larger problem to manage. This kind of behaviour:
Ultimately this is a security measure in place to protect both the game as well as players who are abiding by our Terms of Service. We are aware that this was not a feature of the "original" titles, though we implore players to remember that those titles had immense problems regarding cheaters that were never addressed. Likewise, we always said that the games would be building on those titles as opposed to being direct recreations- this update encompasses both of these points.
Is attack spamming in general included in this clause?
No- the abuse in "spamming" is targeted to specific scenarios where the spamming is done intentionally to benefit another or others. For example, if there is a player on the Bounty List you are simply spamming attacks where you're winning and killing them from the list, this is acceptable. Clan/Group members targeting specific users by spamming attacks (usually using the Bounty List as well) resulting in a loss of some kind for that player is acceptable as well.
Likewise, defense accounts that are successful in defending from other players, usually while on the Bounty List, is acceptable. What would be unacceptable is a player using an alternative account to constantly list their defense account onto the Bounty List where they then defend from other players- in this scenario, the alternative account is replacing an alliance the player should be making so that allies list them instead.
Can a clan/group "boost" another clan/group/individual so that they come into the level range for direct attacks by the "boosting" clan/group?
Yes as long as this is a range of accounts that are being used. "Range of accounts" extends to both a range of individuals but also a range of accounts from each single individual. A player should not have an alternative account made or being used for the sole purpose of this addressed goal.
If there is an account on the Bounty List players are trying to kill, and wins are accidentally given in among losses, is this allowed?
Yes, as the primary goal here was not to benefit the person who is on the Bounty List. This applies as well to players attempting to kill defensive accounts from the Bounty List.
Does this mean I can no longer have a "mini account" to use on my "main account" in an "ATM/booster/lister" fashion?
Most likely, yes. A good rule of thumb is if players consider their alternative accounts to be lesser than one they choose to favour and call their "main", this probably indicates that the alternative accounts are falling into the "abuse" category. Alternative accounts should not be used to replace aspects of the game that can be achieved by playing as one would on their favoured or "main" account.
If players do choose to supplement their other accounts, another good rule of thumb is for players to ask themselves "Would I do this with what I consider to be my favoured/main account?". The point in providing players the freedom to own multiple accounts is so that they can play and experience the game in different ways, such as being an attacker, defender, balanced or even an ATM who hosts events or services for others.
But I consider "pushing/boosting" myself to be a playstyle, is this allowed?
No. If you are using your alternative accounts to solely benefit you or other set accounts (such as provide a "service" to allies/clan members), then your accounts fall into the "abuse" category. Your alternative accounts should not be replacing aspects of the game that can be achieved by playing the game as intended, regardless of how much "effort" is being put into benefiting other accounts. By definition, this is not a playstyle, but rather a player-made "shortcut" to avoid the difficulties naturally encountered in the game by playing it as intended.
I have an alternative account(s) built in a manner that does no longer complies with the Terms of Service as of this update. What can I do?
Players will want to email in the army code(s) of these such accounts, and we will happily work with them in adjusting the account as needed, usually resetting Skill Point allocations so that the account(s) can be rebuilt in a different direction.
We have a very important update to our Terms of Service that players will need to familiarize themselves with. This new clause will target the increase of abuse noted when it comes to the ability to have multiple accounts, with these extra accounts being used for the sole benefit of a “main” account as opposed to being played and built like a regular playing account should be. Some terms (though not limited to) we’ve heard used to describe these kinds of accounts are “boosters” or “pushers”- accounts that are purely used to increase the abilities or statistics of another chosen account(s), normally by spamming attacks so the benefiting account gains false experience and wins.
This new clause is encompassing accounts being abused rather than played. We’ve decided to add this clause in to compromise as opposed to straight reverting players to only being allowed to have one account per device. The main reason this type of account abuse is being targeted is because we are seeing abuse levels that almost rival those seen in script or “bot” users. We hope players can understand why we have decided on this course of action, and that its intention is to protect both the game and those playing within the guidelines of our rules/Terms of Service.
You can read more about this change, and others that follow it, more in-depth on this news blog and below.
