Wish to contribute to the project by donating? Heads up to our Patreon -> https://www.patreon.com/skylordsreborn

Jump to content
BEWARE: Multiaccounting Will Cause Permabans! Read more... ×
Hollwie

Multiple Accounts

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Piromanijak said:

I disagree with this , i mean if it realy was like this then anybody trading would get banned like example:

I collect pure fire my friend collects pure frost

We trade from the first booster we get he gets frost from me and i get fire from him

Then we get banned because we traded no logic

Only way to find if someone is multyaccounting is if one account trades all his goods to another account with no tradeback form the other account , but even then the guy might ge giving his stuff away to a friend because he is no longer gonna play or something like that.

In my opinion only way to stop multyaccounting is to track by IP if possible otherway there is absolutelyy no way to know.
 

Based on what you said there would be a record of trade among accounts; If both accounts are playing at the same time that is likely evidence that you're not multi accounting. Also there would likely be a chat-log that can be dug up. 

Tracking IP does not stop multi-accounting any more than my method. You can have multiple people playing from the same location. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, no form of multi-character/accounts should be allowed, people who cant play the game for fun and cant take a lose cus they want to experiment or so-called "tryhards" shouldn't even play the game if they are playing it for elo and not for the game itself. If you want to play the game and if you are really good (using this as a best example) . Cant you just lose 2 games while trying the new deck , analyze what u could have improved on , cool your head by playing with your main deck to bring you elo back to your average/peak and after that try the experimental deck a few more times , and just repeat that.

 

NedDeppat likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1.4.2018 at 2:27 AM, tbpeti said:

While on one hand I agree with @ImperatorSK and the fact that it will probably affect the pvp-playerbase after a while on the very high end, but i think it is much more important what @MrXLink wrote in order to keep the newcomers we shouldn't be able to have other accounts. Just think about it, if you were a platinum colored pvp ranker and you tried out other decks, you still would beat the sh*t out of everyone who were even on the low-gold ranks as well, not to mention the lower ranked players. What do you think they would feel after they're facing and getting crushed by an acc that has bronze ranks?! Most likely they ragequit, and maybe they stop playing forever - yeah, this would be a huge overreaction, but it can definitely happen.

And to @DuellLord and every other players who think about it: ffs, if once you could get to a high rank with one type of deck, you can climb with that back anytime, this way you have the opportunity to try the new decks on higher level. Does it take time? Yes. Does it take away some of your rating? Yes. But on the other hand if you are a high-level player your microing and macroing will be much crisper than those who are not on the same level, regardless of what type of deck you're using. You can outmicro anyone who's lower level with pure nature even if you played lost souls on your main account, doesn't matter, your knowledge of the game is so much higher compared to your opponents that you can beat them easily.

And why am I saying these things? I myself tested everything on my main account - true, had a small acc while i could have 2 accs on 1 profile, only used that for trading. First I played fire-nature, then tried pure nature, after that tried pure shadow, in the end settled down with shadow-nature, inside it first did the Embalmer-FoF-Soul Splicer combo and then refined my deck to my taste with trying out at least 10 different cards in it - even tried out the snapjaws in ranked games, so don't blame me, but I cannot understand your nonsense.

Just think about this part as in any moba: what happens when they ban your main champion, or you do not get the role you prefer? Will you just leave the ranked, or deal with it and play with another one even if you know your skills are not on the same level with the different characters?

 

Other thing, what @RadicalX and @Eirias mentioned: wait a minute, don't tell me you were annoyed during the battleforge was live because of messages. While you're only a high ranked player you can always put those who bothers you to your ignore-list. As a moderator IMO you have the right to tell them to not bother you. Also, as far as I know only those can see if you are online who added you as friends, and those who actually check the list on the top right, which shows who are standing in the same chat-server as you are.

 

Also, there are other parts of using multi accounts - mainly because of the daily quest system is the only way to get bfp, and this could make too big of a discrepancy. While on the same profile having multiple accounts can solve these bfp-problems, but it generates even more bugs that came out while the game was in it's prime time, and that was one of the reasons the EA shut it down previously.

 

All in all: I totally agree with the decision that was made to disable the multi-accounting, because it disrupts the game.

Nobody stops playing a game he likes just because of getting crushed in one or two games by a low rank...And like I mentioned the same happens if highranks have low activity after not playing some weeks. I would say this happens more often than lowranks beeing crushed from smurfs. I mentioned also that in the matchmaking system of bf you get opponents with a totally different skill level just after a minute or two beeing in queue,  what happened often if your not playing in the early evening in old bf.

