Multi question (in General)

bensonp October 22 2009 2:05 AM EDT

my wife has seen me play this game for a while. I want to know is there a drama with her playing on the same IP as me. Is it aloud.

dup October 22 2009 2:32 AM EDT

i think it is allowed..just dont transfer anything between the accounts

{WW]Nayab [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 22 2009 2:46 AM EDT

Slayer mentioned the ruling for such a situation in this thread.
Its the second last post.

AdminG Beee October 22 2009 3:42 AM EDT

I hate to contradict Slayer, but yes, your wife can play and yes you can have transfers between both accounts.

However, be aware that all xfr's will be considered 'suspicious' so therefore must be totally beyond reproach. In other words, sold at market value. Also, don't run any contests where she ends up winning :)

Players who have family or work colleagues sharing IP have these additional constraints. It's not a big deal though so don't be bothered by it.

FailBoat[SG] [Forever Alone] October 22 2009 3:51 AM EDT

Yeah, my wife played for a while too and she ended up doing better than I did with my nub. Then quit and kept all of her stuff instead of selling out.

BootyGod October 22 2009 3:56 AM EDT

What GB said. And if there is a choice between Slayer's answer and mine in a thread, go with mine! Because my opinions are GB approved! :P

QBRanger October 22 2009 9:09 AM EDT

Hopefully she will not be a NUB sellout like you were.

I assume you both have the same Paypal account.

That would raise a flag for me for sure.

AdminShade October 22 2009 12:21 PM EDT

If she herself really wishes to play then why do you stop?

QBsutekh137 October 22 2009 12:25 PM EDT

He's fought almost 360 battles in the last 24 hours... So, in that regard he hasn't stopped...

But I think Ranger makes a pretty good point, at least in a "keep an eye on it" regard... I mean, someone starts an account and NUB, then almost exactly six months later (after selling out, apparently), asks about doing it all again from the same IP address? Even a large benefit of the doubt still has to have at least a smallish red flag on it...

QBRanger October 22 2009 2:31 PM EDT

I would hope in 6 months, your "son" or "cousin" or "dog" does not get the sudden urge to play CB and sell out as well.

It is something a few of us will be keeping track of.

Burton October 22 2009 3:04 PM EDT

Why don't you just deny his request then?

AdminShade October 22 2009 3:05 PM EDT

It is being discussed.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 22 2009 3:10 PM EDT

might i recommend a public record contract stating the new account will not sell cb and if that is broken it will be banned. i would hate to turn away a new user, but to accept them blindly regardless of history would be just as silly.

Demigod October 22 2009 3:29 PM EDT

The problem is, how long would that "contract" last? You can't tell someone that they can NEVER sell out, you can only limit it through the NUB. But that limit doesn't really matter. Someone could run a successful NUB-sellout by waiting six months and a day.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 22 2009 4:08 PM EDT

sure you can. i have played for going on seven years and have never sold out. not having the ability to sell out would make zero impact on my ability to play the game.

i am not advocating killing off transfers for all, as i have said in the past the time to try that was when cb2 was released and we missed that opportunity for better or for worse. however, if someone has played and started selling out after one month of their nub and continued that trend throughout, then asks if another family member can play from the same ip, why not let them play but cut the losses and reduce the risk?

Wraithlin October 22 2009 4:11 PM EDT

How about an IP address only gets NUB for 6 months? If it takes you over 6 months to let your spouse know that you've found a game you like playing every day....well can't say too much for that marriage.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 22 2009 4:18 PM EDT

i think there may still be some cases on the interweb where people share ip's with no other relation other than isp or company they work for which would make any ip limitation, other than by individuals, do more harm than good.

Wraithlin October 22 2009 4:23 PM EDT

I still don't see the harm in multi's at all. In my opinion they should be legal and allowed. What is the downside to having your player base spend twice as much time with CB (if they had 2 accounts). They can't gain MPR any faster, I guess technically they can gain money twice as fast, but they are also playing twice as long. There are already devices in the game that penalize you for having gear beyond what you already should have, so I really don't understand why multi's are banned.

