Anti Bot Measures/Update from Sarah

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Why do I need to play the game according to the developers script? A script that we are not allowed to see btw.

[/ QUOTE ]You don't. You are always free to leave.

If you choose to remain, then you choose to play their game their way.

Does that clear things up for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Very clear, the screwed up TSO now they are working to do the same to EALand?

Play the game MY way or leave, are you *&amp;%&amp;*%$ kidding?

 

[Camile]

*sigh*
*bangs head on desk*

98% vs 2% I know, lets mess with the 98%, the minority rules.
So the bot prob is soo bad that the ONLY way to fix it is to cap the 98%. GREAT IDEA, I am saving money, this is wonderful news for me.

I love it, lets be such a PC game that everyone is treated the same, we all earn the same, lets give everyone the same chance, the same presents, nobody wins, winning is not fair, we must all work together for the ultimate society.
Socialism has been tried, so have price controls, and every society that has tried it has bit the dust. This is not a game anymore...wait, lets rename it DOOM.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

In case anyone missed it earlier:

The 3k is not set in stone - it will be tweaked and tuned if the limit isn't workable.

If you have already reached your 3k limit in TC3 then you need to feed it back and give details on what you've done and how you've reached it. Test it to see if after you've been doing other things - like skilling, shopping, visiting, hanging out with people, and see if you can earn more. Feed it back.

We're not going to be given a list of things that will count towards our pools, otherwise they might as well just write a handy "101 ways for botters to bypass the latest anti-bot measures", but our normal gameplay is different to that of botters and it should mean that this makes a difference to our "pool".

So once again, this new measure does not mean it will stay the way it is, but it does need to be tested.

Polly

[/ QUOTE ]

I have some goals that I must meet in game this week, but I've decided starting next Sunday (beginning of a new week) I'm going to do a 7-14 day tracking of my sims and make a table on a webpage that shows the outcomes I have reached. You're absolutely right, we're not going to know how this is going to affect us until we see for ourselves. The way I see it right now, only the anti-social players will suffer along with the botters, because that is bot-like behavior. We've said for years that if you lock yourself in your house and play a multi-skill object for hours on end, you can't cry foul when a bunch of people accuse you of botting....this just drives it home more. During the job object part of my experiment, the only way I am going to use my own lot is if I cannot find a lot open that has a code machine, and that is entirely possible since all the money houses are pizza, pizza, pizza these days. Anyway, when I finish that experiment I will make a separate post with the website link in it. I'd just post the table here but I don't think anybody but mods can put HTML in their posts, can they?

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

We will give users an initial credit for what they can earn, then we’ll give them an additional credit each week and the users themselves can accumulate credit by contributing to the game through activities such as buying objects, uploading custom content, buying a lot, etc. Activities such as using money objects and getting kickbacks from others using your money objects will reduce your credit. If the credit ever gets very low (and for most people it should never) you will get increasingly reduced payouts until you accumulate more credit, through your own activity or through that weekly boost.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I fear that bold part means buying from the catalog. Not buying from a store. If it meant buying from a store you could just set up store buys with friends to cancel out your income.

So basically you can make some money but you must spent it in ways that the money goes back to EA.

If you have a house that is complete and have all the objects you want, you have nothing to reduce your allotment, unless you tear down walls and rebuild them....

No matter what the cap is, this is a horrible idea. they just want us to use the ATMs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure if the buying of objects counts towards when a store owner buys from EA, or a customer buys from a store.
Either way I can see problems.
If it is the customer gets credits for buying from a store then that can be used to gain back your credits, so easily that they may as well not have the pool at all.
If it's the store owner gets credits for what he buys from EA, then store owners will have a hell of an advantage over the rest. They will likely always be able to make money from money objects.

And I will say it again for everyone that keeps refering to 3k as being what we can make, it is 500 we can make each week, not 3000. The 3000 is just the initial start point and the cap. We only get 500 credits put in our pool each week from EA. That is it, other than what we spend ourselves to add credits.

 

[brendagfrie]

Well I for one am going to remove the source of this whole problem. I am no longer going to have an ATM on my store property or any other property I own. I will also not buy from or visit houses that have them.

When you get to the bottom line it's all about them wanting us to buy money from them but heaven forbid not ever having enough to sell back to them. This is just a way to prevent us from having any money to sell back.

I don't see why botters are even a problem....people see them and know who they are and report them...all EA has to do is listen to these reports and watch the people who are reported to see if they are botting and then ban them permanantly. So why hurt the rest of us? Because they are using botters as an excuse to not allow us to make any money to sell back to them.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

No, it means that going into too much detail would be tantamount to giving the bot makers step-by-step instructions on how to defeat the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the whole thing is only a temporary fix then, until the botters figure out the system.
I might be trying to shout out load over the cheer squad here, but I think what we need is a permanent fix. One that inflicts very little on the normal game play.

 

[Guest]

Yes that 500 part is true. As of the description and answers from devs given.

Unbelievable tho.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

We will give users an initial credit for what they can earn, then we’ll give them an additional credit each week and the users themselves can accumulate credit by contributing to the game through activities such as buying objects, uploading custom content, buying a lot, etc. Activities such as using money objects and getting kickbacks from others using your money objects will reduce your credit. If the credit ever gets very low (and for most people it should never) you will get increasingly reduced payouts until you accumulate more credit, through your own activity or through that weekly boost.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I fear that bold part means buying from the catalog. Not buying from a store. If it meant buying from a store you could just set up store buys with friends to cancel out your income.

So basically you can make some money but you must spent it in ways that the money goes back to EA.

If you have a house that is complete and have all the objects you want, you have nothing to reduce your allotment, unless you tear down walls and rebuild them....

No matter what the cap is, this is a horrible idea. they just want us to use the ATMs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure if the buying of objects counts towards when a store owner buys from EA, or a customer buys from a store.
Either way I can see problems.
If it is the customer gets credits for buying from a store then that can be used to gain back your credits, so easily that they may as well not have the pool at all.
If it's the store owner gets credits for what he buys from EA, then store owners will have a hell of an advantage over the rest. They will likely always be able to make money from money objects.

