A healthy discussion on alternate accounts (alts)
Post: 63
Visitata da: 153 users
Hello all,
Through my conversations with the community of AtWar, I have noticed that many players have a cold fear of playing matches against "alts," or alternate accounts. The motivation for this fear likely has multiple bases, such as high ranked players disguising as new players or guests and the mystery behind alternate accounts in general. I hope to encourage players to think logically rather than emotionally when making decisions about matches with alts and start a healthy discussion about the topic. Feel free to read/post/be involved in this discussion and try to communicate your ideas clearly and briefly.
A moderator mentioned to me one time that using alts in a coalition war is "frowned upon." I want to discover the reasons underlying this perspective. First, below is a list of rules directed specifically toward alts.
Players that act in accordance with these rules should not be frowned upon. I have heard arguments to the contrary, which I hope is where most of the discussion will take place.
Argument: A coalition has the right to refuse to war against an alt.
Analysis: This is very true. Coalitions have the right to refuse a war for any reason, e.g. being outranked, outnumbered, mistreated, or even just not comfortable with the game settings.
Argument: An alt account is just as skilled as the main account.
Analysis: This is also true. However, skill and ability are two different qualities. A player has the same skill regardless of the account he is using. But a player's ability is determined both by his skill and his upgrades. Examples: If a fairly new player is given all the upgrades, he will still lose to an experienced player who has none. Conversely, when Logic exploited a loophole in the game mechanics, he was able to consistently win against more skilled players because his units were upgraded. Therefore we must conclude that ability is determined both by skill and upgrades. This leads to only one conclusion. An alt account is not the same caliber as a main account because it is lacking upgrades. When balancing teams for a coalition war, the two coalitions should negotiate based on both player skill and the upgrades available to that player (which can be inferred from rank).
Argument 3: Alts are not good for the AtWar community.
Analysis: This is not a fact, but rather an opinion. This stereotype probably stemmed from the misuses of alt accounts by players that were banned, restricted, having intent to farm SP, or otherwise causing mischief. Players have various reasons for creating alt accounts. Some want to play on the same level as those without premium upgrades to balance the game. Others may have a hard time finding high ranked matches, or just desire to play more casually. I personally have made alt accounts to explore other strategies/upgrades because I did not want to spend the SP on my main account. Someone who uses an alt does not necessarily intend to deceive others or conceal their true identity. Keep in mind that some alt accounts are owned by unskilled players. Usually only the alt accounts that are owned by skilled players are identified by the community.
Please feel free to post and support your opinions here on the subject.
Cheers!
Through my conversations with the community of AtWar, I have noticed that many players have a cold fear of playing matches against "alts," or alternate accounts. The motivation for this fear likely has multiple bases, such as high ranked players disguising as new players or guests and the mystery behind alternate accounts in general. I hope to encourage players to think logically rather than emotionally when making decisions about matches with alts and start a healthy discussion about the topic. Feel free to read/post/be involved in this discussion and try to communicate your ideas clearly and briefly.
A moderator mentioned to me one time that using alts in a coalition war is "frowned upon." I want to discover the reasons underlying this perspective. First, below is a list of rules directed specifically toward alts.
- Do not register an alternate account for the purpose of disobeying the rules to avoid punishment of your main account. Alternate accounts created for this purpose will receive permanent bans, and this may incur additional action regarding the member's main account.
- Do not register an alternate account to post when your main account is banned. These alternate accounts will be permanently suspended and may necessitate other moderation actions.
- "Farming" is not allowed in any way, fe: Joining a game with 2 accounts, playing with first and second coalitions, playing or creating a scenario for gaining SP only.
- Creating multiple accounts and joining more coalitions is allowed. Also playing coalition wars for several coalitions is allowed. But it is not allowed to participate in a coalition war, if you are also part of the other coalition at that time.
Players that act in accordance with these rules should not be frowned upon. I have heard arguments to the contrary, which I hope is where most of the discussion will take place.
Argument: A coalition has the right to refuse to war against an alt.
Analysis: This is very true. Coalitions have the right to refuse a war for any reason, e.g. being outranked, outnumbered, mistreated, or even just not comfortable with the game settings.
Argument: An alt account is just as skilled as the main account.
Analysis: This is also true. However, skill and ability are two different qualities. A player has the same skill regardless of the account he is using. But a player's ability is determined both by his skill and his upgrades. Examples: If a fairly new player is given all the upgrades, he will still lose to an experienced player who has none. Conversely, when Logic exploited a loophole in the game mechanics, he was able to consistently win against more skilled players because his units were upgraded. Therefore we must conclude that ability is determined both by skill and upgrades. This leads to only one conclusion. An alt account is not the same caliber as a main account because it is lacking upgrades. When balancing teams for a coalition war, the two coalitions should negotiate based on both player skill and the upgrades available to that player (which can be inferred from rank).
