Two accounts working closely: Is it cheating?

[tater]

1 minute ago, hillstorm said:

I understand what you're getting at. However, these weren't two avatars who were running in together as a (very small) platoon of sorts. One was already out of the FMS and positioned so as to overlook the FMS from a short distance, under cover. That's avatar B. Avatar A spawned and I killed him. I figured he might respawn and come after me, so I started moving so I'd be in the other direction, sure enough he ran out to where he thought I was and I shot him again. Then as I start to move again, I'm shot by avatar B. From cover, at a vantage point. 

Could two players have done this just as easily? Probably, but I'd respect that because they are two players. I mean, why don't I just get two weapons, one for each arm? But it's okay, obviously this isn't a huge issue with others here. I'm getting over it. 

I honestly think the game would be better if those of us who play inf could hotkey switch between multiple avatars all the time like that. Maybe more than 2. 4? LMG, loader (rifle), 2 ammo bearers (rifles).

I see it as identical to tankers (or ships) switching between crew.

[hillstorm]

Just now, tater said:

I honestly think the game would be better if those of us who play inf could hotkey switch between multiple avatars all the time like that. Maybe more than 2. 4? LMG, loader (rifle), 2 ammo bearers (rifles).

I see it as identical to tankers (or ships) switching between crew.

Okay. I get it, but in this situation, here is the biggest difference - when I killed him, I was counting on that time while he's respawning and doesn't know where I'm moving so I can get in a different position. With his second account, he can just roll his chair over to the other computer, aim at me (he knows where I am now) and fire. Mulitcrew a boat or plane doesn't really work that way.

Again, I'm trying to wrap my head around it, but it feels unfair. 

[hillstorm]

To be clear, I'm not against second accounts - I have one! I use it for flying, while my main account is on for when I want to play army or navy. It just seemed egregious to be using them together so closely. But I'm hearing that others don't agree. 

Edited January 18, 2021 by hillstorm

[jwilly]

1 minute ago, hillstorm said:

when I killed him, I was counting on that time while he's respawning and doesn't know where I'm moving so I can get in a different position.

That would make sense if this were a 1 v 1 game. But, it's not...it's a small unit tactics game, where there can be N enemy infantry with vision on your location.

It happened that the two infantry you interacted with were the same human player. I don't see how that's at all relevant, though. Your death could have happened identically via some other enemy infantry.

I'm with Tater on this...what occurred seems realistic. The problem was your expectation that you were facing only one enemy infantry, plus your reliance on the gameplay-artifact of respawn time.

[hillstorm]

7 minutes ago, jwilly said:

That would make sense if this were a 1 v 1 game. But, it's not...it's a small unit tactics game, where there can be N enemy infantry with vision on your location.

It happened that the two infantry you interacted with were the same human player. I don't see how that's at all relevant, though. Your death could have happened identically via some other enemy infantry.

I'm with Tater on this...what occurred seems realistic. The problem was your expectation that you were facing only one enemy infantry, plus your reliance on the gameplay-artifact of respawn time.

Look, and I'm not trying to be excessively onerous about this, but when we have arguments about whether certain tanks historically had radios, and thus could/could not communicate with each other, then where does that line start or stop with two infantry sharing a brain? Are we accepting telepathy as a thing because there is no way around it?

But your larger point is right. I should have thought more about another EI being out there, and it's not like I'm invisible. I'm coming around somewhat on this, but I still don't like it. And I can't see myself doing it, even though that's to my own disadvantage. 

DISCLAIMER: That's not a guarantee I won't end up trying it at some point  But seriously, it's pretty "ick" in my book right now. 

Edited January 18, 2021 by hillstorm

[hillstorm]

12 hours ago, Dre21 said:

Hill,  I'm with B2K on that one ,I play a 2 PC set up , 2 monitor next to each other ,I have used it exactly as you described actually even spotted for my Panzer where I had really no view on an AB cause my gunner view was  covered but had my 2nd account set up that I could see , I would look where my rounds landed  . It worked and I scored kills . 

The set up can get confusing too if you don't pay attention especially when u only have audio on one PC but you operate the other or you want to respawn the 2nd account after you set up a FMS and spawnout the main account which was the 88 you just towed into position.