And I will say it again for everyone that keeps refering to 3k as being what we can make, it is 500 we can make each week, not 3000. The 3000 is just the initial start point and the cap. We only get 500 credits put in our pool each week from EA. That is it, other than what we spend ourselves to add credits.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. If that feature is exploited the exploiters will be dealt with just as exploiters have been dealt with in th past

2. You are wrong, plain and simple the pool is 3000 constantly, the 500 is only what EA credits us each week themselves, we are responsible for earning and spending the other 2500. The pool itself stays at 3000 cap balancing what we earn with what we spend.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

No, it means that going into too much detail would be tantamount to giving the bot makers step-by-step instructions on how to defeat the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the whole thing is only a temporary fix then, until the botters figure out the system.
I might be trying to shout out load over the cheer squad here, but I think what we need is a permanent fix. One that inflicts very little on the normal game play.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much smaller than two percent do you want? Would you please stop espousing your gloom and doom until there are numbers to back it up? Nobody should be even starting to say stuff like this until Wednesday because it should take people that long during normal gameplay to use up their 3000 cap. If on Wednesday or Thursday the numbers match your predictions, then you can gloat and shout from the rooftops all you please, but rest assured if the numbers prove our own theory, we will be doing the same

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

No, it means that going into too much detail would be tantamount to giving the bot makers step-by-step instructions on how to defeat the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the whole thing is only a temporary fix then, until the botters figure out the system.
I might be trying to shout out load over the cheer squad here, but I think what we need is a permanent fix. One that inflicts very little on the normal game play.

[/ QUOTE ]No, it's permanent; however, unlike OWP, is based on a complex set of metrics that, if properly tuned, really should not affect anyone not using a bot or playing like one; and, unless bots start taking on personalities and getting out of the house to socialize, they will be affected - guaranteed.

OWP, on the other hand, was based on a single, simple, inflexible metric, and that was its downfall.

 

[imported_Trudymac]

<blockquote><hr>

Well I for one am going to remove the source of this whole problem. I am no longer going to have an ATM on my store property or any other property I own. I will also not buy from or visit houses that have them.

When you get to the bottom line it's all about them wanting us to buy money from them but heaven forbid not ever having enough to sell back to them. This is just a way to prevent us from having any money to sell back.

I don't see why botters are even a problem....people see them and know who they are and report them...all EA has to do is listen to these reports and watch the people who are reported to see if they are botting and then ban them permanently. So why hurt the rest of us? Because they are using botters as an excuse to not allow us to make any money to sell back to them.

[/ QUOTE ]In EA's defence - they had to limit us. They would go into the red the day they enable the cash-outs if not. That said, and at the risk of being told I am not using nice enough words to say it again, this is mostly about limiting all of us because EA can't just hand us cash for money they create out of thin air, in excess of the monthly fee. It's not a viable business plan otherwise, and EA execs would have never ever agreed to the cash out function had the dev team not limited us somehow. So I see why they have to do this and am not angry about it - in fact I expected it. What I don't like is being told that this is almost all about bots. In fact, they give clues that it isn't when they use terminology such as "bot-like". The more I ruminate about why they chose that terminology, the more I become convinced that the whole bot thing is mostly an excuse. The bottom line is that this change was necessary to make the game profitable for EA, whether bots exist or not.

It's being treated like an idiot that upsets me. It's obvious to me why they are doing this - I sat and did the math myself one day because I just couldn't see how they could make a profit, let alone pay salaries and utility bills if they left the game the way it is and enabled cash-outs. People with multiple legit accounts could easily make 100s of dollars in real money per month if not.

btw, I fully expect another layer of limitation. I think that cash-outs, when in place, will be highly restricted and regulated.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

We will give users an initial credit for what they can earn, then we’ll give them an additional credit each week and the users themselves can accumulate credit by contributing to the game through activities such as buying objects, uploading custom content, buying a lot, etc. Activities such as using money objects and getting kickbacks from others using your money objects will reduce your credit. If the credit ever gets very low (and for most people it should never) you will get increasingly reduced payouts until you accumulate more credit, through your own activity or through that weekly boost.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I fear that bold part means buying from the catalog. Not buying from a store. If it meant buying from a store you could just set up store buys with friends to cancel out your income.

So basically you can make some money but you must spent it in ways that the money goes back to EA.

If you have a house that is complete and have all the objects you want, you have nothing to reduce your allotment, unless you tear down walls and rebuild them....

No matter what the cap is, this is a horrible idea. they just want us to use the ATMs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure if the buying of objects counts towards when a store owner buys from EA, or a customer buys from a store.
Either way I can see problems.
If it is the customer gets credits for buying from a store then that can be used to gain back your credits, so easily that they may as well not have the pool at all.
If it's the store owner gets credits for what he buys from EA, then store owners will have a hell of an advantage over the rest. They will likely always be able to make money from money objects.

And I will say it again for everyone that keeps refering to 3k as being what we can make, it is 500 we can make each week, not 3000. The 3000 is just the initial start point and the cap. We only get 500 credits put in our pool each week from EA. That is it, other than what we spend ourselves to add credits.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. If that feature is exploited the exploiters will be dealt with just as exploiters have been dealt with in th past

2. You are wrong, plain and simple the pool is 3000 constantly, the 500 is only what EA credits us each week themselves, we are responsible for earning and spending the other 2500. The pool itself stays at 3000 cap balancing what we earn with what we spend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok you are really starting to get on my nerves so I will answer you in the same way you answer me.
1: I have seen you mention that as long as things done in game are within the rules that it is not an exploit. If players chose to buy and sell items to and from each other in their stores, then they are not "at the moment anyway" breaking any rules. And if credits are given through buying from a store then those players can keep their pool up.

2: If yoiu look at my post correctly you will see that I mention the 3000 remains the cap. And is the initial starting amount in our pools. From there they credit us with 500 a week. If I was to start from scratch and concentrated on making money only, lets say to save to buy a property for 10k.
Then in the 1st week I would be able to do 3k before the payouts reached its maximum reduction and my pool would be 0. After a week I would be granted another 500 credits from EA, making my pool 500. And yes the cap as I have stated before will still be 3k, but my pool will only be 500 unless I spend some of what I have made. So I go out and make that 500 and bring my pool back to 0 again. The week after that I get another 500 from EA and do the same again and so on. It will take weeks for a new player to be able to get their own lot.
Now this is how I understand it, what I don't understand is where you get we get 3k each week. The cap stays at 3k yes, but our pool is still 0 until EA gives us the 500, then it becomes 500 in our pool. Please tell me where the other 2.5k comes from so I can know what you see that I don't.

