Look I agree with both sides here, kinda.
On the one hand I agree that (1x3) vs (3x1) brings no inherent advantage for the multi-accounting player. It only appears that way because the players doing it are usually very good. I also think the argument about not having to communicate being an advantage doesn't hold up - communication is pretty much always beneficial in WZ team games, if it's a team of skilled players who are dedicated enough to put in the effort.

However, I do agree that playing a team game, ladder or tournament solo is against the spirit of team games, and so while I don't agree that it brings an unfair advantage, I do think it should be discouraged for this reason. But hey, people will do it regardless, best to accept that it will happen and let it give you extra motivation to beat them when you face them!

Edited 10/20/2023 08:00:07

I don’t really think multi accounts on ladder should be allowed at all since it can lead to win trading especially when it’s more than 1 team involved. However, the notion that 1 player is an advantage over 3 is just not true. There is too much evidence to prove it’s not the case and no real evidence to overturn it. Just going off of the ladder’s own data and league data it shows that when players of equal skill face off in a team game that the actual team is favored over the solo player.

Just going off of the ladder’s own data and league data it shows that when players of equal skill face off in a team game that the actual team is favored over the solo player..

Can you provide that data? As I'm fairly sure it doesn't exist?

I also think the argument about not having to communicate being an advantage doesn't hold up - communication is always beneficial

In my opinion the notion that communication is always beneficial is wrong in business, life and also in Warzone.

______________________
My take: Above a certain skill treshold it is better to play alone, as the game becomes less about finding good moves, but choosing between various sets of good moves - that good players should find alone. And then it is more important to just keep your choices coherent between players and also between moves.
And of course the simple practical aspect of stress and time management and trying to comfort teammates cannot simply be neglected either.

In my opinion the notion that communication is always beneficial is wrong in business, life and also in Warzone.

True enough, but that's why you shouldn't take my statement out of context - the "if" statement I added afterward is kinda important hahaha.

And of course the simple practical aspect of stress and time management and trying to comfort teammates cannot simply be neglected either.

Yeah from my limited experience this seems like the best argument for playing alone, it does make it easier, if not necessarily helping you play better.

Edited 10/20/2023 07:57:33

Well it's still not true, I'm quite positive that Nazis are quite passionate and dedicated about politics and people who are going to be laid off are trying their absolute hardest to tell why it's a bad idea.
There is no value in arguing with them.

And even in your normal day to day discussion about what you're doing in the weekend, it is most likely more important to make a decision quickly than to discuss the various options.

Edited 10/20/2023 07:59:59

Lol that is so incredibly removed from the context I was talking in - specifically, Warzone team games. Just so nobody else misapplies my statement, I'll edit to make it more specific.

Loup,

Checking through your game history, only two of your last ten losses were against a team which is composed of a player and two alts ... and that was the same team. I hypothesize that banning such teams would not result in a substantial change in your rating, considering the ELOs of each of the eight other losses are around the ELOs of the one-player team you faced.

Edited 10/20/2023 08:59:31

I also think if you play a 3 accounts in a 3v3 it is disavantegeous over an actual team bringing in 3x as many ideas. Of course this team must work together and come to a result at the end they all go with and it must have the time to think debate about it.

In events like Clan League you still have the option to do some "brain-storming" over days for important turns and picking phase. If you have the time available on the ladder... I find questionable, as it kind of requires to find a solution fast.
At least I would say the reduction in time on the ladder is supporting single player teams more than actual teams.

Edited 10/20/2023 09:45:12

From my experience, in this game the team is as good as the best player. That's why the terms "team leader" and "puppet" were coined a long long time ago and are widely used. Because all that a good team needs is one good player and followers who don't start drama. Or ideally, alts.

With teammates of equal skill you need to decide on your strategy and coordinate your moves, deal with disagreements and especially on official ladders you do all of that in a really tough time window. The chance that someone boots is much lower in alt teams. The pressure is lower. The only benefit to playing with real players is that sometimes the teammates can catch each other's mistakes, but as Beep said, above a certain skill level objective mistakes like missclicks don't really happen all that often.

Imo it's easier to play alone and I'm surprised there's even disagreement on this. It's against the spirit of team games, it's less fun, but it's easier.

If playing with alts is a disadvantage then why doesn't Clan League allow alt teams?

I don't think anyone has argued it wasn't easier.

Lol rento. It’s more about slots than it is about an advantage or disadvantage. There’s been multiple times when clans decide to put a team together that has 1 person leading 2 others and I haven’t seen it work out at least in div A. There’s nothing against puppeting in clan league but again, it doesn’t work out.

