Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
thenebrosity

Multiple Characters Per Campaign Per Account Should Be Allowed - Here's Why..

Recommended Posts

Last night, we had Tyrant watching our interview with Pann and he said that they have yet to decide on this subject.  There are a lot of ways you can make it work, and there are a lot of ways it can break the game.  It will all come down to execution, and we'll just have to wait to see how that development goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes down to it, both sides have their negatives and positives:

One Character One Campaign:
+No multi-character spying
+No hording resources in embargo vaults to maximize profits
+Commits you to finding new strategies based on the choices you are locked into for that campaign
-Cannot change character for potentially months in that campaign
-Unable to continue playing with invested friends if you want to switch Archetype
-Gives people with multiple accounts advantages in Embargo space + spying.

Multi-Character Per Campaign:
+Allows you to switch gameplay based on whims (caster today, warrior tomorrow)
+Allows you to adapt to other people's gameplay for the day (So and so wants to DPS today. I'll tank or support.)
+Allows spying (yes its on both lists!)
-Allows faction or god jumping depending on who's winning (Three characters, three factions, I win resources no matter what)
-Tripling resource intake and its effect on the economy
-Potentially capping a faction/god with multiple characters when you can only play one at a time.

There are more to each list and you can argue both points on any one. What I am saying is that there are reasons to do and not do both but its a matter of figuring out what is better for the gameplay meta. Frankly One Character per Campaign settings aims more towards the Crowfall vision, despite its potential negatives (more hardcore, consequences of choices, encourages strategy based on what you have and not what you could have, etc).

And then the added disclaimer that nothing is really disclosed permanently yet so we really can't firmly speculate on what system will rule best... :-D


Deadman; FIGHTER OF THE LIFE MAN, ooooAAAAH AHHHHH! CHAMPION OF THE... Oh. That's not how it goes...

http://www.twitch.tv/alt_delete - Alt Delete Gaming: Lose Ctrl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll probably be like World of Warcraft/Runescape/Minecraft with rare recipes you can find and apply which means guilds will have dedicated crafter that wont leave as soon as they get something good. Not everyone who wants to be a crafter will be as good as dedicated guild crafters.. also, it probably wont be as important as people think it will be.. think WoW/RuneScape/etc...

That is my point.

I do not see it as these other games.

 

The first, very strong, clue, is that in games like WoW, crafting will take nothing away from your combat efficency.

As a matter of fact, crafting is something you do on top of the rest of your character.

It even forces you to craft, to be milk the last few advantages in combat.

 

The system CF is suggesting, you will have to choose crafting over something else.

This means that if you choose to slot crafting runes, you are not slotting combat runes.

You also have to dedicate passive training towards the skill, not just make a thousand daggers.

 

Your choice suddenly matters and not everyone will be crafting on anything beyond a very rudimentary level.

 

It looks like gathering is taking the same route.

 

This is extremely important if you are trying to create a system where the 3 sides are all important.

 

The idea is to create a cycle of dependency, where no one can do everything on their own.

 

It really creates a much deeper game play experience.

 

If you take that away, if you give every one the option of doing it all by themselves, then there is absolutely no reason to have them make those choices to begin with.

 

It would be a waste of resources.

 

They should just plug in the usual gather crafting joke like wow etc.


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is key to realize when considering account based limitations is that Crowfall really is already encouraging multiple accounts, when compared to say SWG's one character per server.

 

Crowfall:

So far 6 is the max number of characters per account, meaning you can only try less than half the archetypes without deleting old ones.

Each account has 1 active skill training and 3 character slots.

Passive skill training and no soul bound items means that alts do NOT require nearly the extra (interactive) time investment as they might in for example: WoW, or any game with long leveling grinds or attuned items.

No monthly upkeep means over time extra accounts are a better deal than VIP. (The break point is 6 months if you assume $50 game and $15 a month, in 6 months 1 account spends $140 for VIP+account for three training, while 3 accounts spent $150 for accounts, after that any money on VIP is more expensive than the multi accounts)

And although it will might be against TOS, multiple accounts means you can multibox, share an account, sell the account. Just because an advantage has risk, doesn't mean you get to completely discount it.

 

So adding restrictions on what your character can do based on their account is really just throwing more fuel on the "Get multiple accounts instead of VIP" fire.

