Tree of Savior Forum

Outline of RMT Policies and Definitions

News and Announcements
#70

Preferably nothing should be allowed imo. Shop accounts are very minor if you ask me, but still gains you an unfair advantage to regular players, although as small as it may be. But I assume they need some leeway so they don’t need to investigate everyone playing from home with a sibling or family member.

Best case scenario would be if they would start designing the game to be less alt account friendly. Saalus is not fun. It’s just a forced bullshit thing you have to do because the rewards are good. Events shouldn’t give tradable items even if it’s “fun”, because it’s just plain abusable. Especially considering how incredibly difficult it is to get recipes from actually doing raids, compared to just making a bunch of accounts and doing no effort events for asio/wastrel recipe boxes. It’s just stupid.

1 Like
#71

Shops are nice and useful to the game.

What you said is true, it’s minor benefit, but in another side it helps recognize our guild in game ‘RainBerry mall’ that keep me & my guildmates still try to set up every crash happened almost everyday.

I gained some benefit from shop but mostly not transfer profit to main accs cuz I want them nice shops too but dont want to fund much to shops, so I try to make them live by themselves.

Also I didnt lose silver by using any service ingame because I have shops.

I dont agree making alts is not allowed if you dont get anything passes the line.

#72

Most of event recipes are [untradable], aren’t they? You cant transfer them.

`

#74

To be honest, players can find workarounds to such account-to-account restrictions, like with New or Returning Saviors events (veteran and funded players meme’ed these events as Alt Account/Bot Account creation events) and how untradeable items become tradeable after being crafted so that becomes another moot point.

With that said, I do understand that some players like to play or has dabbled with alt accounts, especially for things like Saalus spam (when Saalus was the only source of Blessed Shards/Gems) and Events (Diamond Anvils, etc). Since the game has finally decided to open up about alt accounts, perhaps IMC can elaborate on their thoughts on alt accounts (Like how many accounts max like 2-3? How much assets transferred is considered exploitative? Thoughts on alt accounts and events? Etc etc).

I personally hate alt accounts, but maybe IMC can make it clear specifically on their stance on alt accounts for future reference? There are players who do play alt accounts without such malicious intent, and some clarification would be good to differentiate such players from others who clearly create alt accounts to flagrantly exploit them. Alt accounts have existed for a long time, really. Its quite unfair to only bring this up after so long while players question the grey area with what’s alright and exploitative, and only start punishing players after the lack of action and clarification towards alt accounts.

Vague rules are too open to interpretation and will only frustrate and confuse players in the end.

3 Likes
#75

I think alt-accounts are straight up cheating for sure, but I agree that they should clarify the rules regarding it.

#76

For me it goes like this:

  • devs set limits in the game: three Saalus runs per day, one player shop per team
  • players’ response: make a second account to run Saalus 3 more times and have another player shop running, then pool the ressources into the main account same as if you could run Saalus 6 times per day and have 2 player shops
  • result: hardcoded limit is broken with the workaround of having multiple accounts

This is clearly not how the game is intended to be played. Making a second account is fine, as long as you use the ressources to upgrade that account, and not the main. Pooling is cheating, or at least cheezing.

Not mentioning the limit of 5 characters per account. Creating a second account simply saves you 5*33 TP. I know people that have 40 characters in their account, I wonder how they feel having paid for these chars while others simply spit in their face creating accounts for free…

9 Likes
#77

I feel like everyone wants the rule to be more obfuscated than it is. A one-off trade between teams that each have effort put into them (think event a single level 350+ character with 3 revelations done) isn’t the sketchiness they’re looking for. A level 1 team transferring substantial wealth to a level 10+ team is.

Shops don’t benefit only the user as they’re available to the community for the same price. They’re already said that multiple-accounts for the sake of partying is fine. If you are placing one for buffs or a camp, that would fall under a party. Shops do not circumvent time-gated content either.

From the ‘Outline of RMT Policies and Definitions’ post
But when items or other in-game currencies are continuously transferred between these accounts, we will need to investigate the involved accounts and take appropriate action against them.

Seems to me you can reasonably have your buff shop and repair shop or what have you provided the profit is kept on that account or used to buy cosmetics. Everyone here is acting like they only make alts/shops to help them in parties when it’s far more likely for that sweet sweet silver.

