I had asked about the player being treated like a banned player and about those on VM with WW cities not being able to return quickly to defend themselves. This is the question and the reply given:
'The account is on vacation mode, can be attacked by anyone, but the player cannot go online and defend their city? So now a player on VM is being treated like a banned player? How is that fair at all? If you actually go through with this, you should allow a player being attacked to end the VM in response to those attacks.'
'
@ExtremeJeff: Note that not the whole account is attackable, but only WW towns. If you have 100 towns and only 1 on WW, other 99 towns will remain in VM mode.'
It feels like this similarity wasn't noticed when they decided to implement this idea. I'd like to second some of the most recent questions..
If wonder cities are not affected by the owners VM, will the owner get alerts?
If I enact VM and have wonder cities, can I cancel VM in less than 24 hours to be available to defend myself?
Could we EQ down a wall just because it is a wonder city on VM if this update would go through?
Also, thank you Arci for providing an English translation of what Naranya said because I didn't understand it at all with my translator.
I am glad to hear it will not be activated where wonders have already started but am alarmed that all will follow 'at a later point'.