New Clause FAQ & Extra Information
The clause itself encompasses 2 different elements to it:
- Accounts created for the sole purpose of being used to the benefit of another account(s)
- Accounts abused to the point where it is acting as sole benefit to another account(s)
Misconceptions regarding the new clause:
- "ATM" playstyles do not fall under this clause
- "Win givers/boosters/pushers" are not 100% "illegal" (e.g. attacking yourself once with an alternative account is not a ban-able offence)
- Defense accounts on the Bounty List being attacked by others do not fall under this clause
- We are not "flip-flopping" or changing back and forth between what is allowed- a single change has been made, in the form of this Terms of Service update, and this change is restricting certain behaviours as opposed to disallowing them
- We have provided a 2 week grace period to allow players to adjust to the changes, and even then we are not outright banning accounts- warnings and suspensions will be used instead
- We are not "hunting out" players that are now being affected by this new clause- we are inviting them to contact us so we can work with the player to rebuild the account(s) accordingly
Breakdown of the clause:
The first part of the clause addresses people creating "throwaway" accounts simply to provide wins to a single or specific set of accounts (whether these accounts are owned by the same person or not). To avoid being constituted as a "throwaway" account, players should be engaging in the game as it was intended to be played. This includes, but is not limited to, things such as:
- Buying/selling of land
- Buying/selling of weapons/armors/spells
- Attacking players/accounts that are not your own
- Communicating with other players
- Defending from players/accounts that are not your own
- Leveling the account
- Completing quests
The second part of the clause addresses people "abusing" their secondary accounts so they primarily benefit another account or set of accounts above all else in their actions. What constitutes abuse won't be defined on a numerical value as it is not our intention to remove all freedom of playstyles from the game, and likewise provide a "target" of sorts that people can aim for. The following is instead provided on how to avoid abusing your alternative accounts:
Alternative accounts should not be replacing what can already be achieved in the game, but rather supplementing it if that's what players want to do with it. Alternative accounts shouldn't be used in ways that replace aspects of the game. If players intend to treat their alternative accounts as secondary to a "main account", then another way to look at it is whether the player would still engage in the behaviour used on an alternative account on their "main account".Aspects of the game that tend to be replaced by abused accounts are given, though not limited to, as:
- Receiving wins and experience from defending
- Listing players on the Bounty List for yourself to attack
- Maintaining an account in critical health
- Earning gold from battle wins
- Clan/Group members seeking resources outside of their clan/group
Why has this clause been added?
This kind of "win giver/pusher/booster" behaviour mimics that of scripters, and the clause was put in to address this early before it became a larger problem to manage. This kind of behaviour:
- Makes it harder to find and catch cheaters
- Causes our security system to target innocent players
- Provides cheaters a platform to repeal disciplinary action(s) and continue cheating
Ultimately this is a security measure in place to protect both the game as well as players who are abiding by our Terms of Service. We are aware that this was not a feature of the "original" titles, though we implore players to remember that those titles had immense problems regarding cheaters that were never addressed. Likewise, we always said that the games would be building on those titles as opposed to being direct recreations- this update encompasses both of these points.
Is attack spamming in general included in this clause?
No- the abuse in "spamming" is targeted to specific scenarios where the spamming is done intentionally to benefit another or others. For example, if there is a player on the Bounty List you are simply spamming attacks where you're winning and killing them from the list, this is acceptable. Clan/Group members targeting specific users by spamming attacks (usually using the Bounty List as well) resulting in a loss of some kind for that player is acceptable as well.
Likewise, defense accounts that are successful in defending from other players, usually while on the Bounty List, is acceptable. What would be unacceptable is a player using an alternative account to constantly list their defense account onto the Bounty List where they then defend from other players- in this scenario, the alternative account is replacing an alliance the player should be making so that allies list them instead.
Can a clan/group "boost" another clan/group/individual so that they come into the level range for direct attacks by the "boosting" clan/group?
Yes as long as this is a range of accounts that are being used. "Range of accounts" extends to both a range of individuals but also a range of accounts from each single individual. A player should not have an alternative account made or being used for the sole purpose of this addressed goal.
If there is an account on the Bounty List players are trying to kill, and wins are accidentally given in among losses, is this allowed?
Yes, as the primary goal here was not to benefit the person who is on the Bounty List. This applies as well to players attempting to kill defensive accounts from the Bounty List.
Does this mean I can no longer have a "mini account" to use on my "main account" in an "ATM/booster/lister" fashion?
Most likely, yes. A good rule of thumb is if players consider their alternative accounts to be lesser than one they choose to favour and call their "main", this probably indicates that the alternative accounts are falling into the "abuse" category. Alternative accounts should not be used to replace aspects of the game that can be achieved by playing as one would on their favoured or "main" account.
If players do choose to supplement their other accounts, another good rule of thumb is for players to ask themselves "Would I do this with what I consider to be my favoured/main account?". The point in providing players the freedom to own multiple accounts is so that they can play and experience the game in different ways, such as being an attacker, defender, balanced or even an ATM who hosts events or services for others.
But I consider "pushing/boosting" myself to be a playstyle, is this allowed?
No. If you are using your alternative accounts to solely benefit you or other set accounts (such as provide a "service" to allies/clan members), then your accounts fall into the "abuse" category. Your alternative accounts should not be replacing aspects of the game that can be achieved by playing the game as intended, regardless of how much "effort" is being put into benefiting other accounts. By definition, this is not a playstyle, but rather a player-made "shortcut" to avoid the difficulties naturally encountered in the game by playing it as intended.
I have an alternative account(s) built in a manner that does no longer complies with the Terms of Service as of this update. What can I do?
Players will want to email in the army code(s) of these such accounts, and we will happily work with them in adjusting the account as needed, usually resetting Skill Point allocations so that the account(s) can be rebuilt in a different direction.
Any further questions, please email in to: support@bluepawgames.com