Options

Multiple Account Wars

245

Comments

  • Options
    Primmer79Primmer79 Posts: 2,968 ★★★★
    The mode is designed to reward people for a group effort. That's why it's called Alliance Wars. Not Me Wars. A line absolutely has to be drawn because what you have is individuals boosting Accounts through a system that's meant for teams. The fact that you're arguing someone's right to play the system greedily and take up spots that others are playing fairly for, is just ludicrous.

    No one said an alliance has to be 30 people. it has to be 30 accounts.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    That's also another problem. Playing fairly means people have to wait on others. Anything can happen. Someone didn't get on in time, someone may K.O., organization may go awry. Things like that are natural occurrences. They're supposed to happen from time to time. Not people navigating the whole system themselves.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    edited November 2018
    Primmer79 wrote: »
    The mode is designed to reward people for a group effort. That's why it's called Alliance Wars. Not Me Wars. A line absolutely has to be drawn because what you have is individuals boosting Accounts through a system that's meant for teams. The fact that you're arguing someone's right to play the system greedily and take up spots that others are playing fairly for, is just ludicrous.

    No one said an alliance has to be 30 people. it has to be 30 accounts.

    People can do whatever they like. When they bring them into a competition against individual people in Alliances, that's a problem. You can't be serious with that, can you? Lol.
  • Options
    Primmer79Primmer79 Posts: 2,968 ★★★★
    Primmer79 wrote: »
    The mode is designed to reward people for a group effort. That's why it's called Alliance Wars. Not Me Wars. A line absolutely has to be drawn because what you have is individuals boosting Accounts through a system that's meant for teams. The fact that you're arguing someone's right to play the system greedily and take up spots that others are playing fairly for, is just ludicrous.

    No one said an alliance has to be 30 people. it has to be 30 accounts.

    People can do whatever they like. When they bring them into a competition against individual people in Alliances, that's a problem. You can't be serious with that, can you? Lol.

    I'm really not trying to troll you. Please don't come back with the incredulous, cant be serious remarks, and lets have serious conversations like you insist you always want. Just because you have a specific conviction, doesn't mean others are dumb.

    I am serious. A LOT of people have multiple accounts, for various reasons. The reasons you are using lead me to believe that one person should only have one account in each alliance. If not, then give me a number. This next part will be assuming you only want one account per person in each alliance.

    You said this way, he is running 30 accounts in one alliance. He happens to be skilled, and jumping back and forth to run through AW, and this is unfair for several reasons.
    1. It takes away the spirit of the game. (This I happen to agree with).
    2. It takes up rewards. Instead of rewards for 30 people, 1 person is getting them.

    Even if one person has two accounts, that second accound is taking the place that could be another person to get rewards. However, Kabam has stated you can have more than one account, theyve just been quiet on the front of "in the same alliance." Some people make sure they have two accounts in the same alliance, to clear themselves from nodes due to a weird time zone or work schedule. The amount of effort it takes to run more than one account, I really have no problem with this at all. Its not like he can just log in and compete for rewards by himself. It requires grinding on each account to get to a point to do that.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    Primmer79 wrote: »
    Primmer79 wrote: »
    The mode is designed to reward people for a group effort. That's why it's called Alliance Wars. Not Me Wars. A line absolutely has to be drawn because what you have is individuals boosting Accounts through a system that's meant for teams. The fact that you're arguing someone's right to play the system greedily and take up spots that others are playing fairly for, is just ludicrous.

    No one said an alliance has to be 30 people. it has to be 30 accounts.

    People can do whatever they like. When they bring them into a competition against individual people in Alliances, that's a problem. You can't be serious with that, can you? Lol.

    I'm really not trying to troll you. Please don't come back with the incredulous, cant be serious remarks, and lets have serious conversations like you insist you always want. Just because you have a specific conviction, doesn't mean others are dumb.

    I am serious. A LOT of people have multiple accounts, for various reasons. The reasons you are using lead me to believe that one person should only have one account in each alliance. If not, then give me a number. This next part will be assuming you only want one account per person in each alliance.

    You said this way, he is running 30 accounts in one alliance. He happens to be skilled, and jumping back and forth to run through AW, and this is unfair for several reasons.
    1. It takes away the spirit of the game. (This I happen to agree with).
    2. It takes up rewards. Instead of rewards for 30 people, 1 person is getting them.

