multiple accounts
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Strategies, Guides & Help
Forum Name: General Questions
Forum Description: If your gameplay question isn't answered in the help files, please post it here.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=280
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 18:56
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: multiple accounts
Posted By: joekewl
Subject: multiple accounts
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 22:35
|
I find it surprising that this game allows for multiple accounts. I can only assume it is because it is new and you want it to appear that there are more players than there actually is. I have played a lot of games like this one and I have never heard of such a thing. Having more than one account will get you banned in every other game out there. I dont like this policy at all. After thinking a little more I suppose this policy could also be to have more villages so that there is more activity and theoretically making it more fun. Either way I still dont like it. |
Replies:
Posted By: Lorna Doone
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 23:23
|
i have one computer at home both my husband and I play this game so, ty for trying to screw it up for us joe! gms - don't listen to this guy...! |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 23:42
|
Well, Lorna has put it reasonably succinctly (if a bit abruptly). Data is hard to come by, but a 2007 UCLA survey showed that (in the US) whilst nearly 80% of households had at least one computer, only some 25% had more than one computer. We know that multiple members of a household often want to play the same game, and this is especially true if it's a browser-based MMO one, because concurrency of access isn't so critical (ie it's not like trying to play 2 WoW accounts on one computer!). So households with only one PC gravitate to MMOs like Illyriad if they want to play the same game. Until we have multiple server instances up and running we didn't want to limit one-PC households from playing. However, it is distinctly possible that Server 2 (and servers thereafter) will have a one-account restriction, but we're a way away from there. We are, however, actively monitoring usage of the multiple account system, especially regarding the rule "2. Towns set up largely for the purpose of sending resources to your primary town are not permitted. If you infringe this rule you will receive a warning, and if you continue to infringe this rule, a suspension or ban." and we expect to come out with some concrete guidelines on what entails "largely for the purpose of sending resources". iirc, Travian used to define this as 'sending no more than 1 hours worth of your city's production to the same city in a 24hr period', and this might be the route we go down. |
Posted By: joekewl
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 23:54
|
haha, ok, if thats how you want to call it. Its not about multiple people... there are provisions for that as well. Its about multiple accounts per person. It is a difficult thing to police but I know of several players with more than one account. They are the same player not spouses or roommates. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2010 at 08:02
It's not "a difficult thing to police", joe - it's an impossible thing to police if an individual is determined to run multiple accounts on the same server - and pretty much any game (that doesn't require a client download or licence key system) that tells you otherwise is simply not being truthful. I think you'd be surprised at the number of players with multiple accounts on the same server in games that supposedly "enforce" a single account rule. So yes, we could have put in an unenforcable, arbitrary rule that "people can't have multiple accounts on the same server" when both we - and they - know this is in practical terms an impossible rule to monitor or enforce. Or we did as we did, bit the bullet and said "we permit this on this server" which is what we preferred to do. |
joekewl wrote:Posted By: joekewl
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2010 at 11:52
|
I know people steal and that its hard to stop them but I want a law against it anyway. Most crimes are solved by tips... No game ever says its easy to catch them but because its hard doesnt mean you condone it. |
Posted By: Telemikus
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2010 at 12:05
|
Hola, Also most of the players from Webfusion all play on the same IP address. If this was limited most of us wouldn't be able to log on :( |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2010 at 12:05
|
heh, understood Joe. As I say, I think corp will change the rules to one account only for later servers. But what do I know :) |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2010 at 12:06
Hey Telemikus, Just borrow the server's IP address - we can't block that one   EDIT: For those who don't know, Webfusion are our (truly wonderful, excellent, beyond compare) server provider and hosting company for the gameservers. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2010 at 14:23
|