Your reasoning is a possible point of view for someone you doesnt care for ranking or elo and sees the sence of this just as a tool for getting balanced opponents. I think there is no right or wrong.  But on my experience much players care for ranking place and elo. Because of this the diversity of played decks will definitely go lower. There will be definitely a big frustration, if 90 % of blueranks play lost souls, pure fire and fire/nature. In gold ranks it will be not that worse but not much better either. Most important thing for the survival of the game is keeping the players who are still playing. We all hope for a lot of more players, but we all have to watch how potentially new players react to a 9 years old game.

Which bugs on multiple characters in old bf do you mean? I had three much used characters on one account and cant remember only one bug because of this...

nofearek9 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Matejob said:

 Cant you just lose 2 games while trying the new deck , analyze what u could have improved on , cool your head by playing with your main deck to bring you elo back to your average/peak and after that try the experimental deck a few more times , and just repeat that.

 

Under the assumption that I would like to play a brand new deck (example: I played exclusively fire nature and my pure frost is so bad that I completely forget about kobold trick and glacier shell), you won't learn anything if you play against top players and get crushed immediately.

To properly learn the deck, I should play against players where I have a roughly 30% winrate. I believe this is the ratio for maximum improvement (although 50% is probably more recommended because most people aren't motivated to withstand 70% loss rate). Because you learn from what you did right, what you did wrong, and you can see what you can do better. If I lose in 30 seconds because I don't know how to defend as frost against a very good fire player A). he outclasses me by skill so much that I wouldn't even know what I did "wrong" and B). I would never get to learn how to play t2, t3, or even late t1.

 

Under the assumption that I want to play 2 games (for fun) of a different deck and go back to my main deck: nobody wants to lose 2 games in 30 seconds. That's not fun for anyone.

DuellLord likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh i guess its hard to convince people that were already just way to used 2 multi-accounting that it takes time to improve doesnt matter if you lose quick if you give up as quick as u lose than i dont know how to even try to defend my point with the over exaggerateing of the time i would lose in , that doesnt mean you would experiment with the deck that means the second u would lose your lead you would give up. As nofearek said it wouldnt effect his game that only applies to people who dont PVP at all , even you being in 3 lower rank games effects a lot of people cus remember you arent the only one doing it , im not saying you take up all the elo alone but remember if you arent the only one doing it you effect the other ranks . @nofearek9Downvoted cus you gave a really short answer that didnt really have any meaning to it for the community as a whole if you arent effected doesnt mean that other people wouldnt be .

 

NedDeppat likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was mostly pvp player more 2v2 ,explain us how will affect you if the player1 or player2 or player3 join you in 1v1 or 2v2 and have in mind that all good player will get high elo after 10-20 games.... 

Edited by nofearek9
wertyy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did in both of my comments thats why i downvoted yours i guess u might not be reading i didnt downvote theirs cus at least they are explaining, defending it Your comment was like . Meh im not gona be close to those ranks so it doesnt effect me at all and i dont care.

 

NedDeppat likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i read your post and still dont understand how will effect your game,the only reason i see is that you are ok to see other people loosing elo score when they are trying new decks, but you are not ok if they make a new account and you loose elo ,you said "people who cant play the game for fun..." ,so why you care about the elo score.

my point is that if i loose from player1 ,player2 or player323 i still lost the match,in 2v2 was very very easy to loose huge amount of elo score, since new groups joing the ranks, but was not big deal you play3,4 games and get back your score.

Shall we limit each player to be able join only one teamate in 2v2 so we dont loose elo score ???

i read all comments above and nobody wrote a valid readon that will effect your game besides your elo score.....

Edited by nofearek9
wertyy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 smurfs* each taking 20 games to get their rank is 400 games of people losing elo cus somebody decided they dont want to lose their elo cus they wouldnt risk it on the main so they can just create an acc and it wouldn't matter to them if they lost that much, on the other hand somebody got matched 17 out of those 400 games vs a smurf and lost well most of them to say the least  got his gameplay kinda ruined . My point is practice and get destroyed at your own elo/rank and learn it that was , trial and error, its a bit harder for lower rank players to understand what they did wrong if a smurf made them lose really quickly , but you skill is dependant on micro/macro and how used to you are to a deck so again that takes time, but when you are at your rank both of you should have similar skill level so u will understand what u could improve faster than the lower rank.

