Clarification on use of alts in AvA (especially in superlative attempts)

This is the first time that I've ever felt compelled to create a new discussion. I'm not sure if this is the best way to get a response, but I've seen DB staff reply before and I feel we need a response on this issue.

As the leader of an alliance that has won superlatives in the past and will seek to win them in the future, I feel I speak on behalf of virtually every AvA player that we need some clarification on the use of alts in AvA. Specifically, what are the disqualification criteria for superlatives in terms of using alts?

I believe that the 1 account per platform limitation still applies? If so, that's not an issue for us. As far as I am aware, it's ok for alts to be in the same alliance assuming that they don't break the 1 account per platform rule?

We only have 2 alts in the alliance, plus a 3rd at another alliance that may join us soon, but before we decide to go for a superlative with 2/3 alts in the alliance or boot the alts before starting AvA, I would like to know what the criteria are for being DQ'd from a superlative due to use of alts.

Thanks in advance.
«1

Comments

  • eagllrdeagllrd ✭✭
    i give up on seeing a answer on this qustion

  • Unfortunately this page is very old. Would be good to know if it’s still valid. Especially regarding superlative disqualifications, it would be good to know specifically what led to them so others can avoid the same problems.
  • eagllrdeagllrd ✭✭
    just about every things out dated i really dont think db will say anything on all the alt`s they had since end of the last phase to give us some updated answers to our qustions and a new phase starting friday so i dont think they will
  • Still trying to figure out how to start a thread. So, don't know if this post will achieve that. My question is what makes one a participant in AvA. Accessing the map, creating a camp, garrisoning, sending?
  • Still trying to figure out how to start a thread. So, don't know if this post will achieve that. My question is what makes one a participant in AvA. Accessing the map, creating a camp, garrisoning, sending?

    it used to be:
    - donating mats or silver to camps
    - earning VP

    I don't think it has changed
  • NNNN ✭✭✭
    Garrisoning ss also count.
  • Thank you. I will test those theories and see what happens.
  • DutcherDutcher ✭✭✭
    If you're testing things, then also please test pressing the AvA button only, after the phase starts. It's not supposed to count you as a participant but it does trigger the anti alliance switching thing (when you leave your alliance during AvA you can not enter AvA again for another alliance nor the same alliance). Some say this also triggers the participant count but that's disputed. Thanks.
    Arya Serious? If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much!
  • GuderianGuderian ✭✭
    Dutcher wrote: »
    If you're testing things, then also please test pressing the AvA button only, after the phase starts. It's not supposed to count you as a participant but it does trigger the anti alliance switching thing (when you leave your alliance during AvA you can not enter AvA again for another alliance nor the same alliance). Some say this also triggers the participant count but that's disputed. Thanks.

    I've tested this out nearly every phase over the past few months out of curiosity, and it consistently does NOT (visibly) count as a participant. I have not tested leaving my alliance and joining another alliance to see if it freezes out my account from participating, but I have seen that reported here and have heard about that from several sources. Definitely a problem that should be fixed.
  • DutcherDutcher ✭✭✭
    Thanks Guderian. The freeze out is intentional, it prevents players from switching alliances during AvA (for extra rewards, titles and other evil intentions). The problem that has to be fixed is if someone leaves their alliance during AvA (accidentally kicked or left) and wants to return to the same alliance to finish their phase. This is now impossible.
    Arya Serious? If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much!
  • GuderianGuderian ✭✭
    Right, but my point was that you shouldn't be frozen out if all you did was click the AvA button and nothing else. The participation tracker functions appropriately and recognizes you did not participate if you didn't garrison any SS or contribute any mats or silver, yet you still get punished if you viewed the interface before moving to the alliance in which you actually wanted to play that phase. As you point out, this also applies to resuming activity in the same alliance.