EDIT: I can’t spell

#78

I have my 3 shops invested my time & afford to get strong enough to run Saalus before, but lazy since re:build. I would say my shop are better than alot of players. Some of them have 3-5 revelations done o/

#79

The way its written, you have to trade an item of “fair market price” in return though, otherwise it’s considered funneling.

@STAFF_Yuri

Can you elaborate on helping friends now? Or even say Guild leaders passing out raid rewards?

As it’s written, any trade where the market value of the item is not returned in the trade, is illegal.

I can’t help my friends by loaning them magic stones to make accessories or gems to transcend gear? Or even give a discount on the item because they are a friend or guildie? Because then it’s not at “fair market value”.

Or our guild leader can’t hand out blessed gems from from Boruta chests because we don’t trade him back equal value?

If these are the cases, you need to investigate nearly every person on every server. These rules, while the intention is good for the game, really are not thought out enough and are punishing to people who help guildies and friends. Why alienate your player base more?

1 Like
#80

I legitly spent the time to level all my chars in all accounts to max level each time the level cap is raised in order to make saalus matching easier, legitly invested in multiple decently-transcended weapons to farm Irredian Bosses (unlike when you only have 1 account, you need only 1 such weapon), legitly bought Tokens for every account if I want the stuffs traded to my main to remain tradeable.

For now I doubt IMC have a problem with this, but should they do, I’m not worried either, cause I’m sure there are lots of other players like me, and if IMC ban all of them, the server will become way more dead (as if the population isn’t low enough already).

Anyways, solution to multi-accounting? Make the game extremely P2W, like MapleStory. I only have 1 account in Maple, not because I can’t create multiple, but because there’s no point. Most of the things are P2W - gearing through doing in-game content can barely make your characters as strong as the extremely expensive Potential Cubes (any mapler will know this).

=====

Honestly I don’t mind people hating multiple acc, but at least don’t speak like maintaining and managing them is that easy; it really isn’t. I shared this strategy to lots of newbies who ask how to get rich in this game, and easily nearly all of them found it troublesome / not motivated to invest so much time in a low population game.

1 Like
#81

Helping your friends is vastly different than what happened to get nulight banned and I think this argument is only serving to muck up the waters.

The staff have made it clear that multiple accounts with the same IP or IP range, funneling items is ‘bot-like activity’. In most cases, your friends won’t have the same IP or IP range as you, so it would not fall under bot-like activity. Your friends will also have some activity in the game beyond just being a mule to transfer items, which would support them not being bots.

Guild leaders handing out blessed gems wouldn’t fall under bot-like activity, that is just silly.

Yuri’s post is very clear that they are looking at each account to determine their level of activity

crappy name (well there are Bots with decent names however)
Zero Quest progression
No diversity in character
No friends forever alone

Do your friends meet those criteria? If so, they are probably not good friends and in fact, bots or mules.

#82

I’m not even talking about Nulight or even multi accounting. Don’t know why you bring him up.

I’m concerned of the illicit trades because I have friends who don’t or can’t participate in Boruta, so I help them with the items.

The way the rule is written is what I have an issue with, not the rule itself. I realize you can’t have rules explicitly say everything to cover every base, but the ambiguity of the previous rules and these are why we’re having this huge change and rules being published.

I have always been critical of the staff and their lack of communication and clarity. I appreciate this change of openness but it doesn’t mean everything is fine.

Then there’s things like tp packages that are only meant for 1 per team/account. Does trading for them (such as the previous DA package) is that illegal? What if a friend wasn’t going to buy the package originally, but I wanted to make use of the DAs, and asked him/her to get them for me. Does that count as funneling?

#83

They wouldn’t fall under these new policies by any stretch of the imagination, what about the new rules could possibly put your friends at risk, given all the clarify that Yuri has provided? Do they have zero quest progression? No character diversity? No friends (they are your friends…right?)

See above, your friends wouldn’t meet the criteria to be marked as bots or mules, so it wouldn’t be multi-account funneling, which is what this new policy clarifies. Its not just ‘funneling’ it is multi-account funneling from multiple accounts to a main account with the express purpose of exploiting events.

