Options

Multiple Account Wars

135

Comments

  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    CFree wrote: »
    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.

    Sorry you disagree, but it's one person Piloting an entire Ally. Not the definition we know for Piloting which includes Account Sharing. Which is why I said it was like it, not the same thing exactly.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    CFree wrote: »
    CFree wrote: »
    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.

    Sorry you disagree, but it's one person Piloting an entire Ally. Not the definition we know for Piloting which includes Account Sharing. Which is why I said it was like it, not the same thing exactly.

    It’s one person playing their accounts. Does an owner with one account “pilot” it?

    The Ally? Yes. When you have a game mode that is based on rewarding team efforts and you have one individual navigating through it with many Accounts, that's not the same thing. It's meant to award Allies based on individual performance as a group collective.
  • Options
    CFreeCFree Posts: 491 ★★
    CFree wrote: »
    CFree wrote: »
    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.

    Sorry you disagree, but it's one person Piloting an entire Ally. Not the definition we know for Piloting which includes Account Sharing. Which is why I said it was like it, not the same thing exactly.

    It’s one person playing their accounts. Does an owner with one account “pilot” it?

    The Ally? Yes. When you have a game mode that is based on rewarding team efforts and you have one individual navigating through it with many Accounts, that's not the same thing. It's meant to award Allies based on individual performance as a group collective.

    Fine. You didn’t answer my question (and you know it) but we can dismiss the semantics. You don’t like Multiple Account Wars (MAWs), but MAWs are not against the terms of service and are in line with permissible activities outlined by Kabam. Maybe you can ask Kabam to modify its TOS and then you’ll be good.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    CFree wrote: »
    CFree wrote: »
    CFree wrote: »
    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.

    Sorry you disagree, but it's one person Piloting an entire Ally. Not the definition we know for Piloting which includes Account Sharing. Which is why I said it was like it, not the same thing exactly.

    It’s one person playing their accounts. Does an owner with one account “pilot” it?

    The Ally? Yes. When you have a game mode that is based on rewarding team efforts and you have one individual navigating through it with many Accounts, that's not the same thing. It's meant to award Allies based on individual performance as a group collective.

    Fine. You didn’t answer my question (and you know it) but we can dismiss the semantics. You don’t like Multiple Account Wars (MAWs), but MAWs are not against the terms of service and are in line with permissible activities outlined by Kabam. Maybe you can ask Kabam to modify its TOS and then you’ll be good.

    There are many things that aren't within the confines of fair play, which aren't specified in the TOS. Many of them have been addressed. This is no different than any other issue that comes up which isn't in the spirit of fairness. By that standard, as long as we don't read about it in the TOS, we can take advantage of any system within the game. We know that's not the case. Unfair advantages have been dealt with numerous times.
  • Options
    CFree wrote: »
    CFree wrote: »
    CFree wrote: »
    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.

    Sorry you disagree, but it's one person Piloting an entire Ally. Not the definition we know for Piloting which includes Account Sharing. Which is why I said it was like it, not the same thing exactly.

    It’s one person playing their accounts. Does an owner with one account “pilot” it?

    The Ally? Yes. When you have a game mode that is based on rewarding team efforts and you have one individual navigating through it with many Accounts, that's not the same thing. It's meant to award Allies based on individual performance as a group collective.

    Fine. You didn’t answer my question (and you know it) but we can dismiss the semantics. You don’t like Multiple Account Wars (MAWs), but MAWs are not against the terms of service and are in line with permissible activities outlined by Kabam. Maybe you can ask Kabam to modify its TOS and then you’ll be good.

    There are many things that aren't within the confines of fair play, which aren't specified in the TOS. Many of them have been addressed. This is no different than any other issue that comes up which isn't in the spirit of fairness. By that standard, as long as we don't read about it in the TOS, we can take advantage of any system within the game. We know that's not the case. Unfair advantages have been dealt with numerous times.

    There is a huge difference. In this case, there isn't any conventional agreement that the conduct is actually unfair by the generally accepted parameters of fairness in alliance wars.

    It is important to understand *why* most people feel piloting - real piloting - is wrong and unfair. When an alliance uses real piloting, they are selecting one person, who may or may not even be a member of the alliance - to use their skills to earn rewards for all of the members of the alliance. The losing alliance is losing either to someone not even a member of the winning alliance, or they are losing to only the highest skilled players in that alliance and not a true representation of the strength of the actual alliance. If in fact all thirty players in that alliance are better than all of your members, then they will win and they should win. But if they cover weaknesses by allowing their strongest players to play for their weakest players, then they didn't actually beat all of your players with all of theirs. That's what makes it intrinsically unfair for most players that care at all.