    Alternatively, if they really want VIEWING the AvA interface to count as "participation", then the tracker should change to reflect that. While this latter fix is not as preferable, it's the inconsistency here that bothers me most. People should be able to easily figure out the mechanics and rules on their own without having to discuss on the forums with a bunch of other people just to be able to understand how the buggy nuances, of what should be a basic function, work.
  • NNNN ✭✭✭
    Dutcher wrote: »
    Thanks Guderian. The freeze out is intentional, it prevents players from switching alliances during AvA (for extra rewards, titles and other evil intentions). The problem that has to be fixed is if someone leaves their alliance during AvA (accidentally kicked or left) and wants to return to the same alliance to finish their phase. This is now impossible.

    Well I think the freeze out should be fixed as well, if someone hasn’t participated there’s no reason they shouldn’t be allowed to change alliance.
  • How is this a big issue? How often do people at one alliance click on the AvA tab and then move to another alliance? And why would they do it?

    And what does this have to do with the use of alts when going for superlatives?
  • GuderianGuderian ✭✭
    How is this a big issue? How often do people at one alliance click on the AvA tab and then move to another alliance? And why would they do it?

    And what does this have to do with the use of alts when going for superlatives?

    Considering how many times I've seen this issue come up in the forums or in-game, it's obviously bigger than you think. The reason is, of course, that people think it's a harmless action before they go merc somewhere for a phase, return to their home alliance from mercing the previous phase or going directly to another one, accidentally getting kicked and trying to resume their phase in the same alliance, etc.

    That said, I agree that it is an off-topic tangent that started around the sixth post in this thread, but nevertheless informative for some people.
  • You are still allowed one account per platform - FB, Armor, Kong and DB. When iOS and Android came out Khatie ruled those could count as additional platforms. That's six potential accounts.

    DB allowed them early on because there were only four fealties, and many players wanted to stay in their first choice. An alt gave them a chance to explore other game options. To be honest, I think DB chose to be vague because players like to exploit loopholes. And knowing how much work goes into building up just one account, I'm not sure they anticipated some players having six high level accounts.

    They've always been a slippery slope, but I think the basic rules remain the same - your alt(s) can't interact (send gifts/marry and send bacon/share BQs) with your main. AvA is trickier, because it really depends on how you're using them. Are they a spy parked in the enemy's keep, or at home keeping target camps lit up? Are they they bank that everyone in the alliance barters? Are they building camp mats so your main can focus on dragons? Are they leader of a training alliance, or leader of the farm alliance for your main to harvest for VP?

    I think in old AvA there was more concern about having alts in other alliances if they were being used to bribe or barter the home alliance's camps to speed up upgrades. New AvA changed the dynamics somewhat, but it still comes down to whether you're using the alt as a unique character or using it to get around the normal restrictions players and alliances deal with during AvA?

    Full disclosure - I have an alt. She holds the keys to the keep when my alliance mercs. And because some in my alliance are homebodies, she makes sure there are camps opened so they can help allies. Other then that, she's pretty lazy and worthless, as I'm lucky if I can log on once a day.
  • Guderian wrote: »
    Considering how many times I've seen this issue come up in the forums or in-game, it's obviously bigger than you think. The reason is, of course, that people think it's a harmless action before they go merc somewhere for a phase, return to their home alliance from mercing the previous phase or going directly to another one, accidentally getting kicked and trying to resume their phase in the same alliance, etc.

    What I don't understand is why anyone would even take a look at AvA in one alliance before moving to another alliance? I don't think this is something that needs to be fixed, just players should know better. If you're going to merc or return to your home alliance, you do it before AvA.

    The one issue I can definitely see is if accidentally leaving/kicked from your alliance and then your AvA is over.
  • Freya, if those rules were rigidly applied, I suspect virtually every player with an alt would be in breach.

    Apparently having alts in the same alliance as your main is ok? Obviously this benefits your main account as the player could coordinate multiple characters together in a way that separate people cannot. I would imagine most players send favours to their alts too (but is this really important?)

    I don't have an alt, so never had to consider what I should and shouldn't do. But I'd like to know what the offence was that has got alliances booted from superlatives. We don't need to know who committed the offence(s), just what it/they were.
  • NNNN ✭✭✭
    I believe it’s already established that db will side step/ignore the such questions, so the answers you seek are never coming.
    Apparently having alts in the same alliance as your main is ok? Obviously this benefits your main account as the player could coordinate multiple characters together in a way that separate people cannot.