 

[imported_Trudymac]

<blockquote><hr>

Now this is how I understand it, what I don't understand is where you get we get 3k each week. The cap stays at 3k yes, but our pool is still 0 until EA gives us the 500, then it becomes 500 in our pool. Please tell me where the other 2.5k comes from so I can know what you see that I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]I wonder how the weekly bonuses will factor in to all this.

 

[brendagfrie]

Yes I always expected a limit on what we would be able to sell back to EA as well, but this measure seems to make it that we won't be able to sell any back. If you can only make 3k how can you sell them 5k? I know 5k is the amount you can buy so seems they are going in that increment. I also think that if they would have started cashin and cashout at the same time it would have been on a more even keel....i have over 100k saved because I have mulitiple accounts and quite a few houses that I love and have full of everything I want. I have morning coffee at the board house I roomie at and like to make a few more bucks while chatting with friends to add to my stash. The way this is all worded I may not even have access to my stash when this all happens.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

: If yoiu look at my post correctly you will see that I mention the 3000 remains the cap. And is the initial starting amount in our pools. From there they credit us with 500 a week. If I was to start from scratch and concentrated on making money only, lets say to save to buy a property for 10k.
Then in the 1st week I would be able to do 3k before the payouts reached its maximum reduction and my pool would be 0. After a week I would be granted another 500 credits from EA, making my pool 500. And yes the cap as I have stated before will still be 3k, but my pool will only be 500 unless I spend some of what I have made. So I go out and make that 500 and bring my pool back to 0 again. The week after that I get another 500 from EA and do the same again and so on. It will take weeks for a new player to be able to get their own lot.
Now this is how I understand it, what I don't understand is where you get we get 3k each week. The cap stays at 3k yes, but our pool is still 0 until EA gives us the 500, then it becomes 500 in our pool. Please tell me where the other 2.5k comes from so I can know what you see that I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, you qualified your statement when you said if we don't spend it. In that case, you are correct and that point was already conceded to and understood in the first couple pages of this thread. That is an obstacle in the set up that I believe is there to encourage and almost steer the new player to not own their own lot, but to move in to a lot that is already existing, or find one or two other friends who want to buy a lot and share the common goals. If 3 people get together like that, then even at 10k they'd each be able to use their 3k cap and by the 2nd week they'd have their lot. That whole thing is driving players away from anti-social behavior. This game is supposed to be interactive otherwise what is the point of an online game? If people don't want to be friendly and social then why not just play TS2 or a game like that where you can work all by yourself, pleasing only yourself and motherlode and max motives and all that stuff to your heart's contentment?

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

In fact, they give clues that it isn't when they use terminology such as "bot-like". The more I ruminate about why they chose that terminology, the more I become convinced that the whole bot thing is mostly an excuse.

[/ QUOTE ]Just a thought... But, a while ago, I did some research on some of the more popular bot programs available. Based on my research, I concluded that it is nearly impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone is using one of these bots. A lot of the signs are there, sure; but the way they are programmed creates just enough uncertainty as to avoid "conviction".

The answer, therefore, is to not address bots directly, but to address "bot-like" behavior.

 

[imported_Trudymac]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

In fact, they give clues that it isn't when they use terminology such as "bot-like". The more I ruminate about why they chose that terminology, the more I become convinced that the whole bot thing is mostly an excuse.

[/ QUOTE ]Just a thought... But, a while ago, I did some research on some of the more popular bot programs available. Based on my research, I concluded that it is nearly impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone is using one of these bots. A lot of the signs are there, sure; but the way they are programmed creates just enough uncertainty as to avoid "conviction".

The answer, therefore, is to not address bots directly, but to address "bot-like" behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]You may be right, I still lean towards the terminology being chosen because it's vague (so we agree, just for different reasons) but I don't think it matters much either way. This change had to happen, and I am convinced that it had to, regardless of bots. They simply can't leave the way we are able to earn intact, with cash-outs on the horizon. As it is, I hear people saying they have already hoarded over 100k. Bearing this in mind, EA will probably take a hit as it is, for the first few weeks after they enable cash-outs. Unless they are determined to try and bot proof that too, which they very well may.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

: If yoiu look at my post correctly you will see that I mention the 3000 remains the cap. And is the initial starting amount in our pools. From there they credit us with 500 a week. If I was to start from scratch and concentrated on making money only, lets say to save to buy a property for 10k.
Then in the 1st week I would be able to do 3k before the payouts reached its maximum reduction and my pool would be 0. After a week I would be granted another 500 credits from EA, making my pool 500. And yes the cap as I have stated before will still be 3k, but my pool will only be 500 unless I spend some of what I have made. So I go out and make that 500 and bring my pool back to 0 again. The week after that I get another 500 from EA and do the same again and so on. It will take weeks for a new player to be able to get their own lot.
Now this is how I understand it, what I don't understand is where you get we get 3k each week. The cap stays at 3k yes, but our pool is still 0 until EA gives us the 500, then it becomes 500 in our pool. Please tell me where the other 2.5k comes from so I can know what you see that I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, you qualified your statement when you said if we don't spend it. In that case, you are correct and that point was already conceded to and understood in the first couple pages of this thread. That is an obstacle in the set up that I believe is there to encourage and almost steer the new player to not own their own lot, but to move in to a lot that is already existing, or find one or two other friends who want to buy a lot and share the common goals. If 3 people get together like that, then even at 10k they'd each be able to use their 3k cap and by the 2nd week they'd have their lot. That whole thing is driving players away from anti-social behavior. This game is supposed to be interactive otherwise what is the point of an online game? If people don't want to be friendly and social then why not just play TS2 or a game like that where you can work all by yourself, pleasing only yourself and motherlode and max motives and all that stuff to your heart's contentment?

