On the relationship between alts

[Dorgan Berkham]

I was wondering what kind of relationship there will be between characters on the same account. For instance, would I be able to send them money, create equipment for them or have a common stash (a la Diablo 3) in a simple way or the idea is for them to be totally separate entities (which can be circumvented through third parties)?

[Dario]

I have no officially citation, but I strongly suspect the latter.

[Kitsune Aou]

I also strongly suspect the latter. I have not seen any indication that there will be anything shared between alts, apart from the XP gained from Destiny's Twin.

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

What would be nice and circumvent the annoying hassle that we will all just work around anyway, is if there where "some" possibility of a local storage for a single account. No "magic" transport of goods, to and fro, but the hassle is gone.

[Being]

Inheritance, shared vaults... those would be convenient. Sounds like a plus to me.

[EoX Hobs]

In old UO days, before in-game mail systems and even guild banks, you knew who in the community you could trust to hold your stuff and have them pass it to an alt. Player networking and having a good reputation was king.

[Banesama]

Yeah. Before they implemented the mail system in DDO, I was often asked to hold stuff for my fellow guild mates to transfer over to their alts.

[Calidor Cruciatus]

There is a thread on this on the crowdforging site. I think it's a good idea.

[Kitsune Aou]

EoX Hobs wrote:

In old UO days, before in-game mail systems and even guild banks, you knew who in the community you could trust to hold your stuff and have them pass it to an alt. Player networking and having a good reputation was king.

And you know that Goblinworks is all about "Meaningful player interaction," so I suspect that this sort of thing might show up again in Pathfinder Online.

And of course, there's always settlement/company storage - whenever that's implemented. You just have to trust everyone in that organizational unit not to take your stuff while you are switching. ;)

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

EoX Hobs wrote:

In old UO days, before in-game mail systems and even guild banks, you knew who in the community you could trust to hold your stuff and have them pass it to an alt. Player networking and having a good reputation was king.

That is wonderful for trades of stranger to stranger if there is a coordination/time sync problem. It is also a wonderful interaction thing. It is also a real hassle if I just want to get 5lbs iron ore to my alt without having to wait for anyone else but myself.

There is an eventual break point in convenience and realism. Look at the fact that we have a mini map after that thread! ;)

A shared storage seems like a not unrealistic convenience. I am not aware, but there may be things that make it bad/wrong/fun... probably "reasons".

[Calidor Cruciatus]

Kitsune Aou wrote:

EoX Hobs wrote:

In old UO days, before in-game mail systems and even guild banks, you knew who in the community you could trust to hold your stuff and have them pass it to an alt. Player networking and having a good reputation was king.

And you know that Goblinworks is all about "Meaningful player interaction," so I suspect that this sort of thing might show up again in Pathfinder Online.

And of course, there's always settlement/company storage - whenever that's implemented. You just have to trust everyone in that organizational unit not to take your stuff while you are switching. ;)

I don't find having to seek a 3rd party to hold items for transfer between 2 personas that can never meet "meaningful" as it only exists due to a game mechanic that only allows one to be online at a time.

[Runnetib]

Maybe someone can set up the RKPS (River Kingdoms Postal Service) and contract out 'shipping'. Or someone opens a storage company to rent storage space. They can call it 'YEEEEEP!'

*this post is at least partially serious*

[Urman]

I thought there was no limitation (beyond my computer's power) on having multiple characters on line at once. Trading between a player's two characters should just be like trading between two players' characters.

Of course, if there are limitations in trading between two players' characters, the same limitations should apply to alts.

(Another possibility for the serious altaholics might be to use your tertiary company slots for a joint company and trade through company storage.)

[Kemedo]

Some mages could create bi-personal dimensional storage for trade thing between different person, same as shared local storage system.

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

Urman wrote:

I thought there was no limitation (beyond my computer's power) on having multiple characters on line at once. Trading between a player's two characters should just be like trading between two players' characters.

Of course, if there are limitations in trading between two players' characters, the same limitations should apply to alts.

(Another possibility for the serious altaholics might be to use your tertiary company slots for a joint company and trade through company storage.)

