Two accounts working closely: Is it cheating?

[jwrona]

45 minutes ago, fidd said:

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.

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.

A) Fidd & I are inseparable. Until I'm charging and taking unexpected turns. Fidd, youre the freaking man for doing this support role. 

b) yes. I can see why the brit frontline is an 'issue" to some, but put the shoe on the other foot: picture if you only get Tigers in select towns. Wouldn't every town be Tiger-Able? Maybe a universal TOE is needed for one side, or a variance for the other.

[fidd]

23 minutes ago, jwrona said:

A) Fidd & I are inseparable. Until I'm charging and taking unexpected turns. Fidd, youre the freaking man for doing this support role. 

b) yes. I can see why the brit frontline is an 'issue" to some, but put the shoe on the other foot: picture if you only get Tigers in select towns. Wouldn't every town be Tiger-Able? Maybe a universal TOE is needed for one side, or a variance for the other.

I fear I don't know what you mean about the "support role" - have you an official post in this regard?

Regarding having the Tiger in select towns. I'm firmly of the opinion  that were the axis to elect not to put Tigers in all their armoured Bde's, and instead to concentrate them more in perhaps a pair of armoured Brigades, and then to make a habit of using these in hillier terrain, that two things would happen:

1. Those Tiger armed bde's in hilly terrain would do extremely well, being in larger numbers than they are in a standard current axis armoured Bde

2. There would be many more gun-tubes available in their non-Tiger armed armoured Bde's, perhaps of the Marder II and III variety, to augment the Stugs and Pz IV's G/H.

#2 is important, because these armoured Bde's could be positioned in towns where the terrain is flatter, where the lines of sight are shorter, and therefore engagement ranges likewise shorter and therefore armour thicknesses less relevent. Currently the loss of the Tigers in an axis Bde makes that Bde fairly fragile to further losses, because the Tiger has so much armour, and an excellent gun and optics. It is, however, not optimal in flat, heavily foliaged terrain, and fairly easily "wasted", leaving the remaining units within the axis armoured Bde fairly weak in comparison with the surviving units of the allied armoured Bde.

In short, in much of the map, and with our current silly amounts of foliage, and universal TOE's for the axis, the Tiger is as much a disadvantage, as it is an advantage. So making the axis a 3 armee unit, analagous in every supply respect to that of 3 nations (eg Arfr BEF and US), would be very helpful to them, and a most reasonable change.

Further segmentation of the "universal TOE'" might see the British doing something similar, putting their Matildas in only a couple of armoured Bde's, but in greater numbers, putting their Churchills in their garrisons and infantry Bde armoured TOE's, with only a few in their Armoured Bde's. Which, as an "infanty tank" is really where they should be. Devving the Cromwell would also help in having some Sherman 75 armoured Bde's and some Cromwell ones in later tiers. 

I know that uploading and checking multiple TOE's per tier is currently a thankless and complex job, not in the least user-friendly as I understand it, so I hope making this easier, and therefore more widespread, would be a very good thing for the game, not least because it would allow some of the more middle-order units a chance to shine in the absence of the "uber" ones.

Edited January 23, 2021 by fidd

[jwrona]

39 minutes ago, fidd said:

I fear I don't know what you mean about the "support role" - have you an official post in this regard?

The "Close Support" tanking. You are constantly PM-ing me, and probably countless others working with us to do the best job that tank can do: close support. It's a rare form of play nowadays, but super valuable. Giving you credit where it's due.

[jwrona]

40 minutes ago, fidd said:

Regarding having the Tiger in select towns. I'm firmly of the opinion  that were the axis to elect not to put Tigers in all their armoured Bde's, and instead to concentrate them more in perhaps a pair of armoured Brigades, and then to make a habit of using these in hillier terrain, that two things would happen:

1. Those Tiger armed bde's in hilly terrain would do extremely well, being in larger numbers than they are in a standard current axis armoured Bde

2. There would be many more gun-tubes available in their non-Tiger armed armoured Bde's, perhaps of the Marder II and III variety, to augment the Stugs and Pz IV's G/H.

#2 is important, because these armoured Bde's could be positioned in towns where the terrain is flatter, where the lines of sight are shorter, and therefore engagement ranges likewise shorter and therefore armour thicknesses less relevent. Currently the loss of the Tigers in an axis Bde makes that Bde fairly fragile to further losses, because the Tiger has so much armour, and an excellent gun and optics. It is, however, not optimal in flat, heavily foliaged terrain, and fairly easily "wasted", leaving the remaining units within the axis armoured Bde fairly weak in comparison with the surviving units of the allied armoured Bde.