[/ QUOTE ]

If we spend what we earn then the 3k cap is irrelevant, our pools will always allow us to earn the max payout. What I have been trying to say in here is that the restriction is on how much we are able to accumulate or save towards goals.
Everyone seems to be thinking they will be able to make 3k per week before they are effected when in actual fact it is 500.
I understand your point on social game play. I am not sure we should be advising people to team up with 2 others to buy a property. Do you think it's safe for 2 people to hand over 3k plus each to someone to buy a lot. Remember only one person can own that lot.
Also what happens after, they all put in to build and all go thirds on items that cost in the 10s of thousands. Remembering again that only one person gets to own that item.
I think the devs are asking far to much if they expect everyone to have to team up and put so much trust in other players, just to be able to get anywhere in this game.

 

[nobuttkisser]

Please look at the big picture, forget trying to do the math. I'm quite sure you are not getting cheated. but just know that "botting" will now have a zero tolorence level...... and THANK YOU for doing this EAL...!!!!

my my pretty soon I'll even log back into the game

 

[mpn]

I still don't know what this is all about but I'm making it clear to EA that if things are headed in the direction that I have to put RL money in to build and buy stuff, I won't be playing this game anymore nor will I ever be a subscriber. I actually thought of being a subscriber, but if that happens, HELL NO!

 

[brendagfrie]

Ummm am I wrong here or if you talk to a bot can they now respond and chat normally? .....And dont' give me the afk thing.....I was suspended for three days once for timing out....have witnesses to this...in the 15 min period and when I emailed EA about this they said if you don't respond to a message they send you in game within 5 mins they suspend you. Well now I think 15 mins is more reasonable since you can time out at 15 mins but if somoene doesn't reply to a message from EA within 15 mins and they are suspected of botting then I guess they really are botting.............?

 

[imported_Spacey]

If they really want to "crack down" on bots...

Wouldn't draining money from EA be a criminal offense, since game money can be bought and sold through the game with RL money. Seems to me it falls into a similar catagory as the reasons for why EA took slot machines and such out of the game. When real life money is introduced, it becomes gambling. Well, when real life money is introduced, doesn't botting become criminal? Crack down on them criminally and not so much with money "caps" in game. They will still be there making as much money that's allowed for that day. Maybe with a fear of being sued looming over them, the risk of making money in a computer game becomes less attractive. I'd say you'd be stupid to try.

Maybe this is too extreme, but if you're not botting, it sure won't affect you in any sort of way...whereas limits in game may.

EA said they have tested this and 98% are not affected. I don't fall into that 2%, so I trust that my game will not be interupted. I am not gonna get my undies in a wad over it until something alarming comes up.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

How much smaller than two percent do you want? Would you please stop espousing your gloom and doom until there are numbers to back it up? Nobody should be even starting to say stuff like this until Wednesday because it should take people that long during normal gameplay to use up their 3000 cap. If on Wednesday or Thursday the numbers match your predictions, then you can gloat and shout from the rooftops all you please, but rest assured if the numbers prove our own theory, we will be doing the same


[/ QUOTE ]

I realize it is difficult to hold your concentration for more than a few minutes but, As a poster stated earlier: They are already getting $1 on a painting with 19 skill. They put this in yesterday and people were getting reduced pay at jobs. Thats why they started a thread about reduced pay in TC......

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Just a thought... But, a while ago, I did some research on some of the more popular bot programs available. Based on my research, I concluded that it is nearly impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone is using one of these bots. A lot of the signs are there, sure; but the way they are programmed creates just enough uncertainty as to avoid "conviction".

The answer, therefore, is to not address bots directly, but to address "bot-like" behavior.


[/ QUOTE ]

And in 30 mins the bots will have avatar behavior programmed into their routines, but we (the non-botters) will still be punished for years to come.

Takes a lot of brane to choose this new system....

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

I understand your point on social game play. I am not sure we should be advising people to team up with 2 others to buy a property. Do you think it's safe for 2 people to hand over 3k plus each to someone to buy a lot. Remember only one person can own that lot.
Also what happens after, they all put in to build and all go thirds on items that cost in the 10s of thousands. Remembering again that only one person gets to own that item.
I think the devs are asking far to much if they expect everyone to have to team up and put so much trust in other players, just to be able to get anywhere in this game.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be pure idocy/lunacy/naivete' for anybody to just jump in with both feet with strangers. You'd have to develop a friendship over a course of weeks or months and know that you could trust that person. In the course of the time you are developing that friendship/partnership repetoir, you could spend your cap on objects so that your cap would keep replenishing itself, and then when you felt comfortable enough to entrust that person to buy the lot you'd give them whatever money you commited toward buying it BUT you'd still have those objects in your possession so that if they screwed you by kicking you out as soon as you handed over the money, you still own a bunch of objects on that lot that they are now gonna have to replace, so the objects that they have to replace could be as much as or more than the 3k that they just screwed you out of.....so in that sense it would balance itself out, I think.

 

[Anarela]

Ok, I've spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out what Sarah posted, then a whole more in reading all 17 pages of posts here... and still is not clear to me what the devs may have in mind...

So... I'll sit back, keep my sim life as it has been and watch what gives. I do know that the Devs do back up when proven wrong (the name of Simoleans for one) so if they really missed the point, they will figure it out in testing it on TC3... Actually, I've started playing there and doing my money thing see what gives.

Meanwhile, I don't think that going around the pot (we don't even know which one it is) will help anyone of us except to feel frustration and start yet another sims vs. sims war as usual int his forum... I would call upon you (all of you) to think it five times before posting with anger.

Happy simming...

 

[imported_Spacey]

<blockquote><hr>

Ummm am I wrong here or if you talk to a bot can they now respond and chat normally? .....And dont' give me the afk thing.....I was suspended for three days once for timing out....have witnesses to this...in the 15 min period and when I emailed EA about this they said if you don't respond to a message they send you in game within 5 mins they suspend you. Well now I think 15 mins is more reasonable since you can time out at 15 mins but if somoene doesn't reply to a message from EA within 15 mins and they are suspected of botting then I guess they really are botting.............?