Beep, if you look at early 3v3 ladder you can see when people entered with 2 alts and tried to beat szew gnuffone and other established teams. Didn’t work. There’s plenty of scrims I had back in the day vs dead piggy + alts vs random thrown together teams and we had a positive winrate despite varying skill levels. Deadman+alts also was similar results. Idk what else do you want? You can look through Clan League, Ladder, I can provide you the winrates from 3v3 Europe scrims. I’ve researched this as much as I can and I’ve never seen a single person have positive winrates vs 3 people of similar skill in 3v3 Europe.

You did not provide any data except a handful of selective games you played.


So let me try an attempt for a data-driven conclusion here.
It seems to me that 2020-2023 there were 5 teams on top of the ladder over a longer time period - out of which there are 2 legit teams and 3 alt-teams.
I suppose there were potentially a few more teams on top, but it is impossible for me to find them and those 5 I guess cover the most of the time period.

https://www.warzone.com/LadderPlayer?SeasonID=4&PlayerID=368951
https://www.warzone.com/LadderPlayer?SeasonID=4&PlayerID=614825
https://www.warzone.com/LadderPlayer?SeasonID=4&PlayerID=115122
https://www.warzone.com/LadderPlayer?SeasonID=4&PlayerID=621740
https://www.warzone.com/LadderPlayer?SeasonID=4&PlayerID=150854

Obviously, I am not claiming that this is proof of anything.
So yes, please do provide something to back up your hypothesis because I think it's completely made up and there's no data to back it at all.

Edit: AFAIK the top 3 win streaks are also by 2 alt-teams and 1 real team (Octane/ Beep/ Deadman, Timi, Master Jz)

Edit 2: AFAIK the top 3 ratings are also by 2 alt-teams and 1 real team (rakleader, Tof, Wazz/ Octane/ Beep)

Edited 10/20/2023 15:42:43

First of all thank you all for your inputs and responses to the matter that bothered me . Nevertheless I feel that many of you missed the point . I play ladder 3vs3 more than 2 years which means i know all teams that played during that time since i play 5 games at the same time with my team . We were ranked 4th if i remember well with the past team and now we reached i think also 4th place with the new team . After all this time allow me to know what i am talking about . Playing with 2 alts helps and is so far from the spirit of team -up maps ! I am grateful for the last post that provided hard evidence that what made me start the thread proved to be true . Thank you a lot of that . I hope that this will prevent players from practicing such methods in the future and to participate with real teams and real teammates . Kind regards to all and with gratitude for your time to reply .

From my experience, in this game the team is as good as the best player. That's why the terms "team leader" and "puppet" were coined a long long time ago and are widely used. Because all that a good team needs is one good player and followers who don't start drama. Or ideally, alts.

Absolutely not, three brains are always better than one.
I've been on ladder teams where I was arguably the better player and I can assure you I would have had worse results if I had been playing with 2 alts or puppeting them.

Debate is positive and brings results. It allows you to consider all possibilities, to make sure you did not dismiss anything important. Even if your teammates suggest bad moves, explaining to them why those moves are bad will help you understand the game better. And it might just give you an idea you wouldn't have thought of otherwise.
If you think a team with 3 alts is better than a team with 3 different players, it's because you've played with the wrong teammates so far.
Personally, as long as my teammates have the basics covered, do not boot, are active and know how to discuss in a civil manner, I know that they will help me achieve better results than 2 of my alts would.

Now, all what I just said is true if you have enough time to communicate with your teammates. I last played the 3v3 ladder with two teammates from the same country/timezone and the 3d clock was just right, with most of our turns lasting more than 2 days.
We could not have done this on a 1d12h clock. We wouldn't have had time to communicate properly and the quality of our moves would have dramatically decreased.

If you don't have time to communicate, then yes, I think it's probably better to play with 3 alts. To sum it up:
Teams with 3 different players and ample time > Teams with 3 alts (or 1 main player and 2 puppets) > Teams with 3 different players and not enough time to coordinate moves

So yeah, I think Loup Duk has a point when he says he's at a disadvantage right now. Because he's trying to play the ladders as they should be played, with a team of 3 different players and no puppeting. But the new ladder settings don't allow him to do it properly, and he has to face coordination problems that players with 3 alts do not face.

However, like krinid mentioned before, the problem here is the current time limit, not players playing with alts. They are allowed to do so, and sometimes that's the only way they can play the ladders.
If we want to reward "real teams", the solution is to give them enough time to play as real teams, not to remove the alt teams.

I hope you understand this won't help you, one of 2 thing will happen. Either the good players will team with 2 other good players and just be better than before, or they'll just get 2 people to let them do their moves. so don't see how this will really change anything for you.

Pros of playing with alts:
No communication needed
In sync team

Cons:
Takes more time
Doesn’t have the ingenuity a team of 3 people have, unless you’re a genius, then this doesn’t count