Mike:

A team of 3 with 3 picks each is different than a team of 1 with 9 pick.

You mentioned 1x9 first, but whatever, I guess it was just for a comparison.

Edited 9/22/2017 16:21:32

When we see stalling, we know it. We don't need a mathematical definition for it.
And if we're worried about false positives, let's have a second or a third pair of eyes check the game. It should be enough.

I agree with this. I think perhaps one way to implement this rule is to have other players report them (perhaps under report, add stalling as a reason). When a player receives excess reports (for stalling), then have some mods check the the player and the games in which they were reported in. If they are indeed stalling (decision made by mods), then they should get punished accordingly. This sort of system is present in many games, like league of legends.

^ this is exactly how it was intended to be. Mods shouldn't check games on their own and punish whoever they think misbehaves. They only react on reports from what i've understood.

I also thought this was true:

"games ongoing on 2 different accounts at the same time is something that is already against the rules i think, at least being ranked at the same time is and it seems like he might be switching it from time to time "

Isn't it already against the rules to have ongoing games on a ladder with two different accounts (regardless of whether you are joined or not)? What difference does being joined with two make (assuming 1 is not actively getting new games)? All that impacts is getting points for your rankings. The issue is being able to affect the ratings of one account with the other, and that comes from active games, not from whether you are actually joined or not.

There's a bit of a misunderstanding regarding Octane.

he has either played with both as the same time or been joining the ladder to get games, then leaving it to join with the other account to get games.

This is false (albeit the result looks similar). Octane has gotten into the habit of ladder running, yes, but not simultaneously. He simply was ready to end one run and switch to the other. He did not realize that he could not start (or in this case continue) the other run without the last games of his previous run being completed. He did not think that since he would not pair with himself that it was not multiaccounting and could thus continue his other run. This is something I have seen several players do, so the misconception is there and it can cause misconceptions to other players. Admittedly I have done this myself once, but knowing that it is still considered multiaccounting I would never do it again. Of course with the alt rules about to be put in place on the ladder this problem will be short lived. Octane has agreed to surrender the games on one of his accounts, and to no longer do this.

That being said this brings me to and old point.

On the Real-time Ladder...

I have seen people have an account ranked and play with another new account, under the guise that technically neither account is ranked at the same time. This should be banned too imo

Lynx
https://www.warlight.net/Profile?p=3062174051
https://www.warlight.net/LadderGames?ID=0&LadderTeamID=14509

Sninja
https://www.warlight.net/Profile?p=5371985376
https://www.warlight.net/LadderGames?ID=0&LadderTeamID=17331

101
https://www.warlight.net/Profile?p=7584127830
https://www.warlight.net/LadderGames?ID=0&LadderTeamID=18387




Edited 9/26/2017 22:08:51

Edited 9/27/2017 12:43:45

No. Not in this thread. Take your shitposting elsewhere. Start a new thread if it works you up so much, although Cowboy explained everything already.

1.) A player can't start playing on the 1v1 ladder with an account if they have another account with unexpired games. Games expire after 5 months. Violations will be punished with a warning and then bans.

4.) A player may only play on a team ladder if there is no team consisting of the same players (not accounts) with unexpired games. They may join the ladder on a new team if at least one of their teammates is a new different player or if one or more of the players on the old team is not on the new team. Violations will be punished with a warning and then bans.

There will be a grace period of 5 months before Rules 1 and 4 are enforced in order to allow all games that are unexpired at the time of the rule announcement to expire.


I don't see any point for Octane surrendering 1v1 games, since the rule still isn't enforced as of now and I don't know he is the one who is being singled out here. I can give few more players who can make a small list and the 3v3 ladder thing isn't shit posting :P

Since the rules aren't announced officially, afaik, what Octane (and others including me) did is allowed (somewhat) as of now, till 5 months from the point of rule announcement. And if someone is giving alts on ladders with unexpired games or currently playing do it for all players and don't single out one player.

@Kid, please see my response on the first page. The rules regarding multi-accounting are in place and enforced. That grace period is not a thing. Based on what is posted here, yes Octane did break the rules. So did you, if you had multiple ranked accounts/teams on one ladder at the some point.

Has he done seasonal ladder yet to complete the selection?

One sense of me says this is unfair on Octane, That he isn't the only person to switch accounts on 1v1 and RT Ladder. Why should he be picked out of all the "bad apples" to be made a example of on this thread?