joekewl, it's not hard, it's impossible. Rules that only restrain the honest do nothing but widen the competitive advantage cheaters have over honest players. While many honest players hail from the same IP address, cheaters will have no qualms taking the measures needed to bounce different accounts through different proxies--many of which could be privately and invisibly run on residential IPs indistinguishable from that of any other honest single player. The only reasonable reactions the devs can pursue are: - Disallow in-game activities that bring multi-account benefits to fruition (no feeder accounts). - Heuristically search for patterns that multiple lone accounts are run by the same entity or scripting system. Multiple lone accounts that are actually maintained by hand generally still cannot be discovered, but are at least limited by the capacity of the cheater's hands-on efforts. Running two accounts is hard but everyone can do it. Three is getting dicey...I have my hands full with one. The rule honestly seems strange to me even--but it bears far less importance than we would project upon it, if you take enforceability into account. Pragmatically, it's far better to give honest players free reign to achieve accomplishment more comparable to what cheating can net. At least that makes cheating a less lucrative proposition. |
Posted By: Telemikus
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2010 at 16:09
Why thank you very much, we do our best :) |
Posted By: joekewl
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2010 at 18:54
|
Most crimes are solved with help from tips... People report the multi and the admins look into it and then make a judgment call. Its not hard to figure. When multiple people use a computer you can easily tell the difference between them. You wont catch all of them and maybe not most of them. But there will be fewer if its not allowed and that policy is enforced. Plus they will have to work harder to be undetected, making it less appealing. I am well aware of the ways around IP and other detection methods. I think you would be surprised how many dont use those techniques. Plus there are other ways to catch them and in fact, basing judgment on IP alone is a bad way to enforce this. IP can be one piece of evidence though. I have played at least 6 other games like this one. None of them allowed multiple accounts per person. They all allowed for multiple people on one computer. They all banned hundreds if not thousands of accounts for this and other forms of cheating. |
Posted By: rescendent
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2010 at 20:53
Its not like the rules permit lots of accounts, only 2 - and they have to be active accounts - not farm accounts...
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2010 at 22:24
|
It only takes one cheater who knows what he's doing to ruin the game for everyone else. Pointing out a few idiots who manage to give themselves away by slipping details to other players or leaving an electronic trail that they could have avoided doesn't change the effect caused by the ones who are not. Where prevention fails, you have to consider broader approaches, such as removal of the incentive to cheat. I've played other games where the incentive to cheat was high and the developer was AWOL. Sure, cheaters still got caught by the snooping of fellow players...some of them, that is. Yet even the ones who were caught often enjoyed multiple years of unchecked success while they harassed small players and alliances. And, they were still only caught because they were sloppy. One player was a member of my own alliance and was never discovered during a very long and respected tenure in a position of leadership. We only found out because he got bored and quit, but decided to confess all before doing so. It was a painful stab in the back to find out that some of our most successful operations were supported by clandestine cheating. Destroying his account and distributing the spoils to smaller players did little to lift our spirits. Forum and datanet logs were clean...we'd have never caught him without the confession. At the end of the day, what difference does the rule make to you? You're allowed to run two accounts just like everyone else, so what's the problem? Don't thumb your nose just because it's different or unusual. In a perfect world, anything possible is legal--then cheating itself becomes possible, and everyone is on fair and equal ground. In an imperfect world, that is still the ideal. No doubt the developers of this game will find and ban many cheaters using more than two accounts. But all the anti-cheater detective work in the world doesn't change the price of tea in China. |
Posted By: joekewl
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2010 at 22:39
|
I understand many wont be caught but there will be more multi's if its allowed or even encouraged and those who only have one account will be at a disadvantage. I dont have time for 2 accounts, there was I time I did but even then I wouldnt do it... at least in games it wasnt allowed. Maybe its a matter of principle with me and maybe its soemthing else but I dont like the rule. As a side note: if the developer was awol or the incentive to cheat is high... I dont stick around and I sure as sh*t dont spend money on it. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2010 at 23:16
|
