Never punish a player for using a single account.


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Goblinworks Executive Founder

So in essence the plans will be like current tabletop model? Subscribers get everything as it comes out on release and MTX gets it when they pay for it. With an (inferred) exception that there wouldn't be a discount for subscribing.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Nihimon wrote:

I hope that someone who has subscribed for two years and then drops down to F2P doesn't end up in a more restricted state than someone who's been F2P all along and only given you 1/10th the money.

A subscriber would have substantial advantages over a F2P player who spent 10% of the subscription price over the same period of time. And those advantages would be persistent even if that subscriber ceased paying the subscription fees and decided to just use MTX.

I assume that there will be a very hard cap on the advantages acquired or enabled by payments. I'm fine with "All subscribing customers are mechanically equal, and cosmetic options are for sale." I'm not really good with things that have mechanical benefits being sold for cash, or having multiple subscription models with mechanical benefits associated with higher payments.

Just tell me that my ~$15 per month gets me substantially equivalent treatment as having two subscriptions totaling $30, and I'll be happy. I understand that the micro-transaction model requires a lower tier of play; don't create a higher tier of play than the subscribing customer.

Goblin Squad Member

You'll be happy.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
We're selling you training time and access to skill trees. So you won't get a lot of it for free, regardless of how many characters you have on an account.

Rereading this, I think we're good.

My worry was that F2P'ers would have to pay to get access to content that subscribers got for free, but that once the subscription was up, the subscriber would be worse off because he hadn't purchased that content, and would suddenly find himself locked out of it.

If F2P'ers are having to pay MTX to gain Skill Progression that subscribers get for free, then that's not really a problem, because we won't lose access to the skills we've already trained if we have to quit subscribing for a time.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
We're selling you training time and access to skill trees. So you won't get a lot of it for free, regardless of how many characters you have on an account.

Rereading this, I think we're good.

My worry was that F2P'ers would have to pay to get access to content that subscribers got for free, but that once the subscription was up, the subscriber would be worse off because he hadn't purchased that content, and would suddenly find himself locked out of it.

If F2P'ers are having to pay MTX to gain Skill Progression that subscribers get for free, then that's not really a problem, because we won't lose access to the skills we've already trained if we have to quit subscribing for a time.

Yeah definently understandable, probably the only part of DDO I didn't like, going freemium you could more or less buy access to everything in the game for about $175ish. with a $13 a month subscription you could have access to everything, 2 years later the freemium has everything, the "VIP" who paid, if he stops paying loses everything.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
...probably the only part of DDO I didn't like, going freemium you could more or less buy access to everything in the game for about $175ish. with a $13 a month subscription you could have access to everything, 2 years later the freemium has everything, the "VIP" who paid, if he stops paying loses everything.

Exactly.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Please consider never limiting actions by account in such a way that players are encouraged to simply create multiple accounts to circumvent the limitation.

I'm hoping one of the devs can speak to this.

If you had your choice, would you rather a customer use a single account, multiple accounts, or does it just not matter?

As a customer, I would rather be able to use a single account.

As your customer, I would ask you to please not create a system where there are arbitrary restrictions on what I can do with a single account, but where I can easily bypass those restrictions by using multiple accounts.

Character Slots - If I can get a new character slot for free by creating a new account, please just let me get a new free character slot on my existing account. Likewise, if I can get a new character slot by spending $10 (or $30, or whatever) and creating a new account, please just let me spend the $10 (or $30, or whatever) and get a new character slot on my existing account.

Characters Online - If I can run two (or more) accounts and control two (or more) characters online simultaneously, please allow me to control two (or more) characters online simultaneously from my single account. I can't imagine there are any technical challenges in allowing this, unless it's a design choice that's hard-coded into the middleware.

(( I'd mention Character Training, but I've already gotten the answer I want. ))

In essence, if there's anything that I can easily do with a second account, please allow me to do it with my main account. I'll be glad to pay whatever I would have had to pay for the additional account - I'm not even asking for a discount.

And please don't do silly things like not allowing me to send myself mail, etc. It's trivial (though tedious) to bypass these kinds of restrictions, so please just allow us to do what we want to do without the hubris of thinking that we'll stop if you make it kind of irritating.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon, is your concern over having multiple accounts, or over being able to train/log in multiple characters from a single account?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Characters Online - If I can run two (or more) accounts and control two (or more) characters online simultaneously, please allow me to control two (or more) characters online simultaneously from my single account. I can't imagine there are any technical challenges in allowing this, unless it's a design choice that's hard-coded into the middleware.

