Ian2492 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 And the point of that would be? Family members can play, it doesn't affect the economy. Everyone's happy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Protyus Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 I would like to see 2 characters per account. One National and one of either Nuetral or Pirate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xoosch Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Family members can play, it doesn't affect the economy. Everyone's happy. Ok i see isee, never tought about multiple people using one account i admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disavowed Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 I would rather the vote be One Character Per Server, not one character per account Establishing one character per server appears to be the most simple solution to limit character and crafting abuse. I would even go so far as to suggest connecting purchases to steam accounts making it so if a player wants to abuse crafting and multiple characters then they would not only have to buy a second copy, but also establish it on a second steam account. That may sound extreme to people, but it is a good way to limit character and crafting abuse while promoting team play. As much as I would like to support a compromise (like multiple characters with shared labor hours), the reality is that allowing more than one character per server creates more problems than it resolves. If given the option many people will take advantage of multiple characters by parking alternates at specific resource ports, which creates trade and resource abuse that destabilizes the game on a global scale. Stopping complete abuse may not be possible, but to me the argument of, "We can't stop it so lets not even try to limit it" is a bad one. I personally believe we should be trying to create solutions for limiting abuse, not capitulating to the idea that, "abuse will occur, so why try to stop it?", if you do not try to limit abuse then the game will be left in a degraded state, which is bad for everyone(including the people playing with family members). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disavowed Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 It would allow those with one account but several players, who dont want to share a character to have their own for each player, without having a negative impact on the economy or creating a rat-race of necessary crafting alts. It actually would have an impact on the economy and even more so if crafting resources become more scarce. Numerous people will park their alts at specific resource ports in order to monopolize trade resources, this is just one example of how it would impact the economy. Allowing multiple characters creates far more problems than it resolves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain146 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Sadly spying will happen, so make them pay for it I say, and I vote to remove neutrals, I don't think they are really needed tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorpio Shirica Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 I like the -idea- of neutrals. However, I don't think they are being used the way they may have been intended. I agree that it might be best to simply remove them. The PvE crowd has their own server with its unique no friendly fire rules now anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarcke Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 It actually would have an impact on the economy and even more so if crafting resources become more scarce. Numerous people will park their alts at specific resource ports in order to monopolize trade resources, this is just one example of how it would impact the economy. Allowing multiple characters creates far more problems than it resolves. Well, the debate is mainly for multiple persons playing on the same account. Because someone willing to take advantage and having enough money will buy an other copy, limiting to 1 character will not solve anything. But it will prevent two persons sharing the game within a house for example to have one character each, and so to have the gameplay they want. Those two persons will not share ressources to craft the same thing, but to achieve the goal they have in mind. Don't see it as an advantage, but just two people participating in the economy. Anyway ressources may become scarse because there will be (hopefully) a lot of new players during EA, and they will participate in the economy also. What must be seen too, is that the people giving their opinion (including myself) may not be representative of the majority of the players that will join during EA or after full game release. The "make them pay for spying" argument is not a good thing, overall when a vast majority is not going to do that. I've played POTBS some time, never did it, even if it is easy. i think only a minority of player do it, and making everyone pay for that minority is not fair. There must be another way to prevent that, like being able to log in one nation, or as it's been said already, one character per server, but it requires another server. But let people create more than one character plz, our goal is not to take advantage on you, we just want to be able to play just like you, and allow a family member to play too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIerrick de Badas Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 i voted for one character per account because as french our eco port has been "attacked" by dans dutch and swedish traders with neutral flag or french flag but not playing french!. one character per account seems mor fair to me 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disavowed Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Well, the debate is mainly for multiple persons playing on the same account. Because someone willing to take advantage and having enough money will buy an other copy, limiting to 1 character will not solve anything. But it will prevent two persons sharing the game within a house for example to have one character each, and so to have the gameplay they want. Those two persons will not share ressources to craft the same thing, but to achieve the goal they have in mind. Don't see it as an advantage, but just two people participating in the economy. Anyway ressources may become scarse because there will be (hopefully) a lot of new players during EA, and they will participate in the economy also. What must be