Argument 3: Alts are not good for the AtWar community.
Analysis: This is not a fact, but rather an opinion. This stereotype probably stemmed from the misuses of alt accounts by players that were banned, restricted, having intent to farm SP, or otherwise causing mischief. Players have various reasons for creating alt accounts. Some want to play on the same level as those without premium upgrades to balance the game. Others may have a hard time finding high ranked matches, or just desire to play more casually. I personally have made alt accounts to explore other strategies/upgrades because I did not want to spend the SP on my main account. Someone who uses an alt does not necessarily intend to deceive others or conceal their true identity. Keep in mind that some alt accounts are owned by unskilled players. Usually only the alt accounts that are owned by skilled players are identified by the community.
Please feel free to post and support your opinions here on the subject.
Cheers!
A little off topic but people said it would explode into millions overnight before and it didn't (re: desura, kongregate, reddit).
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
Yes, but none of those were spreading the game onto the mobile platform, where the entire world can have extreme ease-of-access to AtWar, no?
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
This still occurs, but now we have the availability of a maximum alliance option, which is very helpful. Unfortunately all games hosted by non-premium members cannot utilize this option. Why not move this option to the basic menu? After all, creating games where players are rewarded for how well they play and not by how many alliances they form is a basic need of this game.
Well spoken.
---- Åδîαßα┼îc [
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
Ah forgive me - I haven't been around in a long time, wasn't aware of the newish feature. I wouldn't say an alliance past the maximum is unheard of though, you'll find even in games with no alliance people are willing to secretly team up to destroy one prospective threat to both parties. As for the premium feature thing, It's not my place to say, the admins generously gave all beta players free premium.
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
The SP system is fine as it is. stop whinning and level up like me or any other high rank. It took me 1 year to become rank 10 and i stop playing after custom maps come out
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
if i wouldnt have quit playing a year ago i would probably be rank 9 right now.
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
Lol. It might be, but the upgrade system needs some love.
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
That's an imaginary world. We are not equal and never will be. I maintain what I said, the higher ranks worked more and deserves an advantage over the rank 2 player who logged in twice in his life. Altough making all upgrades available would also benefit me, I think players won't have the drive to rank up and gain SP anymore. So again, even though I would personally benefit more from all the upgrades being available, as selfish as I am, I still think it wouldn't be a good idea for the future of AW
---- The Most Feared Nazi Germany and SM Ukraine player in AW history. Retired    
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
this^
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
People playing custom maps is already a problen... Fake high ranks everywhere... Custom maps/scenarios should not give SP, then you are welcome to modify the upgrade system.
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
you mean UN games right lol
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
This is true. btw the SP thing I think is dwelling into offtopic but w/e As for alts, I think alts are fine. All of fruits points seem valid and pretty much cover why we shouldn't move against alts.
---- "Do not pray for an easy life, pray for the strength to endure a difficult one"
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
|
Guys, you seem to love denying there's anything wrong, or that things cannot be changed...are you afraid of trying new things, or are you really that daft? [b]YES, there IS a problem with the SP system/upgrades- I've been saying this for three fucking years now. We shouldn't depend on boosts to determine skill.[/b] (Better yet, why not have an formula like X = Y + Z, where Y = K/D of units, minus units/stats added from Upgrades, where Z = Cities Captured/Lost, minus units/stats added from upgrades, and where X = Skill, and then take the postulate of X, and divide by a ratio set for certain numbers to equate to an integer 1-10?) Or whatever, all I'm saying is that there are problems with the SP/Competition/Upgrades quarry of thought, and we obviously need to change or eradicate the Root of all Evil, and in my opinion, it's the purpose of SP. BUT, if we are to utilize Upgrades in this manner from now on, skill should be determined by utilization of upgrades- obviously, as it somewhat is already. All-in-all, I feel like Upgrades will not, and should not work anymore in a fair sense- We're slowly watching AtWar change into a more competitive game again (Maybe), but we need to make sure that the game can actually function as such, and not just be a massive cockblock of "lel nuub, I farmed UN 4 mai upgrades", or the more known "Screw off faggot, I played over 9001 3v3's against TopHats & co. for my beautiful rank 10 that encompasses my egotism, and the upgrades earned with it shall be utilized to destroy you in every way, shape, and forme, no matter the imbalance of fairness and falsified claims of fair competition".
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
Or maybe you stop suking and learn how to play.  the only people that want change are people with problems.In fact, they should add more upgrades
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
I can play, when you had no upgrades on, I was kicking your ass. You should stop hiding behind your veil of boosts.