I never said I spent money on the other game...I wouldn't spend a penny for exactly your reason. If you don't have time to manage two accounts, then you will eventually find you don't have time to manage one. Conversely, think of all the people who won't cheat because they are allowed to invest the time they intend to invest without cheating. It's not a crime that they have more time or attention to commit. You're still clinging to an arbitrary mentality that there is something innately wrong or immoral with multiple accounts. There isn't. It's only cheating if it's against the rules. The rules aren't designed just to limit everyone else's playing capacity to what you can or are willing to muster. And for the record, I don't believe running two accounts would increase the effort you need to invest by more than 10%. After all, it all about timing of attention, not duration of time given. My 3 city account takes only 15% more of my time and attention than it did at 1 city. The rules are designed to create a playing field at which many can enjoy the game the way they want. Players need freedom to apply their personal talents and efforts toward competitive advantage--without so wildly succeeding in ways others cannot match that their investment is no longer worthwhile and enjoyable. Metagaming is also a big part of browser games, and that means spy/mole accounts infiltrating other alliances. The devs have recognized that, and it may have factored into their decision to allow two accounts per player. After all, you have to have two accounts to properly attempt running a double life. Finally, I have only one account. As I believe the stats reflect, I'm not at a disadvantage. People who are not sufficiently occupied by a single account can run a second, but that second account cannot operate in a way that just feeds the first account. The devs know what they're doing...they're putting roadblocks against unfair competitive advantage in the places where such can actually be effectively stopped. They're also doing it in a way that doesn't interfere with legitimate enterprise. |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2010 at 23:31
| Why would anyone want 2 accounts? |
Posted By: joekewl
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2010 at 23:52
|
You are taking me too personally on that last part. I didnt say anything about you spending money. I was merely saying that I wouldnt in that situation... which is the point of creating these games. Right now multiple accounts dont take much more time... just wait until you have a lot of villages, i dont know maybe 6, 10, 15??? in each account and the game is actually doing something... i.e. wars and such. Later on you will be at a disadvantage when you come up against someone who has twice as many villages as you because they have two accounts. With the rules as they are now they can unload both accounts on you and have nothing to fear. At least if its against the rules they have to be more careful and try to make them look like independent accounts. Sure there are a lot of variables... alliances, friends, etc but they start off twice as strong as you given an equal amount of development. Spying on others is not cheating... its war and this is a war game. But with our rules it would be cheating if they did it with a 3rd account. I can see that the devs know what they are doing but they also dont. This game is in beta at best and they look for a lot of input on improvements because they arent sure (and also want to hear our opinions... hence this topic). I am not saying they are doing anything wrong and dont mean any disrespect, just that they are not infallible. |
Posted By: joekewl
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2010 at 23:57
LOL, now thats funny. |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2010 at 23:58
Why is that funny joekewl? |
Posted By: joekewl
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2010 at 00:00
| I dont know wuzzy you tell me... |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2010 at 00:02
|
Wuzzy is my twin brother. I play together with him. We are both competative and have fierce competition in the rankings. |
Posted By: joekewl
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2010 at 00:06
|
ok, well you sign each others in game mail then. ...or at least get your names confused... |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2010 at 00:07
|
Yeah we are twins, we sometimes acts as one. My twinbrother is saying that he killed your caravans. Is that why you made this post? You thought Wuzzel and Wuzzy were 1 person? |
Posted By: joekewl
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2010 at 00:15
|
Thats not why I made this post. I made this post because of the rule I read. I know of several multi's by their own words. But I did assume you were one since wuzzy signed his message wuzzel and I know of at least one post in the forum where that also happened. Too be honest I am sckeptic of your story but it really doesnt matter and is entirely possible that its true. Since multi's are allowed I have absolutely nothing against them or anyone who has them. I just disagree with the rule. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2010 at 00:19
|