KoTOR style!

Goblin Squad Member

My concern is in being effectively encouraged to create multiple accounts.

Once the game is in Open Enrollment, it will be possible for me to have 6 characters online simultaneously if I so choose. There's just something that offends my sensibilities that I can do so with multiple accounts, but not with a single account.

Part of it is that I believe game companies should be creating strong incentives for players to use a single account, because this makes all the characters on that account more accountable to moderation efforts like account bans and such, which will make the players more likely to behave in an acceptable manner. It seems to me that creating arbitrary incentives that encourage players to create multiple accounts will consequently reduce those players' accountability.

Scarab Sages Goblinworks Executive Founder

Valkenr wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Characters Online - If I can run two (or more) accounts and control two (or more) characters online simultaneously, please allow me to control two (or more) characters online simultaneously from my single account. I can't imagine there are any technical challenges in allowing this, unless it's a design choice that's hard-coded into the middleware.
KoTOR style!

Looks like this will NOT be allowed. From the KS homepage:

Quote:
(You will not be able to log in and play both of these characters at the same time)

Goblin Squad Member

Dakcenturi wrote:
Looks like this will NOT be allowed.

I'm not giving up yet. They might acquiesce.


What concerns me about multiboxing is that many do it to eventually sell those accounts. In a game where skill level is at real time as PFO will be, I'm afraid there will be some attempts to do this. We will have to be vigilant in looking out for those suspicious of doing so.

Goblin Squad Member

The big problem is one person having a master/slave system with a bunch of characters. But you can't stop those people, they are probably using multiple machines already and probably have more technical know-how than most of the development team.

The one restriction I would put in place is that a player cannot have multiple characters from the same account in the same party. And there shouldn't be any non-combat actions that require you to be in a party. And there shouldn't be any systems in the game where someone can just sit in your party and provide buffs, and there should not be a 'follow' ability.

If there are things like SWG's doctors/entertainers that provide long-term buffs, players should be able to use their own characters to buff their other characters. If you have an alt that provides better services than what is available, you shouldn't be forced to settle for lesser services because it is impossible for those characters to be on at the same time.

One RP reason I can see, is to allow players to have interactions between their characters.

CEO, Goblinworks

Destiny's Twin is a unique benefit for the Kickstarters and it's designed to incent people to get into the project by giving them a tangible benefit vs. more esoteric potential benefits. It's not supposed to indicate a long-term plan on how we'll handle multiple accounts, multiple characters per account, or how you'd play multiple characters.

We're KISSing this. Keeping It Simple, Stupid (we're "stupid" in this acronym). Destiny's Twin doesn't have much downside risk, it's easy to manage, and it doesn't affect the business model so it's a safe perk to offer at this stage.

Everything that happens later will be more complex, have to be carefully balanced and priced, and needs more thought and development than we could give it in the time allowed.

Goblin Squad Member

Saying:

(You will not be able to log in and play both of these characters at the same time)

is a long term statement. It tells me than characters that are "destiny's twinned" will never be able to log in at the same time. It leaves open the possibility to play other characters online at the same time, but that would seem unfair.

It is not globally assumed that two characters on the same account can play together. I don't think that line was necessary.

Goblin Squad Member

just want to point out the name of the thread is:

Never punish a player for using a single account.

and playing two characters on the same account together is what this thread is about.

anyway i dont know of any major game that allows more than one character from the same account to play at the same time as another character.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:
The one restriction I would put in place is that a player cannot have multiple characters from the same account in the same party.

What good does it do to put this restriction in place when I can very easily have multiple accounts with characters in the same party?

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Destiny's Twin doesn't have much downside risk, it's easy to manage, and it doesn't affect the business model so it's a safe perk to offer at this stage.

Just because they're restricting the offer at this stage doesn't mean they can't remove those restrictions later.

Goblin Squad Member

I'd think the best way to reward single account users is to allow any character on that single account to log in, as long as at least 1 character is training.

Sorry for the necro.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Avari wrote:

I'd think the best way to reward single account users is to allow any character on that single account to log in, as long as at least 1 character is training.

Sorry for the necro.

Nice bit of nostalgia seeing one of my first threads back :)

That's somewhat in line with what Ryan has talked about before.

I'm less concerned about the account that has lots of characters and a steady payment history being able to access any low skill characters as I am with the account with one character with a small number of XP being able to play forever "for free".