Wraithlin October 22 2009 4:25 PM EDT

sort of edit for above: yes you could swap a tat back and forth and get 100% out of it instead of 66%. But if everyone does this, why does it matter, half the community insta pumps thier tats half the time anyways and already have this bonus till they get in the top 20 or so, and those guys are 8-10 months from being able to make use of multi accounts.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] October 22 2009 4:26 PM EDT

So, if you screw up your first NUB, you think you should get another one, then another, then another? When there are those people that are dedicated who actually fought battles for the past 5 years, when others only have to be dedicated for 6 months gets jipped? Doesn't seem fair to me.

QBsutekh137 October 22 2009 4:29 PM EDT

Wraithlin, two times zero is still zero. You don't need to spend a lot of time here to run up a character. Once you hit 9/10 or so, you can go around 8 hours without even logging in, and then burn through 160 BA in 10-15 minutes.

I don't think you appreciate how much that extra money would help if all combined onto one character.

Wraithlin October 22 2009 4:30 PM EDT

So you're saying that you shouldn't allow multi's because you don't want more competition? Don't most of you all complain that there aren't enough people in CB already, would some joker who remakes his character every 6 months actually hurt your standings?

I guess the fear is that if someone sucks and gets beat and starts losing ground on the competition, he shouldn't get to remake an account and hop back into the top 10 again. Real simple solution there, base the NUB bonus around putting you 10% behind the top guys rather than right with em. I don't think after playing this game for only 6 months you should have a chance to end up in the top 5 anyways. I'm a NUB and i'd support lowering my NUB bonus.

Eliteofdelete [Battle Royale] October 22 2009 4:35 PM EDT

Wraithlin stay around and play competitively for over a year and maybe you will understand ;)

BHT October 22 2009 4:37 PM EDT

Wait..Whats the point in having 2 accounts when you could just make another character? Having 2 accounts would be abused.

{WW]Nayab [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 22 2009 4:37 PM EDT

I don't want multis for two reasons.
1: Kinda defeats the purpose of the game if you get up the top that fast.
2: The cash influx into the game would be astronomical. People would be running around with x20000 weapons after a few months.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 22 2009 4:38 PM EDT

Wraithlin, how do Merrit and Deemer feel about your Pro-Multi stance?

Adminedyit [Superheros] October 22 2009 4:40 PM EDT

no we don't like multi's because thats in the rules you agreed to when you joined up, only 1 account per person. period. no sharing accounts. no having multiple accounts. otherwise you could make a NUB account, use all the free BA and bonus to CB$ and feed your "main" account, this would not be a good thing.

Wraithlin October 22 2009 4:40 PM EDT

I have no clue about Merrit and Deemer, i doubt they would run more than one account. I would run two just because i could then try more than one strat at a time. As it is, i only have the BA to run one main strat.

Burton October 22 2009 4:41 PM EDT

Wraithlin, that's ridiculous.
The CB economy would turn into something very similar as to Germany's after the World War.
Hyperinflation, too much money in the market and it would become worthless.
Heck no do I want that.

Wraithlin October 22 2009 4:46 PM EDT

Well how about this: Every account you make after your first has to be declared a multi account, can be a little checkbox you do, if you don't check that box then you fall under the old rules and it will be deleted and your main wiped.

If you do check that box then the account is restricted use and cannot trade with other people. You can spend your money on the market through normal means, but you can't trade with anyone. This will allow the people who want to spend extra time actually playing with different ideas a chance to do that, while not allowing the accumulation of wealth on one account.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] October 22 2009 4:49 PM EDT

Thats what tourneys are for. If you want to do that.

QBJohnnywas October 22 2009 4:49 PM EDT

Wraithlin, you only need one user id to create as many characters as you like. Five live at any time, and the option to retire chars and start new ones. Nobody needs to be multiple players.

{WW]Nayab [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 22 2009 5:05 PM EDT

JW, 5 characters for supporters and 2 for non supporters can be active on a single account.

QBJohnnywas October 22 2009 5:08 PM EDT

Isn't that just what I described? Whatever, you don't need a second or a third account to play different strats etc.