1) The exponentially increasing cost of settling/conquering cities means that no one will ever have more than an estimated 12 accounts. It becomes impossible to gain the population requirements beyond that point. It is part of the balanced design of the game and puts a hard limit on how much effort a single account will ever require to maintain. In fact, it's in my opinion one of the big pluses to this game. 2) You're at a bigger disadvantage against multiple accounts that are run by multiple people. Two single-account players who team up against you are also twice as strong and can pay twice as much attention to disrupting your operations. If you're lucky, they might be less coordinated than a single-player pair of accounts, but more likely it means being able to share the load of managing time-sensitive operations. In practical terms, your problem is largely unchanged. The answer in both cases is to make friends, join alliances, etc., not mope about how big and bad the world is. You can see the landscape around you. Whether those surroundings are run by 6 2 account players or 12 1 account players makes no meaningful difference. It's literally a six of one, half a dozen of the other type of argument. This is a highly social game and hugely impacted by elements of coordination. That's something with which you'll just have to come to terms. |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2010 at 00:21
My brother doesnt have a Forum account. He isnt a forumperson. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2010 at 00:26
|
Oh, and just to clarify. Yes, I realize the game is still in beta state, and there's much yet to do. The devs are also open to change when change brings improvement, and changing the 2 accounts rule could potentially be an improvement. It is not, however, nearly so significant or important a change as you make it out to be. There are many other issues that are far more important to balancing and improving gameplay, whereas this is a truly trivial issue, especially in regard to the basis of the viewpoints you are representing. Whether to allow 2 accounts doesn't really matter...it just doesn't make a useful difference. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2010 at 00:30
| More importantly, it can't be changed now. What about the people who already have two accounts, upon which some have spent prestige developing? If there were any inequity, then changing the rules mid-game would worsen it, either by the special exemption offered early players or the loss of hard-earned work and resulting player fallout. |
Posted By: joekewl
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2010 at 00:32
|
If you search the forum for wuzzy you will find a post form you posting a message sent to wuzzy. I guess it could be that you posted it for him but again... it doesnt really matter for my dislike of the rule and since multi's are allowed it really doesnt matter whether you did or not. |
Posted By: joekewl
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2010 at 00:45
|
@ HonoredMule *sigh* All I am doing is expressing my thoughts on the matter. I didnt say they should stop it now. I didnt say that anything should be done other than I dont like the rule, what I have seen elsewhere, and what I think the implications of the current system is. Yes there are other issues but i am sure they will be dealt with and I thought this should be included in the list. I didnt say it would have more impact than other rules. I didnt say it would ruin it for single account holders. I just said I thought it gave an unfair advantage. If you dont feel it matters then fine. You have your opinion and I have mine. |
Posted By: Tarantio
Date Posted: 12 Apr 2010 at 17:05
|
Joe, I am new to the game and starting to get the hang of it, so I decided to have a look around the map and see who else was out there. I was just wondering what the game policies etc where and was going to ask on multi-accounting (I recently quit playing a similar game as it became pointless with all the 'cheating' that was occurring.) Sadly it appears that what was banned (and yes hard to police I grant that) in the game I left is openly endorsed here???? I find it amazing that its okay to operate multiple accounts by the SAME player (not reffering to different players using same IP or computer - but can see this is what makes it hard to differentiate and therefore police).
I just saw several seperate caravan trains each consisting of 10 caravans each all heading in the same direction?? Im sure theres a plausible explanation for this but to me that looks like feeding??
Sadly it looks like this game is going to be subject to the exact same reasons I left my last game which is dissapointing as it looks great.
........Oh and I also noticed two player identities in close proximity starting with the same word and ending in a different animal?? how coincidental...maybe their related??
Most people want to play these games to compete on level terms against other players, sadly it seems that some people just have to have all the advantages making it somewhat pointless for players who do not operate more than one account. ..... And then if they are caught they get a warning?? oooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOO scary!!!!
|
Posted By: joekewl
Date Posted: 12 Apr 2010 at 17:39
|
The rules of this game are that you can have up to 2 accounts and they can not be used to push resources. Official text http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/current-rules_topic31.html - here . The caravans you saw... they could have been going to trades/resource drops in the same general direction that were far away. |
Posted By: Tarantio
Date Posted: 12 Apr 2010 at 23:13
thx 
|