Options
Solution to Piloting Alliances in AW
For_Spetz
Member Posts: 51
How about putting a sign in restriction on accounts if they log off during attack phase of Alliance War?
If a player decides to log his/her account out during attack phase there should be a 12 hour+ restriction before they can log back in again with the same account.
Would help with eliminating coordination amongst pilots who are single handidly playing alliance war for an entire group one path a a time.
If a player decides to log his/her account out during attack phase there should be a 12 hour+ restriction before they can log back in again with the same account.
Would help with eliminating coordination amongst pilots who are single handidly playing alliance war for an entire group one path a a time.
4
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I think the point the OP was making was that when AW piloting is done, pilots have to enter their teammates' email and login information to access their accounts, which requires them to log out of their own accounts. Even if this wouldn't work it's the most practical suggestion I've seen on the forum.
what. if. someone. has. two. accounts.
Two things are currently completely legal and fully supported by Kabam:
One: a single player who has two accounts and alternately plays them on the same device.
Two: a single player who has multiple devices and uses all of them to play a single account.
I'm not sure what you mean by use "unique device identifier information to confirm that people are playing their own accounts" but it is not that simple, because two different accounts logging in on the same device is legal, and the same account logging in on two different devices is legal, and in neither case is a lock out of any kind fair to the players that do this.
This game has no function to detect the MAC address and shouldn’t. Also IPs always change and people have multiple devices with different addresses
I'm not tech savvy enough to put my neck in the noose on this issue but it is clearly a real problem that is largely ignored except for people silly enough to out themselves or get greedy and do something stupid.
They already use this tool.
Signing in to an account registered to another player (by email information) with a device that has a history of using an account registered to another player could support evidence of AW piloting. It may not be feasible, but from what someone who has been co-prinicipal and principal investigator for close to $5 million worth of National Science Foundation grants in information security told me, it is very easy for companies that offer services through internet access to monitor who specifically accesses their services and from what devices they use to do so. Back to the OP's topic, Kabam is already monitoring AW piloting:
Credit to Reddit for the above image
I don't think bans are necessary but inconveniencing the alliance in the game mode where the account sharing takes place should be enough of a deterrent
A guy pleading guilty often gets a reduced sentence compared to an offender who games the system to try and avoid punishment.
My understanding is that in the situation being discussed, there was an admission that they shared account details so someone could make Map 6 moves. That fits the colloquial definition of piloting for this game.
You don't need an NSF investigator to tell you that. iOS has function calls to identify app installations. VendorID, for example, is guaranteed to be the same for apps from the same vendor on the same device, and different in other situations. So if MCOC was programmed to fetch this ID, every time you logged into the game the game servers could record whether you were logging in from the same device or different devices. If I hand you my iPhone and you log me out and then log in as you, the game servers would be able to tell both logins took place on the same iPhone because of this ID.
But that's not enough to prove account sharing, because I can also do that if I have two accounts, and Kabam has explicitly stated that it is legal for one person to play two different accounts. You could prove that two logins were coming from one device, but not that both logins were from different people or the same person using this technique alone.
Traffic analysis. If I give you my account information and you log in once from your phone, and then never again, and I never give out my account information ever again, then in the general case it is highly unlikely Kabam or anyone else could ever prove that happened. One login all by itself does not contain enough information.
However, repeat offenders can get caught by doing things extremely unlikely or impossible for one person to do. For example, consider the case of an alliance of thirty people where the three officers have the login information for all the players and periodically log in as those players to pilot them when they are not available to play. Over time, that would generate a pattern of logins that can look suspicious if you look for it. Once you raise suspicions, you can start to look more closely at those thirty accounts looking for specific patterns of logins that are extremely unlikely to be the result of legal circumstances (one person, two accounts; two people sharing one physical device).
Alliance piloting, mercs being paid to do runs - these kinds of activities would generate login patterns that you could analyze looking for impossible or improbable sequences of events. If you find enough improbables or just one impossible, you've got them. And once you find one, that can often be the wedge to find many more. If you find a merc, for example, every account every logged in on that one device now becomes suspect. If you find a pilot, you start to look more carefully at all members of that one alliance.
Very rarely is there a single smoking gun when you do an investigation like this. You usually triangulate on it: every single event you see has a legal explanation and a non-legal one, but collectively you eventually rule out all possible legal ones and are left with only non-legal ones.
Deleted as when i read it back it came across in poor taste.
In before the close.