We are told we are allowed to have one castle per server, yet server 1 and server 2 are constantly subjected to people building 50 or more castles in a row, the latest on Untamed Lands reach from -89/1670 to 160/1670 about 50 castles have to be all the same player all level 24. Thank you Birdy

Hello!

If we talk about the alternative accounts (created and developed manually), we don't prohibit them via our Policy.

Still, we prevent their activity by adding different in-game limits.

If you talk about accounts created with the help of the third-party programs (bot accounts), they're not allowed and you need to report such Castles to our Support team: https://plariumsupport.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

Just a small note to this Stormfall/Facebook still only allows one Castle per account 

birdyjerrie said:

I figured that when I posted it, "report it to support" when was the last tie support even responded to anything let alone done anything about it?

If you report players with the alternative account, Support team won't ban them as alternative accounts are not prohibited by our Policy.

If you want to report accounts created and running by a third-party program, then the Support team will take the corresponding measures.

Please note they will contact you back only in case they require any additional information on your report.

They won't let you know what exactly was done regarding these accounts as it's against our confidential policy.

There is players that spend money on their alt castles as well, so why enforce a rule that make it a 1 castle per player only, when they can make more money from it? You should know Plarium by now. Also pay for an employee spending time on close down alt accounts, reading petitions and reports and so on.. is just adding to running costs and cutting into the profit margins :p

There is players that spend money on their alt castles as well, so why enforce a rule that make it a 1 castle per player only, when they can make more money from it? You should know Plarium by now. Also pay for an employee spending time on close down alt accounts, reading petitions and reports and so on.. is just adding to running costs and cutting into the profit margins :p

So in Plarium's defence, I would abandon the 1 person 1 account rule as well.

Not because I felt that it wasn't a good rule and how I would like the games to run but because ultimately it's unenforceable and therefore becomes a bad rule.

Now it's not beyond the realms of possibility for multiple members of the same family to play from home on one IP address. So if one kid gets banned should the whole family get banned?

We once banned someone from TS (which works on an IP ban) and it had the unintended consequence of banning another player who was at the same university and shared the same dorm / building as them.

So straight up, even for "normal" people there are problems in banning IP's because 1 IP does not equal 1 unique person.

Now things get worse when you consider people who actually want to break the rules proactively. It's not that difficult to go VPN and hide your IP address completely. Some ISP's don't even dole out static IP addresses but randomly assign you one each time you connect and even if they do, when you turn your router on an off you might get assigned a new one.

If someone really wants to break the rule, they can and will.

So ultimately having the rule just warns puts off people who "play by the rules", but the types that don't care about rules will just go straight ahead and cheat the system to their hearts content. Having the rule just allows the cheat to prosper and gain an advantage. That just isn't a good position.

So I admire the honesty to remove the rule, effectively admit it's unenforceable and allow a level playing field between players. It's actually the right thing to do.