But I remind myself about his achievement of the ability to do so many ladder runs.. 3 runs on the 1v1 ladder through 3 of his alts, 2 runs on the 2v2 ladder using his alts for both teams and now 2 runs on the 3v3 ladder including his alts , Where he likely lost a game and is again starting a new run.. Doing these runs in such a short time has made him stick out to the community and in doing so in terms of the amount of runs and ladder quits after someone beats him.. Has effectively annoyed a lot of people internally effected in the ladders and externally watching him.

So I have to wonder to myself, If Octane really misunderstand the rules according to his lawyer Cowboy. Why isn't he here to say "Hey, I fucked up I misunderstood this this and this, I promise to not do it again..." I'm not saying it would fix things but it would leave less people salty.. Though he probably doesn't care as he did leaving those ladders immediately after he lost a game to start his new adventure on his next alt.

Though the rules aren't introduced yet, What Octane has done up this point has and will piss off people. People are aware and people are annoyed so.. Expect there to be "shitposting" especially when a thread like this comes up to use Octane as a example.

Whenever people are asking about fake news, I am just going to show them this thread.

Though the rules aren't introduced yet

Come on. If there are no rules, then what are you complaining about? *roll eyes*

Just cus there are Potential new rules, don't mean the old rules never where there. Old being current rules.

The real question is not really if Octane is a bad person or not. The question is why he did it.
We want to improve the ladders, and if players find it beneficial to just switch accounts then something is wrong with the ladder. Particularly given the number of cases of alting on the ladder.

If Octane wanted more games at a time, then maybe a cap of 5 is to low? (I know this is what some alters say.)
If Octane thinks that 5 months is to long, then maybe it is too long. (It sure is a long time to wait.)

For example switching to Glicko to get rid of expiring games and raising the cap to 10 games (after you have a rating Glicko deems trustworthy) could help.

Edited 9/27/2017 00:26:52

I think you are reading into that comment in the way I didn't want you to. I said that sentence in the context that someone can claim Octane is doing nothing wrong cause there are no rules introduced yet. I could've worded that better but whatever I suck at English.. Suppose to get my test results on this topic tomorrow..

@TBest:

I said (somewhat) because it has been common practice-which didn't result in ban and yes, I saw your response and even Beren himself mentioned on a post that these rules exist already. Also like you mentioned, it is difficult to find which account is alt especially as not all players says this is my other account(s) openly like Octane or myself or anyone who does so.

Ofc., I agree that this is violation of rules-but general perspective (or as how many sees it) is that as long as I don't play myself it isn't a violation.

@Platinum:

hmmm, I think Octane stands out since he kept all accounts in same name and doesn't hide alts. maybe he should have named something irrelevant and kept it secret that it is his other accounts.

In general, I can show a player from a respectable clan ( or at least that's what I think of it), who actually played against himself on RTL game recently (apparently unknowingly as per him/her) and surrendered on picks(stating the previous (claim)). I am sure few more people knows it(one way or the other) and there happens to be a clan member who has even posted regarding Octane here went to silent mode on what his clan member did.

I am not mentioning this player as a bad player who did such a thing on purpose or not supporting the claim that unknowingly getting self on RTL. I honestly can't find such a game where Octane plays self and surrenders, so if he did that too-enlighten me. The real question is not if Octane is bad or not, and not why he did it, just why Octane alone, as, at-least, I don't remember selecting him for representative for cult of alt-runs and he never volunteered for the same.

Ofc., ladder rating manipulation with sugar-talking and offering deals in PM aren't against the rules and is strictly off-topic ;)

Edited 9/27/2017 00:43:18

Kid don't be so evasive, be fun and put some names for those who are not aware of all WL gossips please! :-) TY


.. Putting pop corn in micro wave

On the subject : I have to agree with Tbest and those rules vs guys who defend Octane. Ladder shouldn't be about congratulating top run performers on a template on a trial error method and then change their main account to the highest ranked one, but top players on that template. If everybody was doing that it would be a mess. I have a dream that Ladders are reserved to mains only some day =).

Edited 9/27/2017 01:09:34

@mike - he means:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=14176717

neal + Clint-West-Wood

both are from Netherlands.

@Kid:

• aren't there hundert players from Netherlands?
  