Wraithlin October 22 2009 5:33 PM EDT

You're right, you just have to accept the fact that you don't get to be competitive. That seems like a bad tradeoff. How about this suggestion then, your account has a combined MPR stat associated with it. Every team you run gets the same BA everyday and when you buy BA you get 1 for every team for every BA you buy. However every battle you win your money gain is: money gain * (team MPR / account MPR). So your biggest team still would get close to thier same cashflow, or if you were running two equal teams they'd each get 1/2 the cashflow.

Everyone still gets the same amount of money each day (or less actually if you take into account healing). And there are 2-5 times the amount of viable teams out there to compete against and of course more time for you to play around with your own strats.

If you retire a character they lose all BA that was on them, and if you bring a character out of retirement they have 0 BA.

QBsutekh137 October 22 2009 5:53 PM EDT

Hm, the no-transfer character checkbox is sort of intriguing. I can't think of anything wrong with that.

I agree that tourneys provide that sort of play, but what would be wrong with having characters like that around to, as Wraithlin says, serve as a sandbox?

You'd get 2 BA accrual tanks: One for your "transfer-enabled" characters and one for your "transfer-disabled" characters. The transfer disabled would just be to have a bunch of extra play time. We could even say no clanning with those (though I don't see why that would be bad).

Running a no-transfer character would be extremely interesting -- better find all you need in the store or on auctions, and no money lending, etc...

It's a nifty idea!

QBsutekh137 October 22 2009 6:00 PM EDT

OK, my brains going crazy on this no-transfer idea...I love it! Everyone could have their set of transfer enabled characters -- trading, forging, loaning, USD... And then folks could have their no-transfer characters, not even transfers among your own characters. Only the system account could access transfers so that someone could still buy from store and auctions.

But if two people wanted to "duke it out" purely, using the real score ladder all the way up (as opposed to tourneys which are limited in time and theme), they could each make a no-transfer character and see what happens!

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 22 2009 6:12 PM EDT

so would this no-transfer nub replace the ncb? just to be clear, it could buy from auctions?

Merrit October 22 2009 6:21 PM EDT

well since i was asked the question.... If multi was allowed i would have a multi for the sole purpose of forging for my main account....

Brakke Bres [Ow man] October 22 2009 6:54 PM EDT

and bam you banned if you do that.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 22 2009 7:03 PM EDT

A no-xfer char would only be able to buy from the auctioneers, otherwise money from those accounts could be subtly funneled elsewhere.

Zenai [Ministry of Pain] October 22 2009 7:13 PM EDT

Sut it is an intriguing idea, but I think dudemus did hit it on the head, they could still technically get around this idea with auctions. One setup on one comp and the other set up on anther one, drop valuable item in auctions for seriously small price and snatch it up with the other. If this were stopped by saying that not even Auctioned items could be bought by the Sandbox Char from your Main then maybe.....I'm still pondering it.

[P]Mitt October 22 2009 7:16 PM EDT

I can't believe we're even considering this.

Admiralkiller [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 22 2009 7:34 PM EDT

Not sure why one would want more then 5 characters, I have never had the need, Almost for storage but I decided I did not need 90000 katanas.

I supposed I could sell all of my stuff and trade it for USD, then go downstairs and start a NUB all over again and inject it with the USD from this account. That would be cheating myself and the wonderful people here in CB land whom I have come to admire and respect.(my typing, spelling and grammar would give me away)

Anyways I don't like the idea of multi accounts sandbox style or not, it has never been part of CB and I don't think it ever should be.

Wraithlin October 22 2009 7:41 PM EDT

How can you play CB and not like the sandbox idea, that seems completely opposite sentiments. Besides don't you already have rules against putting auctions up for very low prices in order to transfer items. If you don't, you should because that's a shady way people are currently running multi's on different IPs.

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] October 22 2009 8:08 PM EDT

Wraithlin should not have a voice in this conversation IMHO. My view, no NUB sellout should have multiple accounts on one IP, mother/father/wife/child/dog, or whatever. Especially right after their NUB expired, and they sold out.

Demigod October 22 2009 8:12 PM EDT

"Wraithlin should not have a voice in this conversation IMHO."

