$ Players

[Legendary Apophis]

You didn't convince me using money could be considered as cheating.
It's not like it's same as an ActionReplay or a GameShark, considering developpers of those cheat devices are independant from corporations making games and consoles.
Admin both made this game and enabled the market.

[Quina Quen]

[schuesseled]

You guys make it sound like 12ag is driving around in a Ferrari and living in a mansion with 60" plasma LCDs in every room when all the $$$ he made from the game was used to buy GW related resources and accounts. What those people that sold their accounts/resources to us did with their $$$ is another story.

Haven't taken any money from selling SGW stuff and put it into my wallet, when I do and have sold naqudah it all goes back into SGW, SS's, re-investments for profit, and other various games I wish to spend money on at a whim but have no need to do so, and a lack of money in my wallet to do so anyway.

Perhaps I should start a ferrari fund tho.

[schuesseled]

Semper,
Your whole argument is based on your definition of cheating and how you perceive it. Not everyone views it the same way. To me, cheating would involve someone going against the game rules or exploiting an option not available or known to everyone else in the game.

To cheat is to gain an unfair advantage, no matter how you try to twist it, that is what you're doing when you spend copious sums of money buying an advantage in this game.

"Cheating in video games involves a player of a video game creating an advantage beyond the bounds of normal gameplay"

To cheat is to gain an unfair advantage from within the confides of the rules given. (The bouns of normal gameplay is another way of saying rules if your not a human theosauraus)
You cant just go ignoring the definition, and say things like "no matter how you try to twist it" in its place, lol!!!

For an Example on what your saying.
If In chess you added a new rule, meaning the the queen can jump over pieces, *as too why you would wasnt to do this and ruin a nice game of chess I dont know * but if you did, and it was agreed upon by the game rule maker and then accepted by the compeitors as all rules are before playing any game. If you were to jump said queen over said other piece, where normally this would be cheating as a queen by the rules of normal chess can't, it is no longer cheating, by your definition you can argue that it is cheating because it is unfair, the queen is now stronger than usual and thus gainsan unfair advantage to a player who doesnt use it this way, but you would be wrong, cheating is only cheating if it is cheating as defined if defined correctly.

Fact is, buying stuff with $ is not cheating, nor is scamming, nor is extortion, nor are many other things inside the game people seem to deem a "cheat."
If the rules say said action is permissable, it is not cheating, it may well be unfair/immoral/cruel/harsh/inconciderate/a huge mistake on part of the admin, it is still in no way shape how or form cheating. You cant simply ignore the definition of a word and say something is it, when it is clearly not. And dont even think of throwing around idea's like "tear has 2 meanings, and try to use this with definitions of cheating", cheat has a few definitions, this is true.
This is one of them.
cheat - darnel: weedy annual grass often occurs in grainfields and other cultivated land; seeds sometimes considered poisonous.

But having the language skills to choose the right definition for the right purpose is key in any point in any confosation. In this case, we are talking about rules and the breaking of rules by cheating to gain unfair advantages, and you are saying this is the case with buying for $, English langauge says you sir's are wrong, I strongly suggest you use whichever right term applies to your arguements before I hit you with the blimey dictionary.

Confusing and misleading langauge using incorrect definitions is either the work of comic genious's or dislexics.

To sum up, buying naq with $ is not cheating in any way shape or form.

....

Let me break it down, a game needs a player base, the game cannot progress or sustain itself unless its player base grows. Games will fail if they cannot sustain a growing player base.

How does this relate to the above. Player A doesn't want to start from scratch, so he buys an account from Player B who is tired of the admin not caring about his or her input and wants to leave with enough for a Happy Meal or whatever(no $ goes to the game). Player A then goes around picking on smaller accounts just because he can, accounts that have been worked on from scratch and have either asceneded or donated to the game to get where they were.