    Even if one person has two accounts, that second accound is taking the place that could be another person to get rewards. However, Kabam has stated you can have more than one account, theyve just been quiet on the front of "in the same alliance." Some people make sure they have two accounts in the same alliance, to clear themselves from nodes due to a weird time zone or work schedule. The amount of effort it takes to run more than one account, I really have no problem with this at all. Its not like he can just log in and compete for rewards by himself. It requires grinding on each account to get to a point to do that.

    I had a feeling that came off as critical, and I was talking more about the statement than your view personally. Many people say the same type of thing, that it isn't stated it has to be separate people, that it's not against the rules, etc. I just find statements like that dodgey. Nothing personal.
    What I'm saying is there are various Alliance modes that are meant to reward Members working together to grow. That's one of the benefits of working in an Alliance. Strength in numbers. There are also aspects that are competitions. Like War Seasons. They are Ranked, and each Ally earns a place. Those Allies are comprised of individuals. When you have people running entire Allies alone, they're taking up the place of 29 other individuals that could potentially be earning Rewards in their Ally, as well as the position they're holding, which is really meant for an Alliance of people. Not person. I'm not necessarily suggesting telling people not to make Alts. What I'm suggesting is there has to be a limit to how many you can run in modes like War. Even if it were one extra Account per person, per Ally, within War. That would be a far cry better than one person taking up half the Ally. It's just a milking situation.
  • Options
    Colinwhitworth69Colinwhitworth69 Posts: 7,200 ★★★★★
    They're not the same ilk. There's a theme to the names. I don't want to get into specifics for obvious reasons, but I'm certain it's one person. In any event, there needs to be rules. These game modes are designed to give Rewards for group efforts based on how individuals perform as a collective. It's not fair play to have to deal with one person running entire BGs. Call it Piloting or not, that's not what Alliance Wars are about.

    I'm not sure why this is unfair. If it is indeed the case that one person has 10 accounts or what not and is running their own alliance, how is that less fair than having 10 people in a BG each with one acct?

    And how is it even possible to maintain 10 accounts? I have two, and it takes so much of my free time to maintain just the things I do, which doesn't even include AW. Our alliance does AQ only, and I do the monthly quests, the daily quests, and then the permanent content when i have time or energy resources (which isn't often).
  • Options
    Primmer79Primmer79 Posts: 2,968 ★★★★
    edited November 2018
    Primmer79 wrote: »
    Primmer79 wrote: »
    The mode is designed to reward people for a group effort. That's why it's called Alliance Wars. Not Me Wars. A line absolutely has to be drawn because what you have is individuals boosting Accounts through a system that's meant for teams. The fact that you're arguing someone's right to play the system greedily and take up spots that others are playing fairly for, is just ludicrous.

    No one said an alliance has to be 30 people. it has to be 30 accounts.

    People can do whatever they like. When they bring them into a competition against individual people in Alliances, that's a problem. You can't be serious with that, can you? Lol.

    I'm really not trying to troll you. Please don't come back with the incredulous, cant be serious remarks, and lets have serious conversations like you insist you always want. Just because you have a specific conviction, doesn't mean others are dumb.

    I am serious. A LOT of people have multiple accounts, for various reasons. The reasons you are using lead me to believe that one person should only have one account in each alliance. If not, then give me a number. This next part will be assuming you only want one account per person in each alliance.

    You said this way, he is running 30 accounts in one alliance. He happens to be skilled, and jumping back and forth to run through AW, and this is unfair for several reasons.
    1. It takes away the spirit of the game. (This I happen to agree with).
    2. It takes up rewards. Instead of rewards for 30 people, 1 person is getting them.

    Even if one person has two accounts, that second accound is taking the place that could be another person to get rewards. However, Kabam has stated you can have more than one account, theyve just been quiet on the front of "in the same alliance." Some people make sure they have two accounts in the same alliance, to clear themselves from nodes due to a weird time zone or work schedule. The amount of effort it takes to run more than one account, I really have no problem with this at all. Its not like he can just log in and compete for rewards by himself. It requires grinding on each account to get to a point to do that.

