Philt123 (GB1) said:

Wouldnt it be so nice if GGE wrote a small piece of software that could be simply uploaded into your web browser, that was required to give access to the game, once it was installed it would sit behind your firewall / vpn, providing and collecting information to send back to gge, sending back Information on your location / PC details, etc etc.  To ensure Players could only play one account and only the account they built themselves.  

Wouldnt it be nice if GGE could actually guarantee the integrity of the game, and guarantee that that each account was only accessed by 1 person, and it dealt harshly with any breeches.

I would happily subscribe to any additional security checks / registration / run tracking software etc.  That GGE needed to ensure this.  And I am sure all other players who had nothing to hide would also be happy to be part of this code.

Wouldnt it be nice to face up to your opposition knowing its a fair fight, surely the game would go from strength to strength if this was the case.  

@Batten (GB1) , Wow if you have come up with that massive wall of text from 14 words – your wasted here– Go write a book or something.

I ,UltraFlavoured never said I speak for my alliance nor others in fact I have a disclaimer on my Signature which has been there for 5 years which states this. 

A lot of assuming going especially when your not part of Defiance or Crimson Guard – so how you can comment on my message directed to “Duke Vincent” ?

Unless of course your multi accounting and in Defiance? 

 What has my gaming got to do with anyone else? If you feel the need to report players for breaking terms and conditions go use your time talking to GoodGame Studios and not just write a massive wall of text.

@Batten does my me laugh though - Sits on his high horse in an alliance - Who swap accounts. Did not see that mentioned in your wall of text though. Only putting up a biased side of the story.  I suppose if its no harm to you right ?

I can confidently say I have not jumped to another alliance to defend or send an attack.

I can confidently say I am not utilizing password sharing to access account in the alliance and so on.

Hopefully the message is getting through. I only talk about things from my perspective.

I haven’t broke any T&C’s. 

THUS everything previously stated still stands. I am not a bully.

The only this that holds water from anything @Batten (GB1) has mentioned is: 

Other than that - just a load of nonsense I have nothing to do with - or as I call it MORE SLANDER.

 As @Philt123 (GB1)  has mentioned that would be a great idea. This would stop all the random shells popping up and tool knocking. Also would prevent the new ownership's of accounts which currently GoodGame Studios don’t even care about. Which has happened across most of the alliances involved in this war at one point or another. FACT.

I am the First and Last UltraFlavoured.

~Ultra

Philt123 (GB1) said:

Wouldnt it be so nice if GGE wrote a small piece of software that could be simply uploaded into your web browser, that was required to give access to the game, once it was installed it would sit behind your firewall / vpn, providing and collecting information to send back to gge, sending back Information on your location / PC details, etc etc.  To ensure Players could only play one account and only the account they built themselves.  

Wouldnt it be nice if GGE could actually guarantee the integrity of the game, and guarantee that that each account was only accessed by 1 person, and it dealt harshly with any breeches.

I would happily subscribe to any additional security checks / registration / run tracking software etc.  That GGE needed to ensure this.  And I am sure all other players who had nothing to hide would also be happy to be part of this code.

Wouldnt it be nice to face up to your opposition knowing its a fair fight, surely the game would go from strength to strength if this was the case.  

UltimateJhon (GB1) said:

Duke Vincent (GB1) said:

I would like to comment on this thread and expose the underhand tactics employed by so called "fair play" alliances.

Defiance began a 1v1 alliance battle with Rev X about 10 days ago roughly. This was a straightforward affair, however Odins and CG then decided to both join in on it. They did not confine themselves to a war gaming battle, but threatened by message and followed up by systematically stealing and stripping resource villages from practically all Defiance players.

This has went on for over a week , eventually forcing Defiance players to try to reclaim lost rv's and recapture. Odins / Rev X and CG have carried out multiple repeated attacks on single Defiance players in mornings, daytimes and evenings, alongside repeated tool knocking attacks and rv thefts. Single players are being hit up to a dozen times a day when they are clearly no threat anymore and already burning and badly damaged. That's not "fair play" - it's nothing more than bullying.