Player A picks on the wrong person (Player C), a War then starts, Player A is quickly overwhelmed by actual skill, so then they proceed to purchase accounts for their "friends" and purchasing goods from other players with $$(again no $ goes to the game). Player C and his Alliance are quickly overwhelmed by numbers and decide to call it quits because no matter how much effort is put in, Player A has the advantage and with that, the husk of a once geat account floats aimlessly in space with no owner (1 account lost) and soon his or her friends decided the same (loss of more accounts to the void).

Congratulations, your player base has shrunken because of player A. Before you call bull on this example ... I was Player C, and have been gone for almost two years. Why am I back, because I miss communicating with my bud and he stopped playing wow, so i use this to chat with him at work and BS.

The admin really needs to re-think things before this games turns into an embarrassment rather than a legacy.

Best,
Death Glider (DG)

You need to re-think your arguement.

Player A sold to player B. (1 Account saved instead of "blackholed")

Player B introduces Players D, E and F to the game to fight pro player, infamous yet unamed C. (3 new accounts to the game)

Player C, being the infamous pro he is, destroys and makes quit B, D, E and F, quite an achievement, he truely had lived up to his nameless name. (4 accounts lost to the blackhole.

Conclusion;

There is no change to the player base than if Player A had blackholed as apposed to sell.

................................................................................

The reason why you cant fault, or atleast fault correctly Max's arguement is simple, $ trading doesnt hurt the game, all naqudah / uu / turns, are distributed back into the game when sold. As apposed to the opposite which is accounts containing lots of resources deleting or vac'ing which takes resources away from the total player bases resources.
The fact that the distribution of these resources goes to the players who pay the most $ is irrelevant, less resources are being destroyed or held permentally in black holes thanks to the $ trading of SGW. So if anything, $ Buying/Selling from player to player helps the game not to be stagant and resources to simply, disapear.


.........
.........
..........


And to the guy who said this thread was started buy a whiny $ buyer.
1. I dont buy stuff with $.
2. I dont whine.

Infact this thread was created about whiny anti - $ trader's. So infact you have got it all wrong.
If anything I am a whiny anti - anti - $ trader's. But even then I would argue about the whiny part. I do not whine, merely comment upon in such frequency it appears that I never stop.

[Death_Glider]

[spoiler]

Semper,
Your whole argument is based on your definition of cheating and how you perceive it. Not everyone views it the same way. To me, cheating would involve someone going against the game rules or exploiting an option not available or known to everyone else in the game.

To cheat is to gain an unfair advantage, no matter how you try to twist it, that is what you're doing when you spend copious sums of money buying an advantage in this game.

"Cheating in video games involves a player of a video game creating an advantage beyond the bounds of normal gameplay"

To cheat is to gain an unfair advantage from within the confides of the rules given. (The bouns of normal gameplay is another way of saying rules if your not a human theosauraus)
You cant just go ignoring the definition, and say things like "no matter how you try to twist it" in its place, lol!!!

For an Example on what your saying.
If In chess you added a new rule, meaning the the queen can jump over pieces, *as too why you would wasnt to do this and ruin a nice game of chess I dont know * but if you did, and it was agreed upon by the game rule maker and then accepted by the compeitors as all rules are before playing any game. If you were to jump said queen over said other piece, where normally this would be cheating as a queen by the rules of normal chess can't, it is no longer cheating, by your definition you can argue that it is cheating because it is unfair, the queen is now stronger than usual and thus gainsan unfair advantage to a player who doesnt use it this way, but you would be wrong, cheating is only cheating if it is cheating as defined if defined correctly.

Fact is, buying stuff with $ is not cheating, nor is scamming, nor is extortion, nor are many other things inside the game people seem to deem a "cheat."
If the rules say said action is permissable, it is not cheating, it may well be unfair/immoral/cruel/harsh/inconciderate/a huge mistake on part of the admin, it is still in no way shape how or form cheating. You cant simply ignore the definition of a word and say something is it, when it is clearly not. And dont even think of throwing around idea's like "tear has 2 meanings, and try to use this with definitions of cheating", cheat has a few definitions, this is true.
This is one of them.
cheat - darnel: weedy annual grass often occurs in grainfields and other cultivated land; seeds sometimes considered poisonous.