Of course he should. And having read through some of the points, there are many good reasons for allowing multis -- but the money and abuse issues knock it clear out of the water.

QBsutekh137 October 22 2009 8:13 PM EDT

Z, it was Wraith's idea... *smile*

And auctions are already watched for that sort of issue, to catch existing multis...

I still like the idea!

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 22 2009 8:23 PM EDT

Sut you've been head over heals for any xferless CB since the first time I mentioned it (and likely before)!

Wraithlin October 22 2009 8:26 PM EDT

"My view, no NUB sellout should have multiple accounts on one IP, mother/father/wife/child/dog, or whatever. Especially right after their NUB expired, and they sold out."

I agree completly. However I don't see how not allowing multis will solve this. Do we (the admins) keep track of every IP ever used to make an account, including the deleted ones?

QBsutekh137 October 22 2009 8:27 PM EDT

And this is the best of both worlds! I also love options!

Actually, the first guy I remember to hint at a transferless system (because that is what it would have to be), was Jonathan. *smile* A very ominous hint!

Zenai [Ministry of Pain] October 22 2009 8:27 PM EDT

I know Sut I was just agreeing with you. Hmmm now the Sandbox would be a cool idea. It would be hampered with so many restrictions because of exploitations that it would no longer be a fun thing.

It's kinda sad though because I do not like Tourney's. However cool they may be when people like Nem, Hatch, nov and Ranger step in it it's like everyone else will just have to settle for several places down.

In that regard it kinda takes the fun out of it. The other part is the fact that sometimes the Rules are so obscure that I don't even try to understand them. This would be like a personal Tourney in a bottle if the kinks could be worked out without it becoming a true problem in itself. No one Else's rules other than the General ones.

Wait why not Have an Arena all the time! Open to the General Public one Char at a Time Separate from Tourney Chars and Separate from Main Chars same no Xfer Rules Apply!

Almaisky October 22 2009 8:53 PM EDT


BootyGod October 22 2009 9:00 PM EDT

I still don't really understand the hate on multi'ing. But I've already made my long forum post about why multi'ing would be a GREAT thing for CB if set up the right way.

QBsutekh137 October 22 2009 9:04 PM EDT

That's what it would be, Z...a parallel arena, where USD couldn't touch it. Heck, not even multi-ing could touch it, because there would be no transfers!

And unlike a side arena or tourneys, it would never end. You can have all the time you want to build yourself up, or try again...

It's one of those things I like because there doesn't seem to be any downside, and it doesn't seem that hard to control. Just a flag in the character table preventing transfers.

Wraithlin October 22 2009 9:06 PM EDT

I forgot you'd have to put another safety mechanism in place or some people would abuse the system. You're not allowed to attack yourself. Otherwise you could gimp your high level guy and let your other one rape his face.

QBsutekh137 October 22 2009 9:42 PM EDT

Wraith, already covered -- you can't fight your own characters, and that part would still apply with the no-transfer sandbox.

That's the beauty of it... _Everything_ would be the same for no-transfer characters, until transfers tried to happen.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 22 2009 9:53 PM EDT

if i could run a no transfer nub instead of an ncb i would in a heartbeat!

QBRanger October 22 2009 10:15 PM EDT

Agreed Dude,

I would also.

QBsutekh137 October 22 2009 11:38 PM EDT

Nope, I don't think the NUB/NCB rule can change... With a pure NUB, and the know-how if years, a NUB (even with no transfer) doesn't really fit in the scheme. At least, that is not what I had in mind.

A no-transfer sandbox has nothing to do with the bonus scheme, whatever it is or should be.

bensonp October 23 2009 4:19 AM EDT

just cause i sell my CB doesn't mean i am a sell-out after 6 months jesus. i use the usd i make to do things with my family. I still play don't i just in and off the past 3 months.

BootyGod October 23 2009 4:33 AM EDT

These multi witch hunts are getting utterly ridiculous.

In this darn game right now, we can't have a new player do well without someone muttering about it being a multi. And oh boy, if they sell CB for USD, that muttering will turn into mobs screaming into megaphones.

How can you have a game without competition? Where anyone new is instantly distrusted? You can't. No one wants to be a part of a community so full of suspicion.

