First of all, thank you to the team for taking the time to revisit and update the rule clarifications. Clear and consistent rules are important for everyone’s experience, and it’s great to see that some outdated parts are finally being addressed. That said, after reviewing the changes, I’d like to offer some constructive feedback on a few points—some of them are purely about clarity, others touch on deeper game mechanics that I believe deserve more attention.
Note: The main rules thread (link) still contains the old clarifications, some of which directly contradict the newly published ones. It would really help to update or remove the outdated info to avoid confusion.
Lobby Credentials
The new clarification under "1. Accounts" rightly emphasizes the importance of account security, stating:
QuoteRemember to NEVER: Share your login data with anyone
However, it would be helpful if this also explicitly stated that sharing your lobby credentials with another person is not only discouraged but also forbidden under the rules and ToS. This kind of clarity would especially help newer players, who may not realize that even with trust, account sharing is a violation.
Same Household Clarification
This change is a positive one. Allowing players in the same household to play together (under the right conditions) is a step in the right direction. Restricting their trades to 3:2:1 is a sensible measure to prevent abuse, namely, the old "my wife/son/dog is playing this account" scenario.
That said, one part of the clarification reads:
"It is not allowed to log into each other’s accounts, on purpose or accidentally."
The phrasing here is odd. An accident is, by definition, not intentional. Penalizing players for something done by accident, without malicious intent, seems harsh and confusing. If the intent is to discourage carelessness, maybe rephrase it to something like “It is the responsibility of each player to prevent accidental logins into other accounts.”
Account Sitting
The updated clarification outlines some of what a sitter can and cannot do, but it still leaves too many gray areas. There are many actions—like sending expeditions—that fall into neither the "allowed" nor "forbidden" lists.
Rather than trying to list everything a sitter may or may not do, I think it would be clearer and more future-proof to simply define what they are allowed to do. Anything outside that scope would be automatically not permitted.
Pushing/Pulling – The Core Problem
This is where the current clarification still falls short.
-
First, I don’t think there’s a strong reason anymore to distinguish between pushing (lower to higher ranked) and pulling (higher to lower ranked). They are essentially two sides of the same coin and could be covered under a unified rule about resource transfer limits.
-
Second, I think the decision to still allow trades anywhere between 3:2:1 and 2:1:1 is outdated. We all have access to free merchants via expeditions, and getting 3:2:1 rates is no longer a limitation. The amount of resources floating around in the game is enormous, and 3:2:1 trades would not hurt anyone. Any fleeter claiming otherwise is—let’s be honest—just making excuses.
The clarification also says:
QuoteIt is forbidden to manipulate legal trade rates to give an unfair advantage to a higher-ranked player. Examples (not limited to):
- Buying resources at high prices and selling them back at lower ones.
- Selling a scrapped fleet or defense at unfavorable trade ratios.
This feels outdated. The focus on scrap pushing shows that the team still views pushing in terms of practices that peaked years ago. Scrap pushing has largely disappeared—not because the rules are effective, but because metal pack pushing is easier and more effective. The abuse has evolved, and the rules need to reflect that.
What we regularly see now is a pattern of players passing large volumes of resources through 2:1:1 trades that are later flipped via merchant at 3:2:1, which effectively nullifies the pushing/pulling restrictions. This happens especially when high-economy accounts acquire large amounts of metal and funnel it toward other players under the guise of legal trade.
This happens all the time. The clarification technically says it’s forbidden to “manipulate legal trade rates,” but we all know that it’s practically unenforceable because the support tools can’t track or prove the abuse reliably.
And here’s the solution that would fix 90% of the headache:
Fix trade ratios to 3:2:1.
It’s simple. It’s enforceable. It prevents most abuse. And it removes the gray zone that causes endless disputes and support tickets. I genuinely don’t understand why this hasn’t been implemented yet—it’s one of the most obvious ways to promote fair play.
In fact, you’ve already applied 3:2:1 enforcement to same-household trades—which shows that you’re aware of how powerful (and abusable) unrestricted rates are. Why not extend that to all trades? It would:
-
Make the rules easier to enforce
-
Remove most of the ambiguity
-
Eliminate a major vector for abuse
-
Improve fairness across the board
Again, I appreciate the effort the team put into updating the clarifications. But the game has changed, and the way rules are enforced needs to evolve with it. A bit more clarity, consistency, and alignment with how the game is actually played today would go a long way toward making things fairer and more transparent.
. So basically everyone has 5 more days to cheat a bit with merching scams 
. Idk why the ratio is even at 3:2:1. It's more like 8:1.3:1 by how production is balanced or something in that ratio 