But having the language skills to choose the right definition for the right purpose is key in any point in any confosation. In this case, we are talking about rules and the breaking of rules by cheating to gain unfair advantages, and you are saying this is the case with buying for $, English langauge says you sir's are wrong, I strongly suggest you use whichever right term applies to your arguements before I hit you with the blimey dictionary.

Confusing and misleading langauge using incorrect definitions is either the work of comic genious's or dislexics.

To sum up, buying naq with $ is not cheating in any way shape or form.

....

Let me break it down, a game needs a player base, the game cannot progress or sustain itself unless its player base grows. Games will fail if they cannot sustain a growing player base.

How does this relate to the above. Player A doesn't want to start from scratch, so he buys an account from Player B who is tired of the admin not caring about his or her input and wants to leave with enough for a Happy Meal or whatever(no $ goes to the game). Player A then goes around picking on smaller accounts just because he can, accounts that have been worked on from scratch and have either asceneded or donated to the game to get where they were.

Player A picks on the wrong person (Player C), a War then starts, Player A is quickly overwhelmed by actual skill, so then they proceed to purchase accounts for their "friends" and purchasing goods from other players with $$(again no $ goes to the game). Player C and his Alliance are quickly overwhelmed by numbers and decide to call it quits because no matter how much effort is put in, Player A has the advantage and with that, the husk of a once geat account floats aimlessly in space with no owner (1 account lost) and soon his or her friends decided the same (loss of more accounts to the void).

Congratulations, your player base has shrunken because of player A. Before you call bull on this example ... I was Player C, and have been gone for almost two years. Why am I back, because I miss communicating with my bud and he stopped playing wow, so i use this to chat with him at work and BS.

The admin really needs to re-think things before this games turns into an embarrassment rather than a legacy.

Best,
Death Glider (DG)

You need to re-think your arguement.

Player A sold to player B. (1 Account saved instead of "blackholed")

Player B introduces Players D, E and F to the game to fight pro player, infamous yet unamed C. (3 new accounts to the game)

Player C, being the infamous pro he is, destroys and makes quit B, D, E and F, quite an achievement, he truely had lived up to his nameless name. (4 accounts lost to the blackhole.

Conclusion;

There is no change to the player base than if Player A had blackholed as apposed to sell.

................................................................................

The reason why you cant fault, or atleast fault correctly Max's arguement is simple, $ trading doesnt hurt the game, all naqudah / uu / turns, are distributed back into the game when sold. As apposed to the opposite which is accounts containing lots of resources deleting or vac'ing which takes resources away from the total player bases resources.
The fact that the distribution of these resources goes to the players who pay the most $ is irrelevant, less resources are being destroyed or held permentally in black holes thanks to the $ trading of SGW. So if anything, $ Buying/Selling from player to player helps the game not to be stagant and resources to simply, disapear.


.........
.........
..........


And to the guy who said this thread was started buy a whiny $ buyer.
1. I dont buy stuff with $.
2. I dont whine.

Infact this thread was created about whiny anti - $ trader's. So infact you have got it all wrong.
If anything I am a whiny anti - anti - $ trader's. But even then I would argue about the whiny part. I do not whine, merely comment upon in such frequency it appears that I never stop.[/spoiler]

Uh you need to re-think your argument or learn how to read ... the guy I wared with turned out to be a multi ... accounts were banned and actual players left ...

[schuesseled]

No need to quote the whole post.

And yeah sorry I misread your post, but still,
Players were caused to leave the game because of cheating not $ buying.
You overwhelmed player B who had till this point only used $, before he had the need to cheat to beat you and make you quit.
So if anything is to blame in this example it was not Player A selling to Player B. It was Player B for multi'ing and breaking rules, which he would have done with or without $.

