CCP: Clarification on simultaneous Alphas+Omegas:

CCP, is the following ISD statement correct?

Source thread:

Are multiple accounts allowed as an Alpha?

Try summoning the Great and Powerful Oz.

Or if that fails

@CCP_Falcon @CCP_Guard


That statement is correct.

You can check by having a alpha and omega account and try loading up your alpha account and then open the other, it wont let you. If you are on an alpha you are ONLY on an alpha and nothing else, at least that’s the rule.

The statement refers to a person using multiple clients on multiple platforms, simultaneously.

Not one client on one platform.

Read the statement carefully, and the linked source thread.
Its not long.

I think you are asking if you have an alpha on one computer and something else on a different computer is it ok.

I would assume no, it doesn’t matter if you have 1000 computers you can only control an alpha by itself at once.

This could get murky however because I am not sure however if there are different people on those computers.

1 Like

Read the ISD statement and context in the linked source thread.

But your thread and his aren’t the same thing, his is about how many alpha accounts you can own (infinite). Where yours is how many can be played at once (one).

1 Like

No, this thread is asking CCP if the quoted ISDs statement is correct.

It’s covered clearly in the eula salvos. Just go read it. It’s not even slightly vague.


Care to copy/paste the relevant section, since you claim its there clearly?

And Im not asking about that.

Im asking if the ISDs quote above is correct.

Go there. Find the obvious section for it. I’m on a phone so can’t copy and paste but it took me under 30 seconds to find when I posted it before in the other thread. It just got cleaned up in the cull

Its ok.
I can wait.
It was your claim, so you can copy/paste the relevant section.

On my part, this thread and my question is to ask CCP if the quoted ISD’s statement is correct.

I’m guessing you see some sort of problem with what the ISD said? or you can see a loophole somewhere? Remember ISD are volunteers and as such their word is not The Law, that can only come from CCP themselves.

Why don’t you explain the issue you have with the ISD quote.

1 Like

I dont have any problem with it either way.

Im simply asking CCP if it is correct.

Why not spend 30 seconds yourself establishing it’s correct. Or are you seriously that lazy

Ive read TOS/EULA a dozen times.
Ive re-read them today, again.

A) That doesnt change you made the claim its “clear” there, so I asked you to show the relevant section to support that.

B) My specific question and this thread, is to CCP on whether the quoted ISD statement is correct.

This answers your question about the ISD statement, and you could have found it very fast.
So yes, the ISD statement is correct since the EULA says so.
And yes, 30 seconds to find it, so you obviously didn’t read through it or you would have found the clear section yourself.

I have read it.
I read that section specifically.

I’m asking CCP to answer whether the ISDs statement is correct.

"Hi CCP, please tell me if this statement is correct even though it’s already answered by you in your EULA, I am so important I deserve your time to write it out for me again in a personal answer"
Seriously Salvos, stop being… Yeah.
It’s there, it’s in writing from CCP. It’s already answered, you aren’t a special snowflake, you don’t need a personal answer when it’s already been answered.


You are confusing an ISD statement with CCP’s TOS/EULA.

I want a CCP confirmation of whether the ISD statement was correct.