Multiple Accounts

[JoJo 73]

After being wrongly accused of having a multi account I had a wee think about things and came up with two points.

1. Multi accounts should not matter in doubles or triples as there is NO differencr between someone having a multi account and having a pal at work next to a computer. Multi should only be brought up in Singles games.

2. Accusations should be PM'ed only and the names brought up if they are busted. Names appearing on the Forum who have done nothing wrong is not a great thing IMO.

[pancakemix]

After being wrongly accused of having a multi account I had a wee think about things and came up with two points.

1. Multi accounts should not matter in doubles or triples as there is NO differencr between someone having a multi account and having a pal at work next to a computer. Multi should only be brought up in Singles games.

They check more than IP addresses. And why shouldn't multis matter in a team game? Multis are multis. If you wan to appeal a multi charge, you can go to the Contact Form and get it straightened out.

2. Accusations should be PM'ed only and the names brought up if they are busted. Names appearing on the Forum who have done nothing wrong is not a great thing IMO.

This system is somewhat faulty. It's better to have people come in and give outside opinions about things. And the regular check system pretty much takes down all unreported multis.

[JoJo 73]

The charge was cleared.

I was more thinking that in a doubles or triples game what is the difference between 3 work colleagues sitting in a place of work playing as a team and a guy with multi accounts?

Nothing really, you can just sit there and discuss exactly what each of you is going to do and log on at the same time.

The REAL problem with multi's is in singles matches and I can understand going for people in this case.

Unless someone can convince me otherwise?

[pancakemix]

You mean you don't WANT to use strategy with your teammates?

[JoJo 73]

Not at all.

I am asking how is it different in anyway?

I am saying that multi accounts mean nothing in team games as there is no difference between this and working as a team in a place of work or Uni.

I am totally against multi accounts, no questions there as it is cheating, but it only makes a difference in singles games.

[pancakemix]

The difference is one is three honest people and the other is a jerk.

[SirSebstar]

Part of playing teamgames is the communication between partners. unless one spells out everything (and even then) people will always follow trats differently, thats part of the fun.

there is no communication if you are your own partner. (however, it appears to be okay to take over your friends hotseat should he go on holiday, that imho is neither fair not needed)

[JoJo 73]

The difference is one is three honest people and the other is a jerk.

I agree.

But where is the difference in gameplay? That is really the point I am making.

[pancakemix]

The difference is one is three honest people and the other is a jerk.

I agree.

But where is the difference in gameplay? That is really the point I am making.

That doesn't matter, it's still against the rules.

[JoJo 73]

So you agree then that there is no difference?

If you do then people should really only be called up for multis in singles play?

[pancakemix]

I didn't say that. I said it doesn't matter.

[The Fall Guy]

Don't be stupid, JoJo. You know it's wrong so don't try and water it down. Stategy is the key difference.

[JoeCorden]

The difference is one is three honest people and the other is a jerk.

I agree.

But where is the difference in gameplay? That is really the point I am making.

The danger/fun of team games would be getting someone uncommunicative or who had a different strategy to you, multi's make team games biased in favour of the multi.

[jm_jazzman]

You guys have only brought up the issue of multis creating an unfair advantage over other players in a game. Even if somebody who has multis doesn't use them to crush legit players in singles, they're still getting away with playing more than 4 games without paying to support the site (I'm assuming that not too many people would buy premium for multis). It makes it unfair for those who spent their money on premium.

[JoJo 73]

I don't think anyone here is getting my point?

I think that multiple accounts are wrong and it is cheating. I do not think that anyone should be allowed them.

What I am saying is though, that in a team game there is no difference from a tactical point of view between me playing with 3 accounts and me playing in the same office with 2 other guys sitting at PC's next to me.

Tactically you could do exactly the same thing and you could also log on and play all at exactly the same time.

So, to be flagged for multiple accounts in a double or triples match is redundant?

This is more a point of view, rather than a rant here.

[The Fall Guy]

I think you need to read the 3 or 4 previous posts, JoJo. There is a difference. You just don't want to acknowledge it.

[JoJo 73]

Sorry Fall Guy, I thought I had read the posts.

I am not here to ignore other peoples comments. I'm not some kid trying to be an erse. Honest.

I didn't see anywhere mentioned where there is a tactical advantage in a doubles or triples game?

I understand completely that multi's can get extra games and not have to pay Premium.