I gotcha Dre. I’m getting over it.  I honestly thought this wouldn’t be acceptable in such a fashion (as the scenario I described) but I’m reading the responses and trying to have an open mind about it. FTR I've never felt you used your alt in a "wrong" way, but I guess some could argue the two situations are similar, and why should I think one is okay and another isn't. 
 

I'll also admit that it helps populate the game if more alts are running around (at the same time as their primary personas). I still think there’s a fairness issue (I mean what about people with only one computer? Is their game experience worth less because they don’t have a “spotter?”) ... but I digress, don’t want to get all negative about it again. Moving on, I think. Lol. 

Edited January 18, 2021 by hillstorm

[tater]

26 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

I'll also admit that it helps populate the game if more alts are running around (at the same time as their primary personas). I still think there’s a fairness issue (I mean what about people with only one computer? Is their game experience worth less because they don’t have a “spotter?”) ... but I digress, don’t want to get all negative about it again. Moving on, I think. Lol. 

This part... like I said, I think we should all have "crewed" inf spawns. 1, 2, 3 and 4 keys switch guy. Maybe they have to stay within some distance of each other.

Run guy forward, prone. Hit 2 key, move guy to flank a little. Hit 3, move him to another spot. Hit 4, yet another spot, observer, maybe I move 4 forward, then leapfrog again. get closer, and maybe I take one guy on a flank, and chuck some smokes, then advance the guy on the opposite flank, hoping the smoke was a diversion.

Tanks get 3-5 lives per spawn. Boats get... 8? More?

Poor ole inf gets 1.

On top of that, 4 spawns per inf would instantly increase the number of visible inf in game by 4X. Instead of ninjas, every advance would be small groups that telegraph enemy intent (creating more fights, less ninja).

Think how cool it would be if you had a team camping that FMS of a LMG with rifle support (3X ammo resupply). Say your first shot happened to be with a rifle you had switched to to move ammo to the LMG. The second ei attacks the rifle, you MG him with the MG from your team of 4.

[hillstorm]

12 minutes ago, tater said:

This part... like I said, I think we should all have "crewed" inf spawns. 1, 2, 3 and 4 keys switch guy. Maybe they have to stay within some distance of each other.

Run guy forward, prone. Hit 2 key, move guy to flank a little. Hit 3, move him to another spot. Hit 4, yet another spot, observer, maybe I move 4 forward, then leapfrog again. get closer, and maybe I take one guy on a flank, and chuck some smokes, then advance the guy on the opposite flank, hoping the smoke was a diversion.

Tanks get 3-5 lives per spawn. Boats get... 8? More?

Poor ole inf gets 1.

On top of that, 4 spawns per inf would instantly increase the number of visible inf in game by 4X. Instead of ninjas, every advance would be small groups that telegraph enemy intent (creating more fights, less ninja).

Think how cool it would be if you had a team camping that FMS of a LMG with rifle support (3X ammo resupply). Say your first shot happened to be with a rifle you had switched to to move ammo to the LMG. The second ei attacks the rifle, you MG him with the MG from your team of 4.

The hotkey switching is interesting ... Okay I can see some potential there. You could also run a tank platoon (for example), rather than one tank, though need to be careful not to unfairly drain supply. 

[Dre21]

To be all honest running a 2 Pc set up is not the easiest .

The best part about it is, you can go sap FBs,  have a impact on map and you don't pull other players from other tasks.

It comes in handy to tow ATG cause you can exactly go where you want to.

It comes in handy to have 2 guys even if it's the same person playing in a bunker. 

But as I said before not always easy to run 2 at the same time especially INF, 2nd account dies alot cause I play with no sound unless I switch headphones back and forth which can become a cable mess between 2 headphones and 2 joysticks.

It does have its advantages and disadvantages.  

 

Edited January 18, 2021 by Dre21

[tater]

28 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

The hotkey switching is interesting ... Okay I can see some potential there. You could also run a tank platoon (for example), rather than one tank, though need to be careful not to unfairly drain supply. 

Tankers already get multiple lives, so I'd not go there, and crew vehicles are already less capable than they should be for lack of crew (you can only shoot from 1 position at a time). Ditto aircraft with gunners (100% of which should be in use if needed, all the time, and are not).