[/ QUOTE ]

They probably suspected you of overriding the timeout feature, not botting. That is my understanding anyways. AFK hunters used to try to get me all the time when one of my sims lived in a store. I must have had 4 or 5 messages from maxis. It was time wasted on their part and wasted maxis's time.

 

[brendagfrie]

Hey great to see you again Spacey.... I love you more!!! And hey..I agree...that sure does seem illegal

 

[mpn]

The introduction of RL cash to TC3 has complicated things to absoleutely no end.

 

[brendagfrie]

Yea I am sure they were trying to get me on the AFK thing..but messaging a bot would produce the same results...no response or an unintelligible conversation.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Ummm am I wrong here or if you talk to a bot can they now respond and chat normally? .....And dont' give me the afk thing.....I was suspended for three days once for timing out....have witnesses to this...in the 15 min period and when I emailed EA about this they said if you don't respond to a message they send you in game within 5 mins they suspend you. Well now I think 15 mins is more reasonable since you can time out at 15 mins but if somoene doesn't reply to a message from EA within 15 mins and they are suspected of botting then I guess they really are botting.............?

[/ QUOTE ]

Geese don't walk and talks like ducks. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then chances are its a duck. If you got suspended for not responding within 5 MINUTES then that was wrong of that CSR to do that, it is supposed to be 15 minutes, however that's probably only going to be an issue if you lock yourself up in your house and somebody reports you for bot-like behavior. That is why I made the statement a few days ago that when I do play code on my own lot because hardly any houses have code machines, my IMs are open and the door is open. You wanna see what I'm doing, come right on in! You can even use the greening facilities while you are there, except there is no extra food out while I am coding, my 3 sims end up eating all 6 of the plates because Frenchee's cooking isn't very high. But yeah, I'm not gonna set myself up to look like a bot by filling up my IMs and locking my doors......that's just asking for trouble, IMO. When I am in a 'screw the world' mood, I don't wanna be around ANYBODY, so my messenger programs are shut down, and I'm OUT of game. When I'm in game I am there to interact with people and achieve my goals......if more people would put code machines on their lot I'd never even have a reason to go to my private lot. I'd even sell the code machine to somebody's public money lot if they'd put it out for me to use when I wanna code with my avatars.

 

[brendagfrie]

I dont' think I was clear on what I am getting at. I think they should IM the suspected botters like they used to do with the afkers because it would be proof positive that if they don't respond after 15 mins then there is a macro keeping them going. If you are afk at a store with a cardboard in your Enter key and its only you there that would be a bit different....they could look and see that you aren't doing anything but hiding.

 

[imported_Spacey]

Hey Luc! I realized it was you after I posted, lol. I love you the most.

Ok.. sorry... back on topic.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

How much smaller than two percent do you want? Would you please stop espousing your gloom and doom until there are numbers to back it up? Nobody should be even starting to say stuff like this until Wednesday because it should take people that long during normal gameplay to use up their 3000 cap. If on Wednesday or Thursday the numbers match your predictions, then you can gloat and shout from the rooftops all you please, but rest assured if the numbers prove our own theory, we will be doing the same


[/ QUOTE ]

I realize it is difficult to hold your concentration for more than a few minutes but, As a poster stated earlier: They are already getting $1 on a painting with 19 skill. They put this in yesterday and people were getting reduced pay at jobs. Thats why they started a thread about reduced pay in TC......

[/ QUOTE ]

I can make 3k in 4 hours of game play, or atleast used to be able to. I would guess as I chew up my pool total by making money the payouts will reduce long before I get close to that 3k. So likely it will now take me much longer.
On top of that unless I spend that money I will not be able to make much at all if any for the next week, we don't know yet what the lowest payout will be on this but I would guess by what people have said they are getting it will be very low.
All this is just another reduction in payouts, and a real extreme one at that.
And to top that off, unless they make other changes, botters will still be able get around what they have done. And the other changes they will need to make will inflict on our game play even further.
Honestly, if this is the best these guys could come up with we have no hope.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

I dont' think I was clear on what I am getting at. I think they should IM the suspected botters like they used to do with the afkers because it would be proof positive that if they don't respond after 15 mins then there is a macro keeping them going. If you are afk at a store with a cardboard in your Enter key and its only you there that would be a bit different....they could look and see that you aren't doing anything but hiding.

[/ QUOTE ]

That cardboard is classified as circumventing timeout and that is as much against the ToS as botting is though, so even if they could see that 'all you were doing is hiding', if you didn't answer within that 15 minutes you'd still be in violation, just under a different rule.

 

[brendagfrie]

Yea Bite thats my point ...if they caught bots in a better way then they wouldn't need all this lower payouts and cap nonsense....just check on who has been reported and stop hurting everyone else.

Spacey....I love you even more!!

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

How much smaller than two percent do you want? Would you please stop espousing your gloom and doom until there are numbers to back it up? Nobody should be even starting to say stuff like this until Wednesday because it should take people that long during normal gameplay to use up their 3000 cap. If on Wednesday or Thursday the numbers match your predictions, then you can gloat and shout from the rooftops all you please, but rest assured if the numbers prove our own theory, we will be doing the same


[/ QUOTE ]

I realize it is difficult to hold your concentration for more than a few minutes but, As a poster stated earlier: They are already getting $1 on a painting with 19 skill. They put this in yesterday and people were getting reduced pay at jobs. Thats why they started a thread about reduced pay in TC......

[/ QUOTE ]

I can make 3k in 4 hours of game play, or atleast used to be able to. I would guess as I chew up my pool total by making money the payouts will reduce long before I get close to that 3k. So likely it will now take me much longer.
On top of that unless I spend that money I will not be able to make much at all if any for the next week, we don't know yet what the lowest payout will be on this but I would guess by what people have said they are getting it will be very low.
All this is just another reduction in payouts, and a real extreme one at that.
And to top that off, unless they make other changes, botters will still be able get around what they have done. And the other changes they will need to make will inflict on our game play even further.
Honestly, if this is the best these guys could come up with we have no hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only way botters will be able to get around this is to only make the amount of simoleans that they can get rid of in a week's time. If they make the 3k and don't sell it, then as you pointed out their EA provided addition is only 500. I don't think they're going to be able to undercut EA enough, even with 4 accounts at a cap of 3k a week each, to make it profitable for themselves.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

I can make 3k in 4 hours of game play, or atleast used to be able to. I would guess as I chew up my pool total by making money the payouts will reduce long before I get close to that 3k. So likely it will now take me much longer.
On top of that unless I spend that money I will not be able to make much at all if any for the next week, we don't know yet what the lowest payout will be on this but I would guess by what people have said they are getting it will be very low.
All this is just another reduction in payouts, and a real extreme one at that.
And to top that off, unless they make other changes, botters will still be able get around what they have done. And the other changes they will need to make will inflict on our game play even further.

