Summary
Highlights
The host, Genghask, introduces a prevalent issue in Evony: players buying accounts for thousands of dollars only to have them stolen back via customer service. He recounts a past incident where someone impersonated him to scam players, emphasizing the difficulty and frustration this causes legitimate buyers.
Genghask details a specific incident involving the notorious Apex Alliance, known for previous controversies like 'packloading' (manipulating troops to gain power). In this new situation, a player bought a keep for $8,000, left the Apex Alliance, and then the alliance used customer service to reclaim the account, locking out the new owner.
Magnum, the player who originally sold the keep, explains how he sold his K48 keep for $8,000 after leveling it from VIP 17 to 22. About a month after the sale, he was contacted by the new owner, suspicious about account access. Magnum then received screenshots from a whistleblower within the Apex Alliance, confirming the account had been stolen by alliance members bragging about it.
Magnum and Genghask highlight the serious nature of the theft, stressing that $8,000 is a significant amount of money for anyone. They discuss how the Apex Alliance manipulated Evony's customer service by using a previous owner's receipts to regain control of the account, bypassing the security measures Magnum had put in place for the new owner.
Ultimately, the Apex Alliance, under public pressure, paid back the $8,000 to the buyer and offered additional compensation. However, the buyer did not get the keep back. This situation serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of buying accounts in Evony, especially given the game's ambiguous stance on account transfers and the potential for manipulation by unethical players and alliances.
Magnum explains why he initially put the keep up for sale, having invested heavily in it, and offered it to the alliance first, but they didn't act. He emphasizes that the money involved was his own investment. The discussion concludes with Genghask reiterating the unpredictability of who might exploit vulnerabilities, as the theft was carried out by a third party with old receipts, not the immediate seller.