And, hey, NEWSFLASH. If everyone is right about the huge amounts of multis, reality check time, that means that some of these "vets" who you're friends with are creating these multis. So, while you all are keeping an ever so close eye on Benson and other NUBs, I'm going to start going through every person's who's sold CB for USD logs. Going to see if I can't find me a good ole' witch.

Oh, wait, no I'm not. Because it's STUPID. It's unfair and unrealistic. You can play the game as is, or you can quit. But stop WHINING about the darn multis. Which, in reality, ends up being any NUB who breaks 1 mil MPR or any person who's been playing a shorter amount of time than someone else and starts selling for USD.

You can believe all you want it's cheating. It is against the rules. But let's try to be honest about something else. The reason buying CB for USD isn't cheating is simply because it's nearly impossible to stop without wrecking any kind of free market game. You players out there who are buying USD are CHEATERS in my book. Granted, my book is filled with stuff people would definitely disagree with, but you're still pots calling kettles kitchenware.

Finally, just to try to appeal to the logic in some people's brains, just think about it. Does this suspicion do ANYTHING to stop multis? Of course not. There's no penalty to being caught for them but some wasted time. And I really doubt the numbers of multis has gone down since CB was originated.

But I know the suspicion makes the game less fun for me. It kills it, honestly. And, as crazy as I am, I believe that if I'm feeling it, so may be others. And there's no way new players are reading some of these posts and not feeling attacked. So keep your dark minds off the forums. Please. It just doesn't help anything. It can -only- hurt Carnageblender.

QBsutekh137 October 23 2009 9:23 AM EDT

Couple differences between a multi "hunt" and a with-hunt:

-- Witches aren't real. Multis are.
-- Even if witches were real, there would be no reliable, consistent way to tell, unless you believe they float like small rocks or churches. The admins here are EXCEEDINGLY good at finding true multis, and that quality is usually served up with huge dollops of benefitting doubt. Again, that's not usually so for witch hunts.

I don't actually see much whining on this thread (why do people like using that word so much? It's so...whiny.) I see concern over multis, and I also see some interesting ideas on improving the game (I still like the no-transfer sandbox idea). If you don't think multis are a problem, and you think use of USD is cheating, then you are bringing up ENTIRELY different issues, because:

-- Multis are illegal in the game. If you want that rule changed, perhaps you should start a new thread entitled "Multis should be legal in the game."
-- USD is legal in the game. If you think USD is cheating and/or illegal, perhaps you should start a thread titled "USD is cheating and/or illegal."

Starting new threads on those topics would be a more logical route to take, because neither issue has anything to do with this specific thread.

QBRanger October 23 2009 9:30 AM EDT

We have new people doing well without the muttering of "multi".

Joel, GatemaN among others.

They are not selling CB2 during or just after their NUB has ended however.

People are being quite logical with their assessment of the current situation.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, tastes like a duck, then perhaps it be a duck?

If someone is selling out CB2 during their NUB, we are not calling them a multi. We are calling it what it is-a NUB sellout.

However, if that NUB sellout all of a sudden asks for their "wife", "son", "dog", "cousin" etc.. to play, just after their NUB ends, one has to raise a flag of suspicion.

It certainly looks like a duck to me.

Perhaps becoming less moralistic is a better way to proceed.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 23 2009 9:40 AM EDT

The only problem I can forsee would be buying from the Store.

It would be expensive (And slightly dangerous), but you could 'gift' Rares by selling at slow times to the store, and buying with your NT character.

(I'm assuming that they could still purchase auctioneer auctions, but not player created auctions)

And we can't really remove store access, as base characters need to be able to purchase non rares, especially starter weapons. The Rare stuff can all come from the AH. ;)

QBRanger October 23 2009 9:41 AM EDT

Abuses like that would be very easily seen and then promptly punished.

QBsutekh137 October 23 2009 9:47 AM EDT

GL, admins already watch stores and auctions (even player auctions) for suspicious activity.

