It's widely understood, albeit not openly acknowledged, why strict enforcement is lacking. This leniency keeps the game, Kingdoms at War (KaW), seemingly bustling by inflating the count of "active" users—a metric that reassures sponsors and investors. Additionally, this approach can inadvertently support new player growth, except in cases where clans are exclusively used for the benefit of certain players' automated "bots." The dilemma they face is clear: imposing bans on these automated accounts would paradoxically diminish the game's active user base. These "bots" are not merely placeholders; they're capable of generating revenue through small-scale transactions, potentially amounting to significant sums for ATA and its partners. Therefore, if enforcement becomes too rigorous, it risks a decline in both active users and revenue. It appears they've adopted a strategy of moderate, consistent enforcement to maintain economic stability within the game's ecosystem.
Well I guess you can call me Mo of the Ron family because I never considered that KaW required sponsorship outside of its player base… I suppose the offer-wall must bring in a ton of revenue 🥱
On the epic battles the developers should put in a reward between 60k and 100k. Unless you leave your clan it’s very difficult to achieve.