That might work out. I am running on a single GTX 660 and one screen. Will that card even render two clients to be able to "see" enough to trade? :)

[Kitsune Aou]

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:

Urman wrote:

I thought there was no limitation (beyond my computer's power) on having multiple characters on line at once. Trading between a player's two characters should just be like trading between two players' characters.

Of course, if there are limitations in trading between two players' characters, the same limitations should apply to alts.

(Another possibility for the serious altaholics might be to use your tertiary company slots for a joint company and trade through company storage.)

That might work out. I am running on a single GTX 660 and one screen. Will that card even render two clients to be able to "see" enough to trade? :)

I'm pretty sure that graphics card can handle it. In my experience last week, as you're aware, CPU is very, very important when dealing with many characters (NPC & PC) that are in your vicinity and loaded by your client.

[Being]

Urman wrote:

I thought there was no limitation (beyond my computer's power) on having multiple characters on line at once. Trading between a player's two characters should just be like trading between two players' characters.

I seem to recall the same thing, now that you mention it.

[Gol Tigari]

Urman wrote:

I thought there was no limitation (beyond my computer's power) on having multiple characters on line at once. Trading between a player's two characters should just be like trading between two players' characters.

I believe this to be correct, with the exemption for the DT's. They cannot be online at the same time.

[Calidor Cruciatus]

Right. If you have 2 accts you can play simultaneously but you can only have one character per acct logged in. So Destiny's Twins will never see each other.

[Dario]

Gol Tigari wrote:

Urman wrote:

I thought there was no limitation (beyond my computer's power) on having multiple characters on line at once. Trading between a player's two characters should just be like trading between two players' characters.

I believe this to be correct, with the exemption for the DT's. They cannot be online at the same time.

Has this actually been confirmed anywhere? The last I recall was Ryan saying that he didn't see any point in limiting you to one log-in at a time, and was hoping to allow simultaneous log-in, system permitting, except maybe DT, and that it was still being discussed.

This was the last post I saw on it.

@Calidor There has been talk of multiple characters on one account being able to be logged in at the same time.

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

Dario wrote:

Gol Tigari wrote:

Urman wrote:

I thought there was no limitation (beyond my computer's power) on having multiple characters on line at once. Trading between a player's two characters should just be like trading between two players' characters.

I believe this to be correct, with the exemption for the DT's. They cannot be online at the same time.

Has this actually been confirmed anywhere? The last I recall was Ryan saying that he didn't see any point in limiting you to one log-in at a time, and was hoping to allow simultaneous log-in, system permitting, except maybe DT, and that it was still being discussed.

This was the last post I saw on it.

@Calidor There has been talk of multiple characters on one account being able to be logged in at the same time.

Yup. That is the last that I have read. Just not DTs.

[Guurzak]

Or, just use the contract/escrow system to place goods and coin on hold for your other character to claim.

[T7V Avari]

The question I really, really would like to know by now is: How many character slots do we get, when can we buy more, how much do they cost and for crying out loud at least give us an estimate on when the DT is available and how we can apply it.

I can't be the only one who is waiting on this so we can know which characters we have to make on day 1. People want to commit to certain roles within their groups and the lack of info here is preventing that.

I mean GW has to have a pretty darn good idea on this by now.

[Banesama]

Ryan Dancey wrote:

My intention is that you will be able to have an unlimited number of characters on an account and that you can have as many of them gaining XP in parallel as you want to pay for. You should be able to log into an account multiple times in parallel.

We haven't built ANY of that tech yet. So those plans are subject to change.

One thing I am super sensitive to is the idea of someone farming names by making hundreds of characters that they will never use just to tie up names. So we will have to have some way to deal with that problem, tbd.

I do remember reading that that DT won't be able to be logged in with your chosen Main.

[Dario]

Banesama wrote:

I do remember reading that that DT won't be able to be logged in with your chosen Main.

You recall incorrectly. See my post above. It was basically "maybe not your DT, we've still got a lot of implications to consider."

[Crash_00]

I would like the option to share local storage with a family of characters. Not necessarily just alts, but a certain list of characters. That way, we could share certain storage with family, friends, and alts on a scale much smaller than a company. I'm going to call it a Family Vault for the moment.

[Guurzak]

As long as that vault exists in one location rather than enabling instant safe shipping, I'm fine with that.