I perfectly understand the balance considerations of adding such limitations, I just also take a pragmatic view of the fact that intentions don't always equal the end result. For example the intention of DRM is to prevent piracy of games. The result is often that paying customers have more hassles and hoops, and that people who pirate the game might actually have a better experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/sigh

 

First things first.  Time to eat some crow.

 

Sorry for the self-reply, but on further reflection I'm done with this thread.  Don't bother replying in a vain attempt to convince me to "see the light".

 

I've got better things to do with my time.

 

I wanted to stay away from this thread because I feel like I'm the "greater fool" from the old adage about arguing.  And yet I can't resist.  So now I'm both the "greater fool" and someone who doesn't always follow through on their commitments.

 

/sigh

 

 

Second, let me point out that I'm already on the record for wanting to at least try every Archetype.  For me it's not so much a matter of boredom as it is a desire to explore the entire game design space.  I personally find 6 character slots restrictive but I understand why they had to set a limit.  I also believe that a great game could be designed without such restrictions, but Crowfall is not that game.

 

I've paid my money to fund ACE's vision for Crowfall.  Not my vision for it.  Not your vision for it.  ACE's vision for it.

 

 

Now, on to the meat

 

Exhibit A: a pair of posts from page 5 of this thread:

 

So Oridi, what you are saying, is that even IF they allow for multiple characters in campaigns, the multi boxers willet still do it?

Now, instead of having one character more per account, they will have min 3?

So, we would not actually even out anything?

 

[responding to Cirolle's post above]

This is very true.  Even if we were allowed to take all of our characters into the same campaign, would the person (I can't be bothered to dig back through the history to find out who it was, so I'm going to pretend it was anonymous) who posted their paypal purchase history sell off those other accounts and just play one?  I doubt it.

 

A hardcore multi-boxer wouldn't be content until they can have an unlimited number of characters on their account and play them all simultaneously.

 

So unless the game is designed to allow that then this problem will exist.

 

Oh, and the additional characters slots all have to be free, otherwise it will be P2W.

 

Not to mention that they all have to have passive training available to them.

 

This point has been conveniently ignored for 5 pages.  Perhaps I was unclear before and you, in your charity, ignored it until I could restate it more clearly, even after lastboy brought it to your attention.  If so, I'm fixing that now.

 

thenebrosity and Fenris DDevil I am calling both of you out by name.  Face my argument or admit defeat.  For your convenience I have bolded my main points and left my supporting points as regular type.

 

There have been two types of multi-boxers discussed.

 

The first type is someone who is simply trying to get a bit more enjoyment out of the game by having more variety to choose from.  These people, due to their more relaxed play style (as compared to their cousins, discussed below), should have only a marginal impact on the overall game.  I'll call these gonzo-multi-boxers (and no, that's not the filter at work, I typed g-o-n-z-o).

 

The second type of those who multi-box do so aggressively in order to gain an advantage over those who do not.  They are interested in leveraging their money and computing resources into creating an advantage in the game.  It is these multi-boxers that will upset the dynamics of the game.  I'll call these hardcore-multi-boxers.

 

Note that some hardcore-multi-boxers understand that their chosen play method is unpopular, so if they reveal themselves at all they may try to pass themselves off as a gonzo-multi-boxer.

 

Allowing multiple characters per account into a campaign will satisfy the a gonzo-multi-boxer, but will not in any way dampen the motivation of the hardcore-multi-boxer because they are interested in creating an unlevel playing field.  In fact, all that allowing multiple characters per account will do is act as a multiplier in favor of a hardcore-multi-boxer.  They will still run just as many accounts but now they will have all the more characters at their command.

 

Suppose there is a multi-boxer who has already purchased 8 accounts, 3 Amber and 5 Copper.  With just the KS rewards, they will have 33 characters at their disposal (3 * 6 + 5 * 3), of which 14 will have full passive training (3 * 3 + 5 * 1) with no extra cost for 6 years.  With the one character per account restriction they will be able to bring 8 characters into a single Campaign.  This probably won't make them 800% as effective as any other player, but it almost certainly will make them more than 100% as effective.  Let's be conservative and say that it will make them 125% as effective as a player that doesn't multi-box.

 

Now, suppose that we believe this person to be a gonzo-multi-boxer - one who is just looking to enhance their enjoyment of the game - and further suppose we believe them to be a typical multi-boxer and therefore decide that this should become the "new normal" for all accounts.