In short, in much of the map, and with our current silly amounts of foliage, and universal TOE's for the axis, the Tiger is as much a disadvantage, as it is an advantage. So making the axis a 3 armee unit, analagous in every supply respect to that of 3 nations (eg Arfr BEF and US), would be very helpful to them, and a most reasonable change.

Further segmentation of the "universal TOE'" might see the British doing something similar, putting their Matildas in only a couple of armoured Bde's, but in greater numbers, putting their Churchills in their garrisons and infantry Bde armoured TOE's, with only a few in their Armoured Bde's. Which, as an "infanty tank" is really where they should be. Devving the Cromwell would also help in having some Sherman 75 armoured Bde's and some Cromwell ones in later tiers. 

I know that uploading and checking multiple TOE's per tier is currently a thankless and complex job, not in the least user-friendly as I understand it, so I hope making this easier, and therefore more widespread, would be a very good thing for the game, not least because it would allow some of the more middle-order units a chance to shine in the absence of the "uber" ones.

This is how we play Tier 3: US for boosted inf list in flat, foliage areas, UK for boosted armor where it can shine. I could see axis doing similar, if they had a TOE for heavy armor and then a TOE for boosted inf. 

[fidd]

The other way TOE's could be looked at. from an axis point of view, is to have a few "Kampfgruppe" ie some Bde's with atypical TOE's used instead of some of the usual Bde TOE. For fun, they could be named according to the OIC leading the kampfgruppe at the time. So looking down the unit list, you might "Kampfgruppe Delems" for example.

[fidd]

20 minutes ago, jwrona said:

The "Close Support" tanking. You are constantly PM-ing me, and probably countless others working with us to do the best job that tank can do: close support. It's a rare form of play nowadays, but super valuable. Giving you credit where it's due.

Ah, sorry, I thought you were talking about some sort of support role on the forums, LOL! I thoroughly enjoy the CS role - in either the Matilda CS or Ch7CS - it's quite challenging and interesting - not to mention occasionally very effective, either employing HE v ATG's/ei or laying smoke for the infantry, and keeping the lead Matilda or other tank clear of ei sappers.

Edited January 23, 2021 by fidd

[Quincannon]

The thing that has always bothered me about people using two accounts is the fact that single account players are most often at an extreme disadvantage against it in terms of situational awareness. i.e the ability to be in two places on the map at once.

The worst I have ever seen was when a bunch of Axis players (I'm not side bashing. This just happened to be Axis players in this particular instance) had placed avatars inside the bunker of the town they were attacking, and then used second accounts to cap the town. When we came in and found them, we shot them and were suprised that they didn't fight back. But 4-5 minutes later that whole group players stormed the bunker again.

When a single account player guards a building. That's all they do. That's all they can do.  If  they are defending CPs. they can't be in the bunker. If the enemy gets in the bunker, the single account player isn't already there to greet them. That player has to fight their way into their own bunker. All the while one enemy might be sitting inside the bunker capping , AND outside cutting the bunker door.

The problem is much less a few players using a second account, The problem occurs if we reach a point where single account players cannot effectively polat without themselves getting a second account.

[fidd]

I think "skulls" have equalled this out a bit, as the death of a gaurd can be seen by lots of 1 account players in a similar fashion  to the way 2 account players could/can. I'm not bothered about them personally, so long as they're used with forbearance not to create undue game problems (such as being on two sides)

[Dre21]

4 hours ago, fidd said:

and keeping the lead Matilda or other tank clear of ei sappers.

Ahh thanks for making our point.

 

Now look at what can kill a Tiger , you don't have to get up and personal , so even covering it from the rear a M10 from the flank can be deadly , ATG falls into that category  too, hell even a bit cover can get a Zook close enough to get a kill shot without the guy covering it's [censored] getting a look at the INF 1st while Axis have to walk up to one , and throwing smoke does what ?  Nothing but alert any of the 2.

The Tiger would have to sit in a wide open space and we all know there ain't much of that around a town.

[fidd]

When I last played axis, I used to do exactly the same thing with a 3f (for the traverse speed), following Tigers at 200m or so, and clearing ei sappers off them. When the the Tiger got tracked, (which they invariably did) I'd keep them alive by keeping ei off them. I don't think, however, there's a wonderful lot of players who operate voluntarily in this sort of dedicated support role, so I'm quite sure my efforts are not "statistically relevant"!