[/ QUOTE ]I seriously do not think a bot can be programmed to get around this measure. This measure relies on a lot of human elements that a bot simply cannot emulate.

With that said, I strongly recommend going to TC3 and testing the hell out of this system. If you find yourself being adversely affected by this system, then report all the details of your findings to [email protected] .

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>


OK, you qualified your statement when you said if we don't spend it. In that case, you are correct and that point was already conceded to and understood in the first couple pages of this thread. That is an obstacle in the set up that I believe is there to encourage and almost steer the new player to not own their own lot, but to move in to a lot that is already existing, or find one or two other friends who want to buy a lot and share the common goals. If 3 people get together like that, then even at 10k they'd each be able to use their 3k cap and by the 2nd week they'd have their lot. That whole thing is driving players away from anti-social behavior. ....

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no safe way for more than one player to buy a lot. There is only one owner for a lot, and it must be all that player's money to buy it. Recommending people try to do this with no way to enforce it invites fraud.

Suggesting that earning enough money to buy a lot in the first place is anti-social is both wrong and irrelevant. Are you saying they made this change to encourage socializing? No, they did it because they can see that their economic model is flawed and they will go bankrupt if they fulfill their promise and allow cash-out.

How would any of the lots you spend time on be created by new players starting today? How long do you think it should take before they could invite you and a dozen of your friends over to socialize? Imagine building a lot when you could only accumulate a few thousand in unspent cash. You'd be stuck building it a few pillars or items at a time, then having to go off and make a little more money until you used up your credit pool, then buy a few more segments of fence then go make some more money, etc. You couldn't accumulate a pool of funds to use for construction or furnishings without being penalized.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

How much smaller than two percent do you want? Would you please stop espousing your gloom and doom until there are numbers to back it up? Nobody should be even starting to say stuff like this until Wednesday because it should take people that long during normal gameplay to use up their 3000 cap. If on Wednesday or Thursday the numbers match your predictions, then you can gloat and shout from the rooftops all you please, but rest assured if the numbers prove our own theory, we will be doing the same


[/ QUOTE ]

I realize it is difficult to hold your concentration for more than a few minutes but, As a poster stated earlier: They are already getting $1 on a painting with 19 skill. They put this in yesterday and people were getting reduced pay at jobs. Thats why they started a thread about reduced pay in TC......

[/ QUOTE ]

I can make 3k in 4 hours of game play, or atleast used to be able to. I would guess as I chew up my pool total by making money the payouts will reduce long before I get close to that 3k. So likely it will now take me much longer.
On top of that unless I spend that money I will not be able to make much at all if any for the next week, we don't know yet what the lowest payout will be on this but I would guess by what people have said they are getting it will be very low.
All this is just another reduction in payouts, and a real extreme one at that.
And to top that off, unless they make other changes, botters will still be able get around what they have done. And the other changes they will need to make will inflict on our game play even further.
Honestly, if this is the best these guys could come up with we have no hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only way botters will be able to get around this is to only make the amount of simoleans that they can get rid of in a week's time. If they make the 3k and don't sell it, then as you pointed out their EA provided addition is only 500. I don't think they're going to be able to undercut EA enough, even with 4 accounts at a cap of 3k a week each, to make it profitable for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I pointed out before, you buy an object from a store and it gets credited to your pool. Get 2 people with stores and you can buy and sell to each other without ever having to restock. These people will be able to keep their pools up by doing this.
To stop that from happening "entirely" , because they could prevent it from happening by the common player. But to stop it from happening completely they would need to have buying objects from stores not count towards credits to our pools.
If that was to happen that then leaves very little for us to gain credits back to our pools which is what I meant by effecting our game play even further.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

How would any of the lots you spend time on be created by new players starting today? How long do you think it should take before they could invite you and a dozen of your friends over to socialize?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the whole issue. I'm not entirely convinced that it is appropriate for a new player to jump right into owning their own lot that is open to the public.

<blockquote><hr>

Imagine building a lot when you could only accumulate a few thousand in unspent cash. You'd be stuck building it a few pillars or items at a time, then having to go off and make a little more money until you used up your credit pool, then buy a few more segments of fence then go make some more money, etc. You couldn't accumulate a pool of funds to use for construction or furnishings without being penalized.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you only have 1 account, that is correct, but if you had more than one then you'd have more than one pool to work with. People that are hell-bent on striking out alone need only get more accounts to work with. In that light, we are lucky that free accounts get the same pool as premium accounts, except that free accounts cannot enter skill or money lots in EA Land, so if your *home* is there it is best to make your other accounts premium if you can.....it would increase your earning potential exponentially, even moreso than hitting the ATM would. I can't blame EA for wanting people to open more accounts. They are after all in this business for a profit.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

How much smaller than two percent do you want? Would you please stop espousing your gloom and doom until there are numbers to back it up? Nobody should be even starting to say stuff like this until Wednesday because it should take people that long during normal gameplay to use up their 3000 cap. If on Wednesday or Thursday the numbers match your predictions, then you can gloat and shout from the rooftops all you please, but rest assured if the numbers prove our own theory, we will be doing the same


[/ QUOTE ]

I realize it is difficult to hold your concentration for more than a few minutes but, As a poster stated earlier: They are already getting $1 on a painting with 19 skill. They put this in yesterday and people were getting reduced pay at jobs. Thats why they started a thread about reduced pay in TC......