But let's get nuts and realize what no transfers could do. Go ahead and take the store away. Let the sandbox characters us WHATEVER THEY WANT. Think Matrix: "Lots of guns", flying by on racks. Why not? Want to try a corn, fine, grab a corn. But if you use your cash up upgrading it and then don't like it, the most you can do is disenchant it for a huge loss and then nuke it (there would be a wastebasket).

Try a Morg. Try an SoC. Try any tattoo you'd like. But you have to work with the money you earn, and the MPR you gain.

Now, here's a potential rub. With all of these restrictions, would these sandbox characters even be any fun? I think they might be. NCBs are largely "for fun" anyway, since it costs too much to buy BA. These sandbox characters could become somewhat competitive (especially if all base gear is free), but not overly so. So the only questions would be: Could they get too powerful? and Would they be too weak so that no one would ever use them?

I suppose there is one last thing that could go wrong with such a character -- running out of money and not even being able to heal (is that still possible?) You wouldn't be able to transfer a little healer cash to it, so it's be stuck. Though you could probably disenchant some gear or something...

QBsutekh137 October 23 2009 10:17 AM EDT

Hm, the sandbox could even have the NW/PR linkage removed, since there would be no such thing as giving a no-transfer character a beefed-up weapon, not could they use USD to bulk up.

Now, I am not sure how that would play out since my idea is that everyone plays on the same score ladder, the same pool of characters. Rewards for no-transfer characters might be too large if their NW isn't figured in, even if it is just "natural" NW.

Oh, and the silly drop system would obvious have to be turned off for them. Give them cash, since they can't sell items anyway. Again, not sure how that would play out, since that would be an advantage. To have consistent cash flow could be another edge for a no-transfer character.

And don't forget, the transfer and no-transfer characters have separate BA buckets (by user). So when you are done burning BA for your transfer character(s), you can go play around with your no-transfer character. More clicks, more fun!

(though things are getting more complicated than I first imagined, especially with the NW/PR linkage and the drop system -- those things don't really fit with the "no transfer" world... :\)

QBRanger October 23 2009 10:38 AM EDT

The should be able to buy/sell items via the auction system.

As long as there is no obvious abuse of it.

The drop system needs to be turned for for all characters anyway. It just sucks.

BootyGod October 23 2009 1:26 PM EDT

"Couple differences between a multi "hunt" and a with-hunt:

-- Witches aren't real. Multis are.
-- Even if witches were real, there would be no reliable, consistent way to tell, unless you believe they float like small rocks or churches. The admins here are EXCEEDINGLY good at finding true multis, and that quality is usually served up with huge dollops of benefitting doubt. Again, that's not usually so for witch hunts."

Yes, you're 100% right. The ADMINS are very good at finding multis. Normal players are just ridiculously suspicious. People here seem to start out just plain "knowing" someone must be a multi and just spend time looking for proof of it. This isn't fair to the new player. And maybe if Benson was the first and only time I'd ever seen this happen to a new player, maybe I'd be willing to accept this kind of behavior from the community. But this isn't the first time and it's just childish at this point.

To make this real simple, there is no difference between witch hunts and multi hunts for the -average- user. Multis are totally out of the sphere of influence for someone who's not an admin. A normal players lack the tools to -prove- a multi, and if you can't prove a multi exists, then maybe it doesn't. Just like a witch =)

"I don't actually see much whining on this thread (why do people like using that word so much? It's so...whiny.) I see concern over multis, and I also see some interesting ideas on improving the game (I still like the no-transfer sandbox idea). If you don't think multis are a problem, and you think use of USD is cheating, then you are bringing up ENTIRELY different issues, because:"

I use whining in place of raging stupidity and baseless suspicion. Trying to spare people's feelings, because some people do get upset at such things so easily. And I find it GREAT that in a thread that was a very simple "multi question" that was discussed and answered in the first 10 posts, you have turned it into a CB sandbox thread (Well, not you, you just seem to make the most posts about it) then you turn around and tell me to make a seperate thread for MY offtopic stuff. Double standards are bad, m'kay? The topic currently at hand is not set by you, Sut. And if everyone else thinks it is, well, I don't have to =)

"-- Multis are illegal in the game. If you want that rule changed, perhaps you should start a new thread entitled "Multis should be legal in the game."
-- USD is legal in the game. If you think USD is cheating and/or illegal, perhaps you should start a thread titled "USD is cheating and/or illegal." "

Been tried. Didn't go anywhere. But where would CB be if people weren't beating every dead horse in sight into pulp?