The question is: Is there an advantage tactically to having multi accounts in a team game over three people sitting next to each other in an office and playing as a team with different accounts?

Yes or no? If yes, can you tell me why?

[raith]

Part of playing teamgames is the communication between partners. unless one spells out everything (and even then) people will always follow trats differently, thats part of the fun.

there is no communication if you are your own partner. (however, it appears to be okay to take over your friends hotseat should he go on holiday, that imho is neither fair not needed)

I think SirSebstar was trying to show the tactical advantage of having a multi on the same team in a team game.

If it is just one person they have total control and dont have to worry about disagreements, schedule conflicts, having a less dedicated/experienced teamate, and so on. He doesn have to worry about all the things that make team games dynamic and interesting (sometimes frustrating) and that gives him a tactical advantage over a team of individuals.

[JoJo 73]

Two things.

First off. Are you a Raith Rovers fan? If so, hi, me too.

Second. I read that bit, but it didn't really convince me. If three guys play as a team then there is a chance of an arguement or a disagreement, but mainly if it is three good pals, you'll end up doing the same thing. If not, then the chances are you wont remain a team for much longer.

Still not totally convinced.

[SirSebstar]

multi in team game; unless your having a multiple personality problem, you know what to do and when to do it, your armies move as one.
Thats a large strategic advantage over having to a need to communicate battleplans.

So unless you are very, very good as a team, there certainly is a difference. The only reason a multi would do well is because he is a multi, not because he is good pals and gets the strategy across.

And then you have to recognize that most teamplayers dont really know what they are doing, making the advantage of the multi even bigger.

Its like sports, sure you can use enhancment drugs to boost your body. its still your bady that need to do the work.. thats not a valid argument there either. The advantage is an unfair advantage if you cheat to get it

[gingis khan]

Sorry Fall Guy, I thought I had read the posts.

I am not here to ignore other peoples comments. I'm not some kid trying to be an erse. Honest.

I didn't see anywhere mentioned where there is a tactical advantage in a doubles or triples game?

I understand completely that multi's can get extra games and not have to pay Premium.

The question is: Is there an advantage tactically to having multi accounts in a team game over three people sitting next to each other in an office and playing as a team with different accounts?

Yes or no? If yes, can you tell me why?

your point has been made. look at it like this : one man has 3 acc. the synergy of ONE IDEA striking 3 times after one's goal is team play X 5 in real life effects...(game play effects). your colegues may not always follow your leedership , and WILL play on their own ,when they disagree with the leader (team captain). i never gave it so much tought, but reading other people arguments on this issue , i have a "guilt trip" now for not reporting multis in the past.

[JoJo 73]

If there are three pals working together and they all agree on the tactic then it is going to be the same as a multi.

If there is disagreement in the team, then I agree it is not the same, but if there is total agreement then to me it is the same as holding a multi.

I would always report a multi if I knew that it was happening, but to me in a team game it makes no difference.

Anyway, I feel as if I have tried to make my point.

Thanks for the discussion.

[raith]

If there are three pals working together and they all agree on the tactic then it is going to be the same as a multi.

If there is disagreement in the team, then I agree it is not the same, but if there is total agreement then to me it is the same as holding a multi.

I would always report a multi if I knew that it was happening, but to me in a team game it makes no difference.

Anyway, I feel as if I have tried to make my point.

Thanks for the discussion.

Sure IF they were in Total agreement on a course of action and followed it completely then it would be the same. How often are three people in total agreement and do everything in agreement. very rare if ever.
So if you had two teams of multis in a game against each other then it would be the same as a multi and an abnormally cooperative team of individuals and the same as two teams of abnormally cooperative individuals, but since most teams are not comprised of abnormally cooperative (of one mind) individuals the advantage in most cases would fall to the multi.

[SirSebstar]

If there are three pals working together and they all agree on the tactic then it is going to be the same as a multi.

.....

no.

In fact a 3 player(all experienced) team without any disagreement and able to follow out a plan with input of those 3 players will beat a cheater every single time.
why? Because 3 experianced players will together kick any half arse multi needing player any day of the week. any real good player wont stoop to cheating because the downside is too high... so only weeklings resort to that kind of tactic. and e.g. freestyle games are much better with 3 different players provided they are coordinated then the multi.

anyways, fruit of the poison tree, as in cheaters always stink, no matter who/why/ with what/ they cheated