For the record, I have never taken a single rv from any other players on this server since I began playing this game nearly four years ago. Yet I have had 8 rv's stolen to date from Odins and Rev X players combined. I have all screenshots to prove it. Here's just one.



A 1v1 alliance battle is one thing, but when you are attacked by CG + Odins + Rev X players repeatedly at the same time again and again and again without recourse up to 12 times a day, it really gets a bit much and raises serious questions about the mindset, character and behaviour of these players.

There was no requirement or need to stoop to such tactics by CG  + Odins + Rev X combined. For them to conduct themselves in such manner whilst claiming to be "fair play alliances" is truly abhorrent and exposes them for the bullies they are.

A very unhealthy, controlling and manipulative group who should be of grave concern to all other players on the GB1 server.

You’re lying, we didn’t declare on defiance etc. You guys declared on us.

gazz65 (GB1) said:

UltimateJhon (GB1) said:

Duke Vincent (GB1) said:

I would like to comment on this thread and expose the underhand tactics employed by so called "fair play" alliances.

Defiance began a 1v1 alliance battle with Rev X about 10 days ago roughly. This was a straightforward affair, however Odins and CG then decided to both join in on it. They did not confine themselves to a war gaming battle, but threatened by message and followed up by systematically stealing and stripping resource villages from practically all Defiance players.

This has went on for over a week , eventually forcing Defiance players to try to reclaim lost rv's and recapture. Odins / Rev X and CG have carried out multiple repeated attacks on single Defiance players in mornings, daytimes and evenings, alongside repeated tool knocking attacks and rv thefts. Single players are being hit up to a dozen times a day when they are clearly no threat anymore and already burning and badly damaged. That's not "fair play" - it's nothing more than bullying.

For the record, I have never taken a single rv from any other players on this server since I began playing this game nearly four years ago. Yet I have had 8 rv's stolen to date from Odins and Rev X players combined. I have all screenshots to prove it. Here's just one.



A 1v1 alliance battle is one thing, but when you are attacked by CG + Odins + Rev X players repeatedly at the same time again and again and again without recourse up to 12 times a day, it really gets a bit much and raises serious questions about the mindset, character and behaviour of these players.

There was no requirement or need to stoop to such tactics by CG  + Odins + Rev X combined. For them to conduct themselves in such manner whilst claiming to be "fair play alliances" is truly abhorrent and exposes them for the bullies they are.

A very unhealthy, controlling and manipulative group who should be of grave concern to all other players on the GB1 server.

You’re lying, we didn’t declare on defiance etc. You guys declared on us.

lmfho ops its fell of my head we declared on odins wait still laughing actually cant stop laughing now have a stitch because my laughing wont stop. christ now i am crying laughing wait read again we declared on odins lololololol crap ive wet myself now laughing 

gazz65 (GB1) said:

Nothing will be done how long have we mentioned all this stuff years now.
And I would just like to say to Ultimatejohn Defiance did declare on cg odins wraith revx because we 
thought we could take you all on at once and beat you all.

wait still laughing got to go change my man size nappy 

"We have already established"

You were using the pronoun in it's Royal "we" context to refer to yourself as opposed to" using it to refer to yourself and one or more other people considered together".  Your use of we was perhaps a little misleading and I appreciate you clarifying that you do not represent or speak on behalf of Crimson Guard, Odins Fury, RevX and Wraith  and that rather than presenting facts you are merely writing from the limited perspective of one player with access to only part of the full picture of what is happening in your alliance and other alliances.  Interesting that you twigged that I am a professional and published writer who does in fact get paid for his work I hadn't realised the in game spies were that effective I tend to find though if you take time to try and understand someone's views it tends to be easier to grasp where they are coming from.  It's a public forum though so if you don't wish to read my views just skip my comments.    