    But when an alliance contains two or three accounts that are owned by a single player, that isn't generally considered unfair because in fact you are fighting against all of the real humans who own those accounts. It is just that in some cases, two or more accounts are owned and operated by the same person. The alliance doesn't have a "weakness" that they are "covering" for by allowing someone who doesn't actually own the account to play for them. All of the real members of that alliance are playing their own accounts and beating your members.

    *Some* people care about this situation, but from what I can gather the vast majority don't. Since this is explicitly allowed by the TOS of the game *and* explicitly allowed by Kabam statements *and* there is no generally accepted social convention that says this is intrinsically unfair, this isn't unfair by definition.

    "Unfairness" in a game is set by the rules of the game and the meta-social contract the competitors generally agree to. There's no general agreement that multiple account alliances are unfair in AW, so it is not unfair by definition. You might think it is unfair if one pro basketball team is taller than the other, but according to the rules of basketball and the generally accepted conventions of basketball that's not intrinsically unfair. It is an advantage, but not an unfair one. You'd be outvoted there, as I believe you are here as well.
  • Options
    CFreeCFree Posts: 491 ★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    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.

    Piloting is logging into someone else's account and playing content. So piloting minus account sharing is just playing the game. Literally everyone pilots minus account sharing.

    Thank you. That’s what I was getting at when I asked if it was piloting for single account holders.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    CFree wrote: »
    CFree wrote: »
    CFree wrote: »
    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.

    Sorry you disagree, but it's one person Piloting an entire Ally. Not the definition we know for Piloting which includes Account Sharing. Which is why I said it was like it, not the same thing exactly.

    It’s one person playing their accounts. Does an owner with one account “pilot” it?

    The Ally? Yes. When you have a game mode that is based on rewarding team efforts and you have one individual navigating through it with many Accounts, that's not the same thing. It's meant to award Allies based on individual performance as a group collective.

    Fine. You didn’t answer my question (and you know it) but we can dismiss the semantics. You don’t like Multiple Account Wars (MAWs), but MAWs are not against the terms of service and are in line with permissible activities outlined by Kabam. Maybe you can ask Kabam to modify its TOS and then you’ll be good.

    There are many things that aren't within the confines of fair play, which aren't specified in the TOS. Many of them have been addressed. This is no different than any other issue that comes up which isn't in the spirit of fairness. By that standard, as long as we don't read about it in the TOS, we can take advantage of any system within the game. We know that's not the case. Unfair advantages have been dealt with numerous times.

    There is a huge difference. In this case, there isn't any conventional agreement that the conduct is actually unfair by the generally accepted parameters of fairness in alliance wars.

    It is important to understand *why* most people feel piloting - real piloting - is wrong and unfair. When an alliance uses real piloting, they are selecting one person, who may or may not even be a member of the alliance - to use their skills to earn rewards for all of the members of the alliance. The losing alliance is losing either to someone not even a member of the winning alliance, or they are losing to only the highest skilled players in that alliance and not a true representation of the strength of the actual alliance. If in fact all thirty players in that alliance are better than all of your members, then they will win and they should win. But if they cover weaknesses by allowing their strongest players to play for their weakest players, then they didn't actually beat all of your players with all of theirs. That's what makes it intrinsically unfair for most players that care at all.

    But when an alliance contains two or three accounts that are owned by a single player, that isn't generally considered unfair because in fact you are fighting against all of the real humans who own those accounts. It is just that in some cases, two or more accounts are owned and operated by the same person. The alliance doesn't have a "weakness" that they are "covering" for by allowing someone who doesn't actually own the account to play for them. All of the real members of that alliance are playing their own accounts and beating your members.

    *Some* people care about this situation, but from what I can gather the vast majority don't. Since this is explicitly allowed by the TOS of the game *and* explicitly allowed by Kabam statements *and* there is no generally accepted social convention that says this is intrinsically unfair, this isn't unfair by definition.

    "Unfairness" in a game is set by the rules of the game and the meta-social contract the competitors generally agree to. There's no general agreement that multiple account alliances are unfair in AW, so it is not unfair by definition. You might think it is unfair if one pro basketball team is taller than the other, but according to the rules of basketball and the generally accepted conventions of basketball that's not intrinsically unfair. It is an advantage, but not an unfair one. You'd be outvoted there, as I believe you are here as well.