[/ QUOTE ]

I can make 3k in 4 hours of game play, or atleast used to be able to. I would guess as I chew up my pool total by making money the payouts will reduce long before I get close to that 3k. So likely it will now take me much longer.
On top of that unless I spend that money I will not be able to make much at all if any for the next week, we don't know yet what the lowest payout will be on this but I would guess by what people have said they are getting it will be very low.
All this is just another reduction in payouts, and a real extreme one at that.
And to top that off, unless they make other changes, botters will still be able get around what they have done. And the other changes they will need to make will inflict on our game play even further.
Honestly, if this is the best these guys could come up with we have no hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only way botters will be able to get around this is to only make the amount of simoleans that they can get rid of in a week's time. If they make the 3k and don't sell it, then as you pointed out their EA provided addition is only 500. I don't think they're going to be able to undercut EA enough, even with 4 accounts at a cap of 3k a week each, to make it profitable for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I pointed out before, you buy an object from a store and it gets credited to your pool. Get 2 people with stores and you can buy and sell to each other without ever having to restock. These people will be able to keep their pools up by doing this.
To stop that from happening "entirely" , because they could prevent it from happening by the common player. But to stop it from happening completely they would need to have buying objects from stores not count towards credits to our pools.
If that was to happen that then leaves very little for us to gain credits back to our pools which is what I meant by effecting our game play even further.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what about player to player transactions not counting toward your earning potential. This is in the player's favor. They can sell custom content and such till the world looks level and it will not decrease their 3000 credit that they can then earn from money objects. The creative and inventive players in this game are going to be the ones to prosper. And I don't think for a minute that there are many people who CAN NOT learn to do basic custom content or skill their sims to do custom craftables if they set their mind to it. Is it time consuming? Yes.....so it all comes down to the question of how bad do you want to succeed in this game, and are you willing to put forth some effort to do so. I myself am willing to do whatever it takes to succeed.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>


OK, you qualified your statement when you said if we don't spend it. In that case, you are correct and that point was already conceded to and understood in the first couple pages of this thread. That is an obstacle in the set up that I believe is there to encourage and almost steer the new player to not own their own lot, but to move in to a lot that is already existing, or find one or two other friends who want to buy a lot and share the common goals. If 3 people get together like that, then even at 10k they'd each be able to use their 3k cap and by the 2nd week they'd have their lot. That whole thing is driving players away from anti-social behavior. ....

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no safe way for more than one player to buy a lot. There is only one owner for a lot, and it must be all that player's money to buy it. Recommending people try to do this with no way to enforce it invites fraud.

Suggesting that earning enough money to buy a lot in the first place is anti-social is both wrong and irrelevant. Are you saying they made this change to encourage socializing? No, they did it because they can see that their economic model is flawed and they will go bankrupt if they fulfill their promise and allow cash-out.

How would any of the lots you spend time on be created by new players starting today? How long do you think it should take before they could invite you and a dozen of your friends over to socialize? Imagine building a lot when you could only accumulate a few thousand in unspent cash. You'd be stuck building it a few pillars or items at a time, then having to go off and make a little more money until you used up your credit pool, then buy a few more segments of fence then go make some more money, etc. You couldn't accumulate a pool of funds to use for construction or furnishings without being penalized.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest; as someone suggested in another post - that sounds like a communist state to me... Forced not to be anti-social? The government (devs) taking money from people if they earn too much? Seriously - I am not liking this at all. This is not the game I joined 4 months ago... at all.

I did not join to play a game where others tell me that I have to live with others if I don't want to - or that I can't make as much money (ebucks or whatever) as I can, without being penalized for it? (IRS?!

) Doesn't sound like fun at all. Sounds even less fun than rl by now.

I understand that they have to get rid of botters - but there's got to be a way of doing that without ruining the game for 98 % of the people playing.

 

[Guest]

This is a repost of my latest blog comment, but I think it is worth copying here. If someone has bumped up against the Payout Pool limit in TC3 and wants to test the theory in this message, I'd like to know whether it works the way they said it does.

I have reread this post until my brain hurts. Tell me what I'm missing here:

Sarah says:
&gt;&gt; Your Payout Pool is given an initial credit of 3,000

OK I spend a week maxing a skill, and a day making §3,000, Payout Pool goes to §0.

Sarah says:
&gt;&gt; You credit your Payout Pool through activities such as buying objects, uploading custom content, buying a lot, etc.

So I go to a store and spend the §3,000 on something. No cash left, but poof, my Payout Pool is restored to §3,000. I could go earn some more money to buy something else, but wait a minute....

Sarah says:
&gt;&gt;Player to player activities such as using tip jars, secure trade, the interaction “Give Money”, door charges, selling items from stores, etc., do not contribute to, or deduct from, your Payout Pool.

After buying it, I have second thoughts, so I trade it back to my friendly store owner and he gives me my money back. His Payout Pool hasn't changed. It seems I now have §3,000 in my pocket, and §3,000 in my Payout Pool. If I buy it and trade it back again, I still have §3,000 in my pocket, but §6,000 in my Payout Pool, A few more times and I won't have to worry about this whole idea at all!

Unfortunately, I don't have a max skilled sim in TC and a day to waste figuring out whether there is a gaping hole in the scheme or the explanation of the scheme.

P.S. I suspect the hole is in the scheme itself. Although the server knows when it pays me money, it can't know when the money I earned is back in the server unless I spend it directly on a lot or construction or that handful of objects I can buy directly. If I buy through a store, that store owner may have obtained what I bought through a trade. Even for an object that was bought by the store owner, I could be way overpaying for the object, so §10 goes back to the server and §2,990 goes to the store owner as profit. If both the customer and store owner accounts are owned by the same human, the store owner gets to hold on to as much cash as the customer earns with no penalty.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>


OK, you qualified your statement when you said if we don't spend it. In that case, you are correct and that point was already conceded to and understood in the first couple pages of this thread. That is an obstacle in the set up that I believe is there to encourage and almost steer the new player to not own their own lot, but to move in to a lot that is already existing, or find one or two other friends who want to buy a lot and share the common goals. If 3 people get together like that, then even at 10k they'd each be able to use their 3k cap and by the 2nd week they'd have their lot. That whole thing is driving players away from anti-social behavior. ....