I also write from the limited perspective of a player who was invited by both Gondor and the Round Table to as an independent player ally with them to achieve shared goals.  When I speak I also do not speak for TRT they have diplomats and players with accounts on the forum and the vast majority do their talking very effectively on the pitch.  What I can say from a personal experience given that I did not know many of the players in TRT before joining them is that when they get hit and they cannot reach to support players burn.  Players are advised by Skype or text of incoming attacks and if they can get online they do if they can't they put fires out with support in terms of resources from alliance colleagues.  They sent me 68K support for the first attack on me without knowing me and have been very open in sharing information to help support me which given my rise in the rankings would suggest they are pretty good teachers.  I have seen no evidence from my limited perspective of them operating outside of the rules but what I have seen is players working hard together towards a shared goal.  They are well coordinated, communicate clearly and effectively provide clear instruction and give effective advice to support improvement.  Frankly I'm impressed.

Whilst I played with 10th Legion players who moved to RevX I have never played in Defiance and haven't been invited to.  I believe and adhere to one player one account.  Though you are welcome to confirm that with GGE if you wish as is every players right.  And in terms of Praetorian's my last contact with them was when Adam Lloyd took a Storm island I held and apologised for doing so when Syndicate were competing - in as much as we could - with Praetorians in Storm.  The communication between Praetorians and Round Table is to my knowledge is at a leadership team level and is communicated by the leadership team to players through mass mailings where and when appropriate.  I heard of suspensions not through Praetorians but through the network of players I'm communicating with in smaller alliances with whom I'm sharing what I learn through the war to help their development.  I hadn't appreciated until Jhon's response that there was any substance to it and assumed you would be able to dismiss it.  I didn't name any specific players and my understanding was that players from within the alliance had communicated the alleged suspensions externally.  Given the specific details provided by Jhon it's sounds as if that misunderstanding may have come from comments he made.  I was simply seeking to provide an opportunity for you to provide clarification.  

Your response appears to abrogate responsibility for the actions of any players and yet you said: 

"Password sharing/Multi-accounting just slander to discredit and true and win votes. Shame."

So if you cannot speak to the accuracy of the information, and you cannot be certain of the actions taken by any player in the alliance other than yourself then by extension you cannot be really sure that what you believe to be slander is in fact slander.  Luckily I used to teach media law to journalists so perhaps can provide a bit of assistance here.  Slander is making false and damaging statements about someone.  More specifically as the statements are written on the forum what you are more accurately saying is that a player making a specific allegation is libelling the player accused. There are a number of defences against an accusation of libel:  Truth, Honest opinion, publication on a matter of public interest, absolute privelege and innocent dissemination.  I would suggest at least three of those would be upheld as reasonable defences in the case of this thread and the comments made.  Given Jhon named players Adler, Canucks, SW and Lemchi he would be the person at risk of defaming them and damaging their reputations.  I'm not sure why he would name those specific players when I did not but I'm sure they will be understanding about it and clearly Jhon could argue it's a case of innocent dissemination I'm sure.  Where players have on the forum openly admitted to multi-accounting they effectively established that the practice happened within the alliance in which they played at the time therefore any accusation against players in those alliances sadly perhaps can be made knowing that you will be protected under Honest Opinion, Truth and judging by Phil's comments matter of public interest.  The lesson to players is that actions you take in the past can effect you in the future.  If it is Duke Vincent's honestly held opinion that a player is bullying him or players in his alliance he is entitled to claim that and he has not libeled anyone.  

In terms of putting up a biased side of the story I simply asked a series of questions which allowed you a right to reply to questions players have asked me or been discussing.  I would see that as an opportunity to end speculation and move forward.  That you do not have the answers or do not wish to answer is fine I'm sure people will as ever draw there own conclusion.  

I commented on your response to Duke Vincent because you made your response in a public forum provided by GGE to allow us to comment.  When your gaming impacts on others and given this one player game versus a computer it will people will take a view on how what you do impacts on them, they will talk about and discuss it.  But I wasn't specifically talking about your gaming I was ask more general questions which I believed you may have an answer to.  We have all at some stage been where Duke Vincent is personally and personally I take no enjoyment in hitting players who can't or won't defend I'm simply sympathetic to all players whether in Odins or Wraith whose more senior colleagues are unable or unwilling to defend them when I hit.  

