Mike have you been looking at the links?

I don't think so since you are starting about 2v2 and 3v3 while this is something that is happening on the 1v1 ladder.

Besides that i'm agreeing with what Rufus just said in regards to that part. I don't think we need more solo players but we need real teams on the ladders.

What I meant is with such feature implemented, alts as we know it would not exist any more. So the point would be no more alt on WL, no more hidden account (provided Fizzer can block them somehow ; like 1 account per IP unless ID documents are scanned to prove the 2nd one is someone else lol), no more 1v1 ladder issue. But still the possibility to play team games with team of alts.

Regarding solo players, well just see these "3v3 team games" as 1v1 games, played by players who play 3 players. These games would be a new kind and the template would specify if 3 players have to be played by the same person or not.
A team of 3 with 3 picks each is different than a team of 1 with 9 pick.

Anyway that's the idea, no point to discuss it further lol, as i'm sure it's far from Fizzer roadmap right now.

What I meant is with such feature implemented, alts as we know it would not exist any more. So the point would be no more alt on WL, no more hidden account (provided Fizzer can block them somehow ; like 1 account per IP unless ID documents are scanned to prove the 2nd one is someone else lol), no more 1v1 ladder issue. But still the possibility to play team games with team of alts.

I was playing at school with some classmates of me who basically only play at school together with me. Do you want to prevent us from playing all together as well with the thing you just mentioned.

For the last part of your message I just don't like it. Yes alts will be less of a problem but then players just only go and play solo more in a matter like I don't care about anyone else and I probably know everything better anyway.

A team of 3 with 3 picks each is different than a team of 1 with 9 pick.

How it would be different? Are you saying that a team played by only one player should actually be played as a one person only? Then it wouldn't be 3v3, but 1v3 with more picks on one side. If your idea is exactly like that then how about orders' cycle? How about 2 duplicates + 1 different player? You would mess up cycle mechanics and fair play by doing that.

this feature would be allowed to form a team full of yourself only

There is no way that any game creator would do that.

We have alt teams, so it's pretty much allowed already... We are in some weird limbo atm, that it's perfectly fine to play team games by yourself but you have to make another account for that, which is weird.

I don't really agree with Mike's suggestion but personally I'd like to see alts gone from all ladders, including team ones. But first we would need a change to boot settings. I played a bunch of Risk-like games other than Warlight and in none of them going beyond the timer resulted in an instant loss. Paired with WL's unforgiving rating system that's just bad design.

It hurts to see that we already have all necessary options coded in WL, but they just aren't used... Turning to AI in team games is all we need. That and attack-only/attack with % on 3v3. Beren, is there any chance to make Fizzer change these settings? It's just a template modification, no coding required.

Waka I know nothing about network but aren't schools with random IP like in cybercafe ? Otherwise well in that case this situation could trigger something that would require both players involved to provide Fizzer's team with relevant documents within 30 days and after that they can't use the account. That's just an idea, not necessarily ideal, but there's always a solution to a problem :-)).

For your solo thing, well keep in mind that's already the case in MD for whoever has the patience to create and log into several accounts. In RT it would require triple amount of boot times, so not everybody would enjoy such games for this reason.

Rufus well no we misunderstood each other, otherwise just add more picks to the template would suffice but that's not the point. Stick to my previous posts if they are clearer to you.
Here is one example among others of how different it is : a team of 3 players with 3 picks each and controlled by one player is not the same as 1 player with 9 picks because in case of 2 picks in 1 bonus, in first case he may not be able to take ftb, in 2nd case he can.

Here is one example among others of how different it is : a team of 3 players with 3 picks each and controlled by one player is not the same as 1 player with 9 picks because in case of 2 picks in 1 bonus, in first case he may not be able to take ftb, in 2nd case he can.

That's why I am asking which one you prefer: 1x9 or 3x3?

In case of 1x9 a player would have disadvantage in the cycle (especially in the picking process), because it would be (A1 B1 B2 B3) or (B1 A1 B2 B3), so by saying he would have more chance to take ftb is not exactly correct.

If you talking about 3x3 then it's ok from fair play perspective and nothing really changes, besides the fact that one side would play "local deployment" type of game.

Edited 9/22/2017 13:38:06

doing things like that means Fizzer would have to manage accounts instead of working on the game all the time I feel like

No things can be automated, Fizzer is good at programming, and he can dedicate a team like he already does for forum moderation.

@Rufus well the point is to replicate what is currently done in 3v3 ladder by some players, but instead of using 3 profiles and email adresses, they would just use 1 profile and while in the game, a little button would let them take control of each "player" in their team. I've never talked about 1 team of 1 player with 9 picks other than to express that this can not replace the feature i'm suggesting. So not sure why you talk about it, this is just non sense to think about a game of 3 players with 3 picks each vs 1 player with 9 picks. Totally out of subject.