    Unless your using your alt as an “alt”/booster I’d say it makes it at best easier, plenty of separate people in an alliance coordinate in any and every which way a person can with alt/s.......and lets not actually forget that because it’s one person playing multiple accounts, that mean multiple accounts going offline at the same time. Its really far harder and more boring than people think to manage alts, so much so I not only often get bored playing my alt (and thus it doesn’t achieve as much as a separate person would), but my main also suffers either because I end up doing something on my alt when I could be doing it on my main (pro, bqs, etc) or simply because of the compound boredom that causes me to not play.....for the last few weeks even I’ve only logged on late at night to collect daily rewards and send favors (if I make it in time), haven’t done the last few Ava’s (and even before I rarely ava with my alts and just ava with my main), didn’t even get to the top 2500 in last tales (got bored bouncing between accounts doing more of boring tales than someone with one account, and as a result just stopped playing).

    As someone with an alt, I’d say the greatest threat an alt posses to a game is causing a lose of players (which means potential lose of revenue). The other threats an alt posses can simply be nullified/reduced by proper programming/rules

    P.S when it comes to preventing “improper” behavior programming beats rules any day. Db should get more with the programming and less with the vague rules.

  • The biggest issue I know of with alts is having a core of elite players with multiple alts spread over 2 or more alliances. Then able to coordinate with perfect precision, i.e. alts sending bribe bombs to a camp with a high silver pool and the main in the main alliance then sending fight to maximise wins against the same camp.

    In reality, not many people would be willing to send a whole phase sending bribe against high silver pools to benefit another player, but it's easy when an alt is sending it to benefit the same player in another alliance...
  • Account sharing (also against ToS), and players having control of high level legacy accounts is it's own problem. I guess you have to ask if it's really physically possible for one player to sync multiple accounts without some sort of artificial assistance.

    As for alts, I guess it's a question of how big a role they play in the alliance. If someone has a loyalist Targ alt that's only got intrigue stats so it's only doing intrigue, is it being used improperly? Versus someone with the max number of accounts all in the same alliance, all high level, all high GP? Or the Alt account leading an alliance whose sole purpose is to be a VP farm for the main alliance?
  • GuderianGuderian ✭✭
    What I don't understand is why anyone would even take a look at AvA in one alliance before moving to another alliance? I don't think this is something that needs to be fixed, just players should know better. If you're going to merc or return to your home alliance, you do it before AvA.

    The one issue I can definitely see is if accidentally leaving/kicked from your alliance and then your AvA is over.

    Not to drag the convo too much off-topic again, but to address your reply...

    It's a bug. All bugs should be fixed. Just because you haven't experienced it yourself doesn't make it something that doesn't require fixing. I haven't experienced it personally, either, but again, I have seen many instances reported, so it is not uncommon.

    How do we know it's a bug and not a feature? Because it does not count as "participation" anywhere else in the coding. The counter on the alliance page does not change. The calculations for superlatives do not change. Simply viewing the UI is not supposed to count as participation and correctly does not, with the exception of changing alliances, and then suddenly it does. Yet changing alliances mid-phase prior to viewing the UI works fine. This issue cannot be by design, as it has no logical explanation, conflicts with its own mechanics elsewhere in the coding, and essentially lies to the player.

    As for "players should know better", the whole problem here is that it's impossible to know that bug would occur until you test it out, and by then your phase is over before it began. IF the participant counter on the alliance page incremented as a result of clicking on the AvA UI, then you could argue that there's a way for the player to figure it out, if he's really watchful or specifically trying to test out this issue. But as it stands, the participant counter does not increment, which gives the player the direct impression he has not yet joined in the AvA phase. And then when he changes alliances and tries to join the AvA phase to play, he finds he's locked out. That's entirely misleading to the player.

    Even worse, I suspect a lot of players who experience this issue don't even realize WHY they are locked out. They probably say to themselves, "Well, I didn't do anything in AvA yet, so why does the game not let me play?" And if they don't figure out the bug or have someone explain it to them, it can happen to them again during a different phase.