    I'm sorry, but we're going to have to disagree with this one. It shouldn't be happening.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    CFree wrote: »
    CFree wrote: »
    CFree wrote: »
    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.

    Sorry you disagree, but it's one person Piloting an entire Ally. Not the definition we know for Piloting which includes Account Sharing. Which is why I said it was like it, not the same thing exactly.

    It’s one person playing their accounts. Does an owner with one account “pilot” it?

    The Ally? Yes. When you have a game mode that is based on rewarding team efforts and you have one individual navigating through it with many Accounts, that's not the same thing. It's meant to award Allies based on individual performance as a group collective.

    Fine. You didn’t answer my question (and you know it) but we can dismiss the semantics. You don’t like Multiple Account Wars (MAWs), but MAWs are not against the terms of service and are in line with permissible activities outlined by Kabam. Maybe you can ask Kabam to modify its TOS and then you’ll be good.

    There are many things that aren't within the confines of fair play, which aren't specified in the TOS. Many of them have been addressed. This is no different than any other issue that comes up which isn't in the spirit of fairness. By that standard, as long as we don't read about it in the TOS, we can take advantage of any system within the game. We know that's not the case. Unfair advantages have been dealt with numerous times.

    There is a huge difference. In this case, there isn't any conventional agreement that the conduct is actually unfair by the generally accepted parameters of fairness in alliance wars.

    It is important to understand *why* most people feel piloting - real piloting - is wrong and unfair. When an alliance uses real piloting, they are selecting one person, who may or may not even be a member of the alliance - to use their skills to earn rewards for all of the members of the alliance. The losing alliance is losing either to someone not even a member of the winning alliance, or they are losing to only the highest skilled players in that alliance and not a true representation of the strength of the actual alliance. If in fact all thirty players in that alliance are better than all of your members, then they will win and they should win. But if they cover weaknesses by allowing their strongest players to play for their weakest players, then they didn't actually beat all of your players with all of theirs. That's what makes it intrinsically unfair for most players that care at all.

    But when an alliance contains two or three accounts that are owned by a single player, that isn't generally considered unfair because in fact you are fighting against all of the real humans who own those accounts. It is just that in some cases, two or more accounts are owned and operated by the same person. The alliance doesn't have a "weakness" that they are "covering" for by allowing someone who doesn't actually own the account to play for them. All of the real members of that alliance are playing their own accounts and beating your members.

    *Some* people care about this situation, but from what I can gather the vast majority don't. Since this is explicitly allowed by the TOS of the game *and* explicitly allowed by Kabam statements *and* there is no generally accepted social convention that says this is intrinsically unfair, this isn't unfair by definition.

    "Unfairness" in a game is set by the rules of the game and the meta-social contract the competitors generally agree to. There's no general agreement that multiple account alliances are unfair in AW, so it is not unfair by definition. You might think it is unfair if one pro basketball team is taller than the other, but according to the rules of basketball and the generally accepted conventions of basketball that's not intrinsically unfair. It is an advantage, but not an unfair one. You'd be outvoted there, as I believe you are here as well.

    I'm sorry, but we're going to have to disagree with this one. It shouldn't be happening.

    I'm sorry that you're short, but we're not lowering the basket for you.

    I'm not short at all. You're refuting whether it's fair or unfair on the basis that what is allowed and what is not is some kind of general consensus, using a Sports analogy as an example. We disagree. If it's not fair, then it's not fair. That won't change based on popular opinion. That's a standalone.
    People are using multiple Accounts to boost their Accounts through the mechanism of War. Not only is it unfair to people who have to come up against, and strategize against, Allies with the same person and skill taking out Nodes with Alts (multiples working together at that), it's also unfair to the Allies with individual Players who are fighting for a spot in the Ranking for their team. Not one person.
    The issue of Trading comes up often and one of the most obvious objections to that is people will use Accounts to boost their main. There's no difference in this. It's an unfair advantage. You don't have to work as a team, you don't have to use organization or strategy, you don't have to work with anyone else. You just log on to all the Alts and take advantage of the fact that multiple Accounts are allowed. It is altogether unfair and we disagree. You can refute that with a majority vote, but it will still be unfair. I have no interest in justifications or excuses about TOS. The effect is what makes it unfair. I'm bringing it up because not every issue that can arise is found in the TOS, and it's time to have a discussion about it. You might be fine with people selfishly taking up spots while others work as a team, but I'm not.
  • Options
    LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 8,643 ★★★★★
    If Kabam made a rule to stop it, you would be happy about it. That guy and the other 3 guys who are doing it would be screwed since they built those accounts under the rules and wouldn't be able to use them the way they want anymore. Everyone else who plays the game would be unaffected...
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    If Kabam made a rule to stop it, you would be happy about it. That guy and the other 3 guys who are doing it would be screwed since they built those accounts under the rules and wouldn't be able to use them the way they want anymore. Everyone else who plays the game would be unaffected...

