nojo34 wrote:The developers have abandoned Subterfuge and moved on to another unknown project. For the simple reason that subterfuge just isnt profitable.

To be fair, we dont know this for sure, its just everyone's leading theory.

That may be true. And if it is, where does it lead us?
Is it therefore fine for me to get the login details of a friend of mine who doesn't play anymore, and enter any game I like with both accounts?
If they're normal games, I'm sure people will eventually catch on, like I did with the multi-game alliances I've seen. I've got it written in my notes about those players, I will react accordingly in-game if I see them.
But in anonymous games, no-one can tell I'm the same player, other than I might log on at the same time every now and again, or unless they're noticing similarities in my style of speech.
Is that OK now?

The only place I can find that says it's against the rules is not visible in the rulebook unless you're looking at the HTML source, where it's explicitly commented out.
So, it's not against the rules anymore?

Don't put 2 of your own accounts into one game. I believe it was removed from the rules, but it is just common decency to only use one account for one game. I intentionally go after multi-boxers and usually succeed at taking them down because they are not good. They don't use their mastery of game mechanics to win but their multiple accounts. It's just not thing that should be done it takes away from the fun of the game.

lord akkrand wrote:The only place I can find that says it's against the rules is not visible in the rulebook unless you're looking at the HTML source, where it's explicitly commented out.
So, it's not against the rules anymore?

If we're being realistic about it, I think it means they dont want emails about it anymore, not that they actually intend the rules to be different. Regardless, their intent means absolutely nothing without enforcement, whether its written down or not.

The real question now I guess is- do you want to be an asshole and abuse the system? Or do you want to hunt down assholes?

I'm only talking theoretically, I'm not about to do it. I don't think my friend had upgraded to L2, and I'm not buying a second account.

The multi-boxing vs pre-arranged alliance are essentially the same issue to me, but whenever I've said anything to anyone about it, they've said "So what? It's not against the rules."
In fact, a couple of times the multi-game alliance people have defended their actions, saying of course that's what you should be doing. Playing with your friends, there's an invite button for a reason, why wouldn't I want to have an alliance where I know I won't be betrayed? etc etc.
Depending on when the player signed up, they don't even know the term multi-boxer or multi-game alliance, because the rules they read never had it in.

But there's no way around it most of the time. You join a game, there's a very real possibility (for me, it seems to be about 30% of the time, although it's been more like 75% recently) that there'll be an alliance out there before the game starts. Every game I've played, it's the alliance that gets their shit together first that wins. Any group that starts too many individual wars, or doesn't concentrate their firepower early, loses.
What worse, is you don't know it, and those players aren't always stupid, they don't broadcast it by not talking to anyone else. They still form other false alliances. So everyone is playing a game of trust and faith except them.

This is why I have only ever played a 4 player game once. I didn't like it. Firstly, because there isn't enough diplomacy going around to make things interesting. Secondly, whoever starts off winning can't be stopped, basically... Thirdly, the chances of multiboxing is significantly higher, becasue they are often the ones who create the game...

So tip: stick to 7-10 player games whenever possible.