 

For the gonzo-multi-boxer now life is good.  They can sell off their extra accounts and play happy.

 

For the hardcore-multi-boxer now life is grand.  We've just given them the ability to send 64 characters to a single campaign, chosen from a pool of 264 characters, of which 112 have full passive training.  All we've accomplished is increasing the effective multiplier for the hardcore-multi-boxer versus a less aggressive player who only plays one character (as ACE has stated is their intention).  This definitely won't make them 6400% as effective as a player with only one character, and it may not even make them 300% as effective as such a player (8 * 25% more effective, as used above), but I'm confident that they will be more than 125% as effective as someone playing a single character.

 

At this point a hardcore-multi-boxer will have the ability to bring into a campaign 1 fully trained character of every promotion class of every Archetype, both current and future (until ACE releases their 22nd Archetype).  They won't be able to field every Discpline combination, but they should have no problem hitting every Gathering Discipline and Crafting Discipline while still leaving plenty of room for combat specced characters.  They have become completely self-sufficient, which is diametrically opposed to ACE's vision for the game.

 

Yes, I know that this is more extreme than much of what has been proposed.  I chose to do so deliberately because I believe that it is easier to see the trends for how the dynamics change with an extreme example than it is with a modest example.  I'm far more interested in the trends than I am in specific numbers.

 

The only way we can eliminate a hardcore-multi-boxer's advantage through multi-boxing is to allow an infinite number of characters per account, all with passive training, allow them all to be brought into any campaign, and allow them all to be played simultaneously (subject to technical limitations, of course).  Doing this will completely destroy the game dynamics as currently envisioned by ACE.

 

Since that is clearly impractical without completely recasting the vision for Crowfall, I see no reason to compromise the design vision in any way by making any concessions to anyone who has declared any intent to multi-box, no matter what their claimed motivation is.  If they want to skirt ACE's vision by bringing multiple characters into a single campaign then they ought to pay for each and every one of them.  No freebies for anyone.

 

 

This leaves us with the question of what, if anything, do we do to limit the damage that a hardcore-multi-boxer can do.  That will have to wait for another post.


soli deo gloria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No monthly upkeep means over time extra accounts are a better deal than VIP. (The break point is 6 months if you assume $50 game and $15 a month, in 6 months 1 account spends $140 for VIP+account for three training, while 3 accounts spent $150 for accounts, after that any money on VIP is more expensive than the multi accounts)

 

 

This is one thing that I do agree with that needs to be addressed. As I'm someone who will probably pay for VIP, ACE needs to come up with reasons to do so over multiple boxes.

 

With that being said, Multiple characters per campaign isn't a solution to this problem. It's still the same financial break even point, simply making multiple boxes a smarter financial option than a VIP membership.

 

I think there are other soltuions to this problem, adding different benefits to VIP that you wouldn't get by just buying the box. And I would imagine that ACE is aware. They have a vested interest in players (that are planning to stick with the game longer than a couple months) buying VIP rather than another box and I'd be shocked if they don't incentivize VIP in other ways to address this before launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night, we had Tyrant watching our interview with Pann and he said that they have yet to decide on this subject.  There are a lot of ways you can make it work, and there are a lot of ways it can break the game.  It will all come down to execution, and we'll just have to wait to see how that development goes.

 

Well that certainly weakens my argument.

 

I now stand thrice condemned.

 

/sigh.


soli deo gloria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This point has been conveniently ignored for 5 pages.  Perhaps I was unclear before and you, in your charity, ignored it until I could restate it more clearly, even after lastboy brought it to your attention.  If so, I'm fixing that now.

 

thenebrosity and Fenris DDevil I am calling both of you out by name.  Face my argument or admit defeat.  For your convenience I have bolded my main points and left my supporting points as regular type.

 

Perhaps you've missed my post from the same page:

 

So Oridi, what you are saying, is that even IF they allow for multiple characters in campaigns, the multi boxers willet still do it?

 

Now, instead of having one character more per account, they will have min 3?

 

So, we would not actually even out anything?

 

In physics we call this kind of reasoning: linear bias. Everyone thinks that a certain quantity has to increase linearly, even when that's far from the truth. In this case, I think having 5 characters instead of 1 is way more beneficial than having 15 instead of 5.

 

Note: I never considered the option to remove characters limits as the number one solution, infact it's the opposite.