#84

A little too late? … sigh … wish you guys implemented this years ago … before 70% of you honest player base was still playing …

#85

To be honest the pack should have simply been removed a year ago. Line is too blurry and at that point it just becomes a judgment call. Obviously your friends with valid accounts, trading the item to use a diamond anvil on isn’t that big of a deal. Making 50 accounts to do so is kinda bullshit–especially when you consider the monetary investment involved.

Nothing should be wrong with either of these; because neither would look suspicious and neither are a problem.

Except nowhere does it say that multiple accounts are bad. Abusing set restrictions/lockouts with them, however, clearly is, provided you are funneling rewards from said lockouts to one account. Lockouts would also include events in this case.

Shops are kind of a gray area but it’s clear that it’s still technically a restriction IMC put in place, and the reasoning makes sense. It’s just that obviously a very small profit is way less egregious than what we saw elsewhere. The biggest problem with small offenses though is that people end up thinking that larger offenses are okay as a result. For example: 1m in shop profits on 6 chars in a week funneled to one account is way less offensive than several hundred blessed shards or gems from an event funneled to one character, but if people think the former is okay they’re more likely to attempt the latter and feel incredibly burned when they get in trouble.

This would be positively reinforcing bad behavior. No one should do that.

No, bad sportsmanship is literally cheating to get ahead and no one should encourage cheating. Sorry.

#86

Yeah the lines are blurry and the rules aren’t set or clear. This is why we had the huge fiasco recently.

How many accounts would be too much? As we’ve seen, 50 seems to much, what about 20? 10? 3?

I’ve never seen a gm or staff or even rules set to ban for funneling. So many people made alt accounts for saalus way before this or even rebuild. And including for the tp packages. Now look, after the issue, their very next event has non tradeable shards as rewards, not really a coincidence.

The “judgement call” on doling out punishment is another issue too. Bringing in back the Nulight issue If they followed what they set out as rules, they even said they treated it as rmt in his case even though it wasn’t. As such, wouldn’t his punishment just been his first offense, with a warning and items taken away?

His case seemed more targeted and changing punishments on a case by case basis lends towards abuse.

#87

I would guess the reason for banning Nulight and treating it as RMT is to prevent an ambiguous rule. Having a ‘we consider this RMT behavior and ban for it’ is a catchall.

Not attacking you but I think this sounds aggressive. Anyone who has ever tried to write a set of rules has undoubtedly hit a point when reviewing what they wrote where they or their peers questioned them with ‘what about x?’

The rules set forth might not be perfect but they probably don’t want to guess who is and isn’t RMT’ing.

1 Like
#88

I don’t think even 50 is the “issue” so much as what’s done with them.

If you level all 50, play them independently, don’t funnel everything to one account, don’t use them maliciously like to fill a certain cough map or make it unstable in an attempt to crash it… I don’t see how that would be an issue.

1 Like
#89

cheating = playing HAHAHAH playing legitimately/manually/grooming an account

kekplosion

Being lazy/unwilling to put in the extra effort and calling others who are willing to sacrifice their real life time to play -> CHEATING

Suit yourself, your repertoire as an actual Narcissus on forums really knows no bounds ( In before your remeri friend jumps in to defend you as usual, or this gets flagged )

Lets see if more alts get beaned, rules arent clear-cut and seems created simply to justify the bean for the 50 alt guy anyway.

image

#90


So multi-accounting is treated as RMT.


So GM warning as punishment?

Sorry, what was sounding aggressive? There’s no perfect rules, we’ve all agreed. But clarifying, reviewing, and revising rules is the normal. But like I said, doling out “judgement call” punishments and not following your previously set rules and (once again) awfuly transparency and communication are the issues that I had with the whole ordeal.

Even if I level and play each independently, I still couldn’t “funnel” to one of my accounts? Just treat each account in a vacuum?

This still doesn’t address the fact that they haven’t mentioned multi-accounts being an issue when purchasing their TP packages.

And honestly, stop throwing out ridiculous claims about people logging on 50 accounts to fill/crash maps. The last GTW, we all know every map was crashing for the first 35+ minutes almost every 20-30 seconds. You’re not witty or clever going “cough”. You’re just perpetuating more claims from both sides thinking it wasn’t IMCs awful servers that were at fault.