 

Yes there was already a debate about the sparring grounds and people just dont want to use that as a good practice game mode, so im defending in this post that it should be more valid than lets not use the sparring ground one . Cus yes most smurfs are made for elo and they also made other people lose it so thats why its the only valid reason .

Edited by Matejob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nofearek9 said:

people who cant play the game for fun and cant take a lose .... shouldn't even play the game

(not my words)

agree with Matejob soooooo multiple accounts should be allowed

DuellLord likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry if my English is not good enough to understand but if you fully read it , i said "people who cant play the game for fun and cant take a lose cus they want to experiment" That was ment for the ones that do smurf that they should take a lose if they want to try something why "punish" another lower rank making him lose vs a smurf or more of them , while he is maybe at his peak rank playing it normally . Like i dont want to lose to somebody thats similar to my elo i also dont want to lose vs somebody that a lower elo than me , but i dont even want to PLAY vs somebody thats a higher rank , unless im willing to practice (sparring grounds was kinda made for that) vs him in the first place, playing vs people who are hiding behind an alt is no fun , not cus it might be a loss but cus it can hardly be a win.

NedDeppat likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

warning: lengthy post, youve been warned!

i was never really a PVP'er in BF when it was around, i was ecstatic when they gave us rPVE finally after so much time cus my Shadow Worm couldnt disintegrate worth crap without the upgrades reducing the lifedrain when disintegrating multiple targets, sure it could merlt tier 1 infantry stupid fast but thats not the most useful way to use Mass Disintegration cus its better to use it on higher-value targets that would present larger threats

granted back then we didnt have Amii Monument so yeah, couldnt just throw a Shaman in there to fix up the Shadow Worm

but that said, i think both sides have some pretty good points

on the one hand, yeah, it sucks if your a new player getting curbstomped non-stop cus of high ranked players decieiving you with their rank by using smurf accounts

but on the other hand, in higher-end PVP, i can totally see why some people are against the idea of not allowing it, id be pretty darn frustrated too if i wanted to test a deck type im not at all familiar with as far as function and synergy cus i havent yet explored the deck sufficiently, but i then CANT explore the deck cus i either get stomped in 30 seconds by a high level player OR get constantly booted by low rank players because they get spooked when they see your rank

while obviously ill support whichever decision is made, i think from a logical standpoint, the latter opinion is probably better for the game in the long-term. yes it will present some issues but as people have said those issues exist even without multi-accounting due to the rating systems dropping your ELO rank if your inactive for too long which has roughly the same effect as a smurf account sadistically curb-stomping lowbies, so either way you slice it, that probably isnt gonna disappear, its a matter of which method is less problematic in the long-term

and im all for deck variety, i think thats part of what makes Battleforge so interesting, even if we likely wont ever get new content theres enough cards in total that theres alot of things that i bet never really saw their time to shine in higher-end PVP

and if i do get into PVP, which i likely will this time around cus ive spent alot of improving my RTS game skills thanks to games like Starcraft 2, i would prefer to see MORE variety, rather than the same few meta/cookie-cutter decks all the time, but you cant do that if people cant properly experiment in PVP under fitting conditions, so if lowbies kick you cus of your rank, you cant experiment, but you also cant experiment if you get crushed too fast merely because you arent familiar with your deck

this is obviously an important issue to find a good solution for, and there is for sure arguments to be made on both sides, but we cant just think of the launch window of the game when we discuss this, we have to think of what each of these 2 paths will do to the game a long time from now, im honestly not super concerned in the launch-period because its not like everyone will immediatly have a giant collection of cards since BFP is not able to be bought, so people are gonna have to build up their collections over time with luck of the booster packs being a big part of it, and im ok with that, but this makes this particular issue more important because we have to consider that at some point, the people who play the game with relative consistency will start capping out their collections, so we have to consider their desires when  it comes to seeing decks played in PVP, because if it gets too stale and too static, people like that wont have any reason to stick around, their card and upgrade collection will be pretty much maxed out, and their ability to make decks will be too, and if they cant haver fun making all sorts of zany crazy decks and actually being able to properly experiment and get to know the deck, its gonna cause players to leave gradually over time as more people reach that breakpoint

so yes, we have to consider this carefully, i dont feel either side is either right or wrong, but neither side has a "home run" point either

so i think further discussion should be done, and i think people should try to approach it with an open mind

Matejob and DuellLord like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to remind you all of the following;

  1. I am watching this discussion, don't ask me about it (I've had some messages)
  2. Please do not abuse the rep system, e.g. negative repping because you disagree with a statement, or because someone else does. Use your rep responsibly.

