| 1 |
[quote]every alt account creates (unnecessary) extra work for admins[/quote]
|
1 |
[quote]every alt account creates (unnecessary) extra work for admins[/quote]
|
| 2 |
Uuh
not
really.
.
unless
you
talk
about
imaginary
"work"
invented
by
some
weird
dev
that
doesn't
really
serve
any
purpose.
|
2 |
Uuh
not
really,
it
doesn't
need
to.
.
unless
you
talk
about
imaginary
"work"
invented
by
some
weird
dev
that
doesn't
really
serve
any
purpose.
|
| 3 |
\n
|
3 |
\n
|
| 4 |
[quote]smurfing is bad hmkay[/quote]
|
4 |
[quote]smurfing is bad hmkay[/quote]
|
| 5 |
No. Not allowing players to smurf is bad, for many reasons. One reason (important for ZK): It creates unsolvable problems.
|
5 |
No. Not allowing players to smurf is bad, for many reasons. One reason (important for ZK): It creates unsolvable problems.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
[quote]playing against 2k+ elo players disguised as firsttimers is no fun[/quote]
|
7 |
[quote]playing against 2k+ elo players disguised as firsttimers is no fun[/quote]
|
| 8 |
Then let players tell the database that they are not firsttimers. For a start the -400 fake elo could be lifted for players who want it. There are less than 30 active 1800+ elo players (see ladder), all others would be relatively close to the starting 1500. (200 elo difference ~ 76% vs 24% win chance)
|
8 |
Then let players tell the database that they are not firsttimers. For a start the -400 fake elo could be lifted for players who want it. There are less than 30 active 1800+ elo players (see ladder), all others would be relatively close to the starting 1500. (200 elo difference ~ 76% vs 24% win chance)
|
| 9 |
\n
|
9 |
\n
|
| 10 |
[quote]blame the players that smurf[/quote]
|
10 |
[quote]blame the players that smurf[/quote]
|
| 11 |
Please don't tell me who to blame.
|
11 |
Please don't tell me who to blame.
|
banned