"Starting new threads on those topics would be a more logical route to take, because neither issue has anything to do with this specific thread."

As I've said, CB sandbox has -zero- to do with this thread. Take your own advice, Sut. Thanks.

Oh, and lastly. Before you respond to something I write, maybe you should read deeper than "What can I find to disregard his argument". Because all I really got from you was

1) Witches aren't real. Thanks for telling me that.

2) No one is whining. Okay, that was -totally- the point of my respose in the thread. Thanks for addressing it.

3) You think the topic of any thread at any given time has nothing to do with the OP, but simply what you feel you'd like to discuss in the thread. Gravy. I'll make sure to remember that.

I got to say, you picked the weaker points of what I said. Yes. It's not a great comparison and there isn't a ton of blatant whining. But there is tons of community crushing suspicion that no one seems to see except, get this, the new players the game desperately needs. I guess it was just easier to ignore -that- point. Next you'll be correcting my grammar and assuming I'll take that as a well thought out, and most likely biting, reply to something I've said.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 23 2009 1:38 PM EDT

our community does have some major issues. i think it tends to happen any time the system is set up with the haves and the have nots. the first cb swung too far in one direction and cb2 has the pendulum at the far end of new user friendliness.

the community has offered some suggestions to address the disparity but they have been largely ignored and that creates more ill will. when you add to this the irony of usd spenders creating the market for nub sellouts, you do have to wonder if we have somewhat of a dual personality as a community, which is likely an understatement considering our size.

the issues are even further compounded when you have former usd spenders coming over to the other side of closing off more transfers once they have reaped the benefits of that spending but before others can do likewise.

much of this is just human nature though and about the only solution was one that we missed the boat on in january of 05.

QBsutekh137 October 23 2009 2:12 PM EDT

Fel, of course I picked on the weaker points (as I perceived them, it's just my opinion) of what you said. That's how ideas get made stronger, and get clarified (as you proceeded to do).

I apologize if you experienced my post as a personal attack. It wasn't meant to be. If you can point out something I said on my thread that sounded intentionally disparaging or personalized as a barb against you, I'd appreciate it. Judging simply by the length of your post, I'm worried that my points have been blown at least a little out of proportion. I wasn't even disagreeing with you. The most I was taking issue with, if anything, was the internal line of thinking -- I wasn't saying you were off-topic from the original post. I was saying that refuting multi-hunting by saying multi-ing should be fine in the first place, or that USD is bad, doesn't make sense. Here's a better example of what that is: If someone didn't like the no-transfer sandbox idea, and they said, "The no-transfer sandbox idea is dumb because multi-ing should be legal," that would be a complete miss of the point. That's flawed logic, and it adds nothing to the discussion because it causes the "sides", if there are any, to get out of phase, so to speak. That's when the BIG misunderstandings start. In fact, it's where the wheels come off in a majority of flame wars. A large portion of the time folks start to get hot because they aren't even discussing the same thing.

In an attempt to prevent that, I was trying to clarify what I thought might be out of phase about your point, not point out any inconsistencies with the overall flow of the thread. As you stated (accurately), many posts might drift off topic. And my post was not an attack on you. A post is a post and a person is a person. But again, I apologize if something in my tone or words made it seem otherwise.

Phrede October 23 2009 3:15 PM EDT

There are some really big paragraphs in the preceeding posts.

I like the idea of no-xfer characters.

BootyGod October 23 2009 3:17 PM EDT

Well, what to say...

First off, I did want to clarify my tone. It wasn't angry and I'm not upset (Annoyed, yes, but not at a particular person). I didn't take what you said as a personal -attack-, but I can see why you might think that. I simply thought you stood against my idea a bit more than you apparently do.