Thanks.

DuellLord and Lavos2018 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DuellLord said:

Nobody stops playing a game he likes just because of getting crushed in one or two games by a low rank...And like I mentioned the same happens if highranks have low activity after not playing some weeks. I would say this happens more often than lowranks beeing crushed from smurfs. I mentioned also that in the matchmaking system of bf you get opponents with a totally different skill level just after a minute or two beeing in queue,  what happened often if your not playing in the early evening in old bf.

Your reasoning is a possible point of view for someone you doesnt care for ranking or elo and sees the sence of this just as a tool for getting balanced opponents. I think there is no right or wrong.  But on my experience much players care for ranking place and elo. Because of this the diversity of played decks will definitely go lower. There will be definitely a big frustration, if 90 % of blueranks play lost souls, pure fire and fire/nature. In gold ranks it will be not that worse but not much better either. Most important thing for the survival of the game is keeping the players who are still playing. We all hope for a lot of more players, but we all have to watch how potentially new players react to a 9 years old game.

Which bugs on multiple characters in old bf do you mean? I had three much used characters on one account and cant remember only one bug because of this...

Actually if you are not a ack of trades player (which let's admit, there are almost none in this game who can play on the same level with multiple decks) I totally understand your point of view, but if you want to try out new decks in ranked in my opinion you with your rank should be punished for it. You're actually saying that by trying out new decks on other accounts, you'll play with that deck on your main any time at all? Unfortunately I'm pretty sure you will not... And this only means that the top ranked players will just flood the rankings and it is unhealthy for the game IMO. So with this I want to point out the mistake in your argument: the players on the top of the rankings will play with their main deck only regardless of having multi accounts or not.

Let me introduce you to a small example: if I am the top 50th ranked player in the game how is it fair for me to be only at the 85th place in the rankings? Because the top 20 players don't dare play other things on their main accounts and thus have 2nd and even 3rd accounts and can beat me with different decks anytime because their knowledge of the game is broader.

I think trying out new decks and mastering them is a good thing, but if you do want to take it to ranked you should be punished for experimenting and should not take the place of other players.

 

About the decaying, i definitely remember how it worked, and i didn't like it's way, because as a high-elo player you actually did not lose any elo, only your activity-multiplier decayed. Thus even if you were top1, later afk for 2 years and came back you would get back your prime rank real fast. But that is a totally different thing, plus probably it would happen even more times if the multi-accounting would be permitted.

Oh, and I personally know at least 2 people who left multiple games because they got crushed by others. Nobody said that in this project only those will play who once had the Battleforge as their favourite game. There will be new players as well, and they will not be so devoted to the game if they do not get a sense of achievement at all.

 

I do not remember to the bug clearly, but it had something to do with the bfp for sure and one of the auction house or mailing system.

Ultrakool and Matejob like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well heres my real beef with being against it: its true low-rank players tend to get spooked when you go into say, Sparring Grounds and their up against a notable higher ranked player, they will generally react quickly and irrationally, and thats not the fault of the high-ranked player, so why should they be punished just because some people dont understand the purpose of Sparring Grounds? i mean, i totally understand WHY its called Sparring Grounds, and to be fair, more people should learn that

but this expectation for people to understanding  the Sparring Grounds relies far too much on other people being reasonable, and that kind of faith in others i feel is not warranted in most scenarios, for as many lowbies who probably understand the purpose of the Sparring Grounds, theres many times more who do not and would sooner panic than do a scant bit of research to find out why high-ranking players might show up there at times, and in their panic they are more likely to boot said player which only punishes the high-ranked player for no good reason

if we could more easily rely on random people we dont know to make rational decisions, we wouldnt have the issue of newbies being spooked and booting high level players from Sparring Grounds matches...but thats just not how reality works and theres ALWAYS going to be a segment of the playerbase who will get spooked by that and their first reaction will be to boot you, and you cannot simply rely on such people to figure out these things and stop making that mistake, its unreasonable to expect that