However, I'm wondering if there is a big difference between a 3v3 game between 2 players controlling 3 players each who all have 3 starts, and a 1v1 game between 2 players starting with 9 spots each ? If there's no difference then alts could be banned, my suggestion not created, and new 1v1 ladder added with 9 picks (in this example).

have you never played a team game?

Mike:

A team of 3 with 3 picks each is different than a team of 1 with 9 pick.

You mentioned 1x9 first, but whatever, I guess it was just for a comparison.

Edited 9/22/2017 16:21:32

When we see stalling, we know it. We don't need a mathematical definition for it.
And if we're worried about false positives, let's have a second or a third pair of eyes check the game. It should be enough.

I agree with this. I think perhaps one way to implement this rule is to have other players report them (perhaps under report, add stalling as a reason). When a player receives excess reports (for stalling), then have some mods check the the player and the games in which they were reported in. If they are indeed stalling (decision made by mods), then they should get punished accordingly. This sort of system is present in many games, like league of legends.

^ this is exactly how it was intended to be. Mods shouldn't check games on their own and punish whoever they think misbehaves. They only react on reports from what i've understood.

I also thought this was true:

"games ongoing on 2 different accounts at the same time is something that is already against the rules i think, at least being ranked at the same time is and it seems like he might be switching it from time to time "

Isn't it already against the rules to have ongoing games on a ladder with two different accounts (regardless of whether you are joined or not)? What difference does being joined with two make (assuming 1 is not actively getting new games)? All that impacts is getting points for your rankings. The issue is being able to affect the ratings of one account with the other, and that comes from active games, not from whether you are actually joined or not.

There's a bit of a misunderstanding regarding Octane.

he has either played with both as the same time or been joining the ladder to get games, then leaving it to join with the other account to get games.

This is false (albeit the result looks similar). Octane has gotten into the habit of ladder running, yes, but not simultaneously. He simply was ready to end one run and switch to the other. He did not realize that he could not start (or in this case continue) the other run without the last games of his previous run being completed. He did not think that since he would not pair with himself that it was not multiaccounting and could thus continue his other run. This is something I have seen several players do, so the misconception is there and it can cause misconceptions to other players. Admittedly I have done this myself once, but knowing that it is still considered multiaccounting I would never do it again. Of course with the alt rules about to be put in place on the ladder this problem will be short lived. Octane has agreed to surrender the games on one of his accounts, and to no longer do this.

That being said this brings me to and old point.

On the Real-time Ladder...

I have seen people have an account ranked and play with another new account, under the guise that technically neither account is ranked at the same time. This should be banned too imo

Lynx
https://www.warlight.net/Profile?p=3062174051
https://www.warlight.net/LadderGames?ID=0&LadderTeamID=14509

Sninja
https://www.warlight.net/Profile?p=5371985376
https://www.warlight.net/LadderGames?ID=0&LadderTeamID=17331

101
https://www.warlight.net/Profile?p=7584127830
https://www.warlight.net/LadderGames?ID=0&LadderTeamID=18387




Edited 9/26/2017 22:08:51

Edited 9/27/2017 12:43:45

No. Not in this thread. Take your shitposting elsewhere. Start a new thread if it works you up so much, although Cowboy explained everything already.

1.) A player can't start playing on the 1v1 ladder with an account if they have another account with unexpired games. Games expire after 5 months. Violations will be punished with a warning and then bans.

4.) A player may only play on a team ladder if there is no team consisting of the same players (not accounts) with unexpired games. They may join the ladder on a new team if at least one of their teammates is a new different player or if one or more of the players on the old team is not on the new team. Violations will be punished with a warning and then bans.

There will be a grace period of 5 months before Rules 1 and 4 are enforced in order to allow all games that are unexpired at the time of the rule announcement to expire.


I don't see any point for Octane surrendering 1v1 games, since the rule still isn't enforced as of now and I don't know he is the one who is being singled out here. I can give few more players who can make a small list and the 3v3 ladder thing isn't shit posting :P

Since the rules aren't announced officially, afaik, what Octane (and others including me) did is allowed (somewhat) as of now, till 5 months from the point of rule announcement. And if someone is giving alts on ladders with unexpired games or currently playing do it for all players and don't single out one player.

@Kid, please see my response on the first page. The rules regarding multi-accounting are in place and enforced. That grace period is not a thing. Based on what is posted here, yes Octane did break the rules. So did you, if you had multiple ranked accounts/teams on one ladder at the some point.