That's why I proposed a series of things that hurt the efficiency of abusers (making them waste time by changing IPs and logging in each account every day to avoid PT absency, which as you might understand is way worse for a person that has 8 accounts compared to one that has 3, for example):

 

What is almost clear now is that there's no 100% solution to this problem, but we can make it slow and unpleasant enough to discourage many:

  • We know there's a bit of active training going on (up to 20-30% of the skills, which shouldn't be a lot).. so we could have passive training work ONLY after a character has fulfilled his active training. If that's too harsh (and I don't think it is), passive training could only be nerfed to 25%-35% of its actual pace, until active training is done (better yet, ACE could disable the ability to train primary and secondary skills, and let only the tertiary gain %).
  • Have passive training (PT) slow down when a player has not used any of his skills recently. An example: 24 hours of 'absency', PT goes down to 66%... 48 hours, PT goes to 33%, 72 hours (and more) PT gets down to 10%. Alternative: primary skill doesn't skill up after 24 hours, secondary after 48 hours, and after all that remains is the tertiary.
  • Now let's nerf how easy one person can access multiple accounts. If an IP has just logged out of an account and is trying to log in another one, let it wait 30 minutes (discouraging cooldown, read below the workaround for normal users). Same goes if ACE somehow detects that the same computer is trying to log in multiple accounts (unregarding of IP changes).
  • If the same IP is trying to login different accounts at the same time, don't let it. What happens to friends playing in the same house? They now have to send an email to ARTCRAFT with a screen of their IDs or something (that's not unusual, it's a common thing to do when one's account has been hacked and it needs restoring.. also in Korea you can't play without showing your ID).
  • At last, reduce the efficiency of having multiple builds. What about a respec mechanic that saves <33-50% of ones skills levels? Or start from zero but with doubled passive training for X days. We already know it's going to take several months if not one year to use all the skill points.. it shouldn't be an issue if one is able to restart at one third or one half with a new spec.

 

Now, to answer your main point:

 

"The only way we can eliminate a hardcore-multi-boxer's advantage through multi-boxing is to allow an infinite number of characters per account, all with passive training, allow them all to be brought into any campaign, and allow them all to be played simultaneously."

 

This ain't true. You're another victim of linear bias reasoning (hoping that's the correct translation to english).. which means you're supposing that having more characters is always beneficial no matter how characters you had already.

  1. Humans have limited time and ability to manage different builds. Even the most hardcore multibox out there is going to have max 1-2 crafters, a couple of fighting builds and some utility characters. What's the realistic limit, 10 for some korean kid?
  2. The more characters he has, the less he's capable of using each one of them at a decent level (both in PvE and in PvP), as pang said.
  3. Some of the limits I suggested, even only those for passive training, hurt abusers incrementally the more accounts they have.

What happens if you lift the limit instead?

  • Normal players (30$) now have 3 characters to use on a single campaign, only ONE of them has passive training;
  • VIP players (45$ 1st month) have 3 characters with passive training on a single campaign (x3)
  • Multiboxers with 3 accounts (90$ 1st month) have 3 characters passive training per campaign OR nine if they pay MONTHLY (90$+45$=135$)

Basically 45$ to have 3 characters and 135$ to have 9, while now it's 30$ to have 1 and 270$ to have nine.. the first month.

Hold your laugh.. by the 3rd month the multiboxer starts losing money, since he has to pay 45$ each month.

This still hurts B2P users though, and there must be a better alternative.

Edited by Fenris DDevil

y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First things first.  Time to eat some crow......... That will have to wait for another post.

 

lol bro I already responded to this point.. multiple times...

 

here..

That doesn't make any sense. If it's not about the disparity between the multi-boxer and the single-account holder, then what does giving the single-account holder "more of an advantage" achieve?

 

How can you simultaneously argue that the multi-boxer isn't really gaining much of an advantage, but, we should probably give the single-account holder an "advantage" by allowing him the same thing that could otherwise only be achieved through multi-boxing?

 

If the rule stays, multi-boxers will automatically gain the advantage of having the OPTION to create ALTs in campaigns over those who only have one account. However, in your example, where you say that it "exponentiates" the p2w advantage I'd beg to differ.. sure if the multi-boxer buys more accounts then he can create more characters, but that's a non-issue.. multi-boxers are going to buy more accounts if they want more characters, it's something that will already happen so it's irrelevant.