In terms of your last comment whilst product placement has been around in TV and film for a while it's interesting to see given your account name that it has made it's way to GGE.  My understanding is that the product your name references comes in packs  so are you sure there aren't more of you out there somewhere educating and keeping the young safe and in good health    

Batten (GB1) said:

So just to clarify Ultra when you said 

"We declared on you" 

"We have already established"

You were using the pronoun in it's Royal "we" context to refer to yourself as opposed to" using it to refer to yourself and one or more other people considered together".  Your use of we was perhaps a little misleading and I appreciate you clarifying that you do not represent or speak on behalf of Crimson Guard, Odins Fury, RevX and Wraith  and that rather than presenting facts you are merely writing from the limited perspective of one player with access to only part of the full picture of what is happening in your alliance and other alliances.  Interesting that you twigged that I am a professional and published writer who does in fact get paid for his work I hadn't realised the in game spies were that effective I tend to find though if you take time to try and understand someone's views it tends to be easier to grasp where they are coming from.  It's a public forum though so if you don't wish to read my views just skip my comments.    

I also write from the limited perspective of a player who was invited by both Gondor and the Round Table to as an independent player ally with them to achieve shared goals.  When I speak I also do not speak for TRT they have diplomats and players with accounts on the forum and the vast majority do their talking very effectively on the pitch.  What I can say from a personal experience given that I did not know many of the players in TRT before joining them is that when they get hit and they cannot reach to support players burn.  Players are advised by Skype or text of incoming attacks and if they can get online they do if they can't they put fires out with support in terms of resources from alliance colleagues.  They sent me 68K support for the first attack on me without knowing me and have been very open in sharing information to help support me which given my rise in the rankings would suggest they are pretty good teachers.  I have seen no evidence from my limited perspective of them operating outside of the rules but what I have seen is players working hard together towards a shared goal.  They are well coordinated, communicate clearly and effectively provide clear instruction and give effective advice to support improvement.  Frankly I'm impressed.

Whilst I played with 10th Legion players who moved to RevX I have never played in Defiance and haven't been invited to.  I believe and adhere to one player one account.  Though you are welcome to confirm that with GGE if you wish as is every players right.  And in terms of Praetorian's my last contact with them was when Adam Lloyd took a Storm island I held and apologised for doing so when Syndicate were competing - in as much as we could - with Praetorians in Storm.  The communication between Praetorians and Round Table is to my knowledge is at a leadership team level and is communicated by the leadership team to players through mass mailings where and when appropriate.  I heard of suspensions not through Praetorians but through the network of players I'm communicating with in smaller alliances with whom I'm sharing what I learn through the war to help their development.  I hadn't appreciated until Jhon's response that there was any substance to it and assumed you would be able to dismiss it.  I didn't name any specific players and my understanding was that players from within the alliance had communicated the alleged suspensions externally.  Given the specific details provided by Jhon it's sounds as if that misunderstanding may have come from comments he made.  I was simply seeking to provide an opportunity for you to provide clarification.  

Your response appears to abrogate responsibility for the actions of any players and yet you said: 

"Password sharing/Multi-accounting just slander to discredit and true and win votes. Shame."

