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

As I've read more replies, I really don't understand the hostility to having multiple alts in the same campaign.  True, this isn't WoW, but it has huge build diversity like many MMOs these days to some extent.  We're not playing DayZ.  We're playing a game with multiple build options.  Half the fun of games like this is the freedom to explore and enjoy multiple builds, to create optimal builds, or to create crazy and unconventional builds that wind up being remarkably effective.  It's also fun for a lot of people to just simply experience multiple rolls (My main's a tank, let's try a bow user for kicks).  The restriction of One Character = One Campaign is a huge, huuuuuge step back in what makes an MMO fun for a large amount of the player base.  True, many will play only one character, but many enjoy alts, if for no other reason than to explore other classes.  It's also a great way to discover just how OP they really are when you try them yourself (and either find out "Well, damn, no wonder they're OP" or "Holy crap I suck at this, how do people win with this POS?")

 

The major arguments supporting the single character lock seem to be, avoiding the preference arguments, the following:

  1. You won't be as good as someone dedicated
  2. It'll be too easy to make crafting alts
  3. You should have to make strategic choices in character creation and builds
  4. It'll be too easy to build alts as VIP given passive training

Just tell me if you think I missed something that is specific enough not to be tied generally to these four major points.  My rebuttal is thus:

  1. So?  This is no different than any other strategic choice I might make for advantages elsewhere.  In a Civ game, I can work less on military and more on wonders and economic buildings for a more long term bonus.  In this game, I give myself variety and more experience in the game generally and my guild/faction/warparty more options based on needs.  You might know that melee tank backwards and forwards, but my experience as a melee tank and the melee tank's rock to this build's paper means I know much more than you do and have an experience you cannot match, meaning my split focus does not automatically mean I'll be a worse player.  It very easily could mean I'll know far better how to handle that paper as the rock melee tank than you ever will short of you being some prodigy.
  2. Every guild will already have dedicated crafters, the "crafting alts" will just be extras, backups, and side projects for most players.  Many people will likely pick up a crafting discipline anyways just for added self sufficiency and team support (I can always farm or mine or tan leather or swordsmith when opportunity permits).  If a VIP chose to have two dedicated craft alts to just sit in passive training 80% of the time, there's no real problem there if that's their choice.  Judging by the way they have marketed the game, the amount of time and effort required (given we MUST rely on passive training and it ONLY works on ONE skill at a time) to be fully self sufficient would be immense such that only the cellar dweller nolifers would ever bother with it.  Most would likely have a crafting alt as a backup ready to go when needed if the dedicated player of the craft just can't get online that night.
  3. You already do given we will have no to limited respec.  And what if it turns out I'm not liking the class?  Or it turns out we just have too much of the same role?  With the current set up, I'd have to delete my character and reroll to resume playing with my guild.  And what if I enjoy the class?  What if I want to keep playing it?  I have to feck off, take a deserter penalty, and play by myself instead of my guild and friends?  On some campaign I have no interest or investment in?  Just so I can use my alt with them instead?  That doesn't sound fun at all.
  4. This is way too much speculation.  As mentioned in point #2, passive training is only available on one skill at a time.  Considering how many different skills you'll need to build up for maximum efficiency, I fail to see how this makes any sort of true impact in any meaningful way.  Judging by the way the skill system and promotion classes have been offered to us, it sounds like ACE intends for us to have our full (or very nearly full, with all necessary skills) kit by or around our active skill cap.  Since we have no idea how long it will take to reach passive cap, and the likelyhood that we'll need multiple skills leveled up to maximize efficiency and prowess, I just don't see this mattering.

I want to play with my friends and guild.  I like playing alts.  I like rerolling with them to explore new builds and just because it's enjoyable to experience a fresh perspective.  And, in the competitive scene, actually experiencing other classes means you'll better know how to maximize their strengths as your allies and exploit their weaknesses as your enemies.  One trick ponies can become very stale very quickly and can become disadvantaged by their exclusive focus.  I shouldn't have to shove off to some campaign I have no investment or interest in just to experience more of the game.  Can you imagine if you could only roll one character per server on a game like WoW?  Lots of MMOs these days have given players the ability to just disregard alts by allowing you freely available respecs.  People do it because it's fun and it opens more of the game up for them.  This restriction is a step backwards in player freedom, choice, and fun.

Edited by Deioth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that people want a competitive game, and they don't want to do the round-about to be SUPER competitive, and fear that botting or some other sort of multibox system will allow one person to invalidate them as competitors.

 

 

Basically this is a case of...obviously they want to play and win, on merit...but that other guy, he's juicing, and they want that to not be a thing.

 

This thread is at the point where its like, ok our tests for juicing suck, so....what's the REAL solution here that makes the most people happy and solves the problem the most amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that people want a competitive game, and they don't want to do the round-about to be SUPER competitive, and fear that botting or some other sort of multibox system will allow one person to invalidate them as competitors.