    If something gives an unfair advantage, that's more pressing than the feelings of the people taking said advantage.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    Verzz wrote: »
    It’s not unfair at all and is actually the definition of “fair” - the person that is playing the 10-30 accounts has to put the effort into all the accounts alone so he will get exactly what he puts into the game with those accounts.

    In war, if he is better than the multiplayer alliance’s average skill he will win providing he has the time and if he is worse he will lose.

    So seeing as this is fair and is not really going to affect anything even close to what real piloting is I don’t think anything will be done with this.

    That's not what makes it fair. People can put effort into anything. Doesn't make it right.
  • Options
    KpatrixKpatrix Posts: 1,055 ★★★
    For someone who claims not to be short you sure are reaching. Anyone can use multiple accounts if they want to. Just because some choose to do it and others don't doesn't mean it's not fair. For this to be unfair it would have to be a situation where some were allowed while others weren't. Even then, using fair like this just sounds childish. There are times you will be disadvanted, and other times you'll be advantaged. If you want fair, there's one out in the county.

    What's next, everyone doing wars is required to use same attackers and same defenders, with no variations at all so that it is really "fair" ?

    You'll never have an even playing field anywhere, all the protests in the world won't change that.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    Kpatrix wrote: »
    For someone who claims not to be short you sure are reaching. Anyone can use multiple accounts if they want to. Just because some choose to do it and others don't doesn't mean it's not fair. For this to be unfair it would have to be a situation where some were allowed while others weren't. Even then, using fair like this just sounds childish. There are times you will be disadvanted, and other times you'll be advantaged. If you want fair, there's one out in the county.

    What's next, everyone doing wars is required to use same attackers and same defenders, with no variations at all so that it is really "fair" ?

    You'll never have an even playing field anywhere, all the protests in the world won't change that.

    Again, using multiple Accounts is not the issue presented. The issue is taking advantage of a competitive game mode that is designed for teams, with multiple Accounts.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    If Kabam made a rule to stop it, you would be happy about it. That guy and the other 3 guys who are doing it would be screwed since they built those accounts under the rules and wouldn't be able to use them the way they want anymore. Everyone else who plays the game would be unaffected...

    If something gives an unfair advantage, that's more pressing than the feelings of the people taking said advantage.

    It's really hard to build that many teams. If this guy is the whole alliance he can't possibly grind enough to get the full advantage of being in an alliance. If he is getting an unfair advantage it's a very, very small advantage against a very few number of alliances. The police are dealing with robberies, domestic violence, murder... and you are standing there trying to direct them to the jaywalker.

    I don't consider it that minor. I don't think people would either, if it was someone taking a spot in Platinum or Master. We'd never hear the end of it. Even Jaywalking is illegal. It can cause accidents and death. Lol.
  • Options
    LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 8,643 ★★★★★
    If Kabam made a rule to stop it, you would be happy about it. That guy and the other 3 guys who are doing it would be screwed since they built those accounts under the rules and wouldn't be able to use them the way they want anymore. Everyone else who plays the game would be unaffected...

    If something gives an unfair advantage, that's more pressing than the feelings of the people taking said advantage.

    It's really hard to build that many teams. If this guy is the whole alliance he can't possibly grind enough to get the full advantage of being in an alliance. If he is getting an unfair advantage it's a very, very small advantage against a very few number of alliances. The police are dealing with robberies, domestic violence, murder... and you are standing there trying to direct them to the jaywalker.

    I don't consider it that minor. I don't think people would either, if it was someone taking a spot in Platinum or Master. We'd never hear the end of it. Even Jaywalking is illegal. It can cause accidents and death. Lol.

    That's where my analogy breaks down. Jaywalking is illegal...but this isn't. If it were happening in Platinum or Master it would be a problem because it would mean someone bought a lot of good accounts. It isn't possible for one person to build that many accounts to that level. And if someone could and they were his legitimate accounts I don't agree that we'd never hear the end of it. Honestly don't think anyone in Platinum or Master would care. There is enough going on that actually is against the rules.
  • Options
    BadroseBadrose Posts: 779 ★★★
    Kudos to that guy if he's logging in for 30 accounts!
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    It’s not unfair at all and is actually the definition of “fair” - the person that is playing the 10-30 accounts has to put the effort into all the accounts alone so he will get exactly what he puts into the game with those accounts.