So if you cannot speak to the accuracy of the information, and you cannot be certain of the actions taken by any player in the alliance other than yourself then by extension you cannot be really sure that what you believe to be slander is in fact slander.  Luckily I used to teach media law to journalists so perhaps can provide a bit of assistance here.  Slander is making false and damaging statements about someone.  More specifically as the statements are written on the forum what you are more accurately saying is that a player making a specific allegation is libelling the player accused. There are a number of defences against an accusation of libel:  Truth, Honest opinion, publication on a matter of public interest, absolute privelege and innocent dissemination.  I would suggest at least three of those would be upheld as reasonable defences in the case of this thread and the comments made.  Given Jhon named players Adler, Canucks, SW and Lemchi he would be the person at risk of defaming them and damaging their reputations.  I'm not sure why he would name those specific players when I did not but I'm sure they will be understanding about it and clearly Jhon could argue it's a case of innocent dissemination I'm sure.  Where players have on the forum openly admitted to multi-accounting they effectively established that the practice happened within the alliance in which they played at the time therefore any accusation against players in those alliances sadly perhaps can be made knowing that you will be protected under Honest Opinion, Truth and judging by Phil's comments matter of public interest.  The lesson to players is that actions you take in the past can effect you in the future.  If it is Duke Vincent's honestly held opinion that a player is bullying him or players in his alliance he is entitled to claim that and he has not libeled anyone.  

In terms of putting up a biased side of the story I simply asked a series of questions which allowed you a right to reply to questions players have asked me or been discussing.  I would see that as an opportunity to end speculation and move forward.  That you do not have the answers or do not wish to answer is fine I'm sure people will as ever draw there own conclusion.  

I commented on your response to Duke Vincent because you made your response in a public forum provided by GGE to allow us to comment.  When your gaming impacts on others and given this one player game versus a computer it will people will take a view on how what you do impacts on them, they will talk about and discuss it.  But I wasn't specifically talking about your gaming I was ask more general questions which I believed you may have an answer to.  We have all at some stage been where Duke Vincent is personally and personally I take no enjoyment in hitting players who can't or won't defend I'm simply sympathetic to all players whether in Odins or Wraith whose more senior colleagues are unable or unwilling to defend them when I hit.  

In terms of your last comment whilst product placement has been around in TV and film for a while it's interesting to see given your account name that it has made it's way to GGE.  My understanding is that the product your name references comes in packs  so are you sure there aren't more of you out there somewhere educating and keeping the young safe and in good health    

Batten (GB1) said:

So just to clarify Ultra when you said 

"We declared on you" 

"We have already established"

You were using the pronoun in it's Royal "we" context to refer to yourself as opposed to" using it to refer to yourself and one or more other people considered together".  Your use of we was perhaps a little misleading and I appreciate you clarifying that you do not represent or speak on behalf of Crimson Guard, Odins Fury, RevX and Wraith  and that rather than presenting facts you are merely writing from the limited perspective of one player with access to only part of the full picture of what is happening in your alliance and other alliances.  Interesting that you twigged that I am a professional and published writer who does in fact get paid for his work I hadn't realised the in game spies were that effective I tend to find though if you take time to try and understand someone's views it tends to be easier to grasp where they are coming from.  It's a public forum though so if you don't wish to read my views just skip my comments.    

I also write from the limited perspective of a player who was invited by both Gondor and the Round Table to as an independent player ally with them to achieve shared goals.  When I speak I also do not speak for TRT they have diplomats and players with accounts on the forum and the vast majority do their talking very effectively on the pitch.  What I can say from a personal experience given that I did not know many of the players in TRT before joining them is that when they get hit and they cannot reach to support players burn.  Players are advised by Skype or text of incoming attacks and if they can get online they do if they can't they put fires out with support in terms of resources from alliance colleagues.  They sent me 68K support for the first attack on me without knowing me and have been very open in sharing information to help support me which given my rise in the rankings would suggest they are pretty good teachers.  I have seen no evidence from my limited perspective of them operating outside of the rules but what I have seen is players working hard together towards a shared goal.  They are well coordinated, communicate clearly and effectively provide clear instruction and give effective advice to support improvement.  Frankly I'm impressed.