    I had a feeling that came off as critical, and I was talking more about the statement than your view personally. Many people say the same type of thing, that it isn't stated it has to be separate people, that it's not against the rules, etc. I just find statements like that dodgey. Nothing personal.
    What I'm saying is there are various Alliance modes that are meant to reward Members working together to grow. That's one of the benefits of working in an Alliance. Strength in numbers. There are also aspects that are competitions. Like War Seasons. They are Ranked, and each Ally earns a place. Those Allies are comprised of individuals. When you have people running entire Allies alone, they're taking up the place of 29 other individuals that could potentially be earning Rewards in their Ally, as well as the position they're holding, which is really meant for an Alliance of people. Not person. I'm not necessarily suggesting telling people not to make Alts. What I'm suggesting is there has to be a limit to how many you can run in modes like War. Even if it were one extra Account per person, per Ally, within War. That would be a far cry better than one person taking up half the Ally. It's just a milking situation.

    And where you might see it from that point of view, I'm looking at the amount of effort to put into more than one account (any number of accounts) in order to be competitive. I barely keep up with one account, and I've tried a second account for fun. The amount of effort and time put in required to upkeep one account is the the deterrent from doing this. If someone is determined enough to do this, I see the effort, and see, yeah, he probably deserves these awards. Because its not one lump sum of rewards he could improve one account with, its individual rewards that imo arent game breaking, and you still have to put in more time to upkeep those accounts.

    Edit: That doesn't take into account the spirit of wars, where I agree that it kind of ruins it, but not rampant enough to cause a rule to have kabam crack down.
  • Options
    Darkstar4387Darkstar4387 Posts: 2,145 ★★★
    edited November 2018
    Uh actually grounded they might not be all the same person, the truth is with this new name change, If an alliance wants actually wants to they could all be called crazy1, crazy 2 etc all the way to 30.

    That is they are only allowed to if the entire allaince agrees to it and they can all have basically the same name as per kabam.

    I had a similar experience awhile back and that's their response and it's almost impossible to tell who is running the accounts.

    However if it's one person controlling all and is account sharring and pilioting those accounts they will lose a lot of points at the end of the season.

    You can try contacting them but you won't get much information and they will just monitor it and deal out puinshments later if that's all they are doing , if not then some will get banned temporarily or permanently which you won't know until later.

    Honestly I really wish kabam would limit the number of the same names per allaince so it's not as confusing since we have no clue who is running them and how many are using each one.
  • Options
    iRetr0iRetr0 Posts: 1,252 ★★★★
    I don't see the problem? If a guy has nothing to do with his life and runs 30 accounts on one alliance, it's completely allowed, his time is wasted, it breaks no rules whatsoever. End of story
  • Options
    KpatrixKpatrix Posts: 1,055 ★★★
    The main fault with the argument that a person running 30 accounts in a single alliance is taking away 29 spots from others is that a person running 30 accounts distributed among 30 alliances is still taking 29 spots.

    If someone wants to put in all that work, then so be it, they are just as entitled as anyone else. The rewards go to separate accounts, there is no trading of resources. They are all so individual accounts.

    What comes next though, once you start saying a player can't have an alliance of accounts he's built himself, are you going to limit the number of individual accounts a player has ? Are you going to start looking at alliances and say it isn't fair that one has an average pi of 750 and limit it to 1 750k account per alliance ? Are you then going to say that isn't fair either because alliance A is stronger than B, so let's eliminate choice and have everyone placed into random alliances by kabam ?

    You just can't take away a players choice on how to play as long as they are abiding by the terms of service just because you don't agree with that choice.
  • Options
    Darkstar4387Darkstar4387 Posts: 2,145 ★★★
    I don't see the problem? If a guy has nothing to do with his life and runs 30 accounts on one alliance, it's completely allowed, his time is wasted, it breaks no rules whatsoever. End of story

    That depends on how they acquire said accounts, if they didn't actually create them then it's both account sharring and piolting which is unfair and they likely aren't actually the only one using them.

