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
@Thoazol Hmmm, what if ******** is another account of ******** and he made this thread to hide connections between his third account which is ********...
edited by UM_AaaBattery Monday 22/04/2013, 10:15
Even if they had the same IP address, he could say it's him and his brother playing, you can't really disprove that... That wouldn't be illegal, right?
I think under the TOS, it would, but I could be wrong. It's hard to say. Either way, two people running the same deck, with one of them being a very low level, is ridiculously shady and deserves to be investigated.
It's usually high level players who want other elo players to underestimate them because of their low level. Which I assume is fine because UR doesn't do anything about them.
If you really want them to do something about it, instead of looking up every single account, why not just make it so that players under a certain level aren't eligible for cr prizes? Sucks for the legitimate players, but I think that'd be fair, and you'd never have to tell the legit players about their ineligibility
And that certain level, I'm thinking at least level 50. It's still relatively quick and easy to get to level 50, but the multiaccounts would have to put in more effort if they want to cheat their way to a cr
50 is way too high. The game should minimize grind aspects, because not everybody likes to grind. If there was a level cap, it should be just high enough that making an alternate account just for the sake of another CR shot would be more trouble than it's worth. Somebody who gets some cards from their friend and happens to be good at the game right off the bat shouldn't be heavily penalized.
Once you level grind to the eligible level, you don't have to level grind again. If it was lower, it wouldn't be too hard to grind up to it multiple times. Getting to 50 once is enough to make a multi user think it's not worth it to do it over and over, but they'll at least do it on one extra account and that's it.
Again, it sucks for the legitimate players, but this is just a lazy way of doing this.
The legitimate majority should never be penalized in order to prevent the actions of a small number of cheaters. There's a fine line between enforcing justice and tyranny.
i think there are more multi accounts then legal accounts in the section low level t100 players
ps i once saw an low level account with 'unowen' in it, not very clever lol
I think there aren't more multi accounts than legal accounts in the section low level t100 players. Unless you can show that there are your statement doesn't really mean much.
Is there any way to keep low-level accounts with traded decks from getting the CRs without increasing the staff's workload too much (like individually checking all players under an arbitrary level would)? Maybe prevent accounts under a certain level from buying cards of such-and-such worth for an extremely low price? I dunno.