Although, to be honest, I don't really have a problem with only being able to log in characters that are currently receiving training. Given how easy it's (probably?) going to be to change which character is receiving training, I can't imagine this being a terrible burden.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
T7V Avari wrote:

I'd think the best way to reward single account users is to allow any character on that single account to log in, as long as at least 1 character is training.

Sorry for the necro.

Nice bit of nostalgia seeing one of my first threads back :)

That's somewhat in line with what Ryan has talked about before.

I'm less concerned about the account that has lots of characters and a steady payment history being able to access any low skill characters as I am with the account with one character with a small number of XP being able to play forever "for free".
Although, to be honest, I don't really have a problem with only being able to log in characters that are currently receiving training. Given how easy it's (probably?) going to be to change which character is receiving training, I can't imagine this being a terrible burden.

No, but it's a nice little reward to be able to log in your low skilled crafting alt without dedicating money to him. It would certainly tilt the scales towards single account for me, personally.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Hmm, responding just to the initial idea in the OP.

I would much rather have a single character than be pushed to have a stable of character tailored to separate roles.

I much prefer the model of Runescape or FF14, where a single character can pursue everything and their progress is kept on a single individual, rather than having to spread expertise thin among several different characters. ESPECIALLY given the stated goal of wanting to make high class level characters a very long term goal that takes upwards of a year, having to have multiple characters in that instance would be insane.

I like alts, but I don't like being forced to play an alt from start to end game just to experience content that I locked myself out of at character creation.

I wouldn't mind having a combat focused character and a separate non-combatant, especially given the mechanic of Destiny's Twin.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon, Wurm Online has a payment plan in the form of purchased playtime (subscription) for each character, not the account. You can choose to multi-box and play all of your characters at the same time if you wish. Having a second account has no real benefit because of this.

It sounds like PFO is going a similar route. Is that what you were looking for in your earlier posts?

Goblin Squad Member

Ravenlute wrote:

Nihimon, Wurm Online has a payment plan in the form of purchased playtime (subscription) for each character, not the account. You can choose to multi-box and play all of your characters at the same time if you wish. Having a second account has no real benefit because of this.

It sounds like PFO is going a similar route. Is that what you were looking for in your earlier posts?

Very much. I'm extremely happy with what's been announced with respect to accounts and subscriptions for PFO. Allowing me to have multiple Characters from the same account logged in at the same time takes away pretty the only reason I would want a second account.

Goblin Squad Member

CosmicKirby wrote:

Hmm, responding just to the initial idea in the OP.

I would much rather have a single character than be pushed to have a stable of character tailored to separate roles.

For the record, my OP was not at all meant to suggest players should be pushed to create alts.

PFO will allow me to do everything I want to do on a single character, if I choose; it will just take me longer than it would if I paid multiple subscriptions and trained separate characters for each role. For the player that only pays for one subscription, there's no difference between having a single character who can do everything vs a stable of alts to fill distinct roles because whenever one character is training, the others are not.

Goblin Squad Member

In my experience, with the exception of botters, people dual boxing has rarely been a problem.

Goblin Squad Member

I would very much love to be able to effectively play multiple characters at the same time. I don't really have a problem even with fully automated bots that run while there's no one at the keyboard, I just wish that games were designed with this reality in mind and chose to completely eliminate all the "grinding" that these kinds of bots are designed to automate.

In my "perfect" MMO, every character you made would be in-game at all times, effectively living as NPCs while there was no player at the controls. Ideally, they would be controlled by processes running on client machines, and not on the server. I doubt this "perfect" (to me) implementation will be realized any time soon :)

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

...In my "perfect" MMO, every character you made would be in-game at all times, effectively living as NPCs while there was no player at the controls. Ideally, they would be controlled by processes running on client machines, and not on the server. I doubt this "perfect" (to me) implementation will be realized any time soon :)

Coolest idea ever.

Goblin Squad Member

Dazyk wrote:
Nihimon wrote:

...In my "perfect" MMO, every character you made would be in-game at all times, effectively living as NPCs while there was no player at the controls. Ideally, they would be controlled by processes running on client machines, and not on the server. I doubt this "perfect" (to me) implementation will be realized any time soon :)

Coolest idea ever.