 

To use your example:

 

"It actually just exponentiates it. You can have 3 characters in a campaign? Now with a second account, you can have 6! 8D! That's 6 times the skill upping, 6 times the inventory space, 6 times the embargo vault size, etc. -Lephys"

 

Person with 1 account.. how many characters can they have? As it is now? Just ONE*

Person with 2 accounts.. how many can they have? As it is now? TWO*

 

If the multi-boxer keeps buying more accounts they will continue to be able to make more and more characters.. while the person with just ONE account can still only make ONE character..

 

If the rule is removed the scenario looks this way:

 

Person with 1 account.. how many characters can they have? If the rule is removed? THREE*

Person with 2 accounts.. how many can they have? If the rule is changed? SIX*

 

The ratio stays the same, but the person with 1 account gains the option to create ALTs which leaves them better off than with no OPTION at all.

 

You can't use the argument that multi-boxers will gain more out of buying more accounts because that is already the case! Obviously, removing the restriction helps EVERYONE where as keeping the restriction only helps multi-boxers.

 

 

Obviously, at a certain point, it just isn't feasible anymore. Which is true no matter what. How many different characters can you play in a given month of campaign time, and how effectively can you really play all of them as compared to just one character in that campaign? Are you going to run entire gathering operations by yourself? Use all your characters simultaneously, in battle formations, to effectively take down the enemy?

 

Did you even read any of the other posts before asking this? Look at the post right above yours:

 

"Bro, you're wwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy off topic here.. I don't think anyone ever mentioned anything about trying to accomplish everything themselves. In-fact, it's impossible to accomplish "everything" by yourself. As mentioned in a previous post, I believe in response to you actually (which means you're making posts without giving people the dignity or respect to even read them when they respond to you).. anyway here it is again:

 

"Even if a multi-boxer has 100 accounts they won't be able to "win" a campaign or single-handedly capture/siege an enemy castle/mining quarry, they still need to rely on a team to "win"."

 

AGAIN, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO ANYTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE IN A CAMPAIGN ALONE. Being able make a warrior as your main and having the OPTION to make a wizard and maybe an assassin for when you're feeling stealthy doesn't mean you will be able to accomplish anything.. it just means that you will have the OPTION to play what you want when you'd like without having to leave your campaign.. which is what this thread is about."

 

 

If someone wants to buy 17 accounts, I say let them. More monthly income for the devs, and gradually less and less gain for the player with each subsequent account.

 

You assume that multi-boxers are "losing" money by buying more accounts.. and if they are.. like it's a bad thing.. also their accounts will pay themselves off in a couple months.

 

17 x $50 = $850, from one person.

$850 / $15 (VIP) = $255

$850 / $255 = 3.333333..

 

^ Means that in 3.3333.. months the multi-boxer will be better off than 17 combined people who pay for VIP membership for more than 3 months.. lol.. In some cases that could be only one campaign.

 

If people are allowed to use all 3 characters in the same campaign they are currently invested in with friends and guildmates then they will more more likely to buy VIP membership than to buy separate accounts.. however.. the benefit to buying multiple accounts to buying VIP membership is only good for a short while..

 

1 account with VIP membership = $50 + $15/month till whatever... 6 Character slots and 3 passive training.. one character-slot per campaign.. cheaper game-shop items.. 1 EK... etc.

 

3 accounts without VIP membership = $150 once.. after 10 months it pays itself off.. not to mention the added benefits of having multiple accounts. 9 character slots the ability to play 3 different characters on 3 different campaigns (3 characters each), passive training on 3 characters.. ability to export more via the embargo.. 3 separate Eternal Kingdoms.. etc.

(If you $150 / $45(3 accounts with VIP) then they pay themselves off in 3.3333... months)

 

IMO, the benefits to having more than one account out weigh the benefits than having one account with VIP.. at least with the rule lifted people with one account will be able to create ALTs without having to resort to buying multiple accounts.. which I believe will mean they will be more likely to buy VIP membership.

 

EDIT: I'll aslo add this last bit again in-case you missed it;

 

"Bro, you're wwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy off topic here.. I don't think anyone ever mentioned anything about trying to accomplish everything themselves. In-fact, it's impossible to accomplish "everything" by yourself. As mentioned in a previous post, I believe in response to you actually (which means you're making posts without giving people the dignity or respect to even read them when they respond to you).. anyway here it is again:

 

"Even if a multi-boxer has 100 accounts they won't be able to "win" a campaign or single-handedly capture/siege an enemy castle/mining quarry, they still need to rely on a team to "win"."