I was specifically talking about infantry. Inf should be the vast majority of units on the battlefield all the time. How many per tank? 1000? More?

I'd perhaps add ATGs/AAA. Imagine if each ATG also had even a single rifleman that co-spawned. ATGs would still prowl around like bizarre silent TDs (vs being emplaced), but they'd have a defensive rifle, and they'd take 2X as long to move. Move ATG. Switch, move inf. Repeat. if they had inf such that the ATG crew size was about right (or at least closer), then they'd be less sneaky, too, since every time an inf sprints forward there's a chance he's spotted.

[vicfranko]

I used to do this all the time when I used the 88 or a bofors near town. 

 

Tow myself in, set a FMS, despawn truck and respawn an LMG and guard my guns lol

[hillstorm]

41 minutes ago, Dre21 said:

To be all honest running a 2 Pc set up is not the easiest .

The best part about it is, you can go sap FBs,  have a impact on map and you don't pull other players from other tasks.

It comes in handy to tow ATG cause you can exactly go where you want to.

It comes in handy to have 2 guys even if it's the same person playing in a bunker. 

But as I said before not always easy to run 2 at the same time especially INF, 2nd account dies alot cause I play with no sound unless I switch headphones back and forth which can become a cable mess between 2 headphones and 2 joysticks.

It does have its advantages and disadvantages.  

 

That is true. I have two laptops, and two accounts, but I haven’t really tried to play both at the same time because I know it would get a bit crazy. I guess that’s a skill unto itself. I might wade into those waters a bit more to try to get more familiar with it. I’ve also never had a problem with someone transporting their other account by truck to an FB, I’ve thought of that as a “tow,” though maybe that’s some inconsistent thinking on my part to be okay with that but not other scenarios. 

 

38 minutes ago, tater said:

Tankers already get multiple lives, so I'd not go there, and crew vehicles are already less capable than they should be for lack of crew (you can only shoot from 1 position at a time). Ditto aircraft with gunners (100% of which should be in use if needed, all the time, and are not).

I was specifically talking about infantry. Inf should be the vast majority of units on the battlefield all the time. How many per tank? 1000? More?

I'd perhaps add ATGs/AAA. Imagine if each ATG also had even a single rifleman that co-spawned. ATGs would still prowl around like bizarre silent TDs (vs being emplaced), but they'd have a defensive rifle, and they'd take 2X as long to move. Move ATG. Switch, move inf. Repeat. if they had inf such that the ATG crew size was about right (or at least closer), then they'd be less sneaky, too, since every time an inf sprints forward there's a chance he's spotted.

Okay yeah, that makes more sense. And that would take some real skill in itself to get used to “managing” a group moving and functioning as one unit. It would be easy to get wiped out quick if you weren’t on the ball with how you were using them. 
 

I can see some benefits. I think you guys have sold me on the concept here. 

Edited January 18, 2021 by hillstorm

[hillstorm]

On 1/20/2021 at 7:41 PM, goreblimey said:

Im gonna come down in favour of axis on this one.

Armour audit HAS improved the front mantlet area.

Previously I could pen/spall from 150 with a pak 36 , quick testing cant do it anymore. 

That's @goreblimeyfrom another thread. Now I just think you're messing with me. 

 

j/k. I went a bit off the rails in this thread. My apologies. I don't want hard feelings with players on either side, even those who kill me with regularity. 

Taking a few days off from the game has done wonders. (At least I hope it has. we'll see.) 

 

Edited January 22, 2021 by hillstorm

[goreblimey]

Happens to us all at some time lol.

[hillstorm]

6 hours ago, goreblimey said:

Happens to us all at some time lol.

I appreciate that reply. This camp been a MF but can't win 'em all, lol.

[delems]

*** This camp been a MF but can't win 'em all, lol.

Ya, I suppose, but one likes to have at least a chance.... game is so broke, unbelievable almost.

IIIF 2 kills, 216 deaths.

IVD 9 kills and 159 deaths.

IIIB 10 kills and 113 deaths.

IIIH 1 kill and 40 deaths........