Basically this is a case of...obviously they want to play and win, on merit...but that other guy, he's juicing, and they want that to not be a thing.

This thread is at the point where its like, ok our tests for juicing suck, so....what's the REAL solution here that makes the most people happy and solves the problem the most amount.

 

There's nothing competitive about being forced to form an alliance or massively recruiting people for the sake of diversifying your guild/nation's archetypes/classes. I'd rather play with a small group of players that have the OPTION to switch to what's needed and who are familiar with how multiple classes work than join a zerg.


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

You're wrong thenbrosity.

 

Its absolutely competitive to form alliances.

 

Thats what game of thrones is at a core level. Its about backstabbing and forcing people to do what you want to help you, and bartering for favors, and that social element is totally competitive.

 

That however also gets janked up by goons and just people bandwagoning for no real reason at all other then to blob up.

 

You're taking the baby with the bath water however by saying ones not competitive, because of the other.

 

Personally I think it will take some structuring to make the dream social interaction of alliances work, because otherwise the third party element will overwhelm the game and make gooning the norm instead of the fringe case...thats a different problem however.

 

 

 

There are pretty big problems with everyone juicing...but I'm not the guy with the chart w/e with all the implications branching out on how it affects the game.

Edited by Zomnivore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see both sides of this one, my gut leans more toward the single character per campaign side but that may just be for the simplicity of that solution.  My gut has a 30/70 track record, with the 70 being craptastically wrong, so take that for what it's worth.  Absolutely hate the idea of trying to make it hard/impossible to multibox because there just isn't an elegant solution for that scenario from a technical standpoint, just a bunch of hacky implementations.  


 

Er, what's "edging"?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong thenbrosity.

 

Its absolutely competitive to form alliances.

 

Thats what game of thrones is at a core level. Its about backstabbing and forcing people to do what you want to help you, and bartering for favors, and that social element is totally competitive.

 

That however also gets janked up by goons and just people bandwagoning for no real reason at all other then to blob up.

 

You're taking the baby with the bath water however by saying ones not competitive, because of the other.

 

Ok then........

 

There's nothing competitive about being forced to form a ZERG ALLIANCE or massively recruiting people for the sake of diversifying your guild/nation's archetypes/classes. I'd rather form a SMALL ALLIANCE with a small group of players that have the OPTION to switch to what's needed and who are familiar with how multiple classes work than join a ZERG ALLIANCE.

 

The point is, a small guild or alliance/nation(of guilds) with players who know how multiple classes work and who have the OPTION to switch to what is needed will beat a zerg allaince of players who lack experience... the OPTION to make ALTs, makes them more competitive. Unfortunately the current 1chracter-slot per campaign rule will eventually lead to zergs.

 

As stated earlier, if you want to see a diversity of guilds and not a small number of mega zerg-guilds, then removing the 1 character-slot per campaign will encourage players to keep smaller more tight-knit guilds.. unfortunately once the zerg-ball gets rolling it's hard to stop it.. I'd rather see this fixed now before resources are wasted than later when people realize the lack of OPTIONS lead to zergs.

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

The major arguments supporting the single character lock seem to be, avoiding the preference arguments, the following:

  1. You won't be as good as someone dedicated
  2. It'll be too easy to make crafting alts
  3. You should have to make strategic choices in character creation and builds
  4. It'll be too easy to build alts as VIP given passive training

 

You actually missed the #1 one, which is that we want people to work together to accomplish tasks, rather than being able to accomplish every task in a campaign themselves.

 

But it's clear that this argument is going nowhere.  No matter how many people say otherwise, the people on the side of removing the restriction either have incredibly pessimistic views on the game, or aren't actually reading the arguments being made.  No point arguing against futile.

 

So maybe this can help let this thread die: If you're a player who, like me, believes in ACE's goal of 1-character-per-campaign, just stop arguing.  We've said everything we can say.  It's getting nowhere.  And we have Ace on our side, so why bother bashing our heads against this wall.

 

Here's one last prayer for Ace not backing down on this.  I'd rather not play a game where everyone just fills all the roles with their own alts.

 

Looks like we'll see what they decide.  Until then, Doctor out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's all juice?

 

1495.gif

 

You know what. I hate the fact that dmbrandon is now famous again in another community. I come to Crowfall after a day of Smite to not think about him. God. I can't run away from him.


The most important thing is to enjoy your life - to be happy - it's all that matters. - Audrey Hepburn “:♡.•♬✧⁽⁽ଘ( ˊᵕˋ )ଓ⁾⁾*+:•*∴
Read more at brainyquote.com/search_results.html#KTJ4dHyeiltlKOTM.99

mz_Yr9k_I.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok then........

 

There's nothing competitive about being forced to form a ZERG ALLIANCE or massively recruiting people for the sake of diversifying your guild/nation's archetypes/classes.

 .

Point of order here. No one in the history of gaming has ever been forced to zerg. It's always a choice. No one is going to shoot your dog if you don't save your pixels.