[T7V Jazzlvraz]

For a Family Vault, one might consider creating a "mule" character, for whom one buys no training. That character would thus have no cost, but would be able to be logged on at the same time as any other character(s) you've made.

Probable limitation: a single character's carrying capacity is likely to be restricted, so a mule might be more use as a temporary pass-through between other characters than as a substitute for a bank vault.

[Crash_00]

Guurzak wrote:

As long as that vault exists in one location rather than enabling instant safe shipping, I'm fine with that.

I agree. That's why I made sure to include local. I don't want us able to log into a character in brighthaven's vault from thorn keep.

However, I think it would be extremely helpful to have a vault in brighthaven accessible to a small group of players instead of just a single character.

Mules are obviously an option, Jazz, they're just a hassle and I'd like to see them go by the wayside like multiple accounts are.

[Banesama]

It would be nice of GW does create some way to 'transfer' items from one character to an alt without having to use a 'mule' or ask help from a guildmate.

It is going to happen one way another, so I think it would be wise for GW to build a system in the game to control such transfers in a limited way. Maybe even charge a small fee as a coin sink hole.

[T7V Jazzlvraz]

Perhaps the public item-storage spaces in Settlements will allow withdrawal only by specifically named character(s). I'm sure that's the kind of thing that'll need Crowdforging, as it'd be code GW'd need to write and thus would require strong community backing.

[Elorebaen]

I would prefer to see the ability to rent storage space at settlement. The renter can then designate who can access the storage. Easy peesy. ;)

[Jiminy]

The downside with shared storage and instant inter-character transfers is that you give a besieged defender access to resources that they shouldn't or wouldn't be able to normally access. Bleeding a settlement and its defenders dry of their resources becomes very difficult it 1000 arrows keep magically appearing in the defending characters hands or repairs mats keeps appearing.

Given one of the main premises of the game is settlement v settlement conflict, while logistically painful, I would prefer to see no instant gear transfers or shared storage between alts.

[Calidor Cruciatus]

Jiminy wrote:

The downside with shared storage and instant inter-character transfers is that you give a besieged defender access to resources that they shouldn't or wouldn't be able to normally access. Bleeding a settlement and its defenders dry of their resources becomes very difficult it 1000 arrows keep magically appearing in the defending characters hands or repairs mats keeps appearing.

Given one of the main premises of the game is settlement v settlement conflict, while logistically painful, I would prefer to see no instant gear transfers or shared storage between alts.

Local Banking...

[Jiminy]

Which only works if the characters are local to one another as opposed to instantly transporting items clear across the world.

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

Jiminy wrote:

Which only works if the characters are local to one another as opposed to instantly transporting items clear across the world.

That is the plan. Local banking. Why would it be different for PC's that shared storage?

[Jiminy]

I have no issues with local banking, and in fact think it is a great idea. What I would not like to see is shared storage that allows characters to deposit/withdraw items or transfer items to one another when they're not local - that is character 1 in settlement A and character 2 in Settlement B.

My statement was simply around instant transport of items and shared storage. I should have clarified that I meant shared if not local.

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

Jiminy wrote:

I have no issues with local banking, and in fact think it is a great idea. What I would not like to see is shared storage that allows characters to deposit/withdraw items or transfer items to one another when they're not local - that is character 1 in settlement A and character 2 in Settlement B.

My statement was simply around instant transport of items and shared storage. I should have clarified that I meant shared if not local.

Ahhh. I get you better. I suggested shared storage at the top, near the OP. "no magic transport tricks included!"

So we totally agree.

:)

[Crash_00]

Right, we're not looking for an "account bank" we're looking for an "settlement account bank" essentially.

So you may have a bank in Thornkeep that is accessible to all your characters. None of the characters can access it in Fort Inevitable.

What I was proposing takes it a bit further. It lets you have a bank in Thornkeep that you, your alts, and certain friends you invite can all access. None of them can access it in Fort Inevitable, it's local to Thornkeep.

A single character might have multiple of these vaults across different settlements, with each settlement being a local access point.

It's not about magically transporting goods. It's about eliminating the need to have mule alts (which essentially do the same thing with more hassle involved).

I don't know how well selling bank space will work. If it's expensive enough to make it profitable, people will just go back to the age old mule and ignore it.