 

AGAIN, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO ANYTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE IN A CAMPAIGN ALONE. Being able make a warrior as your main and having the OPTION to make a wizard and maybe an assassin for when you're feeling stealthy doesn't mean you will be able to accomplish anything.. it just means that you will have the OPTION to play what you want when you'd like without having to leave your campaign.. which is what this thread is about."

 

And also this (again from another post in this thread):

 

 

As it is now:

Player with 1 account: Possible Characters per campaign = 1

Player with 3 accounts: Possible Characters per campaign = 3

--

As it with the 1 chracter-slot per campaign rule removed:

Player with 1 account: Possible Characters per campaign = 3

Player with 3 accounts: Possible Characters per campaign = 9

 

^ Overall the person with one account actually gains more of an advantage than that person with 3 accounts. Also, remember that the person multi-boxing can't just keep buying more accounts. It's not about whether or not a person who is multi-boxing has an advantage.. which is a given.. it's about giving a person with ONE account more of an advantage..

 

As it is now the scenario could easily be:

Player with 1 account: Possible Characters per campaign = 1

Player with #######+ accounts: Possible Characters per campaign = #######+

 

Overall it's the person with 1 account that will gain more of an advantage.. Also if a multi-boxer no longer needs to buy 9 accounts but 3 accounts if the rule is lifted that also means that they will not also gain the advantage of having 9 separate accounts they can use to get more out of the campaign embargo/"eternal vault".

Edited by thenebrosity

OQa1xvz.png?1

lol ok.. I wonder if I'll still be able to steal directly from people's inventories.. hrmmm

;)Twitch - Twitter

RIP DOC GONZO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Aside from the social issues, there are also few other negative effects the one character per campaign per account rule.

1 >> Retention problems. If people are forced to "start over" (read above) if they wana try a different character/class many people will become disenfranchised due to not being able to use gear/resourced obtained on their mains and due to not being able to play with friends that are only interested in playing in one campaign.

 

2 >> Forcing people to have one character per campaign per account will lead to larger Dregs-guilds migrating to lower tier (easy) campaigns and dominating people with their Dregs/rare-resource gear (this will happen anyway, but this rule will almost incentivize it).

 

3 >> People interested in playing a different class without having to leave the campaign they are currently in will be inclined to purchase multiple accounts in order not to leave their friends/guilds to play on a different campaign. Of course, many of these players will have otherwise never even considered buying a different account but will do so just to stay in the same community they are already established and comfortable playing with. *** In my opinion the one character per campaign per account rule will increase multi-boxing.. which can open the door to increased number of instances where we run into people using multiple accounts to exploit/keyclone/dupe/etc.

 

4 >> Carrying over from issue 3, people who cannot afford a second or third account so they can enjoy different aspects (classes, etc) of the game without leaving their preferred campaign community may become disenfranchised and feel like they are being "priced-out" of the opportunity to enjoy the game like those with multiple accounts.

 

 

This is not a thread about multi-boxing, it's about allowing people to use their 3-6 character slots on any campaign they would like to use. If the concern is people using their different characters to export more items you can just make it so the "eternal vault" is linked between all the characters you have in a campaign. People will find ways to export more items from any given campaign, there is literally no way to avoid it.. whether players buy multiple accounts specifically for this or people pay off guild members/relatives/friends to export for them.. there's no way to avoid it.

 

Aside from the obvious financial benefits via increased account sales, there really is no reason to impose a 1 character per campaign per account rule. In my opinion, imposing such a rule will only serve be detrimental to the project per the reasons stated above and really calls to question who really benefits from such a rule.

 

1.  With gear constantly being replaced, I see the first portion of point #1 being non-issue.  As for the second part, if it's that big of a deal, leave the campaign and reroll (assuming this is an option).  If not, campaigns being non-persistent, will end, and you can roll a new class.  I think your concerns here are very overblown.

 

2.  Like you said, this will happen anyway.  Artcraft will have to come up with a solution for this an I'm pretty sure multiple characters per campaign won't be it.  Not to mention, in Shadow campaigns (GvG) you won't be able to import weapons or equipment anyway.   