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
you know alteration of fonts makes your posts horrible to read. but in reponse, i've said the same to you before, if you feel someone has an advantage over you, work to their rank. but just because you dont like the current system it does not mean it is flawed. it works for reasons already stated in this thread that im not repeating them. also not having upgrades and having to make do without them and then obtaining them helps increase the learning curve. if the upgrades and sp system are to be altered to provide more fairness a complete overhaul would be needed. what youre proposing would just force ppl out of atwar as theyd grow bored of the game. the only reason i worked to rank 8 was because i wanted certain upgrades. i wouldve grown bored and wandered off long ago if there was nothing to strive for. and if you believe upgrades are only what spearates you from a rank 10+ youre mistaken. i never ha any issue with a higher rank having more upgrades than me, i just tried to figure out how i could overcome them anyway
---- 
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
I never thought this day would come, but it did: I agree with everything you said. Ranks could stay the same, and SP could be used to buy cosmetic or optional things - like ability to play custom maps, team games, things like that. I do not like the way SP is used currently and if I had any say in it, I'd make all upgrades either completely available or following Arbitrator's idea of using a fixed amount of upgrades per game. I'm seeing a lot of "but I worked hard for my rank 10". Well, if you played the game JUST to get to rank 10, then I'm afraid you don't really enjoy the game anymore. The argument "but people will stop playing the game if they don't have anything else to go for...!" still holds some ground, but only some. There are a lot of ways to maintain interest in the game, I support improving team games and the competitive scene as a way to make people work towards something - in this case, the improvement of their skill ingame.
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
Well then, create a new account, join a standard 3v3 and let me know if you can overcome the lack of upgrades with skill.
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
well id have no problem with trying, maybe i could win who knows, but did i not just say the only reason i aimed for rank 8 was for certain upgrades? these upgrades complement the strats i like to use to allow me to challenge rank 9 pluses whove more upgrades than me. if i lose to them, you dont hear me whining.
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
There are other ways to keep long-term goals in the game. We don't have to rely on a feature that so drastically changes the gameplay.
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
|
They could even be kept there, but made significantly cheaper. Here's my suggestion: All strategies: 2000 SP. All unit unlocking upgrades (sentry, sub, marines, militia, stealth, helis): 500 SP. All general upgrades: starting at 50 sp, each one costs +50 SP. All unit improving upgrades: starting at 300, each one costs +300 for each unit. IE.: Lucky Main Defence costs 300, Faster Ground Defence costs 600, an so on. And, as a bonus and improvement to the learning curve and adding complexity to the game: You can only pick 6 unit improving upgrades to take into a match. Strategies, unit unlocking upgrades and general upgrades come already. Then more SP sinks: Name change; Enabling avatar; Enabling custom maps; so on and so forth.
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
Now we're on the same page of thought. If it holds any merit, I've stayed on this game for quite a long time, and have never surpassed rank 8...so why do people claim rank and SP/upgrades are the greatest incentives? My incentive have personally been...to just play. To participate in clans, garner new knowledge (*ahem, HeyI, Tik-Tok, Sificvoic, Pinheiro, Ivan*), and pretty much everything but SP. If you cherish your rank more than playing the game itself, then there lay the problem for you: You aren't enjoying the game. If the game were enjoyable to you...you wouldn't give a fuck about rank, other than e-pen0r purposes.
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
support to cheaper upgrades, but not to the selection of upgrades to take into a match, sure you only use a certain amount of upgrades in a game anyway, all this does is make everybody wait longer at gamestarts while ppl muddle over what strat and upgrades they want  also i dont know about the other features, theyre incentives to buy premium, and i kinda feel Ivan and amok deserve the money they get also @ gardevoir, i enjoy this game for many reasons, i never said i only played it for rank, but having something to strive for has certainly helped keep me interested this long.
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
if you make upgrades cheaper, you gotta remove sp from custom maps and make all strategies cost like 10k each. the only reason i keep playing is to get Hybrid Warfare....
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
oh here we go  if the only reason you play is to get hybrid warfare you might as well quit now, it sucks. and leave custom maps alone.
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
I have bad news for you, mate. I may have been against SP for Custom Maps, but disregard that. FULL SP FOR UN GAMES, OH YEAH.
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
It's no ones business why they keep playing. The purpose isnt to judge someone. Thats connecting it to the aspects of life and so on. If Tunder is here to get hybrid warfare, then let him keep playing for hybrid warfare. After all, anything that keeps a player playing is something to be taken into account. I think that we should sympathize more will higher ranks since it wont be fair for them. After all, they had worked hard for so long to get something that they will suddenly loose. Furthermore, it only takes a month or so of casual playing to get enough upgrades to stand up to a good player. Upgrades and everything are such a small factor in a fight. An extra country or another ally is so much more than a few upgrades.
---- не смотри где я - лучше смотри где ты
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
|
I'm really not too concerned with some of the topics that have divided this game in the past (i.e. turnblocking, alt accounts, rules). But I really think it's time we tackle something bigger. It's almost like an elephant in the room here. Should non-whites even be allowed to play at-war? I mean, this is a game that I want to invite my friends to play without setting them up for trouble/danger.
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
|
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
Well then.. 
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
