Twill wrote:The very fact that people are complaining about how "abuse is so rampant that nothing will stop it" implies that somewhere there is a problem significant enough to warrant a look. Lets take the issues one at a time and try to fix them rather than throwing our arms up in the air and say "f*ck this sucks, but lets not do anything"
Lets also look at some high profile cases such as SkyT and Warsteiner which have involved accusations but with our current rules there isn't anything we can prove or disprove about a rule being broken, we only have accusations of poor sportsmanship. That only leaves a bad taste in peoples' mouths and everyone is pissed off because there cannot be any resolution to that accusation.
If we establish a clear cut rule, we can deal with high profile cases without question or gray areas. It gives us a base to be more fact based than opinion based and that is always good for consistency.
To change gears a little, and address someone's concerns, no, this is not retroactive and is not a witch hunt. Whatever changes will be implemented from the time it goes into effect and not on previous actions.
To loophole #768 where I think detlef claimed you could have 1 person play all the accounts as long as they weren't actually the owner of those accounts - if you read the proposed rule as worded it says you can only control 1 account in a game, regardless of who you are. So no, that isn't a loophole because, unless I missed something you would very clearly be breaking the rule by having player C playing for both A and B even if player C wasn't in the game.
Risktycoon, you can repeat the same thing over and over again, but you're not adding anything to the discussion. Prove to me that it ISN'T an advantage to have 1 person controlling 2 accounts in a game. You have given lots of opinion stating that it is not because you have coordinated your strategy before hand. But I plan my games out at the beginning of any game or turn and yet I have to adjust that strategy based on the outcome of my dice rolls. If you tell me that you and your partner have planned a strategy for every possible outcome of every roll in every attack and thus are simply formulaicly proceeding through those steps then I say you are living a very elaborate deception. If you are not living a deception, go ahead and send me the list so that I can turn it into an unbeatable AI that would know what to do in any situation.
If you don't have that list for me or your partner, then you are making strategy choices for another player and as such removing the need for consultation, coordination and communication. That makes your team mate nothing more than an adviser rather than a partner and that is not a team game, no matter how many times you tell me it is - Adjustments must be made based on the outcome of a roll. Those adjustments should be done as a team in a team game. "Communication is the key to a good team" implies a coordination challenge. If you remove that need for communication and coordination by making strategy choices for your partner ("do I keep rolling or not", "do I now have enough men to keep going", etc.) then that challenge, the core challenge of a team game, is removed. And that holds true for both freestyle and sequential, even if it is more of an issue in a freestyle game.
Oh, and for the record, if I played you in a 1 on 2 game, I would lose because I suck, not because of any lack of advantage.
There is no doubt in my mind that 2 heads are often better than 1 in considering strategy. But at the same time there is no doubt in my mind that coordination is an integral part of a team game and by removing any form of coordination in the execution of a strategy, then you are no longer playing a team game.
If you want to play like that, start a singles game and have an advisor, but don't pretend that a team game is a team game if there is no team.
Still I say, come up with a viable alternative and I'll listen to it, but don't just bitch and whine and stomp your feet because that will come to nothing.
Now I see where you are coming from, Twill.
So basically your point is that in team game there is a CHALLENGE to communicate the strategy, right? And when 1 player plays the game then there is no need to communicate at all. That maybe true for the weaker players.
I mostly play team games (doubles in fact). When I play with my permanent partner (David_Wain) we almost have no communication. The only information we disclose is the team armies comparison after each turn, so we can tell how lucky/unlucky the turn was.
But sometimes (not often then every tenth game) we do need to communicate strategy-wise.
But in order to get to such understanding it indeed took some communication and lots of games played.
And I completely and wholeheartedly trust David_Wain to make his next turn WITHOUT my intervention and communication.
I can prove it by posting any private chat in any of the game with me and David_wain on the same team (unless he has problems with it).
So to sum up: if I would have a choice to play alone for both players or with my favorite partner I would certainly choose playing with the partner. Because having 4 eyes is better then 2.
And if someone would tell me that he is playing alone for both players I would not care at all.
Problem with ranking misuse? Fix the ranking system instead, not the babysitting rules.
Having this babysitting rule changed would unnecessarily inconvenience me and lots of other players.
One of the ways to prevent the ranking misuse is to create the corridor of ranks, who the player can join. I.E. if player has rating of 1300 he can only join players in -500/+500 corridor, i.e from 800 to 1800. The specifics can be discussed separately. Or at least give players the ability to create the "corridor" games.
And I do agree with you that the 1 person cannot play the whole game for the both players, because it becomes the multiple account. Especially if it is not just a one game.
PS. All these comments apply to sequential games only. I am not competent enough to discuss freestyle games.