Flattering, but probably a tad hyperbolic :)

Goblin Squad Member

EDIT: Very Cool Idea

:)

I'd hate to be labelled one-o' them hyperbolites ;)

Goblin Squad Member

"Dazyk and the Hyperbolites"

I'm not sure if that's an awesome band name, or more reminiscent of Moses and the Hebrewites - or maybe Jason and the Argonauts...

Goblin Squad Member

The only time that I have a problem with multi-boxing is ISO boxing. Meaning using a third party program where you control 1 character and the program mimics your controls for the others. Im pretty sure that is against the EULA but you see it from time to time in EVE online.

Goblin Squad Member

Ruick wrote:
The only time that I have a problem with multi-boxing is ISO boxing. Meaning using a third party program where you control 1 character and the program mimics your controls for the others. Im pretty sure that is against the EULA but you see it from time to time in EVE online.

I know, to a metaphysical certitude, that there are a significant number of EVE players who use third party botting software that's a lot more complex than simply replicating keystrokes. They're paying a subscription to a company I won't mention here to have access to software that gives them complete automation and access to a lot of information directly from the game client.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Ryan is aware of this kind of thing. This is the crux of my argument that it would be better for this kind of automation to be sanctioned than to only allow those who are willing to break the rules to benefit from it. I understand there are a lot of folks who are comfortable with the illusion that this doesn't happen, but they'd be quite surprised I think to realize how widespread it is.

Goblin Squad Member

For some reason, it's very easy for me to think in terms of Characters instead of Players. If I'm fighting three Characters, it really doesn't matter to me how many Players there are behind them. Likewise, it's really easy for me to imagine being a good friend to one Character, and a mortal enemy to another Character, even if I know it's the same Player. I'm not saying it would always be that way, but it's easy for me to imagine cases where it is...

Goblin Squad Member

Way to autonecro, Nihimon. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Way to autonecro, Nihimon. :)

Hrm... someone deleted their post. That's what I get for not quoting...

Goblin Squad Member

Avari's post preceded yours, Nihimon.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Avari's post preceded yours, Nihimon.

There was another, from a name I didn't immediately recognize, that was talking about how a "multi-box set up" was much more game-impacting in a PvP game.


Honestly, I dislike the very idea of multiboxing, since there's always that nightmare scenario of whole organizations made up of one or two players.

This conversation pretty much lost me, though. I really need to catch up on them blogs...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was watching a video from a 'black hat' conference (all the while worried that the stream was also opening my firewall) and the two speakers referenced how outclassed they felt when a colleague of theirs was found able to control hundreds of bots simultaneously.

Goblin Squad Member

It was this topic that led me to post about the ease with which I separate Characters and Players. :)

Goblin Squad Member

There is really no worry of an organization made up of two players, if they are, they will have little ability to control anything. Combat on two computers is nearly impossible without using TOS breaking modifications. As long as we don't have a system like SWG where you can string together a bunch of attacks, we're fine. Most of the time when I have seen 1-2 player guilds, it is because there is a minimum group size to form, and they wanted to be a loner with a tag.

You can only focus on one character, the other has to be doing something that doesn't require serious attention and infrequent input.

The common multi-box setups:
Combat and Crafter/Marketeer
Combat and Harvester

I have never seen:
one guy controlling an army of alts

In EVE I ran my combat toon, and had my alt salvager/harvester come in and sweep up the mission as I moved to the next room, or off in an asteroid belt.

In my small stent in SWGemu I ran my combat toon, and my crafter/gatherer(s)(sometimes you could have unlimited numbers of characters online) was somewhere else entirely sitting in a field of other gathers extracting resources.

Let the game run multiple instances. Have unfocused windows throttle graphics performance(like blizzard games) so more people can handle it. Let destinies twins log in at the same time.

I could see a potential limit to two characters online at a time, to prevent stressing the system. There should be few things in the game that are 'fire and forget', so there should be few activities(like running cleanup or crafting) that a 2nd character could be used for.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:

I have never seen:

one guy controlling an army of alts

It certainly happens, depending on your definition of "army". I've seen multiple examples of 6-boxing on Everquest, for example. I was watching a guy on twitch a couple weeks ago 10-boxing rogues in WoW. These are anomalies though, and if a couple guys like this show up in PFO...who really cares? They're more sideshow than problem.

The most common box is obviously just going to be a basic 2 box, most of which just provide convenience.
I couldn't care less how many people box.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:

I have never seen:

one guy controlling an army of alts

I've seen it. And I've done it in Vanguard. I understand very clearly what's involved, and as I've said before, I know to a metaphysical certitude that there are a significant number of players doing it in Vanguard, EverQeust 2, and EVE Online.

