nc0gnet0

Multiple accounts accounts need to be eliminated.......

77 posts in this topic

6 hours ago, tater said:

You are against the concept as being "RTS" when applied to infantry, but not only are you NOT against it for units which are defined as having multiple crew, you'd even like it to be easier (I agree, there, actually).

A "First Person Shooter" in your mind requires what? That a % of people each have to serially play ONE human avatar, while other people somehow get to serially play 4 people at a time, and some people get to serially play up to 300 people at a time (lucky them!).

Either each player spawns ONE human, or they don't, which is it to be? I think we all agree that they don't have to spawn just one human---so why is giving infantry this capability---the one unit that should by far have the most unique "targets" on the ground at once---a problem, but it isn't a problem for a player to play 300 DD crew (with "AI" apparently doing all the stuff that is boring)?

Once AGAIN you are "putting words in my mouth" and none of it is correct. It's more than a bit out of line, neighbor.

I was very clear as to my meaning. I will be extremely specific. If it is not in the words that I write exactly... Then any suggestion that you might make as to what I believe would be an outright lie.

1. I believe that an FPS should be one person:one unit. Period. One soldier. One plane... Our game is unique in that an avatar does not get into a vehicle, which essentially makes the vehicle a unit. Unique, also, is that when this happens, while the player's unit is the vehicle, the vehicles are also designed to be multi crewed, causing the issues where one person can not effectively use a unit to it's full combat effectiveness solo. I said that it might be easier to use such units if this were not the case. I did not say that i believed that it needed to be changed, or that I was for or against such a change. I simply meant that I believed that controlling such units might be easier if they were designed to be operated by a single player. That does not change my opinion of FPS versus multi-unit RTS games.

2. I do NOT believe that some people should have only 1 avatar and others should have more than one. I believe that everyone should have one only.

3. I recognize that, based on economic needs of the game, that CRS allows multiple accounts. This doe not mean that I am in favor of the process. It means that i accept that this is a "necessary evil" that must exist for the game to continue operating.

6 hours ago, tater said:

How? I'm actually curious. Specifics so I know what to look for in my own play. That you kill someone, then seconds later the second account kills YOU? If another player was playing the second account (say the guy let his kid use it on another machine), could you tell the difference? (you could, it would likely be more, not less dangerous for you).

That's the test for any second account deaths, what about it is unique to one player serially playing both accounts. If you could not tell minus the names in the AAR, it's simply put not an issue.

I explained my experience in my earlier post. In my experience against players with two accounts, I lose every time, because they can be in two places at once. they can achieve multiple missions at once. (ex: fight and cap/ fight and guard FBs) while I can only achieve one. They can fight in town and cap my town while stopping me from busting an FB.

Your standards are different, and you are looking at different effects. My issue is what I believe is an uncounterable issue: a player with multiple accounts can be in two places at once and do two jobs at once, while a single account can only be in one place and do one thing at a time. This gives the multiple account holder an advantage.

And I want to be very clear here. There is a huge difference between owning multiple accounts that get played one at a time, and playing multiple accounts at the same time. If a player only uses one account at a time, it does not matter how many accounts they own. The effect on the game is not changed, because they are still only playing one person to one avatar in the game. Even if a family member is allowed to use a second account, this is the same, because it's still one player to one avatar in the game. Does the population change? Yes, but the problem caused by one player playing multiple avatars does not occur.

6 hours ago, tater said:

Glad to know you and you alone are the arbiter of what constitutes "real" ww2ol.

I've seen those arguments before. AI is not in WW2OL, and never should be---except at any given moment in game for as long as it's been around there are far more AIs than people. So WW2OL is no AIs, just PvP---except for 12+ per town, those don't count, for reasons.

WW2OL is also apparently ONLY ever one player, one person in game, always, anything else is a different game---except for all AAAs, ATGs, Armored Cars, armed trucks, tanks, bombers, and all water craft. Each of those is one player plays 2-300 humans at once (those also don't count---for reasons).

At what time did I say that I was anything? Again you are putting words in my mouth.

And what arguments did I make in that response? I never mentioned AI. I said that I was not interested in the gameplay that you suggest. I suggested that you discuss it in the suggestion forums. How does anything that you wrote here have anything to do with what I wrote?

I get that you want a game change. OK. But you're trying to argue with ME about it...when I don't want to argue about it in the first place.

Do me a favor, neighbor and find a different target.  I made a simple post about my experience against Multiple accounts, and noted that their effect can be very demoralizing to single account players, which is true. Anything else about game mechanics has nothing to do with what I was posting.

Have a nice day.
S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, delems said:

Just a couple thoughts:
1) With no multiple accounts, wouldn't there be a loss of revenue? (if you say not much, then there can't be many multiple accounts......... hence, not an issue anyways)

2) Sure, a player with multiple accounts is a bit more effective, but it also makes game play more fun.  I can sit in an AA gun, bored at a FB - but with my 2nd account run an MS to town, or run ammo to other players; now I'm engaged, and making more content for game; and yet can still have fun shooting AA when ea finally comes.

3) Finally, statistically I'm sure this is a wash; with lots of players playing, there are the same number of multiple account players on each side.... so no one side gets an advantage.

 

Last, think of this, it isn't pay to win, it's play to win.  Who has the advantage here....  1 player, 2 accounts, plays for 2 hours per day.   1 player, 1 account, plays 6 to 8 hours per day......

See, it isn't the pay, it's the play.

 

1. Multiple accounts are a financial necessity to the game. Their loss would be a loss of revenue and some players. (unfortunately)

2. It ONLY makes the game more fun for the player who has the multiple accounts. I can assure you that it does NOT make things more fun for the single account player who has to face them.

3. There is no way for you to say that there are exactly the same number of multiple account players on each side. Are there a bunch on each side? Yes.  Are there an exact number  on each side, and do they meet each other equally in game? Of course not. But I agree that overall,the number if multiple account players may be small enough that it doesn't have a major effect on the overall game.

As to the last part...  I agree that, generally speaking, a player who plays longer tends to have a bigger impact for that time period than someone who plays less... but the number of accounts a player plays has no direct correlation with how much they play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.