Hi Mystic Raynes,
Just a couple of points regarding your post.
I am sorry to hear that you have asked for your account to be deleted although from what you have said about your gameplay this is definitely one option for you. Did you consider setting up an account on the international peace server? Troops killed on that server can all be healed automatically. Also the % difference between players which determines whether or not one can attack the other is much smaller on that server. Having said that, you would still be at risk if you did not protect your resources and ofc course there would be the cost of cacao to heal any lost troops.
I am also sorry to hear that (by your own admission) you purposely broke game rules.
I do question why you continue to throw insults towards another player who is simply 'playing the (war) game'.
In the scenario to which you refer, you say:
(a) "Player A continually attacks a player 10 times smaller than them. current points: 1,078,660 It's a war game player B hears"
As you are aware, such an attack is within the rules. When you say 'continually attack', you mean of course within the limits of the game, i.e. every 12 hours in this case. As mentioned above, the game developers have introduced a dedicated server for those who prefer a smaller % difference in points between would be attackers and opponents. You appear to have continued to play for some time on the Itzmal server despite being unhappy with the rules. And yes, as others have commented, it IS a war game.
(b) "Now Player B who has only 116,350 points finds a player they can attack without to much damage o their own troops".
It is good to hear that you have on some occasions been playing the 'war' game.
(c) "Next day player A moves right next to play B. Player A with Nauhuals can see when player B's troops come back from walking. Instant wipe out. Over and over again".
Again, you were, or ought to have been, aware of the option for opponents to relocate their cities (at a cost to the opponent I might add, all of which contributes to the cost of future game improvements and upgrades) and the ability to attack from the relocated city immediately afterwards. You had the option to move your city but chose NOT to do so.
You also should, or ought to, have been aware of the use of nahual - the crystal event received much publicity and full details of the abilities of the nahual are available on the forum. You will have obtained crystals each day you played the game and attacked barb camps and could have recruited nahuals yourself. Holding more nahuals than player A would have prevented player A from obtaining your city's activity details. You might also have used a nahual to check out player A's city movements. Clearly you chose NOT to take either of these options.
Had you been at your keyboard throughout the period in which you chose to retain troops in you city, and had ensured that you had sufficient turquoise in your account to purchase an immediate 'white flag' on seeing the spy mission that was sent prior to the attacks, you could have saved your troops for at least an hour at a time. Clearly you chose NOT to do that either.
Player A would only have been able to attack you at intervals permitted by the game - not what many would describe as 'continually'.
(d) "Player B files a complaint to lion moon and is ignored even with pictures sent".
I very much doubt that your reports to the admin team were 'ignored'. From my experience, individual reports are seldom replied to but always looked into. It can be seen from the annotations under the cities of any reported account whether or not any ban has been applied. As none appear to have been applied in this situation, it would suggest that player A did not break any rules in their actions. Indeed, it is difficult to see what rules you believed they might be breaking !
(e) "Player B has only been playing a month. with all the dang walking you have to do to avoid attacks from much larger players how in heck do you expect anyone to grow? You can't stop your troops from returning so you are stuck".
Player A, I suspect, has been playing on the server concerned for the same length of time that you have. It is not difficult to protect your troops and resources by sending them away from your cities when you are afk or offline. If you choose NOT to do that, it is not surprising that opponents will take advantage. There are numerous means of protecting your troops and resources - you chose NOT to employ these. As stated above, there are means to prevent an opponent from obtaining an activity report detailing your city's movements. Clearly you chose NOT to employ any of these options either.
(f) "If I knew I wouldn't have been followed after I moved again I would have stayed. But I highly doubt this nasty, vindictive player wouldn't have left me alone".
Clearly, you took advantage of the ability to relocate your cities yet you complain that another player did the same! As stated above, you knew, or ought to have known, of the options available to ALL players regarding relocation of cities. I suspect that player A will have been attacking other cities as well as your own. It can help to remember this if feeling singled out or victimised as appears to be the case with you. In my view, your reference to an opponent who is simply playing the game and abiding by the rules of the game as 'nasty and vindictive' is unwarranted, unnecessary and hostile.
(g) "I broke the rules knowingly. My grandson doesn't like school but he liked the buildings in the game. He wanted to learn more. That meant the kid was reading up on them. I set up an account for him with his email address, his own account & I shared it with him. To teach him how to play".
As stated above, I am disappointed to read that you chose to purposely break game rules by sharing an account with your grandson. I suspect that your willingness to take such blatant action will eradicate any sympathy other players might have had for you.
(h) "Last Saturday I knew was going to be my last day I had enough with player A. My troops weren't home from walking yet so I quickly made some poloms and pocs to send him some resources. I told him how to make a few also and send them to me so he could load up and have some additional res. The instant my troops returned home player A took all my troops and res".
Again, while pleased to see that you DO in fact know how to 'walk' your troops, I am disappointed to read that again you potentially but knowingly broke the rules by sending resources to another account with the sole purpose of boosting (pushing) that account and that you intended to do this on further occasions.
In summary, throughout your forum posts it seems to me that you take little, if any, responsibility for the situations in which you found yourself and that you find it easier to blame others and to resort to being hostile towards them rather than looking at your own shortcomings.
As I have said before, I am always sorry when any player chooses to leave the game. However, in this situation, I expect and hope that your decision is the right one for you.
Regards,
Captain B