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no safe way for more than one player to buy a lot. There is only one owner for a lot, and it must be all that player's money to buy it. Recommending people try to do this with no way to enforce it invites fraud.

Suggesting that earning enough money to buy a lot in the first place is anti-social is both wrong and irrelevant. Are you saying they made this change to encourage socializing? No, they did it because they can see that their economic model is flawed and they will go bankrupt if they fulfill their promise and allow cash-out.

How would any of the lots you spend time on be created by new players starting today? How long do you think it should take before they could invite you and a dozen of your friends over to socialize? Imagine building a lot when you could only accumulate a few thousand in unspent cash. You'd be stuck building it a few pillars or items at a time, then having to go off and make a little more money until you used up your credit pool, then buy a few more segments of fence then go make some more money, etc. You couldn't accumulate a pool of funds to use for construction or furnishings without being penalized.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest; as someone suggested in another post - that sounds like a communist state to me... Forced not to be anti-social? The government (devs) taking money from people if they earn too much? Seriously - I am not liking this at all. This is not the game I joined 4 months ago... at all.

I did not join to play a game where others tell me that I have to live with others if I don't want to - or that I can't make as much money (ebucks or whatever) as I can, without being penalized for it? (IRS?!

) Doesn't sound like fun at all. Sounds even less fun than rl by now.

I understand that they have to get rid of botters - but there's got to be a way of doing that without ruining the game for 98 % of the people playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is still an alternative to living with others if you are dead set against it. I operated as a sim without a home for almost a year one time. You could remain homeless and use your pool to buy objects to fill your lot with when you found somebody in game that you grew to like and trust, or if you didn't find anybody that fit that description you could still use your pool to buy objects and work toward your own place, it would just take longer if you didn't choose to hit the ATM. I am still flabbergasted by people being insulted that the devs are trying to steer players to work together to achieve common goals in an ONLINE game. Why in the world would somebody play online with other people around if they didn't want to socialize and assimilate?

. Is it just an issue of non-conformistism (sp?) or rebellion? Why is it wrong for the company that owns the game to set the rules by which players have to play? If you wanna play your way, play offline games that have cheat codes to them and such....but this is their playground...the only power we have is to 'take our ball and go home' if we don't like something, but that in my mind would immediately disqualify somebody from being a 'dedicated player', ya know? Dedication means sticking around for good times *and* bad. It boggles my mind that players that were dedicated through the 3 years that this game got diddly squat would NOW consider throwing all that way because they don't want EA telling them how to play 'their' (even though its not theirs) game. 5+ years wasted over that? NOT this chicky.

 

[Guest]

If you read my post right - you would see that I joined 4 months ago - and as I said; this is not the game I joined. And I didn't say I didn't want to socialize - but I would like to choose when, with whom and how - you can be social in game, whether or not you live in a house by yourself or share it with others. But not being able to build a house at all unless you join with others, is not something I like being forced to do.

As you can see I am a roomie - so no; I don't mind doing that - when I have a choice. What I am saying is - the choice seems to be taken away with this 'economy.'

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

If you read my post right - you would see that I joined 4 months ago - and as I said; this is not the game I joined. And I didn't say I didn't want to socialize - but I would like to choose when, with whom and how - you can be social in game, whether or not you live in a house by yourself or share it with others. But not being able to build a house at all unless you join with others, is not something I like being forced to do.

As you can see I am a roomie - so no; I don't mind doing that - when I have a choice. What I am saying is - the choice seems to be taken away with this 'economy.'

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you're already a roomie by your own choice, then I guess I don't see how you feel you're being 'forced' to do something that you've already done.

. If you were homeless and had not formed friendships or relationships in game yet, then I could understand the feeling of coercion, but in your case that's not what is happening. Are you then just empathizing with people who might be in that 'boat'?

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

If you read my post right - you would see that I joined 4 months ago - and as I said; this is not the game I joined. And I didn't say I didn't want to socialize - but I would like to choose when, with whom and how - you can be social in game, whether or not you live in a house by yourself or share it with others. But not being able to build a house at all unless you join with others, is not something I like being forced to do.

As you can see I am a roomie - so no; I don't mind doing that - when I have a choice. What I am saying is - the choice seems to be taken away with this 'economy.'

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you're already a roomie by your own choice, then I guess I don't see how you feel you're being 'forced' to do something that you've already done.

. If you were homeless and had not formed friendships or relationships in game yet, then I could understand the feeling of coercion, but in your case that's not what is happening. Are you then just empathizing with people who might be in that 'boat'?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes - and the fact that not all my sims are or want to be roomies. And the new economy altogether - it is really confusing to me. I will also try to play in TC3 to see what it's all about and whether I can deal with it or not. As I said; it is not the game I joined 4 months ago. I can understand, from what I've heard about the old economy, that changes have had to be made, but all this sounds very restrictive to me.

 

[Guest]

There is another problem with going in with others to say, buy a lot.
Money transactions between players does not count towards the pool, so the 2 that you suggested give their 3k to the 3rd player do not get back their pool.
Only the buyer gets credits to his/her pool, so the 2 will still have to work towards rebuilding their pool.
Every time I think for 2 minutes about this strategy they have come up with I find more problems and very little to be positive about.
I don't think they put very much thought into this at all.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

There is another problem with going in with others to say, buy a lot.
Money transactions between players does not count towards the pool, so the 2 that you suggested give their 3k to the 3rd player do not get back their pool.
Only the buyer gets credits to his/her pool, so the 2 will still have to work towards rebuilding their pool.
Every time I think for 2 minutes about this strategy they have come up with I find more problems and very little to be positive about.
I don't think they put very much thought into this at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't get credit for that 3k, but they would get credit each time they buy objects, so it would only be the loss of that one week on that particular account. I believe with this change we are going to see an increase in accounts in both free accounts and paid ones, just so people can increase the sizes of their pools exponentially. I myself have pondered the idea of opening one more free account for the purpose of skilling them in the skills that are needed for the job tracks and using them strictly as a worker sim in TC3. The devs have put no limit on the amount of accounts a person can hold, only on the amount each account can make, so there is still ways to succeed, one only need think their way through it.