As ever in this game, the sum effect of two players cooperating well is greater than the constituent roles. which, I suggest, is exactly how things should be?

Of course you're correct that the Matilda and Tiger are not completely comparable in this regard. 

Edited January 23, 2021 by fidd

[tater]

The current situation is entirely a numbers thing (as all campaign rolls seem to be).

Looking at stats becomes meaningless as the lost units with few kills are camped to death for the most part. It's not the same at all as a meeting engagement, which gives a more fair approximation of relative capability.

I'd expect that when numbers are the right way, all K/D ratios are out of whack.

[hillstorm]

The most fun was when four matties were sitting in our AB, one of them covering the bunker while the three others covered each other. Plus ei and all sorts of hell descending upon us. No sappers were going to touch them and no tactics were going to work, at least until a couple of tankers got bored and went afk or something and we were finally able to kill one of them. One. The town was taken and the other three despawned. 
 

I fully realize the tactical approach you guys mention is aimed at keeping them from getting to that point (a rendezvous in our AB). But we don’t have endless manpower to create multiple tactical strike times to hunt down matties because meanwhile CPs are getting capped, other enemy units are pushing into place and often the town is lost before the battle has barely started. And if the matties come in a platoon, as they should, they are a force multiplier and the difficult becomes impossible. 

[hillstorm]

Regardless of all that, let's get to the point delems was making - can we have a balance between Brit/French controlled towns? Wouldn't that go most if not all of the way toward lessening an overwhelming matty impact and making this more playable? We might even be able to try out those tactics with better effect. And not in a way to make the game unfair - I want it to be balanced for both sides. 

Edited January 23, 2021 by hillstorm

[hillstorm]

3 hours ago, Quincannon said:

The thing that has always bothered me about people using two accounts is the fact that single account players are most often at an extreme disadvantage against it in terms of situational awareness. i.e the ability to be in two places on the map at once.

The worst I have ever seen was when a bunch of Axis players (I'm not side bashing. This just happened to be Axis players in this particular instance) had placed avatars inside the bunker of the town they were attacking, and then used second accounts to cap the town. When we came in and found them, we shot them and were suprised that they didn't fight back. But 4-5 minutes later that whole group players stormed the bunker again.

When a single account player guards a building. That's all they do. That's all they can do.  If  they are defending CPs. they can't be in the bunker. If the enemy gets in the bunker, the single account player isn't already there to greet them. That player has to fight their way into their own bunker. All the while one enemy might be sitting inside the bunker capping , AND outside cutting the bunker door.

The problem is much less a few players using a second account, The problem occurs if we reach a point where single account players cannot effectively polat without themselves getting a second account.

Thanks for bringing this up because I feel it's worth recognizing, if nothing else. After stepping away from the game for a few days, I came back and I actually tried this out, to a degree. I put my free play alt in a CP, to guard, while I ran around town with my main account. I say guard, but let's be clear, he was simply an early warning system. When he dies, I know that CP is getting capped. 

Is this unfair? I don't know. It's clearly not against the rules, as we've discussed in this thread. Is it gamey?  A few days ago I would have said "hell yes," I was hopping mad about the whole concept, I guess (lol), but I'm seeing it somewhat differently now. It definitely gives the player more situational awareness and information than someone who is only playing one account. That is crystal clear, and it's an advantage. 

However, free accounts are free. Anyone can make an extra, free account, and I suppose they might even be able to play two accounts on one computer - maybe with two windows? I haven't tried this. I have two laptops so I can do it that way. But if the other method works, then arguably anyone could use this tactic, so it's not exclusive or unfair. Maybe.  

[hillstorm]

One more thing - the stats may be inaccurate, but let's be clear: They aren't upside down. Something showing a ridiculously high kill rate still has a high kill rate. Just maybe not quite as high as being shown. 

From my experience, the after action report shows me getting two kills per any vehicle or gun. Basically anything that's not infantry (not sure about planes). That makes a difference, but most kills on the battlefield are still just infantry - so it's not wildly out of whack, imo. Also, I don't think the CSR is wrongly reflecting two kills for vehicles and such, just the AAR. So are we even sure the stats are wrong in that regard?

