As most of you know, it is not uncommon to see multi-accounts in ELO. you see these level 17s topping 1470 with cards like Kerozinn Cr, and nothing is ever done about it, at least before the tournament ends. Clearly, players with the time and skill level to use two or more accounts to top 100 will do so without discretion, and knock other players off the list too.
Take for example, this ********. His account was created on: April 18th! To think a player with no stars (therefore has never purchased credits) has a full ELO Uppers deck is unfathomable, especially since his battle points indicate he could not have made that much clintz. From this, we can safely hypothesize that it is a multi-account. No proof? Moderators can always trace the IP, my suspicion is UNOWEN, since they both run the same deck and apparently speak French, but a guess is a guess. (I beat this guy btw, before someone says I'm whining about a loss: 00:07 Elo you won by forfeit against mandanga55 (8-6): 1348 ELO)
UR really should put a more sophisticated system in place for smurfs. The current method of reporting is slow, and usually ineffective. It's easy enough to trace and find out by comparing IPs and trade history, as a few of the moderators I know have pointed out. Hopefully something gets done.
edited by UM_AaaBattery Monday 22/04/2013, 10:06
I the Multi-account accusation is true then obviously this guy has a alot of time in his hands. So i don't think a level 50 with multiple accounts would be diificult for him to achieve.
I agree with ghelas "The legitimate majority should never be penalized in order to prevent the actions of a small number of cheaters."
Lets be fair, this guy is definitely spending a lot of time, since he's topping elo with multiple accounts. So if this guy can manage 2 tops, then good for him.
As ghelas said, there's no real way to automatically check these things and create a burden and a hassle to other, legitimate players. BUT I do believe that with the number of moderators in UR it isn't too time-consuming to manually check fishy accounts. Simple IP check (definitely inconclusive, as mentioned. Some ISPs share IPs over different end-users), backed up with trade history should be enough to conclusively say that an account is a multi-account.
hashburki, whether the player deserves the 2 tops or not is out of the question. Obviously he/she has invested a lot of time, and should be rewarded, right? Wrong. It is against the terms of service (http://www.urban-rivals.com/player/cgv.php) to create more than one account per player. Having one player take up two spots is unfair, it's like winning the championship prize in a sports event while also winning a runner-up position.
"- to create more than one account per Member. In the event of violation of one or several of these rules, Boostr reserves the right to delete or block the account of the Member at fault and to prohibit access to all the services provided by Boostr These sanctions may lead to legal and/or criminal proceedings. "
We do take the time to look at bots if we think we found one though we can only do this if we come across one or ones pointed out. If you think you have found a bot please contact support or a mod.
Please DON'T send abusive pms or instant message on the chat or post their names on the forums or to anyone whos not a mod or admin. This is to stop players who are wrongly accused from being hounded by people.
I have checked the accounts mentioned and covered there names up in the chat to protect them.
p.s They wern't bots just low levels who had done well so please put your pitch forks away. This is why we don't allow you to post them on the public chat as it can give people the wrong idea so please if you think theirs a multi account contact support or a mod and not make the name public or start your own campaign to get them.
@maki_mUR: Its not against the rules for two people to use the same computer but have an account each. This is why we are careful when dealing with multi accounts. But they can't help each other to win by only playing themselves in ELO.
So they wouldn't get in trouble for multi accounts but if they help each other too much in ELO then they could get done for cheating.
edited by UM_AaaBattery Monday 22/04/2013, 10:22
No,their "friends" just happen to be consistent 1400 + players.
In their first weeks.
And these "friends" just happen to "know" the other "friends" of the "friends" and happen to know how to make guilds with said "friends".
Smh,you keep a close eye on those account mods,and you tell me if they have a bad elo week.
Besides,it's very rare that said "new player" just happens to have an over .500 win record,let alone in elo.It seems more like to me that some people are refusing to crack down because they dont wanna lose those hardcore players money.
A huge part of successful ELO play comes from experience. A player has to be able to recognize the cards, be able to understand the strategic options the opponent has available to him from looking at his hand, and so forth. A friend or a sibling can give you some great cards and some play tips, maybe even put together an awesome deck for you... But they can't convey that wealth of experience.
We can't discount the possibility that some of these low-level accounts are high-levels looking for a fresh starts, or savants with experienced friends. However, any low-level account that repeatedly succeeds in ELO, and has great cards, should be under close scrutiny. ESPECIALLY if it happens to use the same IP as a higher-level account.
Botting is not in question here. I have some vague understanding of how the client works, and in order to successfully bot to a high ELO rating, it would mean that you have found some way to match up against "dummy" accounts that you also run, that deliberately lose to you. This would be fairly difficult to achieve. What is in question is integrity.
It is not sportsmanlike to enter a competition several times, under different names, when the majority of competitors only have one entry. It does create an unfair advantage, and so compromises the game. IMO, it is definitely important to punish or at least severely discourage such actions.
What I'm trying to say is, that this investigation should be ongoing.