    I can't actually see how a person can run more than 5 accounts by themselves legitimately, just 2 can be a chore especially if you only have one device, and I really don't think it's possible to do that especially if they all are on at the same time
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    It doesn't matter if they're putting the effort in or not. It's not fair. That's not what the game mode is for. By those standards, people can use any means necessary to boost their Accounts, and that's just anarchy. It's not a fair situation. Quite greedy, actually. I'm not buying into the whole, "It's not against TOS.". There are also provisions in the TOS about unfair advantages. That's what it is. People are working together for a common goal, and others are playing the system like a flute.
  • Options
    Primmer79Primmer79 Posts: 2,968 ★★★★
    It doesn't matter if they're putting the effort in or not. It's not fair. That's not what the game mode is for. By those standards, people can use any means necessary to boost their Accounts, and that's just anarchy. It's not a fair situation. Quite greedy, actually. I'm not buying into the whole, "It's not against TOS.". There are also provisions in the TOS about unfair advantages. That's what it is. People are working together for a common goal, and others are playing the system like a flute.

    You're passionate about this subject, so I am just clarifying to I can discuss better.

    What do you mean by they can "use any means necessary"?

    Im on the side of you, this isnt what the spirit of war is, but the amount of work necessary to keep up is the deterrent, and I don't think kabam needs to make a rule about this.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    Primmer79 wrote: »
    It doesn't matter if they're putting the effort in or not. It's not fair. That's not what the game mode is for. By those standards, people can use any means necessary to boost their Accounts, and that's just anarchy. It's not a fair situation. Quite greedy, actually. I'm not buying into the whole, "It's not against TOS.". There are also provisions in the TOS about unfair advantages. That's what it is. People are working together for a common goal, and others are playing the system like a flute.

    You're passionate about this subject, so I am just clarifying to I can discuss better.

    What do you mean by they can "use any means necessary"?

    Im on the side of you, this isnt what the spirit of war is, but the amount of work necessary to keep up is the deterrent, and I don't think kabam needs to make a rule about this.

    What I mean by any means necessary is using many Accounts to earn the Rewards for an entire Ally, all for one person.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    My point is about the justification that as long as nothing is specified in the TOS, then it's okay. That's just looking for a loophole in my opinion.
  • Options
    Primmer79Primmer79 Posts: 2,968 ★★★★
    My point is about the justification that as long as nothing is specified in the TOS, then it's okay. That's just looking for a loophole in my opinion.

    By that definition, I would say having two accounts to unlink each other would be a "loophole"

    I would also say an alliance taking in a new account to boost their rewards would be a loophole.

    There's certain things that are a loophole. I don't see this as one, because of the 30 accounts needed.

    I do see tanking in the offseason a relative loophole, but thats a different discussion.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    Primmer79 wrote: »
    My point is about the justification that as long as nothing is specified in the TOS, then it's okay. That's just looking for a loophole in my opinion.

    By that definition, I would say having two accounts to unlink each other would be a "loophole"

    I would also say an alliance taking in a new account to boost their rewards would be a loophole.

    There's certain things that are a loophole. I don't see this as one, because of the 30 accounts needed.

    I do see tanking in the offseason a relative loophole, but thats a different discussion.

    Tanking is taking advantage for sure. Taking on new Members isn't shady. Not sure what you mean by unlinking. Using Alts to push oneself through the Ranks of a group competition is definitely a loophole. My point about the TOS is that there are many ways to create unfair advantages with the excuse that no one told them not to do it. It's impossible to write every scenario in them and prohibit them. Which is why issues are looked at as they come up. It's all about fair play. I don't see competing with a one-man orchestra as fair play.
  • Options
    LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 8,643 ★★★★★
    edited November 2018
    The bottom line is there just aren't that many players with 10+ legitimate accounts that play them actively enough to affect war very much. If they bought the accounts or were given them that's a different issue. But guy running entire battlegroups with his own accounts just isn't a significant issue lol. It's bad policy to create policy to prevent things that aren't actually issues and aren't likely to ever become issues. Cheers.
  • Options
    Primmer79Primmer79 Posts: 2,968 ★★★★
    Primmer79 wrote: »
    My point is about the justification that as long as nothing is specified in the TOS, then it's okay. That's just looking for a loophole in my opinion.

    By that definition, I would say having two accounts to unlink each other would be a "loophole"

    I would also say an alliance taking in a new account to boost their rewards would be a loophole.

    There's certain things that are a loophole. I don't see this as one, because of the 30 accounts needed.

    I do see tanking in the offseason a relative loophole, but thats a different discussion.

