Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Despeinao

ALT in RvR battle

Recommended Posts

On October 1, 2018, we had PB in San Lazaro and a player named Pepinus joined the battle without permission, banning one faction mate to join us, and did not respond to any of our instructions in chat. Later I asked the English players if it was an alter and they told me it was the player Lantia, present in the battle too. I have problems with my keyboard and I could only take this capture. I have made a report with F11.

Thx for your replies and your time

;)

 

79FCE3E9BEBC56E00CEABDD3E3760A47A7969F7B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

You guys have friendly clan list to control alts joining PBs. Sounds like your problem for letting him join the clan, just kick him out of clan and problem solved.

the port was property of the clan of the suopposed alt. The problem is no that one clan makes a mistake and puts an alter between his people, the cuestion is that the use of alter in RvR is illegal, and the cupable is not the clan that recruits him

Edited by Despeinao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys. You completely misunderstood what I said. Lantia is the alt of a BRITISH captain as we were short on numbers because of a dropout and we needed a mortar brig. A mortar brig that didn't even hit your forts and was sunk pretty much straight away. There were no British players on the Spanish side on alts or otherwise.

Had Lantia not joined, you wouldn't have sunk her and the battle would have been over even quicker lol.

Edited by Gregory Rainsborough
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to take responsibility for the people that you recruit to the clan. Same with giving officers to players and them robbing entire clan warehouse. Clan responsibility, but the guy might still get a warning for this from Devs, we will see.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Despeinao said:

On October 1, 2018, we had PB in San Lazaro and a player named Pepinus joined the battle without permission, banning one faction mate to join us, and did not respond to any of our instructions in chat. Later I asked the English players if it was an alter and they told me it was the player Lantia, present in the battle too. I have problems with my keyboard and I could only take this capture. I have made a report with F11.

Thx for your replies and your time

;)

 

79FCE3E9BEBC56E00CEABDD3E3760A47A7969F7B

"Lantia" is a British alt of a British player, nothing in the rules to say a player cannot multibox in port battles if both "players" are on the same side. 

You are proposing that "Lantia" (who doesn't not technically exist) has an alt on the Spanish side in the battle. This is not the case.

Edited by NethrosDefectus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

You need to take responsibility for the people that you recruit to the clan. Same with giving officers to players and them robbing entire clan warehouse. Clan responsibility, but the guy might still get a warning for this from Devs, we will see. 

 

Clan issues are secondary, in not my clan. The report is for the use of an alt in RvR, banning a mate to join into battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NethrosDefectus said:

"Lantia" is a British alt of a British player, nothing in the rules to say a player cannot multibox in port battles if both "players" are on the same side. 

You are proposing that "Lantia" (who doesn't not technically exist) has an alt on the Spanish side in the battle. This is not the case.

I aks you for spanish player Pepinus, and some mate of you said that he was an alt of Lantia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Despeinao said:

Clan issues are secondary, in not my clan. The report is for the use of an alt in RvR, banning a mate to join into battle.

The British did not have any alts join on the Spanish side, you misunderstood what we said about Lantia. 

AND who would be stupid enough to openly admit it openly in the battle?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Can we get a Spanish speaker here to explain this to him because the point is flying over his head? 

i ask you for Pepinus in chat, and some mates of you told that he was an spanish alt. Maybe you dont undestand my question, i know that my english is so bad, im sorry for that. But this player is so strange in his behaviour, and i think that tribunal need msome work :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NethrosDefectus said:

We said LANTIA  is an alt, a British alt

i dont ask for Lantia, a player taht i dont know. I ask you for Pepinus, and yiu mentioning Lantia. I don know if you are joking, remeber that we are spanish speakers, and keep the engglish humor is complicated XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

We know nothing of Pepinus, we were talking generally about alts not referring to your useless comrade :P

it seems good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admin has been pretty clear, that now clans have been given tools that allow them to fully control and police who enters their port battles, "alts for portbattle activities" are no longer a tribunal matter. Whoever enters a portbattle now, by implication has the trust of their clan, and their clan has the trust of the port owner/clan that set the PB. If someone betrayed that trust, the remedy is for the port owning clan to ask the offender's clan to kick him from said clan, or if they don't do that, for the port owning clan to remove the other clan from their friend-list before any further PBs happen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Anolytic said:

Admin has been pretty clear, that now clans have been given tools that allow them to fully control and police who enters their port battles, "alts for portbattle activities" are no longer a tribunal matter. Whoever enters a portbattle now, by implication has the trust of their clan, and their clan has the trust of the port owner/clan that set the PB. If someone betrayed that trust, the remedy is for the port owning clan to ask the offender's clan to kick him from said clan, or if they don't do that, for the port owning clan to remove the other clan from their friend-list before any further PBs happen.

using alts in pvp or RVR is still against the Rules.  However there isn't enough evidence here to prove it was a person using an alt on opposing side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sounthernrebel78 said:

using alts in pvp or RVR is still against the Rules.  However there isn't enough evidence here to prove it was a person using an alt on opposing side. 

Which one is the alt and who is the "origin"?

Anolytic get to the point: Clans are able to control who can join in RVR. Kick suspect people from the clan, use your freidnly clan list, that's it!

If a guy joins a battle with two or more accounts doesn't matter, as long as he plays only for one side and as  long as he doesn't play destructively against his nation.

Why should this be against the rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alts in RVR are allowed as long as they are not used to farm hostility.  Aka you can’t sink your alt for hostility generation.  That’s about it.  I’ve dual or triple boxed on a number of battles and/or hostility generation.  

Fact of the matter is that clan friend lists were implemented to prevent this very thing.  It sucks it happened but greater control over the clan should have been exercised.  Many a battle has been screwed over by inactive clans not being able to get others on the list.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captains, clans was given the tools to control entrance of port battle to protect themselves from alts and such. Also, in this particular case it seems both sides misunderstood each other in the conversation during the battle.

The case is closed.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×