 

3/4.   People with multiple accounts will be a minority.  More money for ACE anyway.   As you've heard in all your multi-boxing threads, it seems very unlikely that mb'ing will be an issue in CF as it will be very tough to pull off competently.  

 

 

In conclusion, I think the vast majority of your claims are either non-issues, or their potential negative impact greatly exaggerated by you.  I think it's safe to say that Artcraft has much bigger things to commit their time and resources to.  

Edited by Abel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  With gear constantly being replaced, I see the first portion of point #1 being non-issue.  As for the second part, if it's that big of a deal, leave the campaign and reroll (assuming this is an option).  If not, campaigns being non-persistent, will end, and you can roll a new class.  I think your concerns here are very overblown.

 

2.  Like you said, this will happen anyway.  Artcraft will have to come up with a solution for this an I'm pretty sure multiple characters per campaign won't be it.  Not to mention, in Shadow campaigns (GvG) you won't be able to import weapons and and equipment anyway.   

 

3/4.   People with multiple accounts will be a minority.  More money for ACE anyway.   As you've heard in all your multi-boxing threads, it seems very unlikely that mb'ing will be an issue in CF as it will be very tough to pull off competently.  

 

 

In conclusion, I think the vast majority of your claims are either non-issues, or their potential negative impact greatly exaggerated by you.  I think it's safe to say that Artcraft has much bigger things to commit their time and resources to.  

 

covered your points in another post, please check the other pages lol..


OQa1xvz.png?1

lol ok.. I wonder if I'll still be able to steal directly from people's inventories.. hrmmm

;)Twitch - Twitter

RIP DOC GONZO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you've missed my post from the same page:

 

 

Note: I never considered the option to remove characters limits as the number one solution, infact it's the opposite.

That's why I proposed a series of things that hurt the efficiency of abusers (making them waste time by changing IPs and logging in each account every day to avoid PT absency, which as you might understand is way worse for a person that has 8 accounts compared to one that has 3, for example):

 

 

Now, to answer your main point:

 

"The only way we can eliminate a hardcore-multi-boxer's advantage through multi-boxing is to allow an infinite number of characters per account, all with passive training, allow them all to be brought into any campaign, and allow them all to be played simultaneously."

 

This ain't true. You're another victim of linear bias reasoning (hoping that's the correct translation to english).. which means you're supposing that having more characters is always beneficial no matter how characters you had already.

  1. Humans have limited time and ability to manage different builds. Even the most hardcore multibox out there is going to have max 1-2 crafters, a couple of fighting builds and some utility characters. What's the realistic limit, 10 for some korean kid?
  2. The more characters he has, the less he's capable of using each one of them at a decent level (both in PvE and in PvP), as pang said.
  3. Some of the limits I suggested, even only those for passive training, hurt abusers incrementally the more accounts they have.

What happens if you lift the limit instead?

  • Normal players (30$) now have 3 characters to use on a single campaign, only ONE of them has passive training;
  • VIP players (45$ 1st month) have 3 characters with passive training on a single campaign (x3)
  • Multiboxers with 3 accounts (90$ 1st month) have 3 characters passive training per campaign OR nine if they pay MONTHLY (90$+45$=135$)

Basically 45$ to have 3 characters and 135$ to have 9, while now it's 30$ to have 1 and 270$ to have nine.. the first month.

Hold your laugh.. by the 3rd month the multiboxer starts losing money, since he has to pay 45$ each month.

This still hurts B2P users though, and there must be a better alternative.

 

I do understand the argument you're making about player time.  I've made it myself previously in the context of using multiple characters on a single account.  That's why in my math I gave very significantly diminishing returns to the hardcore-multi-boxer.

 

I am, however, working on the assumption that a hardcore-multi-boxer will either already have, or will create, the tools necessary to run several gathering characters in a relatively safe place while running several crafters in a safer place, while actively playing a combat-oriented character elsewhere.  With open PvP there will be loss, but it probably won't be 100% loss.

 

Regarding the ongoing cost argument, that is an angle I hadn't considered.  I've been assuming that the hardcore-multi-boxer has already purchased accounts on KS with lots of VIP time.  It might currently be valid to assume that's the case for a hardcore-multi-boxer, but that won't necessarily be true once the game goes live.

 

As you pointed out, the B2P player loses out either way.  I'm not sure if there's any way to fix that.


soli deo gloria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol bro I already responded to this point.. multiple times...