    It's these types of extremely simple bug fixes that can be rectified within 5 minutes and never get done month after month, year after year, that end up frustrating people to the point of giving up on the game altogether. So I would say it's certainly worth fixing.
  • NNNN ✭✭✭
    edited April 9
    In reality, not many people would be willing to send a whole phase sending bribe against high silver pools to benefit another player, but it's easy when an alt is sending it to benefit the same player in another alliance...
    Why not if it would get their alliance a win? Considering we have superlative titles now, and all the “diplomacy” that happens in ava, I don’t find it hard to believe one group of elite players would scratch a next groups back in return for having their back scratched.......but I don’t deny that’s an issue.....here’s the thing though, how did so many of those elite players manage to end up with elite alts? and that’s totally against the TOS, so it’s an issue because Db isn’t enforcing the TOS when it comes to fair gameplay and they haven’t/didn’t program the game to counter such TOS violations.


    At the end of the day though the fact still remains, just like reincarnated can **Chech'tluth** about how they earned their benefits and how anyone who wants to this or that such have to reincarnate.........no one is stopping anyone from creating alts, and thus any supposed benefit anyone gets from an alt is a benefit everyone else can get if they so choose.

    P.S Basically I’m saying I still stand by my statement. I’d bet far more people who used alts quit playing because of boredom than people who don’t use alts who quit playing because of cheating in ava.........to be far though even people who don’t use alts get bored and quit.

    Edit: P.P.S I heard that’s at least one “top alliance” way of doing things......and while I don’t think it’s the bribe fight combo I’ve certainly seen that using sub alt alliances to pound on enemies strategy employed by quite a few “top alliances”.....of course it ticks me off when my alliance is making a run for a specific rank and all of a sudden we start getting hitting hard by 2,3,... other alliances way down the ranks (sometimes the names aren’t even that different), like **Chech'tluth** for **Chech'tluth** sake I’d prefer if the alts were atleast in the same alliance so I know your asses are still limited by the participation limit, but **Chech'tluth** atleast make the name less obvious (of course they’ll claim it’s a 2nd/training alliance).
    And stuff like that is all the more reason I feel that rather than a no alts in an alliance policy (like some people want) it should be an all alts have to be in the same alliance policy....that way it’s far more easier to prevent abuse and far less restrictive on people in the same household (which let’s face it, if they live together they might as well be considered alts as far as AvA is concern, because 9 times out of 10 if both run an alliance they’ll both be coordinating attacks on each other’s enemies.....the 10th time someone is pissed off and will take it out on their housemates alliance).

  • Guderian wrote: »
    It's these types of extremely simple bug fixes that can be rectified within 5 minutes and never get done month after month, year after year, that end up frustrating people to the point of giving up on the game altogether. So I would say it's certainly worth fixing.

    Guderian, there are bugs in every software product. My point is that when the developers sit down and plan what they are going to do in terms of bug fixes and enhancements, this should be pretty far down the list in my opinion.

    As for saying it "can be rectified within 5 minutes", you really have no idea how long it would take to change the code and test it hasn't affected other areas, nor do you have any idea how complicated this would be. It's actually possible that it affects a lot of other areas and is complicated. If someone clicks on the AvA tab, they can see details of garrisons, exact status of camps, incoming/outgoing actions etc. If that person could then leave to another alliance and take advantage of that information, it seems unfair.

    So, I really think this isn't a big deal. And if it was to be fixed, it might create some other issues.
  • NN wrote: »
    Why not if it would get their alliance a win? Considering we have superlative titles now, and all the “diplomacy” that happens in ava, I don’t find it hard to believe one group of elite players would scratch a next groups back in return for having their back scratched.......but I don’t deny that’s an issue.....here’s the thing though, how did so many of those elite players manage to end up with elite alts? and that’s totally against the TOS, so it’s an issue because Db isn’t enforcing the TOS when it comes to fair gameplay and they haven’t/didn’t program the game to counter such TOS violations.