Whilst I played with 10th Legion players who moved to RevX I have never played in Defiance and haven't been invited to.  I believe and adhere to one player one account.  Though you are welcome to confirm that with GGE if you wish as is every players right.  And in terms of Praetorian's my last contact with them was when Adam Lloyd took a Storm island I held and apologised for doing so when Syndicate were competing - in as much as we could - with Praetorians in Storm.  The communication between Praetorians and Round Table is to my knowledge is at a leadership team level and is communicated by the leadership team to players through mass mailings where and when appropriate.  I heard of suspensions not through Praetorians but through the network of players I'm communicating with in smaller alliances with whom I'm sharing what I learn through the war to help their development.  I hadn't appreciated until Jhon's response that there was any substance to it and assumed you would be able to dismiss it.  I didn't name any specific players and my understanding was that players from within the alliance had communicated the alleged suspensions externally.  Given the specific details provided by Jhon it's sounds as if that misunderstanding may have come from comments he made.  I was simply seeking to provide an opportunity for you to provide clarification.  

Your response appears to abrogate responsibility for the actions of any players and yet you said: 

"Password sharing/Multi-accounting just slander to discredit and true and win votes. Shame."

So if you cannot speak to the accuracy of the information, and you cannot be certain of the actions taken by any player in the alliance other than yourself then by extension you cannot be really sure that what you believe to be slander is in fact slander.  Luckily I used to teach media law to journalists so perhaps can provide a bit of assistance here.  Slander is making false and damaging statements about someone.  More specifically as the statements are written on the forum what you are more accurately saying is that a player making a specific allegation is libelling the player accused. There are a number of defences against an accusation of libel:  Truth, Honest opinion, publication on a matter of public interest, absolute privelege and innocent dissemination.  I would suggest at least three of those would be upheld as reasonable defences in the case of this thread and the comments made.  Given Jhon named players Adler, Canucks, SW and Lemchi he would be the person at risk of defaming them and damaging their reputations.  I'm not sure why he would name those specific players when I did not but I'm sure they will be understanding about it and clearly Jhon could argue it's a case of innocent dissemination I'm sure.  Where players have on the forum openly admitted to multi-accounting they effectively established that the practice happened within the alliance in which they played at the time therefore any accusation against players in those alliances sadly perhaps can be made knowing that you will be protected under Honest Opinion, Truth and judging by Phil's comments matter of public interest.  The lesson to players is that actions you take in the past can effect you in the future.  If it is Duke Vincent's honestly held opinion that a player is bullying him or players in his alliance he is entitled to claim that and he has not libeled anyone.  

In terms of putting up a biased side of the story I simply asked a series of questions which allowed you a right to reply to questions players have asked me or been discussing.  I would see that as an opportunity to end speculation and move forward.  That you do not have the answers or do not wish to answer is fine I'm sure people will as ever draw there own conclusion.  

I commented on your response to Duke Vincent because you made your response in a public forum provided by GGE to allow us to comment.  When your gaming impacts on others and given this one player game versus a computer it will people will take a view on how what you do impacts on them, they will talk about and discuss it.  But I wasn't specifically talking about your gaming I was ask more general questions which I believed you may have an answer to.  We have all at some stage been where Duke Vincent is personally and personally I take no enjoyment in hitting players who can't or won't defend I'm simply sympathetic to all players whether in Odins or Wraith whose more senior colleagues are unable or unwilling to defend them when I hit.  

In terms of your last comment whilst product placement has been around in TV and film for a while it's interesting to see given your account name that it has made it's way to GGE.  My understanding is that the product your name references comes in packs  so are you sure there aren't more of you out there somewhere educating and keeping the young safe and in good health    

Batten (GB1) said:

Which "we" you and Spirit Bear, you Spirit Bear and the Western Union, you, Stalin and Santa Claus.  You are describing it as a wall of text. I would see your experience and reaction in reading as very similar to Duke Vincent's response to seeing 12 attacks landing in a short space of time.  It's wearing, demotivating isn't it.  Last time I looked the forum was an open space it isn't owned by one player or alliance it's open to all voices.  It's not nice to be mocked or demeaned for expressing an honestly held view or responding to an in game experience as Duke Vincent did.  Something perhaps to think about when you next mock a developing player or describe someone as an "idiot" for holding a different view to you.