• everyone can be booted. especially in real-time games. reasons can be:
  

  
  

  you have to eat something
  

  phone call
  

  closet
  

  you were thinking too long vs an unbeaten player
  

  child has fallen and someone has to comfort it
  

  the picks you got are frustrating yourself
  

  someone has ring the doorbell f.e. pizza delivery
  

  losing internet connection/ pc crashed
  

  ...
  

Edited 9/27/2017 02:27:49

Surrendered on picks and apparently it maybe a mistake. So, let's just see this as a player keeping an alt as secret and playing self and not pointing to a particular player(which isn't intentional).

Edited 9/27/2017 04:14:21

He doesn't mean them.

Neal is not Clint. Neal is much better than Clint.

For platinum - "and now 2 runs on the 3v3 ladder including his alts , Where he likely lost a game and is again starting a new run", That's just blatantly wrong. We were waiting for Cowboy to reduce his game count so we could start the 3v3 run we've been planning since the end of mine, Cowboys, and SuperSmooves run. Please don't sully my name thinking I'm involved in any of Octanes actions when they are his alone to do and defend.

The follow has nothing to do with the defense of Octane or his actions, and is more an overall viewpoint on the points brought up in this thread

What is the difference between 1 player running 3 accounts on the same 3v3 team; and 1 player who is vastly superior to the other 2 players just telling them exactly what to do?

Why does it matter if someone quits the ladder, and rejoins with an alt account that doesn't play against the other accounts in the first place? There's no rigging involved, there's no cheating, they just want to see if they can get to a new peak rank without waiting the ridiculous 5 months it takes for older games to expire(which by the way, is way too fkn long). It sounds more like you have an issue with the system, and instead of addressing your concerns towards that, you choose players as scapegoats because they are using the system in a way you personally do not feel is right. Hate the game, not the players.

As of right now, getting #1 on the ladder doesn't even mean you're the best at the 1v1 ladder. It just means you're the best of the people who happen to be on the ladder at that given point in time. In fact, it doesn't even mean that. It just means you were the best at getting ladder points of the players on the ladder at that given time, and even then there may be multiple players who are better at that, and just haven't played enough games yet. With this being a major issues for a fairly long period of time, I can't see how going after individual players helps solve the main problem at all. That problem being - The #1 player on a ladder at any given point in time may not actually be the best player on that ladder.

Since this thread seems like just a lot of complaining and witch hunting; I'll start off some actual discussion.

Short term solution - Enforce a minimum amount of games played in order to have your rank actually be counted on your profile, or to get trophies. How many? I don't know I'm just a scrub.

Short term solution #2 - Reduce the amount of time it takes for games on the ladder to expire.

Long term solution - Fix the actual system itself, the ELO system is wack; punishing long term players while giving massive boosts to short term players and "ladder runners".

~~~ The afforementioned post solely reflects my own views and opinions, and has no bearing on those of the 101st.

@Demoz

The general rule is that as long as you don'g get an unfair advantage then you are good to go. Controlling multiple accounts on one team has been deemed okey. If you where thinking of the screenshot on the other page, the point was that a player appeared to be in two 3v3 teams at the same time, not that he had a team made of himself.

Why does it matter if someone quits the ladder, and rejoins with an alt account that doesn't play against the other accounts in the first place? There's no rigging involved, there's no cheating, they just want to see if they can get to a new peak rank without waiting the ridiculous 5 months it takes for older games to expire(which by the way, is way too fkn long)

Good question, I bet a lot of thoose who multiacount on the ladder followed this logic. "What is the harm?"

So by doing this you gain an unfair advantage. You say #### you to the rating and matching system. You can just "ignore" your past losses. A new shot at a good rank, means you got *two* tries where others got one. Ultimately you screw over other players. The theory behind all ranking system is that they get more accurate over time as they get more data/games on a player.

With this being a major issues for a fairly long period of time, I can't see how going after individual players helps solve the main problem at all.

It's to discourage other players from doing the same thing. If we just said "meh, we don't really care" then everyone else gets the signal that it is okey to break the rules. In short, we go after individual players to make them an example.

Ofc, we would all love a better permanent fix, but it is not as easy as it sounds. There have been many calls to change the elo-system and I think it would help. But Fizzer surely is busy enough and his roadmap is close to infinity. Given that all the past games result is recorded, I have a dream that some amazing community member will query the API, and then record the ladder results in another elo-format.