In my mind, I had one real point to be made. Simply that suspicion of normal players towards new players witthout proof is bad for the community and therefore the game. I then took your comments about flaws with my phrasing and explanations to mean dislike of the idea and, in a way, as silly, because your comments were not about the point (nor could they impact the point) of what I was saying, but about how I said it, which detracts from the point without merit. Basically, I felt like I was trying to make a good point and you were pointing out my shoes were untied. Which was, obviously, a very silly thing for me to think.

Also, and this isn't your fault, the forums are so full of snide comments nowadays I'm beginning to see them everywhere. So while I didn't read your response as an attack, I definitely thought there was a very thick vein of sarcasm running through some of it.

As for the whole "Selling for USD being against the rules" thing, I wasn't trying to say that it really was. My goal there was to provide a bit of where I was coming from. Trying to give a bit of the why behind my positions.

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 23 2009 3:52 PM EDT

I considered a post summary (or six), then my brain exploded.

QBsutekh137 October 23 2009 4:08 PM EDT

Fel, I completely agree with you. We should be welcoming and engaging with new players.

But like all edicts, one should use the edict until it doesn't work any more. In other words, we should keep giving the benefit of the doubt until we can't. In other, other words, at some point there ARE multis, and there ARE cheaters, and one shouldn't go overboard in either directions.

I'm not saying you went overboard in the live and let live direction, and I am not pointing out anyone who went overboard in the "witch hunt" direction. I don't think things are really too bad on that whole front.

That's why I started running with the completely off-topic idea of Wraithlin's no-transfer sandbox. *smile*

Marl, I'll take a stab at a summary post:

-- Multis exist, and multi-ing is against current CB policy, but let's let the admins do the heavy lifting and commenting when it comes to specific, alleged instance of abuse.
-- Discovering multis, even when left to the very capable admins that we all love very, very much is a delicate process with few absolutes.
-- The idea of a no-transfer sandbox has been proposed, but it probably isn't quite as simple as it seems it might be, if any one would even find it entertaining in the first place.
-- Ranger thinks dogs can play CB, or perhaps even the cousin's of said dogs. (That is a joke. It is meant for levity. Please smile.)
-- I hope bensonp's wife enjoys playing CB.

bensonp October 23 2009 6:42 PM EDT

i guess a lot of my actions are sus but i am legit so can people please stop judging me

Zenai [Ministry of Pain] October 23 2009 7:03 PM EDT

bensonp people will judge no matter what anyway, it is a part of what makes us a human, being on a game does not change that whatsoever. Honestly I would see this as a positive thing because of the fact that players on this game care enough to make it a huge subject to talk about. It means a great deal when players care, and maybe in time you can get yourself enfolded in that same care if you prove to be worth it.

I posted this in the other Thread and I am reposting it here for good measure:

Zenai 6:43 AM EDT
Ok people and what if he turns around an changes his strat and dumps USD to equip it? What then he's an omg terrible NUB Sell Out & a Horrid USD Spender too? I'm not trying to argue anything here I'm just trying to point out a few things that I see.

If he decides to jump ship then maybe we "could" say something. We have no real idea what the circumstances behind him or anyone else leaving for that matter. Real Life does happen sometimes and it has precedence over any game bar-none. If I have a choice to save face on a game because of some people looking over my shoulder or selling stuff to pay my electric bill or help with my rent then guess what my choice is? My point here is you never really know all the time.......

If you automatically look for something bad in someone then they might as well do it. Since in your eyes they are guilty any way and branded as such. Of course they are also treated as a villain to boot, treat me like one and I will act like one is the lesson here.

I do not automatically think everyone is a bad apple right away when they make a mistake (or a perceived mistake). I give the benefit of the doubt then see how it goes. I hope that everyone else understands why I am saying this and will see the truth in it as well.

Yes, there has been some great points made. Some I totally agree with but at the same time there is a flip side to this coin and before you go off and start a multi-hunt/or throwing accusations around you should try to see it first.

There is not ALWAYS just one reason for things, sometimes there is and this is why it is such a delicate thing to be dealt with in the first place. That place belongs to the Admins. Think you see something talk to the Admins first and let them handle it, your job as a caring and responsible player is now done.

Just my overall opinion on the subject.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002uSS">Multi question</a>