 

here..

[...]

 

You say you have, but then you respond to some one else's post completely.

 

Fenris DDevil scored some valid points against me.  Can you do the same?


soli deo gloria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say you have, but then you respond to some one else's post completely.

 

Fenris DDevil scored some valid points against me.  Can you do the same?

 

I used the post because it covers what you're talking about.. also passive costs isn't an issue to multi-boxers for the reasons covered in the post I responded with.. also, sure multi-account holders would get more character slots to use in the same campaign but so would everyone else including those with one account.. which diminishes the advantage of multi-accounting, at least when it comes to the OPTION of making alts, significantly.. which was also covered in the post.

Edited by thenebrosity

OQa1xvz.png?1

lol ok.. I wonder if I'll still be able to steal directly from people's inventories.. hrmmm

;)Twitch - Twitter

RIP DOC GONZO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

covered your points in another post, please check the other pages lol..

 Seeing as how none of your initial points were especially valid, it's hard to imagine your follow ups would be much better.  Maybe I'll trudge though a dozen pages to find a post  with ridiculous claims such as zerging will be exacerbated by a limit of one character per campaign, but probably won't bother unless you want to link me. This is your second attempt at this topic, and after 20 or so pages of back and forth, it seems unlikely I will find anything worthwhile to justify the time spent.

Edited by Abel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Seeing as how none of your initial points were especially valid, it's hard to imagine your follow ups would be much better.  Maybe I'll trudge a dozen pages to find a post  with ridiculous claims such as zerging will be exacerbated by a limit of one character per campaign, but probably won't bother unless you want to link me. This is your second attempt at this topic, and after 20 or so pages of back and forth, it seems unlikely I will find anything worthwhile to justify the time spent.

 

If you can't be bothered to read through the responses and dialogue of others on the topic then it shows the effort and thought that goes into your responses/posts, I'll pass. 


OQa1xvz.png?1

lol ok.. I wonder if I'll still be able to steal directly from people's inventories.. hrmmm

;)Twitch - Twitter

RIP DOC GONZO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used the post because it covers what you're talking about.. also passive costs isn't an issue to multi-boxers for the reasons covered in the post I responded with.. also, sure multi-account holders would get more character slots to use in the same campaign but so would everyone else including those with one account.. which diminishes the advantage of multi-accounting, at least when it comes to the OPTION of making alts, significantly.. which was also covered in the post.

 

Options?  Who said this is about options?  I have no problem with a gonzo-multi-boxer.  Heck, I'd probably be one if I had enough spare cash.

 

My problem is with the hardcore-multi-boxer (hereafter referred to as an HMB) who's out to leverage out-of-game money and hardware into an in-game advantage.  Yes it won't be a 1:1 advantage.  Yes, it might even put each of their characters individually at a disadvantage.  But you aren't facing their characters individually, you're facing a "Zerg of One" .  You just killed combat toon #1?  No problem, here comes combat toon #2.  Killed combat toon #2?  No problem, here comes combat toon #3.  Thus weakened you succumb.  Sure this HMB suffered two deaths to your one, but they still carried the field and ended up with all your stuff (subject to campaign loot rules).

 

But my fear of an HMB pales in comparison to my fear of The Farmer.  The Farmer is an HMB who has figured out how to sell their in-game surplus for real world money and is now able to cover all of their ongoing expenses and profit.  They've turned our game into a business.  At that point we become nothing more than a combination of a market to be manipulated and a raw material to be mined, all for their profit.  They no longer have the option to say "GG" when defeated, because that's eating into their profit margin and, if it happens enough, will send them to the unemployment line.

 

I want to fight people who are passionate about the game, not people who are fighting to preserve their business and lifestyle.


soli deo gloria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't be bothered to read through the responses and dialogue of others on the topic then it shows the effort and thought that goes into your responses/posts, I'll pass. 

 

 

I apologize, you're right.  If i had committed more time to this pointless thread I'd have seen this post from Cirolle

 

 

But, there is nothing meaningful in this thread to start with.

 

It is a poorly veiled attempt at tripling the amount of mules for you multi boxing

 

If you don't have anything meaningful to add to these boards...

 

 

 

/thread

 

Hopefully this one gets locked or deleted like your other multi-boxing obsessed threads.  Most people on this board have a passion for this game (or at least care on some level).  Stop wasting their time with your meaningless nonsense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...