Edited January 23, 2021 by hillstorm

[jwrona]

4 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

Also, I don't think the CSR is wrongly reflecting two kills for vehicles and such, just the AAR. So are we even sure the stats are wrong in that regard?

Yes, I can confirm. 

The "hurricane bug" occurs when killing vehicles/ATGs (anything crewed). If you score multiple "critical hits" (i.e. I kill opel driver and shoot out engine, or I kill BOTH crew of an ATG), you'll get that "extra kill." Try it next ATG you see, just shoot the gunner once, not the loader. It'll show 1 kill. 

As for CSR... It says I have 1000+ kills in a matilda. I don't have 1000 kills for the campaign. Other day I killed 15 units and CSR said it was 60. 

[hillstorm]

5 minutes ago, jwrona said:

Yes, I can confirm. 

The "hurricane bug" occurs when killing vehicles/ATGs (anything crewed). If you score multiple "critical hits" (i.e. I kill opel driver and shoot out engine, or I kill BOTH crew of an ATG), you'll get that "extra kill." Try it next ATG you see, just shoot the gunner once, not the loader. It'll show 1 kill. 

As for CSR... It says I have 1000+ kills in a matilda. I don't have 1000 kills for the campaign. Other day I killed 15 units and CSR said it was 60. 

Edit - never mind, the test for this I was thinking probably wouldn't work. 

Edited January 23, 2021 by hillstorm

[jwrona]

13 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

Thanks for bringing this up because I feel it's worth recognizing, if nothing else. After stepping away from the game for a few days, I came back and I actually tried this out, to a degree. I put my free play alt in a CP, to guard, while I ran around town with my main account. I say guard, but let's be clear, he was simply an early warning system. When he dies, I know that CP is getting capped. 

Is this unfair? I don't know. It's clearly not against the rules, as we've discussed in this thread. Is it gamey?  A few days ago I would have said "hell yes," I was hopping mad about the whole concept, I guess (lol), but I'm seeing it somewhat differently now. It definitely gives the player more situational awareness and information than someone who is only playing one account. That is crystal clear, and it's an advantage. 

However, free accounts are free. Anyone can make an extra, free account, and I suppose they might even be able to play two accounts on one computer - maybe with two windows? I haven't tried this. I have two laptops so I can do it that way. But if the other method works, then arguably anyone could use this tactic, so it's not exclusive or unfair. Maybe.  

I play two accounts on occasion. One will drive to Fb, other will bust it. One will sit at this FB guarding it while my main account runs around in town. I'm on one laptop, so it has it's flaws:

1) I'm on a mac, so I cant sound-mixer without 3rd party software. I'll hear [censored] in both accounts and panic, and my ability to play is reduced severely. 
2) If both accounts are on and one (or both) enter a high-traffic area, my FPS will drop HARD and I'll start getting ping spikes. I avoid this by, when I get to a busy area, logging out Acct #2 to keep my connection stable, and gameplay fair. 
3) In TZ3 (which I often play) SD can be wildly swung by 2-3 guys. Every extra dude on the battlefield slows down cap timers, increases SD, and makes enemy recaps faster.
4) Just the situational awareness to have 1 guy guarding and 1 guy doing things... a while ago I remember alt-tabbing back to the second account in a CP and going "holy F, its 75% capped." 

It's an art form, two accounts. Has its advantages and disadvantages. But isn't really that "gamey" as you can't really play both at full throttle the WHOLE time. 

[jwrona]

4 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

You can look at the CSR after a mission and it shows you the names of the players you killed. So what is it showing when it says you've killed more players than you know you killed? I realize it only shows the last 9 or so, but you could easily test this on a short sortie. 

I'll go find it...

https://stats.wwiionline.com/playersortie.php?username=jwrona&sortieidin=311736

14 names on list = 14 units killed.
But somehow CSR shows 25* (sorry read hits not kills) kills.
Now, that 25 isn't the number going into my "campaign totals," but it IS reflecting in the stats for that particular unit. 

Edited January 23, 2021 by jwrona

[fidd]

27 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

The most fun was when four matties were sitting in our AB, one of them covering the bunker while the three others covered each other. Plus ei and all sorts of hell descending upon us. No sappers were going to touch them and no tactics were going to work, at least until a couple of tankers got bored and went afk or something and we were finally able to kill one of them. One. The town was taken and the other three despawned. 
 

