Posted on 25 November 2015 - 07:56 PM

I'm treating them as separate communities because I can't confirm the in-game community's best interest. The forum community's interest hasn't aligned with that of the in-game community in the past, after all. We had a poll once about allowing people to have rods in non-MCSG kits. The forum gives a definite no, but the poll leans toward yes. Why is that? You've got all those MCSG players on the server that changed the outcome of the poll. When you say the forum accurately represents the concerns of the in-game community, you're wrong.

Regarding your example, by the way— what if the upper staff is right? I'd probably go in-game, watch the chat, check for complaints and see what they think. I could even log on at different times and ask what they think about the issue. Your extreme example isn't infallible; there's a chance that the forum community is some small minority of players who aren't satisfied with the server no matter what, even though everyone else seems to be fine.

Posted on 25 November 2015 - 08:17 PM

There isn't really any reason to want #1 except for attention. This is a game, you get no prize for achieving #1, other than for attention and the feeling that you've beaten all the people below you. Of course, having somebody play for you should take away that pride of being a good enough player to get the spot, since you couldn't get it yourself. Also, while it's no secret that a lot of the top players share accounts and boost each other, the majority of the ingame community and even some forum members are unaware.

Posted on 25 November 2015 - 08:52 PM

I'd like to point out that the forum community generally leaned toward the ban of rods from pot ladders because they'd seen the videos of Narwhal and whoever else go and abuse them which were posted on the forums. In most cases, they were simply better informed on the reasoning behind the polls presented than the in game community was. However, that's clearly an argument way up for a guessing game discussion, so I'll drop that point right here.

However, if you can't make this decision based on the forum community's response to the discussion, you can't make any changes without polling the entirety of the online network at times. At some level, you must assume that the forum community's pleas line up with the best interests of the server. Those who would come here and express their opinion and learn about the situation are those who care the most, after all. If you polled the online community on this matter right now, you'd definitely have a much heavier vote for keeping shared accounts allowed. That's not because it's best for the server or even the players - that's because they're not aware what the outcome really means. They're not aware that almost 75% of the top 20 global players are global accounts as opposed to players.

And once again, I'd really like to crutch on the argument that this entire situation lines up almost exactly with straight up elo manipulation. Just about any argument you make for/against account sharing can also be made directly in the analogy of elo boosting, which is illegal. Again, what changes between the two methods of gaining a higher elo? Should we allow account sharing just because there are ways around its detection? Because everybody does it anyway? Because elo doesn't accurately represent skill? Absolutely not. We didn't do that for elo manipulation, and we shouldn't do that now.

Posted on 25 November 2015 - 09:12 PM

Once again, I'm definitely not against prohibiting other people playing on your own account

Posted on 25 November 2015 - 09:25 PM

I'll write up on this later, remind me

Posted on 25 November 2015 - 09:45 PM

A couple points I would like to address:
1. Although elo boosting is comparable to account sharing, they are completely different. Elo boosting does not take any skill whatsoever, whereas account sharing still requires a VERY high level of skill. EG: to reach elos such as 2300 in Build-UHC, 2200 in GApple, etc requires a high level of skill whereas elo boosting to those elos does not at all.
2. What makes elo boosting different from account sharing is that there is the factor of skill. I can share my account with my 5 year old brother, that doesn't mean he would take me to the leaderboards. All players on the account have to have skill in their respective ladder. No matter what person you're fighting against, if they're more skilled than you, they will 99% of the time win the fight.
3. I don't feel like this applies. What he was saying is that even if this was a rule, it would be ridiculously hard to enforce. The cons outweigh the pros, in this sense.
4. Like maybe 2% of the community does this. Don't personally know ANYBODY who has ever account shared, I just think is bullshit that people want something banned because they lost elo to someone better than them. (regardless of who it was)
5. Elo doesn't accurately represent skill, but that's just irreverent on both sides of the argument.
6. Okay, you can have your opinion :^) (but since elo manipulation and account sharing are pretty much completely different, this statement is baseless o/)
/////┏╮
/////┃┃
▉━╯┗━╮
▉┈┈┈┈┃
▉╮┈┈┈┃
///╰━━━╯

