OK... level and game name?
Same name 187.
This actually all came about because I was going back and forth with a rogue player. When I saw his name on a pvp leader board I stopped.
If your next question is how much gold have I spent I am not going to be happy.
Interesting discussion in my field of expertise..... (hacking/privacy/NSA/networks/sniffing) ;-) Only thing I can say from here.. It is fully legal in my country to SNIFF data and collect data that is made public available and goes through my own router ;-) And I just found the data model and I can guarantee you that I can fully generate and automate my own SQL database with all user data.. This user data is also available when I do It manually. SInce I do it without breaching and or hacking the game platform by itself I have no legal issues ;-)
You can fart at me peppers...
The person who claimed about credit/debit cards. That's all done through apple or your own devices equivalent not gree so no issue there.
Breaking out the holy hand grenade.
Data model:
- id
- invite_code
- username
- town_name
- character_class_id
- last_update_energy_value
- last_update_energy_time
- max_energy
- last_update_stamina_value
- last_update_stamina_time
- max_stamina
- money
- steel
- respect
- gold
- gold_spent
- is_spender
- experience
- bank_balance
- skill_points
- skill_points_spent
- level
- level_up
- attack
- defense
- clan_size
- paid_clan_size
- is_tutorial_complete
- time_of_first_attack
- num_attacks_this_hour
- ab_test
- is_banned
- is_muted
- is_test_account
- image_version
- image_base_cache_key
- stat_jobs_completed
- stat_jobs_failed
- stat_bosses_beaten
- stat_fights_won
- stat_fights_won_as_attacker
- stat_fights_won_as_defender
- stat_fights_lost
- stat_fights_lost_as_attacker
- stat_fights_lost_as_defender
- stat_robs_completed
- stat_robs_failed
- stat_jobs_money_earned
- stat_fights_money_attack_won
- stat_fights_money_attack_lost
- stat_fights_money_defense_won
- stat_fights_money_defense_lost
- stat_robs_money_won
- stat_robs_money_lost
- last_game_load_time
- num_game_loads
- number_buildings_owned
- width_expansion_level
- length_expansion_level
- expansion_direction
- expansion_time_started
- server_sequence_num
- total_building_area
- outfit_base_cache_key
- available_vip_invites
- stamina_cost_to_fight
- capped_clan_size
- invite_vip_time
- last_update_health_value
- last_update_health_time
- max_health
- last_free_scratcher_open_time
- database_id
- unique_id
- payload
- time_created
- time_updated
- version
- game_account_created
- diamond
- stat_money_earned
- stat_respect_earned
- stat_buildings_purchased
- stat_building_collect_count
- stat_items_purchased
- stat_guns_purchased
- stat_melee_purchased
- stat_armor_purchased
- stat_cars_purchased
- stat_expansions_purchased
- stat_props_purchased
- created_at
- updated_at
- recent_gold_purchase
- attacker_raw_attack_strength
- defender_raw_defense_strength
- attacker_attack_skill
- defender_defense_skill
- defender_building_defense
- item_raw_attack
- item_raw_defense
- item_bosted_attack
- item_bosted_defense
- inventory_udated_at
For reference: TOS sentence is: using third party software designed to modify user experience.
So I think we’re talking about different things. I wasn’t referring to “intent”, I was just referring to the actual writing of the TOS sentence. And I agree that if one is looking at just the writing of the TOS sentence, timers may be considered a violation of TOS, although one may argue if timer software are DESIGNED to modify user experience in CC. Certainly boss calculator softwares are third party software DESIGNED to modify user experience, so in the reading of the TOS, I would say that, yes, they are a violation of TOS. But as you said, if one is looking at the “spirit” or “intent” of the TOS, it is perhaps not in violation.
For reference: TOS sentence is: using third party software designed to modify user experience.
First sentence may be ad hominem. For 2nd sentence, I think it IS the same when it comes to the READING of the TOS sentence. However, again, I am starting to see where the confusion is with what I proposed and what is being said on this thread, that is strict reading of the TOS sentence vs “intent” or “spirit” of the TOS sentence.
For reference: TOS sentence is: using third party software designed to modify user experience.
Yet another example that has made me realize that I think I was thinking something different than what most ppl are saying, ie, strict reading vs intent. Regarding your second sentence, in the actual reading of the TOS sentence, time constraints aren’t stipulated. So that would not be relevant as far as the actual text is concerned re: violation of TOS. I can certainly acknowledge that it MAY be relevant as far as “intent” is concerned.
For reference: TOS sentence is: using third party software designed to modify user experience.
Yet another example that has made me realize that I think I was thinking something different than what most ppl are saying, ie, strict reading vs intent. Regarding your second sentence, in the actual reading of the TOS sentence, time constraints aren’t stipulated. So that would not be relevant as far as the actual text is concerned re: violation of TOS. I can certainly acknowledge that it MAY be relevant as far as “intent” is concerned.
For reference: TOS sentence is: using third party software designed to modify user experience.
I have addressed this above. I believe MOST CERTAINLY, those third party softwares may be considered violations of the TOS if one is looking at the straight text of the TOS sentence. But ONLY if it is determined that said software was DESIGNED to modify user experience in CC, then yes.