[Borek]

Buying resources is not beyond normal gameplay, anyone can buy and sell resources as they see fit.

Jason makes the rules, not anyone else. Don't like them? Don't play, simple as that.

Far as i know 12ag has not spent any of his own money on this game, all his cash has been generated selling resources and reinvesting smartly back into the game to his ultimate benefit. Trading has been a part of sgw for many years, it's absolutely 100% legal, so much so there is an entire section of the forum dedicated to it.

My account has been mine from it's start of 3 army size, 1 UP, 4 yrs later it's still mine, but i could have got the same level a lot faster if i had put in some effort trading, some risk also of being scammed it is true to say. It's why there are disclaimers everywhere to do with trading and why we have brokers and a cash black market.

If you don't want to trade then no one is forcing you, just stop accusing people who do of cheating when there is nothing in the rules saying it is not allowed.

[GrizzZzzly]

the main points are about how it is impacting the game. The part about cheating is irrelevent because call it what you like cheating or fair play, the point remains and is relevent is the effects of cash trades being allowed.

[Borek]

Anything that impacts the game is for Jason to decide about. It's his game, he makes the rules, rules say trading is fine, until that changes it's part of the game. Moan if you like, but since he doesn't read the forums you're pretty much wasting your time, hehe.

My response was to Jacks post, i just couldn't be bothered to quote each part of his flawed arguement.

Honestly i just translated it as wah, wah, i didn't agree to trading so i will call it cheating. Sorry jack, jason does not require your vote to run HIS game, it's a business for him, not a charity, he has staff to pay, running costs etc. It's free to play for anyone, if you want an advantage you can PAY for one, trade with other players, put in a lot of time farming/raiding etc or any combination that is within the rules at the time.

No one is forcing people to play, it's just a free browser game, get some perspective.

[Legendary Apophis]

"Cheating in video games involves a player of a video game creating an advantage beyond the bounds of normal gameplay"

Buying resources and USS is gaining an advantage beyond normal gameplay. I'm glad you agree that it's cheating.
Not at all. As Borek said, buying is part of normal gameplay. Buying at very cheap rates from a cheater (not a so called I mean, a *real* cheater) would be cheating.

To cheat is to gain an unfair advantage from within the confides of the rules given. (The bouns of normal gameplay is another way of saying rules if your not a human theosauraus)
You cant just go ignoring the definition, and say things like "no matter how you try to twist it" in its place, lol!!!

I'm not, you are.

Again, that definition you give defines the very essence of buying resources.
No, exploiting a bug would fit his definition (similar to buttons or special player names "codes" in games). Spending money, doesn't. It's just like extensions in some games, not needed, but possible, and costing money to get.

For an Example on what your saying.
If In chess you added a new rule, meaning the the queen can jump over pieces, *as too why you would wasnt to do this and ruin a nice game of chess I dont know * but if you did, and it was agreed upon by the game rule maker and then accepted by the compeitors as all rules are before playing any game. If you were to jump said queen over said other piece, where normally this would be cheating as a queen by the rules of normal chess can't, it is no longer cheating, by your definition you can argue that it is cheating because it is unfair, the queen is now stronger than usual and thus gainsan unfair advantage to a player who doesnt use it this way, but you would be wrong, cheating is only cheating if it is cheating as defined if defined correctly.

Something you fail to realize here.

1. I started BEFORE even SS was introduced.
2. I never agreed to accept the rule allowing cash trades whether on the black market or game market.

So again, by your definition, it is cheating because the competitors did not agree to the new rules.
Just because YOU (and few others, whatever) didn't agree with it, doesn't mean everyone else didn't. If nobody else did, that could have been a different case.

Fact is, buying stuff with $ is not cheating, nor is scamming, nor is extortion, nor are many other things inside the game people seem to deem a "cheat."

Both scamming and extortion are part of normal gameplay, using real life money is not.
Such a twisted (and wrong) view of normal gameplay!

