Please watch this game history and tell me that Yako is not working together with Ken.

http://www.warlight.net/App.aspx?GameID=1028930

Just a warning to the community.

He will not be the first player here to have ghost accounts, and certainly will not be the last one either. I have met a lot of such players.

Yep, watch out for Ken....he is a blatant cheater...dont join his games unless you are prepared to fight 2v1

I've seen 2 Polish accounts with the SAME e-mail address, and multiple others that simply have a bunch of random letters strung together to roughly resemble an e-mail address. It's gonna get worse before it gets better, mates.

also waldo invited him to join....have roughly the same number of games...waldo just started a game with a NEW person with 0 games.... should be interesting to watch that game history and see if its the same guy making all of these ghosts

just confronted the "host" of the game and he promptly deleted it

he has: ken, waldo, mcam, and yako so far that I know of

I realize it happens way more times than anyone can detect, but if we work together, at least we can alert each other of the accounts we notice.

Jesus christ, it just gets worse and worse. How depressing.

That's why I have stopped playing non-team games for a while now and only playing team games with players I know pretty well as my teammates.
They may still use their ghost accounts in a multi-teams game, but they will less likely to have big advantage unlike in individual games.

LOL
Guys..
Im not clon or some thing like that

so.. leave me alone

I watched the history. The only way that kind of teamwork could have been achieved by the two of them was if they both had the view of eachother's layouts. It is, almost beyond a shadow of a doubt, two ghost accounts working in tandem in a multiplayer ffa game. Such things undermine the integrity of the game, thanks for reporting it so I know to steer clear from his games.

Do some people need to win so badly they will blatantly cheat to win? Sad state of affairs.

Outright cheating is annoying, but I even struggle with the honest collusion this game systemically encourages. That is, when one player takes a decisive lead and all the other players decide to stop attacking each other and put all of their energy into attacking the leader. There's nothing necessarily dishonest about it - in fact it is a reasonable strategy for someone with an inferior position. Some may see it as an enrichment of the game, but I see it as a flaw, at least in games where it is not possible to conceal your strength. For this reason alone I try to avoid games with more than two players or teams.

There is a huge difference between colluding with someone you know (or with yourself using ghost accounts) simply because you know them, and colluding with people in a game in a fluid fashion based off of your strategic priorities. One ranges from morally shady to outright reprehensible, the other is basically legit in my eyes. Either way, it's pretty much inevitable that it will happen because nothing in the game mechanics stops it. Your only options are to play with people you trust that have agreed not to do it, or to counter it by doing it yourself, or to only play 1v1 games.

Braveheart - It's very frustrating to have 40% of the world and find yourself with 3-6 other players only attacking you. The problem is that I don't enjoy playing out a losing position once it's a foregone conclusion that I can't win -- so I surrender. But the dilemna in this situation is that you're technically winning, but mathematically will inevitably lose. You can try making deals, but if everyone is firmly allied against you, you have to surrender. That is a sort of game flaw.

Different settings can help a great deal though, particularly lots of abandons and airlifts. With enough abandons and airlifts, a 40% income can beat a 60% income spread among several opponants. It could even be a fun challenge -- certainly better than spending the rest of the game doing mop up.

Even if you were once the leader and now are not because people have banded together against you, you can still gain the victory by rallying your one-time opponents against the new leader and enhancing your strategic position while doing so. Mostly this means playing defensively and opportunistically grabbing such extra deployment as you can..

So the game on the board doesn't matter. It's a game of social and psychological posturing, deception, and maneuvering. Exciting for the people that see it that way. Terribly annoying for those that don't. Wait a sec. Are roundhouse kicks forbidden in chess?

A roundhouse kick would give you no advantage in the winning of a game of chess. Your analogy doesn't apply. I'll say it again, if you want no collusion games, title the game "no collusion" and then keep track of any players that appear to not be honoring that so that you won't have to play them in the future.

Also, the way you phrase that is really pointlessly insulting to those of us who do like games of shifting alliances and ebb and flow of power. Of course the fucking game board matters, dude. Don't be a douche.

Devil -- The scenerio i was describing wasn't hypothetical, and it took 70+ turns to arrive at the 60/40 split. I considered waiting until I was no longer the leader and then trying to build an alliance to then take out the new leader, but consider that the game would never end that way. Also I knew all the other players were very unlikely to break the alliance they'd made to kill me. My assumption was that it would last until I was gone.

In the end, I surrendered and they thought that was so absurd that they preferred to just vote to end the game. Which we all did. Which led to a discussion fo which settigns might prevent that undesirable outcome from recurring, i.e. easier and more powerful abandons.