38t 0 kills and 47 deaths......

lol, 22 kills vrs 575 deaths....  so,  a 0.04 KD............ for all axis panzers  

Complete farce, can only laugh at this tragedy.

There are allies with over 1000 mattie kills.... singlehandedly.

[hillstorm]

11 minutes ago, delems said:

*** This camp been a MF but can't win 'em all, lol.

Ya, I suppose, but one likes to have at least a chance.... game is so broke, unbelievable almost.

IIIF 2 kills, 216 deaths.

IVD 9 kills and 159 deaths.

IIIB 10 kills and 113 deaths.

IIIH 1 kill and 40 deaths........

38t 0 kills and 47 deaths......

lol, 22 kills vrs 575 deaths....  so,  a 0.04 KD............ for all axis panzers  

Complete farce, can only laugh at this tragedy.

There are allies with over 1000 mattie kills.... singlehandedly.

I know, I’m really being hopeful that something gets fixed. Seems the easiest way to adjust things would be dealing with the town control issue, as you’ve said. I mean if nothing changes, well ... I don’t know. 

[fidd]

I've figured out at least one way it's possible to stop Matilda-led attacks - or indeed those of any relatively slow heavy tank - more or less completely. You merely have to think through all the reasons your defences are not currently working, and devise alternative methods. The stats only hold true for your current tactical methods. Come up with different methods, and the stats themselves will change. Part of the problem is that by thinking in terms of 'stats', which by implication are 1 v 1 affairs, you're not attempting tactics where 2-3 players are cooperating to take out (in this case) the Matildas progressively, ie tracking, isolating, sapping for example. (that is not the sequence in my own plan)

Forget the stats, they're leading you into un-necessarily constrained thinking.

[foe2]

5 minutes ago, fidd said:

I've figured out at least one way it's possible to stop Matilda-led attacks - or indeed those of any relatively slow heavy tank - more or less completely. You merely have to think through all the reasons your defences are not currently working, and devise alternative methods. The stats only hold true for your current tactical methods. Come up with different methods, and the stats themselves will change. Part of the problem is that by thinking in terms of 'stats', which by implication are 1 v 1 affairs, you're not attempting tactics where 2-3 players are cooperating to take out (in this case) the Matildas progressively, ie tracking, isolating, sapping for example. (that is not the sequence in my own plan)

Forget the stats, they're leading you into un-necessarily constrained thinking.

plus the stats are so broken right now that you can't make a decent argument off them. 

[fidd]

Just now, foe2 said:

plus the stats are so broken right now that you can't make a decent argument off them. 

I don't bother with them as a rule, so couldn't comment either way. I take the axis hand-wringing over the Matilda to be genuine, even if the stats are 'off'. The problem really is that they've not evolved yet in their tactics to meet the new reality of the Matilda. They will, in time, just as the allies did after the Tiger ran riot for a couple of campaigns after being introduced. (perception of invulnerability=more numbers=magnified effect=greater perception of invulnerability etc etc) Once they break a link in that self-reinforcing chain by devising a means of stopping them, they, and the stats (if correct), will return to normal.

[foe2]

1 minute ago, fidd said:

I don't bother with them as a rule, so couldn't comment either way. I take the axis hand-wringing over the Matilda to be genuine, even if the stats are 'off'. The problem really is that they've not evolved yet in their tactics to meet the new reality of the Matilda. They will, in time, just as the allies did after the Tiger ran riot for a couple of campaigns after being introduced. (perception of invulnerability=more numbers=magnified effect=greater perception of invulnerability etc etc) Once they break a link in that self-reinforcing chain by devising a means of stopping them, they, and the stats (if correct), will return to normal.

True I'm not denying that the matty poses serious issues to axis. However right now the for kills the stats pages appears to record  the player, the unit and the entire tank crew as separate kills so it, so it appears to have far more kills that it has actually achieved on the battlefield. 

[fidd]

45 minutes ago, foe2 said:

True I'm not denying that the matty poses serious issues to axis. However right now the for kills the stats pages appears to record  the player, the unit and the entire tank crew as separate kills so it, so it appears to have far more kills that it has actually achieved on the battlefield. 

So if that's the case, one would see a 1 : [(crew-number) x number killed] ratio reciprocity for any pair of opposing tanks.