but as long as they keep doing that, its punishing people who want to test decks without going into Ranked Play, and yet you also want to tell them they shouldnt be able to Multi-Account to test their decks in Ranked Play in a meaningful way that actually lets them learn the in's and out's of their deck or shows them the areas that are strong and the areas that need work, and admittedly making a strong deck relies on alot of this kind of testing, but you cannot properly test if the scenario is "you get your crap pushed in immediatly" because the match cannot progress far enough to give you any reasonable idea of where your deck currently stands or what you need to improve, or cards to add or replace

so its hard for me in that way alone to NOT support Multi Accounting, granted if the devs ultimatly decide there will be no such thing, i wont be protesting or complaining, its their decision to make, but while their allowing discussion for the time being then its worth discussing at least, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, tbpeti said:

Actually if you are not a ack of trades player (which let's admit, there are almost none in this game who can play on the same level with multiple decks) I totally understand your point of view, but if you want to try out new decks in ranked in my opinion you with your rank should be punished for it. You're actually saying that by trying out new decks on other accounts, you'll play with that deck on your main any time at all? Unfortunately I'm pretty sure you will not... And this only means that the top ranked players will just flood the rankings and it is unhealthy for the game IMO. So with this I want to point out the mistake in your argument: the players on the top of the rankings will play with their main deck only regardless of having multi accounts or not.

Let me introduce you to a small example: if I am the top 50th ranked player in the game how is it fair for me to be only at the 85th place in the rankings? Because the top 20 players don't dare play other things on their main accounts and thus have 2nd and even 3rd accounts and can beat me with different decks anytime because their knowledge of the game is broader.

I think trying out new decks and mastering them is a good thing, but if you do want to take it to ranked you should be punished for experimenting and should not take the place of other players.

 

About the decaying, i definitely remember how it worked, and i didn't like it's way, because as a high-elo player you actually did not lose any elo, only your activity-multiplier decayed. Thus even if you were top1, later afk for 2 years and came back you would get back your prime rank real fast. But that is a totally different thing, plus probably it would happen even more times if the multi-accounting would be permitted.

Oh, and I personally know at least 2 people who left multiple games because they got crushed by others. Nobody said that in this project only those will play who once had the Battleforge as their favourite game. There will be new players as well, and they will not be so devoted to the game if they do not get a sense of achievement at all.

 

I do not remember to the bug clearly, but it had something to do with the bfp for sure and one of the auction house or mailing system.

I can agree to each of your points. Nevertheless, we also need solutions for our high rank players to have their anonymity.

The easiest way would be with the option of more Chars per account, where you can just play another char if you want your anonymity or want to play a different deck or play a troll deck. From my point of view it is fine to display only my main Char in the ranking. Sure there will be still some lower players crushed but from my last smurf i know you need only about 20 games to gold rank and about 50-60 games to Hero rank provided you win every game.

Another possibility would be to give also all our Chars a global rank (only your main char is displayed in the ranking), but you have still your statistics of every single char. With the global rank it would be still a problem for a high rank player to find a sparring enemy or to have their anonymity (cause there are not that much primes), but that would be an at least halfway satisfactory solution for me.

 

i know nothing about a bug, but i also only have in the past one Acc with more than one char.

Edited by ImperatorSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, tbpeti said:

Actually if you are not a ack of trades player (which let's admit, there are almost none in this game who can play on the same level with multiple decks) I totally understand your point of view, but if you want to try out new decks in ranked in my opinion you with your rank should be punished for it. You're actually saying that by trying out new decks on other accounts, you'll play with that deck on your main any time at all? Unfortunately I'm pretty sure you will not... And this only means that the top ranked players will just flood the rankings and it is unhealthy for the game IMO. So with this I want to point out the mistake in your argument: the players on the top of the rankings will play with their main deck only regardless of having multi accounts or not.

Let me introduce you to a small example: if I am the top 50th ranked player in the game how is it fair for me to be only at the 85th place in the rankings? Because the top 20 players don't dare play other things on their main accounts and thus have 2nd and even 3rd accounts and can beat me with different decks anytime because their knowledge of the game is broader.

I think trying out new decks and mastering them is a good thing, but if you do want to take it to ranked you should be punished for experimenting and should not take the place of other players.

 

About the decaying, i definitely remember how it worked, and i didn't like it's way, because as a high-elo player you actually did not lose any elo, only your activity-multiplier decayed. Thus even if you were top1, later afk for 2 years and came back you would get back your prime rank real fast. But that is a totally different thing, plus probably it would happen even more times if the multi-accounting would be permitted.