CF_Osgyth.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1495.gif

 

You know what. I hate the fact that dmbrandon is now famous again in another community. I come to Crowfall after a day of Smite to not think about him. God. I can't run away from him.

I have no clue what the connection is here.

 

Right over my head.


 

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

You actually missed the #1 one, which is that we want people to work together to accomplish tasks, rather than being able to accomplish every task in a campaign themselves.

 

But it's clear that this argument is going nowhere.  No matter how many people say otherwise, the people on the side of removing the restriction either have incredibly pessimistic views on the game, or aren't actually reading the arguments being made.  No point arguing against futile.

 

So maybe this can help let this thread die: If you're a player who, like me, believes in ACE's goal of 1-character-per-campaign, just stop arguing.  We've said everything we can say.  It's getting nowhere.  And we have Ace on our side, so why bother bashing our heads against this wall.

 

Here's one last prayer for Ace not backing down on this.  I'd rather not play a game where everyone just fills all the roles with their own alts.

 

Looks like we'll see what they decide.  Until then, Doctor out.

 

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.

 

 

I have no clue what the connection is here.

Right over my head.

 

Don't feed the troII.. Lastboy seems to have a hard-on for me.. if you check his post history you'll find that more than 1/3 of his posts are in response to me/my threads.. yet he still thinks I'm the one being baited lol.........

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

If the 1 character-slot per campaign rule is removed it at least reduces the p2w advantage of buying multiple accounts for the OPTION of making ALTs.

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.

 

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?

 

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.


This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

Sorry, already addressed this but here we go again,

 

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".


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

^ 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..

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?


This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no clue what the connection is here.

 

Right over my head.

 

Nevermind, I thought you were talking about the juice community. Totally took the wrong implication.

 

What did you mean by let's juice?

 

Right over my head.


The most important thing is to enjoy your life - to be happy - it's all that matters. - Audrey Hepburn “:♡.•♬✧⁽⁽ଘ( ˊᵕˋ )ଓ⁾⁾*+:•*∴
Read more at brainyquote.com/search_results.html#KTJ4dHyeiltlKOTM.99

mz_Yr9k_I.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok then........

 

There's nothing competitive about being forced to form a ZERG ALLIANCE or massively recruiting people for the sake of diversifying your guild/nation's archetypes/classes. I'd rather form a SMALL ALLIANCE with a small group of players that have the OPTION to switch to what's needed and who are familiar with how multiple classes work than join a ZERG ALLIANCE.

 

The point is, a small guild or alliance/nation(of guilds) with players who know how multiple classes work and who have the OPTION to switch to what is needed will beat a zerg allaince of players who lack experience... the OPTION to make ALTs, makes them more competitive. Unfortunately the current 1chracter-slot per campaign rule will eventually lead to zergs.

 

As stated earlier, if you want to see a diversity of guilds and not a small number of mega zerg-guilds, then removing the 1 character-slot per campaign will encourage players to keep smaller more tight-knit guilds.. unfortunately once the zerg-ball gets rolling it's hard to stop it.. I'd rather see this fixed now before resources are wasted than later when people realize the lack of OPTIONS lead to zergs.

It's up to the devs to design campaign rules, game mechanics and victory conditions that will allow smaller to medium sized guilds to be competative in this game. If they are not able to do this, then it won't be good for the game long term. But the solution isn't just to give everyone more characters. And the idea that doing so would have any effect in the balance between small guild and zerg sized guild is pretty far fetched, IMO.

 

I'd prefer to see victory conditions and objectives that would allow smaller guilds to have their moments. If its a numbers game, the zerg will win and doesn't matter how many characters you bring per player anyway.

 

ETA: I say this as a player who would much rather play in a small guild/group myself. I'd prefer to fight against long odds than to be a part of the machine and I'll hold out as long as possible against joining with a group that's tok big and may even quit the game if that's the only option. But if CF is really taking a step forward in the genre, the solution is in designing ways to make those groups viable, not inflating those groups numbers with multiple characters.

Edited by ColdSlither

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're red-herring-ing my point away, but ok.

 

 

 

How is recruitment not a skill?

 

If you're not leveraging third party external things, then collecting players is at least some level of skill.

 

Even if in game, people bandwagon, and are terrible and there's no in-system way to punish that.*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*which I doubt.

Edited by Zomnivore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, it doesn't matter what decisions they make. We who are the ePeen and Play to Crush crowd will find a way to min/max whatever is implemented. if that means I have to purchase multiple accounts, use a proxy server and mask my addy in order to log multiple accounts in at the same time, then I will do that if its an advantage. I did it in UO. I did it in SB. I did it in SWG. I did it in DFO, and I will do it in CF. You can't stop players from finding ways to make the rule sets and game mechanics play to there advantage. 

 

Don't even get me started on the potential in CF for the Meta, ForumFall 2.0 and resurgence of Clans who know how to run an Intel Campaign.

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...