    Because generally they do not. Most players don't want to dedicate 4 days of AvA to help another alliance win. Not when they can use alts for the same purpose while their main is in the winning alliance. You will not find many very powerful and active players playing support for an entire phase, they merc instead.

    Elite alts isn't against the ToS. If a person somehow has the time to legally level 5 accounts because they want to experience different ways of playing, then that's fine. Truth is that many high-level alts have been illegally levelled and many have also been handed over from one player to another.

    Nobody is coming up with a solution on alts anyway. So all I asked was for an answer to the use of alts in a particular area. Because I didn't want our alliance to fall foul of any rules with alts. We play it pretty safe anyway and I don't have an alt either.
  • NNNN ✭✭✭
    See I know elite alts aren’t against the TOS it was actually a rhetorical question, I however screwed out the sentence structure/grammar. The vast majority of elite/high-level alts came/come about just as you pointed out, illegally.
    As for my last post I didn’t meant having alts/elite alt was against the TOS, I was address the part of your paragraph that came after the mention of elite players having/using alts.........I was referring to the bribe bombing an enemy with alts in an alt alliance then hitting said enemy with your main or alts in a different alliance.

    P.S I believe you ended up reading too fast and read past the where I indicated why I think one alliance can spend a phase seemingly helping another alliance......also in that regard but on a smaller scale, it’s like one one player spends a phase spying,swindling,hitting defended camps, etc. they end up potentially sacrificing personal threshold rewards for the benefit of their alliance (even when it’s just to gain a superlative title)......their essentially scratching the backs of everyone else in the alliance in return for everyone else doing their part (scratch backing).
    One alliance helping another in one region can very well be getting helped by said alliance in another region or getting helped in the same region or with a superlative (shouldn’t be match fixing though because that’s a TOS violation). Now I’m not saying that kind of fluid and honest diplomacy happens a lot, I’m just saying it likely happens a couple times.

    P.P.S I consider both the the elite players scenario you described and the one I put forward (where it’s a matter of scratching each other’s backs) to both be a problem in ava. One however is for db to address/fix/stop from happening, while the other is for the players to decide to resolve (or not) on their own.
  • GuderianGuderian ✭✭
    Guderian, there are bugs in every software product. My point is that when the developers sit down and plan what they are going to do in terms of bug fixes and enhancements, this should be pretty far down the list in my opinion.

    As for saying it "can be rectified within 5 minutes", you really have no idea how long it would take to change the code and test it hasn't affected other areas, nor do you have any idea how complicated this would be. It's actually possible that it affects a lot of other areas and is complicated. If someone clicks on the AvA tab, they can see details of garrisons, exact status of camps, incoming/outgoing actions etc. If that person could then leave to another alliance and take advantage of that information, it seems unfair.

    So, I really think this isn't a big deal. And if it was to be fixed, it might create some other issues.

    Actually, you're quite wrong. I do have a very good idea of how long it would take to alter the code for something this minuscule. If the coder isn't completely incompetent, it would take less than 5 minutes. That was not an exaggeration; it was an approximation based on real-life experience with coding. The issue can be rectified with one or two lines of well-written code. If you have a familiarity with the code of your own game, you know exactly where to go and how to change it, and something like this is not complicated. The likelihood of such a fix "affecting a lot of other areas" is extremely small for this type of change. Finally, if something will only take 5 minutes, it can only be kicked down the road for so long. Spending one day to do all the little 5-minute projects would vastly improve this game's QoL, and a company should be aware of that. It's not like they're spending their days addressing the bigger issues, like alt abuse.

    Your suggested form of abuse in which a player uses garrison or action info of one alliance, leaves that alliance, and then attacks that alliance... is pretty niche to say the least. You would have to have a player mercing with Alliance A one phase, then going to merc with their enemy, Alliance B, the next phase, then back again to Alliance A or other enemy the following phase. Yet somehow the alliances don't realize this and stop inviting the person? And of ALL the ways in which this game is abused, especially with alts, I'm pretty sure that your suggestion does not make the cut. I'd be surprised if you found one single player choosing THAT method of abuse when there are so many other, more "effective" forms of abusing the game. Given the insane number of alts in the game, if someone wanted to "steal" camp info as you say, it'd be far easier for that person to leave an alt in the target alliance for the whole phase rather than use the preciously sensitive garrison data from the first hour of a phase when camps have barely been started and no regions have clear competitors yet. In summary, this suggestion of abuse is entirely negligible and is far outweighed by the demand for straightforward game mechanics and desire for player retention.