Oh, and I personally know at least 2 people who left multiple games because they got crushed by others. Nobody said that in this project only those will play who once had the Battleforge as their favourite game. There will be new players as well, and they will not be so devoted to the game if they do not get a sense of achievement at all.

 

I do not remember to the bug clearly, but it had something to do with the bfp for sure and one of the auction house or mailing system.

Actually i played on all my smurf just the colour it was made for (maybe a second, for example fire-nature on my fire account) but never shadow or lost souls on others. In think otherwise its not the sense of smurf anymore: One reason for smurf is I want to know how good I am really with pure frost for example. And nearly all other players i know with muliple accounts made it this way too. In this context i want to mention, that i started using smurfs even before being a higher gold player. So its not only a thing for bored highrank players.

A example for the diversity: There was not much, but some pure nature players in the game. But only ones (and they was never really active the last time) was dekka and beijingguy, who wasnt smurfs. So without multi accounting some decks would not be representated in lets say top hundred the most time. This cant be the way anyone wishes. The same applies to bandits and some others.

Beeing punished for playing a deck that is hard to play but increases the diversity (so acting in the interest of the game) is not the best idea in my opinion.

Even the fact that in the ranking are more accounts than players in the ranking so that it is harder to be top 100, 50... i dont see as a disandvantage. What would new players (we all want to have them) think if they see that the 200. best player of the whole game has stats like 50 - 120. He would think that the game is nearly dead.

Lavos2018 and nofearek9 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1.4.2018 at 7:38 PM, ferevus said:

Tracking IP does not stop multi-accounting any more than my method. You can have multiple people playing from the same location. 

just adding here a proxy and IP traking doesnt work. like if u play on a pc over a public hotspot like schools or whatever u can not ne certain if the IP is only 1 person

The easiest way would be with the option of more Chars per account, where you can just play another char if you want your anonymity or want to play a different deck or play a troll deck.

just adding a anonymus mode to the account settings where peoples can switch alldo if they play ranked pvp a account that is on anonymus mode doesnt get any rep.

Actually i played on all my smurf just the colour it was made for (maybe a second, for example fire-nature on my fire account) but never shadow or lost souls on others. In think otherwise its not the sense of smurf anymore: One reason for smurf is I want to know how good I am really with pure frost for example. And nearly all other players i know with muliple accounts made it this way too. In this context i want to mention, that i started using smurfs even before being a higher gold player.

here could be implemented a separate statistic in the game. like all ranked pvp is in the ranklist but u can open a sorted look so u see how many Pvp matches u won with each deck (win/loss statistic) 

the problematic with multi accounts is in my opinion that u get more rewards with each account u get alldo its maybe limited. for example if u get daylie BFP for log in and for every hour u played up to 3 u could do it with 24/3=8 accounts to get the max reward alldo u get boosted against players with only 1 account. 

in case for the Ranked PvP matter i think best would be if theres a Anonymus button thats hideing ur name but in case of a win u dont get a thing and on loose u dont fall alldo the oponent seas your rank color and can climb up the latter if his rankcolor is lower if he wins. 

for diffrents deck a selecting mode for a separate statistic like win/loss is a simple way to see how good u are with the diffrent decks  like if u played 20 fights and u did win 15 and lossed 5 u get the statistic 15/5 or 75% effectivness. and that without overfilling the Ranksystem with ur smurfs which take spots away in the ranking system. 

so that the high ranks arent dominated by nolifers and smurfs 

Edited by Asraiel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the real issue is deck diversity in my opinion, if we keep to the no-multi-accounting the diversity may start high but decrease over time till all we have are people playing flavor-of-the-month decks and that makes PVP boring very fast, so if that becomes a problem thats going to adversely effect the games playerbase, i sincerely beleive that, because people wont stick around if things get stale and stay that way

i think in the end, this version of Battleforge will rely just as much on new players coming to the game as it will for old players sticking around, so if the old players decide to mostly get up and leave because its gotten too boring, thats gonna hurt the game

i dont think any of us want that

nofearek9 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2018 at 7:28 PM, tbpeti said:

Let me introduce you to a small example: if I am the top 50th ranked player in the game how is it fair for me to be only at the 85th place in the rankings? Because the top 20 players don't dare play other things on their main accounts and thus have 2nd and even 3rd accounts and can beat me with different decks anytime because their knowledge of the game is broader.

