Is having multiple accounts in the top 50 a problem?


Every month Counterplay releases their top 50 S rank player list, and every month there are at least a few people who have multiple accounts on that list. I was wondering if people had feelings on this phenomena since it’s been something that’s been going on for a while now.

Note: This point of this is not a place to point fingers and please refrain from naming anyone who does not want to be named. I’m asking this question as someone who has already been in the position of holding two spots in the top 50 before, and is inquiring about the position the community takes on this as a whole.

Poll Proposition: Players having multiple accounts in the top 50 a problem.

  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • No Preference
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree

0 voters

Feel free to give your reasoning below as I’ve kept the initial responses vague. Final note I urge people not to criticize other people’s answers as this is a subjective poll more than anything else.

Thanks all.


They got there fair and square. It’s not an issue.


Umtimate Pro goal: Hold all top 50 spots.


Wait, can you explain why this would be seen as an issue? I’m genuinely confused.


If someone can get to the top 49 and top 50, then that means player 51 is not on the list despite that they probably should be.

Do I think it’s a problem? Not really. That’s an insane amount of work to do once, much less twice. Spots earned.

I often get into the top 50, but maintaining that spot I have yet to do. You need to play pretty much every day and do well. If someone has the time, the ability; and the resources to run two accounts to that level they probably deserve it.


Personal Oppinion time!

Personally, I don’t care if someone holds two spots in top 50. I play the game mostly for fun and do not really follow the high-rank games. I just try to get to S and fool around with a few joke decks. If someone wants to get on the top 50 twice, I don’t think it matters as long as it does not harm anyone else.

Personally, I think that I have the ability to, and have reached top 50 in the middle of a few months, but would rather play fun decks at the cost of some S-rank ratings.

That being said, if there are rewards, such as positions in tournaments, for getting top 50, I suppose that it would be pretty unfair for one person to have multiple spots.


My initial thought as to why it could be seen as a problem is that it doesn’t accurately represent the top 50 players but rather the top 50 accounts. I don’t have particularly strong feelings on this but I was interested in seeing what other people thought.

Also I have some worries that it could dissuade people from trying to get to the top 50 if they thought it was made largely more difficult by the fact that they would have to actually be in the top 45 or something just to secure their place on the list of players being acknowledged.


Honestly, if someone puts enough time into grinding to pull multiple top 50 spots, they deserve it. Laddering too long gives me a sort of fatigue with the game, but to grind multiple accounts to top S-Rank positions- is a feat in itself- and should be celebrated by the community.


Also since the ladder is starting to award DWC points there is something real to be lost and you could in theory deny your competitors points by using alt accounts being played at the same skill to secure top x positions.


with an online game is hard to tell who has multiple accounts. some people could be them and their brother or son playing. its hard work to get into the top 50 and to do it twice requires a lot of work. they deserve it if they can get into the top 50 twice or even once. i have thought about making multiple accounts but every time i just stop myself. how it is now seems fair to me, especially in the day and age where someone can easily make multiple ips. lets say duelyst doesn’t like it, how are they going to know or be able to change it?


I thought they removed that few seasons ago? Are they really bringing it back? Interesting.



That is a reasonable concern.

Another issue is wintrading where one account is used to give free wins to the other in order to boost its rank. This gets more of an issue if the player base is small like in Duelyst and by sync queuing at off hours one has a good chance of being matched against each other.

On the other hand, let us assume CPG would decide to forbid multiple accounts run by the same person in high ranks, how would they even police that rule in practise? If players who want to do that simply start using different IP addresses by using some proxy this will be almost impossible to prove.

Another interesting aspect, what happens when one person qualifies with two different accounts for some tournament?


Because there is rank decay and it’s an elo system, not just “the top 50 players have won the most games in S” it is actually harder to keep multiple accounts in the top 50 than just one. I’d say well earned.

Anyway, how would you even know there are alts if they weren’t named similarly?


In terms of my own experiences I’ve made social media posts with images from my alt account and I’ve also streamed using my alt. These are some of the more overt ways to tell though and if someone was actually trying to hide it you’re correct that it wouldn’t be particularly difficult to keep it quiet.


Top 50 doesn’t mean anything nor does it give any reward afaik (if that’s not true it changes things a bit, depending on the reward etc).
So in that regard it’s not a problem.

But let’s consider a theoretical limit-situation in a thought experiment:
Suppose there’s just one player who is the best (Michael Shumacher in Formula 1 for years), and he has unlimited free time. Would it then be absolutely zero issue if he made 10000 alt accounts and filled the entirety of S-rank and Diamond rank with his own accounts, leave everyone else in gold or lower?

Disregard the impossibility of this for a moment: I’d say that’s a bit of a problem. It’s just not fun, not ‘fair’, not good sportsmanship, and he ‘denies’ others the higher monthly rewards.

Now, seeing how the limit situation would make this non-existent player a dick, where between 10000 alt accounts all in S-rank and Diamond and 2 accounts in the top 50 lies the border between it being problem and it not being one?

I do not know, but I’d consider it good sportsmanship if no-one had more than 2 accounts in the top 50.
This is, however, in the understanding that just a few players have alt accounts at all.

Suppose every single player in Duelyst would have an alt account, that would approximately mean the top 50 would be a top 25, and that’s again somewhat of an undesired situation I think. Not a problem per se, but a bit meh I guess, imho.

So, max 2 accounts and max 5 people of top 50 having both accounts in the top 50 would maybe be the ideal compromise (the ideal for me would be no-one has an alt-account in the top 50).

Situation as it is now: not a problem, but not ideal, but when is anything ever ideal? So no problem :slight_smile:


Depends on “Does taking a second spot in the top 50 affect tournaments and/or DWC points?” If it does then only the main account of the player should be taken into consideration for those tournaments/DWC points in my opinion. An alt account can finish in the top 50 but shouldn’t officially be counted and take away a position from the person who finished 51st. So if someone has 2 accounts that finished 10th and 15th for example, the 10th place account receives a tournament spot or DWC points (or whatever else), while the 15th place one is discounted and everyone below moves up one place so the person who finished 51st become number 50.

If there is nothing to play for, then it shouldn’t matter if someone does get 2 accounts inside the top 50.


No there isn’t? Unless you mean the monthly reset.


Oh shoot did they get rid of that with that update that “fixed” the ladder? My bad, mixing things up.


I’m not aware of where there had been rank decay… the only thing is, you can get passed by people who pass you while you’re not playing, it’s not decay due to not playing.