So, of a Sherman with 5 crew (?) kills a 3h with 4 crew (?) at a real value of 2:1 KD ration, and vice versa at 1:2  KD ratio one would see:

Sherman v 3h = [2 kills x4crew] = 8:1 KD ratio

3h v Sherman =[0.5kills  x 5crew = 2.5:1 KD ratio

Is that how you see the error occuring?

If so, knowing the crew-numbers, it should be possible to look at reciprocal KD ratios, and knowing the crew-numbers involved, correct the KD ratios to remove the variable of the crew-numbers. It also suggests that the greater the difference in crew complements, the greater the error in the stats?

[goreblimey]

I dont think the vehicle vs vehicle stats are out. (no way to prove/disprove)

Just the reported number of kills on a sortie, which is inflated due to the ghost killing of hurricanes @ 1 per vehicle kill.

Check a mission the sortie will say 10 kills , but if you check the mission details there would only be 5 vehicle kills shown.

[Dre21]

2 hours ago, fidd said:

I don't bother with them as a rule, so couldn't comment either way. I take the axis hand-wringing over the Matilda to be genuine, even if the stats are 'off'. The problem really is that they've not evolved yet in their tactics to meet the new reality of the Matilda. They will, in time, just as the allies did after the Tiger ran riot for a couple of campaigns after being introduced. (perception of invulnerability=more numbers=magnified effect=greater perception of invulnerability etc etc) Once they break a link in that self-reinforcing chain by devising a means of stopping them, they, and the stats (if correct), will return to normal.

May one ask when you logged in last as an Axis?

Also the issue is that every front town is Brit. With that sometimes one Axis garrison faces multiple Garrisons with Matildas and the CS version.

 

The French Armor is in terms better then Axis in tier0,  the only danger for the French is the 4d and Stug , so yes there is a danger not only a Sapper one has to worry about , and the French get the STU once the 3h enters so that's balanced.

Let's go back to the only Brit , now it's Matildas, then Churchills and then the next tier it be the Firefly and Achilles .

I by all means find myself a different game where I can at least play a little Armor , and not have to wait for the perfect shot or need to run around as inf to kill one.

 

    

[fidd]

I should think it's 4 years or so since I last played axis. But I have played Matildas extensively before and after that period, so I'm pretty aware of the effects of the recent audit of the Matildas armour, and of the general difficulties all sides experience with ATG's once FMS's came out, which has caused such problems for the axis in tier 0. Four years ago, it was standard practice, in both attack or defence, for 88's to be the first thing out of an AB or FB in either attack or defence. That is clearly no longer the case, and I think I have a pretty good handle on what's causing that. (Terrain encrudation and FMS's leading attacks before defenders spawn in to any degree.)

FWIW, My recent sorties in Matildas, used fairly aggressively, and almost invariably as the CS variant, following any other player (in the 2pdr armed one) result in being at least tracked 2 out of every 3 sorties, and killed (often after being tracked) about the same or perhaps 3 out of 4 sorties. I'm not an especially good player, but those are about the figures I'm experiencing, FWIW. Interestingly, my experiences in the Char B1 are pretty equal to that of being in the Matilda.

It's quite obvious, I think to all, that the axis are struggling with tier 0 Matilda (multiplied by the pop imbalance it creates). However it is eminently possible to overcome this as a problem, but you do need to innovate some, to be able to stop attacks led by the Matilda, and to take it on during your own attacks. Actually, I think the latter case is the harder one. But not insoluble.

I'm hoping to play a campaign as axis circa next April.

Regarding the "all frontline towns are Brit". I agree that the axis should have 3 different (if they wish) templates for the armoured and infantry bde's, resulting in 3 different permutations for garrisons, and have your side split into 3 different "armees" or "korps", so that you can have a very similar ability to that which the allies use in optimising the frontline. That said, you'd need to have the same limitations to, so that manual resupply from a town of armee #1 could not add to the TOE of a town of armee #2. (In the same way that driving a matty to a town with only French Bde's cannot add that Matty to that towns TOE, unless there's a UK garrison therein). I have publically and repeatedly posted that this same ability of optimising the frontline should be equal for both sides.

Edited January 23, 2021 by fidd