Is this allowed?

[h_illes]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Sir, if you have time to get off your high horse, you could provide an actual answer to this:

Let me give a theoretic example. Let's say a player maintains two accounts, alternating between them whenever one of them climbs higher in the Arena rankings than the other. This is clearly cheating, but how do you prove it, short of the player admitting to it in writing?

I am truly curious about how the moderation processes work for such reports. Such a situation would come with very specific playing patterns that could be identified (e.g. one account is shelved for weeks, then the other in an alternating manner). But what do mods think about such patterns? Also, what if I confront a suspected player and they admit to it?

[Cile]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Sir, if you have time to get off your high horse, you could provide an actual answer to this:

Let me give a theoretic example. Let's say a player maintains two accounts, alternating between them whenever one of them climbs higher in the Arena rankings than the other. This is clearly cheating, but how do you prove it, short of the player admitting to it in writing?

I am truly curious about how the moderation processes work for such reports. Such a situation would come with very specific playing patterns that could be identified (e.g. one account is shelved for weeks, then the other in an alternating manner). But what do mods think about such patterns? Also, what if I confront a suspected player and they admit to it?

If they aren't playing their own accounts against each other, and are legitimately trying to win in the games they are playing, how does that negatively affect other players in any meaningful way?

[Jellby]

If they aren't playing their own accounts against each other, and are legitimately trying to win in the games they are playing, how does that negatively affect other players in any meaningful way?

Suppose the best player has 100 accounts... The first 100 places in the ranking (whichever one) would be hogged by the same player and the 2nd best player would appear 101st. I don't think that's "fair".

[h_illes]

If they aren't playing their own accounts against each other, and are legitimately trying to win in the games they are playing, how does that negatively affect other players in any meaningful way?

By the end of the Arena season, he is guaranteed to have one of his accounts in a high position. Basically, if he reaches a certain (high) Arena score, he will maintan that with at least one of his accounts. Meanwhile, honest players can lose their high Arena score due to a losing streak.

If it is normally a Top 10 player, this trickery can elevate them to a Top 3 position instead, or maybe even champion if the differences are small near the top.

[JoysJoy]

If they aren't playing their own accounts against each other, and are legitimately trying to win in the games they are playing, how does that negatively affect other players in any meaningful way?

By the end of the Arena season, he is guaranteed to have one of his accounts in a high position. Basically, if he reaches a certain (high) Arena score, he will maintan that with at least one of his accounts. Meanwhile, honest players can lose their high Arena score due to a losing streak.

If it is normally a Top 10 player, this trickery can elevate them to a Top 3 position instead, or maybe even champion if the differences are small near the top.

I’m sorry, but when I think through this, your reasoning, doesn’t make any sense. Each of those 100 accounts would start with an ELO of zero and have to play many games to even get to average. It’s not like anybody can start an account and play three games and be on the top just because they’re good at the game. It wouldn’t be possible to do this . And-Without playing against yourself, Since at this point, you would have to be playing the same game all day long just to get each account enough games to get a high ELO.

[h_illes]

I’m sorry, but when I think through this, your reasoning, doesn’t make any sense. Each of those 100 accounts would start with an ELO of zero and have to play many games to even get to average. It’s not like anybody can start an account and play three games and be on the top just because they’re good at the game. It wouldn’t be possible to do this . And-Without playing against yourself, Since at this point, you would have to be playing the same game all day long just to get each account enough games to get a high ELO.

You quoted the wrong comment. I never assumed 100 accounts, I assumed 2 in my example. Reconsider it with 2 accounts.

[Ceaseless]

If they aren't playing their own accounts against each other, and are legitimately trying to win in the games they are playing, how does that negatively affect other players in any meaningful way?

By the end of the Arena season, he is guaranteed to have one of his accounts in a high position. Basically, if he reaches a certain (high) Arena score, he will maintan that with at least one of his accounts. Meanwhile, honest players can lose their high Arena score due to a losing streak.

If it is normally a Top 10 player, this trickery can elevate them to a Top 3 position instead, or maybe even champion if the differences are small near the top.

I’m sorry, but when I think through this, your reasoning, doesn’t make any sense. Each of those 100 accounts would start with an ELO of zero and have to play many games to even get to average. It’s not like anybody can start an account and play three games and be on the top just because they’re good at the game. It wouldn’t be possible to do this . And-Without playing against yourself, Since at this point, you would have to be playing the same game all day long just to get each account enough games to get a high ELO.

One big thing getting erased is risk. A player does not have to sustain their rating, as one account is always permanently at their peak. This is especially rough for Arena competition, since that player has the advantage to always end on their highest score no matter what, while everyone else has to risk losing ranking slots to continue rising. This effect is even more extreme at the higher levels where losses incur far larger rating losses.

[Ceaseless]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Sir, if you have time to get off your high horse, you could provide an actual answer to this:

Let me give a theoretic example. Let's say a player maintains two accounts, alternating between them whenever one of them climbs higher in the Arena rankings than the other. This is clearly cheating, but how do you prove it, short of the player admitting to it in writing?

I am truly curious about how the moderation processes work for such reports. Such a situation would come with very specific playing patterns that could be identified (e.g. one account is shelved for weeks, then the other in an alternating manner). But what do mods think about such patterns? Also, what if I confront a suspected player and they admit to it?

If they aren't playing their own accounts against each other, and are legitimately trying to win in the games they are playing, how does that negatively affect other players in any meaningful way?

Guess I should have quoted you too for the zero risk post I made above.

[Meeplelowda]

If they aren't playing their own accounts against each other, and are legitimately trying to win in the games they are playing, how does that negatively affect other players in any meaningful way?

Suppose the best player has 100 accounts... The first 100 places in the ranking (whichever one) would be hogged by the same player and the 2nd best player would appear 101th. I don't think that's "fair".

I used to feel like Cile, but this is a good point. There are other things you can do with alts besides ELO boosting that negatively affect the ecosystem.

Also, they may actually be cracking down on "benign" alts as well (see Wingspan forum).

[Cile]

I can understand why someone might want to have two accounts to maintain a "high water mark" and continue to play without risking it. I just don't understand how that is a problem for the rest of the user base. Basically, if everyone ran two accounts and did this I don't think it would lead to a degenerate arena state, and for me it wouldn't make any difference to the quality of the games I am joining. Arguably someone playing on a 2nd account promotes a healthier arena than if they reach a high rank and stop playing entirely, because there is still an active high ranked account for other players to play against and beat for points.

As for a player running 100 accounts, if someone has the time and energy to do that more power to them. If everyone playing a given game was running 10 or 20 or 100 accounts that would lead to a very active arena system (after all, they need to play a LOT to get all those account's ranks up) and a much easier time finding an appropriate match.

I will admit that despite the fact that I play the majority of my games in arena, I don't actually care about climbing the ranks or where my position is at the end of the season. From the perspective of someone who just wants to play with a competitive mindset, someone having two accounts that never interact with each other doesn't impact my experience at all.