    I'm aware you don't think it's a big deal. You've emphasized that point many times now. And I reiterate that you are simply unaware of how common the issue occurs, as you hadn't even seen it discussed before this thread. So your disinterest in the issue is noted, but it sure seems like a lot more people would prefer to see it fixed than are avidly against it being fixed. So far, you're the only one in the latter category.
  • DutcherDutcher ✭✭✭
    @Guderian I think he was just p-d off that 'his' thread got hijacked and that no one was interested in his question. I find the new subject (AvA bug fixes, participant calculation and other AvA mechanics) much more important and interesting. Carry on...
    Arya Serious? If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much!
  • NNNN ✭✭✭
    Awwwww ductcher, I think he’s finished though. He’s pretty much addressed it as best as one could possible do.
  • Guderian wrote: »
    Guderian, there are bugs in every software product. My point is that when the developers sit down and plan what they are going to do in terms of bug fixes and enhancements, this should be pretty far down the list in my opinion.

    As for saying it "can be rectified within 5 minutes", you really have no idea how long it would take to change the code and test it hasn't affected other areas, nor do you have any idea how complicated this would be. It's actually possible that it affects a lot of other areas and is complicated. If someone clicks on the AvA tab, they can see details of garrisons, exact status of camps, incoming/outgoing actions etc. If that person could then leave to another alliance and take advantage of that information, it seems unfair.

    So, I really think this isn't a big deal. And if it was to be fixed, it might create some other issues.

    Actually, you're quite wrong. I do have a very good idea of how long it would take to alter the code for something this minuscule. If the coder isn't completely incompetent, it would take less than 5 minutes. That was not an exaggeration; it was an approximation based on real-life experience with coding. The issue can be rectified with one or two lines of well-written code. If you have a familiarity with the code of your own game, you know exactly where to go and how to change it, and something like this is not complicated. The likelihood of such a fix "affecting a lot of other areas" is extremely small for this type of change. Finally, if something will only take 5 minutes, it can only be kicked down the road for so long. Spending one day to do all the little 5-minute projects would vastly improve this game's QoL, and a company should be aware of that. It's not like they're spending their days addressing the bigger issues, like alt abuse.

    Your suggested form of abuse in which a player uses garrison or action info of one alliance, leaves that alliance, and then attacks that alliance... is pretty niche to say the least. You would have to have a player mercing with Alliance A one phase, then going to merc with their enemy, Alliance B, the next phase, then back again to Alliance A or other enemy the following phase. Yet somehow the alliances don't realize this and stop inviting the person? And of ALL the ways in which this game is abused, especially with alts, I'm pretty sure that your suggestion does not make the cut. I'd be surprised if you found one single player choosing THAT method of abuse when there are so many other, more "effective" forms of abusing the game. Given the insane number of alts in the game, if someone wanted to "steal" camp info as you say, it'd be far easier for that person to leave an alt in the target alliance for the whole phase rather than use the preciously sensitive garrison data from the first hour of a phase when camps have barely been started and no regions have clear competitors yet. In summary, this suggestion of abuse is entirely negligible and is far outweighed by the demand for straightforward game mechanics and desire for player retention.

    I'm aware you don't think it's a big deal. You've emphasized that point many times now. And I reiterate that you are simply unaware of how common the issue occurs, as you hadn't even seen it discussed before this thread. So your disinterest in the issue is noted, but it sure seems like a lot more people would prefer to see it fixed than are avidly against it being fixed. So far, you're the only one in the latter category.

    I'm really interested in this! So, if the code was to be rewritten, what do you think the benefits would/could be, without any huge investment of cash or time, by DB?
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.