@DuellLord brought up a good point, that if he sticks to a single color on a smurf he can see how good he is with that color. Previously, i thought it would be good to add multiple character to the game that would not be able to participate in ranked, but . . .

What do you think about having multiple characters that function as normal (except they share cards, etc. to prevent quest abuse), but only the highest ranked version shows up on the scoreboards? In other words, if you have 3 characters that are ranked higher than me, on your account you might see rank 9, (12), (35), but I would only see rank 9. Some other person would "actually" have rank 12 and 35. So if I saw my ranking, I'd see the number of people with more ELO on their highest character than me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ImperatorSK said:

I can agree to each of your points. Nevertheless, we also need solutions for our high rank players to have their anonymity.

I definitely agree with this point of yours, and in my opinion the best way would be to make it possible to log in invisible (similar to how it is done on skype or the battle.net account) and only login to the private messages chat + the groupchat with the matchmade chat. I know this makes the whole friendlist a lot more complicated and can arouse issues, but this could be a good way to improve the game after it's already done.

Maybe one other possible solution to the anonimity would be having multiple characters, but then only 1 character should be allowed to play solo ranked, the others should be locked out of it.

 

10 hours ago, DuellLord said:

Actually i played on all my smurf just the colour it was made for (maybe a second, for example fire-nature on my fire account) but never shadow or lost souls on others. In think otherwise its not the sense of smurf anymore: One reason for smurf is I want to know how good I am really with pure frost for example. And nearly all other players i know with muliple accounts made it this way too. In this context i want to mention, that i started using smurfs even before being a higher gold player. So its not only a thing for bored highrank players.

Beeing punished for playing a deck that is hard to play but increases the diversity (so acting in the interest of the game) is not the best idea in my opinion.

I still can't agree with the fact that you get to play with different decks in ranked without being punished for it on your main account - just as when you are trying to improve your deck with single card-changes (i. e. when you try out the Wrathblades instead of the Skeleton Warriors on t1 shadow and realize they may be similar, but their function is totally different and you will definitely lose some games by the time you get to know how to use them ideally).

It may be true that the deck diversity won't reach the same level as if you would be allowed to use multiple accounts, but the number of the games wouldn't change dramatically. Thus the top accounts would just sit on the top with only playing the necesseary amount on their main characters to not decay. This means if you're multiaccounting the number of the players won't change, so the matchmaking won't be much healthier unfortunately, it will only be more colorful.

22 hours ago, DuellLord said:

Even the fact that in the ranking are more accounts than players in the ranking so that it is harder to be top 100, 50... i dont see as a disandvantage. What would new players (we all want to have them) think if they see that the 200. best player of the whole game has stats like 50 - 120. He would think that the game is nearly dead.

I just wrote the disadvantage of it in my previous post, don't make me repeat myself.

With 50-120 stats most likely noone would be in the toplist, since they would be low silver or bronze ranked players. It may seem that you start at 0 ELO when the season starts, but actually you start with 112000 ELO if I remember correctly which is around the lowest gold rank, but you need to play some games to get this rank (as if your rank had been decayed totally). This means only very few people should have negative stats in the toplist, and those also should be wins and losses against higher rank players.

Actually there is a slight chance that you have 50-120 stats and still be in the top 100, but only if your opponents are always much higher ranked than you, such as the top 5 players because of the discrepency in the weight of the losses and wins. But as a gold ranked player you will get gold ranked opponents most of the times, not Emperor-Prime ranked players.

 

1 hour ago, Eirias said:

What do you think about having multiple characters that function as normal (except they share cards, etc. to prevent quest abuse), but only the highest ranked version shows up on the scoreboards? In other words, if you have 3 characters that are ranked higher than me, on your account you might see rank 9, (12), (35), but I would only see rank 9. Some other person would "actually" have rank 12 and 35. So if I saw my ranking, I'd see the number of people with more ELO on their highest character than me.

With this the problem is that when we meet a smurf character we don't have anything knowledge about it, while if you are actually a top player you know everyone's deck at least up to 12-15 cards in the top 50. Even if that character beats us, or we come out victorious we'll have no way of telling who beat us and what rank he is on (except for those who know exactly how the ELO adds up after the game).

This also means that you make the ranked into some child's play and mix with unranked, thus the wintrading between high rank friends wouldn't be trackable.