I fully realize the tactical approach you guys mention is aimed at keeping them from getting to that point (a rendezvous in our AB). But we don’t have endless manpower to create multiple tactical strike times to hunt down matties because meanwhile CPs are getting capped, other enemy units are pushing into place and often the town is lost before the battle has barely started. And if the matties come in a platoon, as they should, they are a force multiplier and the difficult becomes impossible. 

The simple truth is that if any four tanks get into your AB, you're "a bit poorly placed" as my old Flying Instructor used to say (he meant "about to die" by this!). The issue is how to stop the Matildas covering the distance from the FB to AB - or indeed any other 4 enemy tanks?

[hillstorm]

1 minute ago, jwrona said:

I'll go find it...

https://stats.wwiionline.com/playersortie.php?username=jwrona&sortieidin=311736

14 names on list = 14 units killed.
But somehow CSR shows 60 kills.
Now, that 60 isn't the number going into my "campaign totals," but it IS reflecting in the stats for that particular unit. 

Actually this looks in line with the bug as I see it.

I see you got 25 kills, with 60 points. I think you were looking at points by accident. 

Most of them were ATG guns (also and Opel in there) which are being counted for 2 kills. The ei count as one. So you're right, the bug is being shown in CSR, as well. But that's what it is - a 2 for 1 bug for non-infantry units. 

It's skewed, and needs to be fixed, but it's not wildly "out of this world" jacked up. 

[hillstorm]

6 minutes ago, fidd said:

The simple truth is that if any four tanks get into your AB, you're "a bit poorly placed" as my old Flying Instructor used to say (he meant "about to die" by this!). The issue is how to stop the Matildas covering the distance from the FB to AB - or indeed any other 4 enemy tanks?

I acknowledged that ... and I know you mean well but I feel you are just repeating yourself now.  I remember Axis taking a lot of flack when they were winning camps and suggested ways to allies that they could play better, use better tactics. That did not go over well at all. (I was not one of those people, btw.  i mean I'm still learning this game in a lot of ways). I think everything should be on the table, so I don't mind it, but there is still a balance problem here. 

Edited January 23, 2021 by hillstorm

[jwrona]

14 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

Actually this looks in line with the bug as I see it.

I see you got 25 kills, with 60 points. I think you were looking at points by accident. 

Most of them were ATG guns (also and Opel in there) which are being counted for 2 kills. The ei count as one. So you're right, the bug is being shown in CSR, as well. But that's what it is - a 2 for 1 bug for non-infantry units. 

It's skewed, and needs to be fixed, but it's not wildly "out of this world" jacked up. 

Seeing as a LOT of tank kills are tanks/atg's... multiplying makes a HUGE difference. 

I just took a look at my own matilda statistics (weapons versus)
275 kills against Tanks/Trucks/ATGs
272 kills against Infantry.
547/19 deaths = 28.78KD
Stats says I'm 1074/19 = 56.53KD. 

What's the diff between 28 and 56? A TON. For reference, 1AB garrison holds a bit over 300 units including AA guns, DLC Ammo Bearers, Tanks, trucks.


Wait check this one out: https://stats.wwiionline.com/playersortie.php?username=jwrona&sortieidin=123358
54 names. 138 kills. so even MORE on tanks where I can score more than 2 critical hits (tracking, engine out, #3 ded, #2 ded, Explosions) 

Edited January 23, 2021 by jwrona

[hillstorm]

4 minutes ago, jwrona said:

Seeing as a LOT of tank kills are tanks/atg's... multiplying makes a HUGE difference. 

I just took a look at my own matilda statistics (weapons versus)
275 kills against Tanks/Trucks/ATGs
272 kills against Infantry.
547/19 deaths = 28.78KD
Stats says I'm 1074/19 = 56.53KD. 

What's the diff between 28 and 56? A TON. 


Wait check this one out: https://stats.wwiionline.com/playersortie.php?username=jwrona&sortieidin=123358
54 names. 138 kills. so even MORE on tanks where I can score more than 2 critical hits (tracking, engine out, #3 ded, #2 ded, Explosions) 

Hmmm... I wonder if it is applying kills per crew member.. ATGs have two, but a tank might have 3 or 4. I have no idea. Yeah, obviously something wrong. 

[foe2]

8 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

Hmmm... I wonder if it is applying kills per crew member.. ATGs have two, but a tank might have 3 or 4. I have no idea. Yeah, obviously something wrong. 

That's what it appears to be doing. I had a 2 pounder mission where I blew up a 4D and I ran over an EI. Yet the stats page told me I had 5 kills.