No one is forcing people to play, it's just a free browser game, get some perspective.

About time someone points this out!

[Borek]

you might have a point if there wasn't an IN GAME cash market

[renegadze]

I have his ear and could do that.

you have his ear! that would explain why he's not listening to any of the suggeestions

[schuesseled]

"Cheating in video games involves a player of a video game creating an advantage beyond the bounds of normal gameplay"

Buying resources and USS is gaining an advantage beyond normal gameplay. I'm glad you agree that it's cheating.

Next time atleast learn to spell before trying to throw a dictionary in my face.

I dont agree with you, you are misreading the definition of Cheating. "The bounds of normal game play", is not debateable nor is it opinionated. It has one simple meaning,
Bounds refers to restrictions, to rules, not to an idealogy of what is or is not "normal"
Scamming isn't a normal way to play SGW, hardly anyone scams, it is not encouraged just admin wont do anything if someone does scam. It is anything from normal, it is a fair and perfectly acceptable in my eyes way of playing the game if you so wish to role play this way. But this doesn't make it a "normal" way to play, so thus by your incorrect definition it would also be cheating, which we have both ruled out, and thus you rule along with me out your definition by default.

I'm sorry if you never agreed with SS, I came along about a year after the game had come out and I guess SS was out by then because I brought one quite early in my SGW gaming.
But by continuing to play SGW you agree thereby to all of admins rules. It says so when you register , So while you may not have agreed with it, by playing you accepted it.

And I do not know how to spell to throw a dictionary at people, it may be helpful however to have knowledge of what a book looks like and how to read the word dictionary so I throw the right book at you and not say lord of the rings

Sanctioned Cheating is an oxymoron ,

Buying with $, may well be unfair, may well be not a part of the majority of players normal gameplay, but in any case, it still isnt cheating, and to call it "sanctioned cheating" is a reserval on itself, if its sanctioned its within the rules, if its in the rules it isnt cheating, therefore, sanctioned cheating can't exist. But the term can simply be used to then instead describe a legal process that may or may not, depening on your opinion, be unfair or biased and shouldnt be a legal process depending on opinion. But untill such time as the governing body, In this case Admin, makes the decision you want to illegalise it, then it is not what it may appear to some to be.

........

Actually scar I have spent a little, a few SS's here and there, and just spent $50 on something I wanted, but generally I don't fizzle money away on SGW

[Death_Glider]

[spoiler]

No need to quote the whole post.

And yeah sorry I misread your post, but still,
Players were caused to leave the game because of cheating not $ buying.
You overwhelmed player B who had till this point only used $, before he had the need to cheat to beat you and make you quit.
So if anything is to blame in this example it was not Player A selling to Player B. It was Player B for multi'ing and breaking rules, which he would have done with or without $.

[/spoiler]

No ... you are way off point sir. The player threw around $$ to buy accounts ... then boosted those account by using more $$. We would have dispatched him with ease had it not been for the boost he gave those accounts ... its been a while ... so maybe you are new to ths idea, but when we massed we did it on conference call over cell phones ... yeah thats right when you got massed/sabbed by me and my army buds, we would ALL be in your attack logs ... in the same minute

And even with all of that team work/coordination $$ is what beat us, not skill. Even if that guy brought actual friends to use those accounts ... the $$ was still a huge advantage ... this whole argument will fade in time anyways ... as this game soon will ...

Best,
DG

[schuesseled]

You do not need $ to beat somebody, if this player beat you and made you quit, his using $ wasn't the deciding factor, im sure many a $ player has been beaten by non-$ players, as then and when it is the other way around $ is not the key factor, simple determination is. You weren't determined enough to fight your foe, in sgw you really cant be "beaten" both sides can be put to 0 stats, both sides can gain resources via means other than defending your own income. The $ buying isnt what beat you, just his determination to win overweighed yours, otherwise you wouldnt have quit and given into defeat. The small can beat the large in SGW.