Also, there is no way of guaranteeing and forcing the given player to stick to the 1-colortype rule on each of his characters, which leads to this being easily exploitable.

 

Conclusion:

I understand the fears of people losing their ranks on their main characters and the problem with the anonimity - as you all know, i was in the top 5 at a time as well-, but these problems don't justify the fact that if you try out new things in solo ranked you should be punished for it; be it single card changes or mastering different colors.

nofearek9 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tbpeti said:

I definitely agree with this point of yours, and in my opinion the best way would be to make it possible to log in invisible (similar to how it is done on skype or the battle.net account) and only login to the private messages chat + the groupchat with the matchmade chat. I know this makes the whole friendlist a lot more complicated and can arouse issues, but this could be a good way to improve the game after it's already done.

Maybe one other possible solution to the anonimity would be having multiple characters, but then only 1 character should be allowed to play solo ranked, the others should be locked out of it.

 

I still can't agree with the fact that you get to play with different decks in ranked without being punished for it on your main account - just as when you are trying to improve your deck with single card-changes (i. e. when you try out the Wrathblades instead of the Skeleton Warriors on t1 shadow and realize they may be similar, but their function is totally different and you will definitely lose some games by the time you get to know how to use them ideally).

It may be true that the deck diversity won't reach the same level as if you would be allowed to use multiple accounts, but the number of the games wouldn't change dramatically. Thus the top accounts would just sit on the top with only playing the necesseary amount on their main characters to not decay. This means if you're multiaccounting the number of the players won't change, so the matchmaking won't be much healthier unfortunately, it will only be more colorful.

I just wrote the disadvantage of it in my previous post, don't make me repeat myself.

With 50-120 stats most likely noone would be in the toplist, since they would be low silver or bronze ranked players. It may seem that you start at 0 ELO when the season starts, but actually you start with 112000 ELO if I remember correctly which is around the lowest gold rank, but you need to play some games to get this rank (as if your rank had been decayed totally). This means only very few people should have negative stats in the toplist, and those also should be wins and losses against higher rank players.

Actually there is a slight chance that you have 50-120 stats and still be in the top 100, but only if your opponents are always much higher ranked than you, such as the top 5 players because of the discrepency in the weight of the losses and wins. But as a gold ranked player you will get gold ranked opponents most of the times, not Emperor-Prime ranked players.

 

With this the problem is that when we meet a smurf character we don't have anything knowledge about it, while if you are actually a top player you know everyone's deck at least up to 12-15 cards in the top 50. Even if that character beats us, or we come out victorious we'll have no way of telling who beat us and what rank he is on (except for those who know exactly how the ELO adds up after the game).

This also means that you make the ranked into some child's play and mix with unranked, thus the wintrading between high rank friends wouldn't be trackable.

Also, there is no way of guaranteeing and forcing the given player to stick to the 1-colortype rule on each of his characters, which leads to this being easily exploitable.

 

Conclusion:

I understand the fears of people losing their ranks on their main characters and the problem with the anonimity - as you all know, i was in the top 5 at a time as well-, but these problems don't justify the fact that if you try out new things in solo ranked you should be punished for it; be it single card changes or mastering different colors.

Sorry, but I really dont understand why you are so hyped of punishing people :D:D:D

The anonymity is in my opinion no really problem, it could be solved like you mentioned but all in all its nothing what really has an effect on the game experience.

But that the game is colorful is definitely very important for the game experience and decides about the success of the project. Its not so nice everytime meet the same 3 decks. Btw im sure if this would happen, after some weeks everybody (nearly everybode) will complains about the evil 3 overpowered decks, because nobody can play something else....Looks nice for new players reading the forum and theres so much flame about the balancing ;) 

And also sometimes you dont want to play the same deck than the last 3 days before. If you cant change in this case to another deck, some players just dont play for these days and wait till they are motivated again to play their usual deck. So activity goes down. And this is nothing the game can afford. Its right, that this is not a guarantee for playing everyone on another account another deck, but experience from years are absolutely positive about my theory that nearly everybody plays a different deck on an other account. But youre definetely right that a mixed pvp of someone who gets elo and someone who dont gets cant work.

Btw changing one t1 card is definitely not comparable to changing from lost souls to pure nature for example. The whole mechanic of the deck in the second case is different.

Edited by DuellLord
Lavos2018 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.