Posted on 25 November 2015 - 09:50 PM

@Morsinius
Beatcha to it ;)

Posted on 25 November 2015 - 10:34 PM

1. Yes, that's true. It doesn't take any skill to log two accounts on and have one boost the other. It takes about as much skill to have a friend who's good at sword log in on your account and do your gapple elo. And since the ladder in question is the global ladder, let's refer to everything in terms of global skill. If I'm a great bow player that's awesome, but it doesn't take any extra global skill to have somebody else bump up your elos. The rule change in question is whether we want ladders to represent skilled players or skilled accounts - at the moment, there's no specific rule clarifying, which is what makes shared accounts legal. That's what I want changed - it should show the skill of a player rather than the skill of a conglomeration of friends.

2. ^

3. What part is irrelevant? It's just as hard to enforce elo manipulation if somebody does it right. With a basic understanding of what mods look for in detecting elo manipulation, it's incredibly easy to dodge punishments while illegitimately boosting your elo. It would be the same for a rule on shared accounts.

4. The top 5 global elo accounts have all been shared in order to bump global elo. Looking at the top 20, I see at least 10 that I know have used this method to reach higher elos. I don't know where you got your 2% statistic from, but I'll assume it's valid for the sake of argument - if only 2% of the community shares accounts to bump elos, then it's the 2% that matters. It's the 2% constantly on top of the global ladder, which paints a perfect picture to show exactly how easy account sharing has made climbing the global ladder.

5. It's not irrelevant. I included this specifically because of ginie's post earlier on this thread. He used that logic as a way to put down those who share accounts to climb ladders while making it seem not worth the time of mods to make it illegal. Thing is, that same logic could just as easily be applied to straight up elo manipulation, which is illegal. That leads me back to my question: what is different between the two scenarios that makes elo manipulation illegal and account sharing insignificant? They are both ways to illegitimately climb the global ladder, but one of them is legal and, by the way, a whole lot easier.

6. I think there's very little room to call my arguments baseless.

You don't have to read all that shit if you don't want to. It's a lot of words to say one message: the very fact that we allow such an effective, illegitimate way to climb our supposedly competitive ladders entirely erases that competitive mindset and integrity behind them. I'm not saying ban everybody who's ever done it; I'm saying outlaw it for season 11. It makes the elo pool cleaner and more accurately defines the best players again. That's what it's here for, after all.

Posted on 25 November 2015 - 11:25 PM

You make a good argument, and I think you've changed my mind.

I got my 2% statistic from the percentage that's on the leaderboards - It's probably imperfect, but it's safe to assume it's somewhat accurate.

Really though, it's all opinion - there is no real argument that the rules allow or disallow account sharing.

I guess I'm neutral now. I still feel like account sharing and Elo manipulation are incomparable, and that sharing should be treated differently, but you were right about how global is a representation of a single players skill, not a collection.

Posted on 26 November 2015 - 04:03 PM

Okay so the whole "In game thing" insnt really accurate cause do you think you avarage 1400 cares about whats going on at the top of the learder boards? no of course not. But what about the people who do have a good amount of global elo like Karlixon, MadeInholland, Sirjensen, etc They care. Its about the top of the leaderboards here not the the avarage player

Posted on 28 November 2015 - 11:53 AM

He is 2200 in some ladders and 1900 in others, he is not amazing at everything, but still above average, he may not be as good at one ladder compared to another, but you can still be good in different types of pvp. You literally don't know what your talking about, please "think before you post something"


lol what an idiot xD

Posted on 28 November 2015 - 01:19 PM

He's not getting the ELO by himself. That's literally the entire point of the post- most people in the top global aren't actually good at everything. It's harder than ever to get 2k global with the new variety of ladders, and people are sharing accounts to get it.
I'm kind of torn on this. There's always the case where two people actually only have one account, and even if them sharing accounts doesn't benefit their global ELO, it wouldn't really be fair to only ban specific people while others are basically doing the exact same thing.