    Tanking is taking advantage for sure. Taking on new Members isn't shady. Not sure what you mean by unlinking. Using Alts to push oneself through the Ranks of a group competition is definitely a loophole. My point about the TOS is that there are many ways to create unfair advantages with the excuse that no one told them not to do it. It's impossible to write every scenario in them and prohibit them. Which is why issues are looked at as they come up. It's all about fair play. I don't see competing with a one-man orchestra as fair play.

    Using two accounts to run parallel routes that link each other, say for AQ, that way you can unlink yourself from nodes and not wait for others. Say, routes 3-4 on map 5 AQ.

    That's fair with the TOS not saying everything, and situations arising that aren't covered. Its really a living document kabam can add to at any point. In this discussion, I guess we are discussing whether or not it should be added? Not that we really have a say anyways other than asking Kabam one way or the other.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    I think it is an issue, but it's not the first time we've disagreed. ;) All good.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    Primmer79 wrote: »
    Primmer79 wrote: »
    My point is about the justification that as long as nothing is specified in the TOS, then it's okay. That's just looking for a loophole in my opinion.

    By that definition, I would say having two accounts to unlink each other would be a "loophole"

    I would also say an alliance taking in a new account to boost their rewards would be a loophole.

    There's certain things that are a loophole. I don't see this as one, because of the 30 accounts needed.

    I do see tanking in the offseason a relative loophole, but thats a different discussion.

    Tanking is taking advantage for sure. Taking on new Members isn't shady. Not sure what you mean by unlinking. Using Alts to push oneself through the Ranks of a group competition is definitely a loophole. My point about the TOS is that there are many ways to create unfair advantages with the excuse that no one told them not to do it. It's impossible to write every scenario in them and prohibit them. Which is why issues are looked at as they come up. It's all about fair play. I don't see competing with a one-man orchestra as fair play.

    Using two accounts to run parallel routes that link each other, say for AQ, that way you can unlink yourself from nodes and not wait for others. Say, routes 3-4 on map 5 AQ.

    That's fair with the TOS not saying everything, and situations arising that aren't covered. Its really a living document kabam can add to at any point. In this discussion, I guess we are discussing whether or not it should be added? Not that we really have a say anyways other than asking Kabam one way or the other.

    More or less discussing what could be implemented. If people think it's not a problem, that's fine. Everyone has their own views. I just think it's not fair when you're trying to lead an entire team to make progress in a group competition and you have to compete with people taking up spots all by themselves. That's not a fair fight. You have all your Members coming up against one person with no room for error on their side.
  • Options
    JaffacakedJaffacaked Posts: 1,415 ★★★★
    Let's clear things up a bit, GW ally only runs 1 BG for war, so this guy he is talking about only has a max on 10 accounts, an its a good chance it not a full BG allmof his alts.

    Bottom line it's it's totally legit so stop crying about it in the forum
  • Options
    boss0600 wrote: »
    I dont see an issue with it. In the spirit if the game rules are rules. If he's allowed to have multiple accounts than its fair game.

    You may not agree with it but the rules say it's ok. Cant penalize a guy for having multiple accounts and free time.

    I know plenty of people who own 3 and 4 accounts. And are very skilled. They have the time power to them.

    Multiple Accounts isn't the issue. It's running entire BGs and Allies in War.

    Multiple accounts are the issue. You can't tell players they can have multiple accounts, but if they use those accounts in ways that some people don't like it is prohibited. People who run multiple accounts can do all sorts of things that are edge case behavior. They can play in the same alliance. They can gift each other gifts. They can parallel run dungeons. They can send each other energy and recharge help. The moment you allow a single human being to play more than one account *every* game feature that is ordinarily intended to encourage group play becomes useable by a solo human playing multiple accounts.

    And frankly, this is a silly line to even draw. Banning people with two or three accounts from running them in the same alliance would probably cause an uproar. But there's no justification for arbitrarily drawing a line at ten or thirty or any other number.

    This isn't a question of fairness. The question of fairness comes up the moment you cross the line to even allowing multiple accounts in the first place. But once we do, it really is just a question of some people not liking the behavior of another player for completely arbitrary reasons.
  • Options
    CFreeCFree Posts: 491 ★★
    edited November 2018
    They're not the same ilk. There's a theme to the names. I don't want to get into specifics for obvious reasons, but I'm certain it's one person. In any event, there needs to be rules. These game modes are designed to give Rewards for group efforts based on how individuals perform as a collective. It's not fair play to have to deal with one person running entire BGs. Call it Piloting or not, that's not what Alliance Wars are about.