    In war, if he is better than the multiplayer alliance’s average skill he will win providing he has the time and if he is worse he will lose.

    So seeing as this is fair and is not really going to affect anything even close to what real piloting is I don’t think anything will be done with this.

    That's not what makes it fair. People can put effort into anything. Doesn't make it right.
    Ok so I re-read your OP and I guess you are just complaining about the rules and what you think is fair. But about the questions you asked, even if I thought it wasn’t fair, they have repeatedly said that you can have multiple accounts if you are the sole player. And alliances also exist in this game. How could they possibly do anything unless they ban multiple accounts outright?

    They have commented on owning multiple Accounts. I have yet to see a comment in reference to Wars with multiple Accounts. Seasons have added a new layer of competition and now it's not just people playing Wars with Alts. It's a Ranking system as well.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    If Kabam made a rule to stop it, you would be happy about it. That guy and the other 3 guys who are doing it would be screwed since they built those accounts under the rules and wouldn't be able to use them the way they want anymore. Everyone else who plays the game would be unaffected...

    If something gives an unfair advantage, that's more pressing than the feelings of the people taking said advantage.

    It's really hard to build that many teams. If this guy is the whole alliance he can't possibly grind enough to get the full advantage of being in an alliance. If he is getting an unfair advantage it's a very, very small advantage against a very few number of alliances. The police are dealing with robberies, domestic violence, murder... and you are standing there trying to direct them to the jaywalker.

    I don't consider it that minor. I don't think people would either, if it was someone taking a spot in Platinum or Master. We'd never hear the end of it. Even Jaywalking is illegal. It can cause accidents and death. Lol.

    That's where my analogy breaks down. Jaywalking is illegal...but this isn't. If it were happening in Platinum or Master it would be a problem because it would mean someone bought a lot of good accounts. It isn't possible for one person to build that many accounts to that level. And if someone could and they were his legitimate accounts I don't agree that we'd never hear the end of it. Honestly don't think anyone in Platinum or Master would care. There is enough going on that actually is against the rules.

    Oh I think people wouldn't let it go of it was that high up. Based on experience. The point is it doesn't matter what level it's at. It's no bueno.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,298 ★★★★★
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    It’s not unfair at all and is actually the definition of “fair” - the person that is playing the 10-30 accounts has to put the effort into all the accounts alone so he will get exactly what he puts into the game with those accounts.

    In war, if he is better than the multiplayer alliance’s average skill he will win providing he has the time and if he is worse he will lose.

    So seeing as this is fair and is not really going to affect anything even close to what real piloting is I don’t think anything will be done with this.

    That's not what makes it fair. People can put effort into anything. Doesn't make it right.
    Ok so I re-read your OP and I guess you are just complaining about the rules and what you think is fair. But about the questions you asked, even if I thought it wasn’t fair, they have repeatedly said that you can have multiple accounts if you are the sole player. And alliances also exist in this game. How could they possibly do anything unless they ban multiple accounts outright?

    They have commented on owning multiple Accounts. I have yet to see a comment in reference to Wars with multiple Accounts. Seasons have added a new layer of competition and now it's not just people playing Wars with Alts. It's a Ranking system as well.

    Are you saying they have never said that you can have multiple accounts since seasons started or that it is something they should look at? They have said you can have multiple accounts in this game and everything we are talking about (wars, ranking system) is part of the game isn’t it?

    What I'm saying is they've said multiple Accounts are allowed. I have yet to see any comment in regards to using multiple Accounts in Wars. Lots of people claiming they were dinged because of using multiple Accounts, but they're not likely to comment in those instances because they don't discuss actions taken.
  • Options
    If Kabam made a rule to stop it, you would be happy about it. That guy and the other 3 guys who are doing it would be screwed since they built those accounts under the rules and wouldn't be able to use them the way they want anymore. Everyone else who plays the game would be unaffected...

    If something gives an unfair advantage, that's more pressing than the feelings of the people taking said advantage.

    If. But there's only your feelings about it being unfair to support the claim that it is unfair.

    Also, it is always the responsibility of the advocate to articulate a strong position. "We agree to disagree" is called "losing" when it comes to advocacy, because if we agree to disagree and so does everyone else, the game remains as it is. For the people who disagree with you that this is unfair, that's called "winning."
Sign In or Register to comment.