I think because Vanguard was so low-population, the devs/mods largely looked the other way. It was really startling to me when I learned how pervasive it was.

Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:
The most common box is obviously just going to be a basic 2 box, most of which just provide convenience.

I agree, and I think the most common specific example will be a strong assault Character with a buff/heal Character following them around. In EverQuest I did this with a Paladin and a Druid, with the Druid running on a laptop and I just reached up to hit a button when I needed a heal, or I could easily reach up and do Lulls or Snares or Roots before the pull.

There's really no way to stop this. Limiting players to having two characters logged in at the same time can only mean limiting accounts, so all it does is force players who want to have more than two to use separate accounts.

There are controllers that can easily be programmed to issue a series of keystrokes on a loop. It would probably be pretty easy to write a file watcher program to read a log file and make decisions about what keypresses to send to the client, or the controller device.

Goblin Squad Member

And for the record, I won't do any of this stuff if it's against PFO's Terms of Service. This game is much too important to me to take any risk of getting banned, but even more importantly, I couldn't sleep at night if I was doing something I knew was wrong. The only reason I've done what I've done in Vanguard is because I knew the devs/mods didn't really care - as long as you were at the keyboard and able to respond.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Broken_Sextant wrote:
The most common box is obviously just going to be a basic 2 box, most of which just provide convenience.

I agree, and I think the most common specific example will be a strong assault Character with a buff/heal Character following them around. In EverQuest I did this with a Paladin and a Druid, with the Druid running on a laptop and I just reached up to hit a button when I needed a heal, or I could easily reach up and do Lulls or Snares or Roots before the pull.

There's really no way to stop this. Limiting players to having two characters logged in at the same time can only mean limiting accounts, so all it does is force players who want to have more than two to use separate accounts.

There are controllers that can easily be programmed to issue a series of keystrokes on a loop. It would probably be pretty easy to write a file watcher program to read a log file and make decisions about what keypresses to send to the client, or the controller device.

I did that with two windows in WoW. I was leveling my wife's character with she was in Afghanistan, so it was for a good cause. ;) It was Hunter and Priest in that case. /follow and switching windows when heals were needed.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:


There's really no way to stop this. Limiting players to having two characters logged in at the same time can only mean limiting accounts, so all it does is force players who want to have more than two to use separate accounts.

There are controllers that can easily be programmed to issue a series of keystrokes on a loop. It would probably be pretty easy to write a file watcher program to read a log file and make decisions about what keypresses to send to the client, or the controller device.

The two character account limit is for server stability. If everyone can have as many characters online as they want, everyone will have on as many characters as they want. That same argument can be made for any number, and there will have to be some sort of hard cap, be it character slots(I can easily see GW giving us 2-3 slots then having to buy more, it is F2Pish, then you have a hard limit for how much space you designate to each account), or a log-in limit, where having another account expands how many characters you can have in-game.

I'm guessing any type of automation will be against the TOS, and as long as the punishment is harsh enough, few people will risk it.

Goblin Squad Member

The kind of multiboxing that can be a serious threat is a little different than dragging around a cleric bot.

Imagine I am running an application that lets me use a single keyboard to sent input to multiple computers. So I press 1 on the keyboard and all six (for example) computers register that 1.

Now imagine I have created 6 accounts in PFO, each running a wizard with the exact same skills, the exact same spells slotted, the exact same toolbars. I press W to move forward and all six wizards, standing in the same space, move forward as a single unit. It looks like one character with six heads and twelve limbs.

Now imagine I press 1 to cast my highest-damage single-target spell. On you. You get hit with six of them simultaneously and are turned to a smoking pile of ash before you can even figure out what the Hell that thing with six heads is.

Some say that's totally legit since I am paying for six accounts and every action I take is derived from a physical press of a button on my keyboard. Nothing is automated, nothing comes from a script, nothing is being botted. Some say it's totally unfair that I, a single player, was able to bring down upon you the power of six characters.

Therein lies the debate.

Goblin Squad Member

@Valkenr, Ryan's already said there will be a hard-cap on how many Characters from the same Account you can have logged in simultaneously, and he referenced server stability and "technical considerations" directly.

I'm arguing against making that limit arbitrarily low in a futile attempt to keep people from playing more than 1 or 2 Characters simultaneously.

51 to 100 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Never punish a player for using a single account. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.