    It’s not piloting, day so don’t call it that.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    Still jumping in with random digs I see. How they continue to allow you to try and bait arguments is beyond me. It's been happening for over a year. I think it's time I use the Ignore Feature.
    Jaffacaked wrote: »
    Let's clear things up a bit, GW ally only runs 1 BG for war, so this guy he is talking about only has a max on 10 accounts, an its a good chance it not a full BG allmof his alts.

    Bottom line it's it's totally legit so stop crying about it in the forum

  • Options
    CFreeCFree Posts: 491 ★★
    The mode is designed to reward people for a group effort. That's why it's called Alliance Wars. Not Me Wars. A line absolutely has to be drawn because what you have is individuals boosting Accounts through a system that's meant for teams. The fact that you're arguing someone's right to play the system greedily and take up spots that others are playing fairly for, is just ludicrous.


    Or the fact that you’re arguing that having multiple accounts, which Kabam has said is not a problem, is somehow unfair is ludicrous.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    CFree wrote: »
    They're not the same ilk. There's a theme to the names. I don't want to get into specifics for obvious reasons, but I'm certain it's one person. In any event, there needs to be rules. These game modes are designed to give Rewards for group efforts based on how individuals perform as a collective. It's not fair play to have to deal with one person running entire BGs. Call it Piloting or not, that's not what Alliance Wars are about.

    It’s not piloting, day so don’t call it that.

    I said it's the same thing, minus the Account Sharing.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    CFree wrote: »
    The mode is designed to reward people for a group effort. That's why it's called Alliance Wars. Not Me Wars. A line absolutely has to be drawn because what you have is individuals boosting Accounts through a system that's meant for teams. The fact that you're arguing someone's right to play the system greedily and take up spots that others are playing fairly for, is just ludicrous.


    Or the fact that you’re arguing that having multiple accounts, which Kabam has said is not a problem, is somehow unfair is ludicrous.

    Having multiple Accounts is not the argument. Running modes like War Seasons with multiple Accounts is the problem.
  • Options
    CFreeCFree Posts: 491 ★★
    CFree wrote: »
    They're not the same ilk. There's a theme to the names. I don't want to get into specifics for obvious reasons, but I'm certain it's one person. In any event, there needs to be rules. These game modes are designed to give Rewards for group efforts based on how individuals perform as a collective. It's not fair play to have to deal with one person running entire BGs. Call it Piloting or not, that's not what Alliance Wars are about.

    It’s not piloting, day so don’t call it that.

    I said it's the same thing, minus the Account Sharing.

    That’s still incorrect.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    boss0600 wrote: »
    I dont see an issue with it. In the spirit if the game rules are rules. If he's allowed to have multiple accounts than its fair game.

    You may not agree with it but the rules say it's ok. Cant penalize a guy for having multiple accounts and free time.

    I know plenty of people who own 3 and 4 accounts. And are very skilled. They have the time power to them.

    Multiple Accounts isn't the issue. It's running entire BGs and Allies in War.

    Multiple accounts are the issue. You can't tell players they can have multiple accounts, but if they use those accounts in ways that some people don't like it is prohibited. People who run multiple accounts can do all sorts of things that are edge case behavior. They can play in the same alliance. They can gift each other gifts. They can parallel run dungeons. They can send each other energy and recharge help. The moment you allow a single human being to play more than one account *every* game feature that is ordinarily intended to encourage group play becomes useable by a solo human playing multiple accounts.

    And frankly, this is a silly line to even draw. Banning people with two or three accounts from running them in the same alliance would probably cause an uproar. But there's no justification for arbitrarily drawing a line at ten or thirty or any other number.

    This isn't a question of fairness. The question of fairness comes up the moment you cross the line to even allowing multiple accounts in the first place. But once we do, it really is just a question of some people not liking the behavior of another player for completely arbitrary reasons.

    I don't consider it arbitrary at all. Not when people are playing within their own capabilities. It becomes an unfair advantage. You're not coming up against an Ally with varying levels of skill which allows for a fair Win or Loss. You're coming up agaisnt one perso who, for all intents and purposes, can clear the whole Map alone.
Sign In or Register to comment.