seen too, is that the people giving their opinion (including myself) may not be representative of the majority of the players that will join during EA or after full game release. The "make them pay for spying" argument is not a good thing, overall when a vast majority is not going to do that. I've played POTBS some time, never did it, even if it is easy. i think only a minority of player do it, and making everyone pay for that minority is not fair. There must be another way to prevent that, like being able to log in one nation, or as it's been said already, one character per server, but it requires another server. But let people create more than one character plz, our goal is not to take advantage on you, we just want to be able to play just like you, and allow a family member to play too. Well as I said in my previous post, the argument, "abuse will occur, so why try to stop it?" is quite honestly a terrible one, it should be obvious why. Let me present you with this counter argument to chew on in regards to this comment of yours, "Because someone willing to take advantage and having enough money will buy an other copy", and my response to you is, "That same person will buy a second account anyway and have even MORE room to abuse the system with even more characters". If you think about my counter argument, then it should become pretty clear why the statement of, "abuse will occur, so why try to stop it?" is a futile one. Limiting servers to single characters might not be convenient for everyone, but it goes a long way on limiting character and trade abuse. I would like to think you would not degrade your own society by giving criminals easier access to illegal goods based on the argument, "Crimes happen". So I would also like to think you would not want the game degraded, more so than it has to be, by giving people easier access to something readily exploitable like multiple characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarcke Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) abuse will occur, so why try to stop it?" is a futile one. Limiting servers to single characters might not be convenient for everyone, but it goes a long way on limiting character and trade abuse. I would like to think you would not degrade your own society by giving criminals easier access to illegal goods based on the argument, "Crimes happen". So I would also like to think you would not want the game degraded, more so than it has to be, by giving people easier access to something readily exploitable like multiple characters. I'm french, I don't know were you come from, or if you are aware of what is happening in France since November 13th. We are in emergency state, and our government is trying to modify our constitution in order to limitate our freedom, be able to spy on us, etc. All that because of a feeling of fear. So yes, crimes happen, and if in order to prevent it you have to suppress freedom, then you're not better than the ones who want to force their view of the world...And still can't prevent attacks. Other example : weapon control in the USA. How many killings? And what is done to limit the access to firearms? They are lots of deads due to car accidents, and yet we still have cars. Restricting access to the game may be a bad thing too, because if you prevent casual players or family players to play and have fun, they may just stop playing. But if you are enjoing the game with a very small community, that's your right. I don't think it is a good thing in a long term view for the game, as they need some money to maintain it. With on character by game copy, i fear that more casual players will stay away from the game as they'll not have enough freedom, or even ask for a refund. i understand that you want to preserve the game quality, but without enough players, how much time will the game last? I'm just asking for a compromise, i've said various times one character per server, and only a few answered to it. With the new players joining the game, is guess new servers will be opened, so what is the problem with one character per server instead of one character per game gopy? Edited January 17, 2016 by Anarcke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disavowed Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 I'm french, I don't know were you come from, or if you are aware of what is happening in France since November 13th. We are in emergency state, and our government is trying to modify our constitution in order to limitate our freedom, be able to spy on us, etc. All that because of a feeling of fear. So yes, crimes happen, and if in order to prevent it you have to suppress freedom, then you're not better than the ones who want to force their view of the world...And still can't prevent attacks. Restricting access to the game may be a bad thing too, because if you prevent casual players or family players to play and have fun, they may just stop playing. But if you are enjoing the game with a very small community, that's your right. I don't think it is a good thing in a long term view for the game, as they need some money to maintain it. With on character by game copy, i fear that more casual players will stay away from the game as they'll not have enough freedom, or even ask for a refund. i understand that you want to preserve the game quality, but without enough players, how much time will the game last? I'm just asking for a compromise, i've said various times one character per server, and only a few answered to it. With the new players joining the game, is guess new servers will be opened, so what is the problem with one character per server instead of one character per game gopy? You are getting into another debate all together when we speak of governance and, "How much freedom is to much freedom to give up in order to protect yourself and your family", I would rather not get into politics on the forums, I was pointing out the flaw in the argument of, "Crimes happen, so why try to limit or stop them?" by presenting you with a tangible counter argument. If you look back at my very first post you will see in bold, "I would rather the vote be One Character Per Server, not one character per account", so I do not disagree at all with you there. I do not think a character per server hurts the economy in any way, however multiple characters per server will significantly impact the economy of that server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarcke Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Then we are fine, at least you and me. Of course it is based on the fact there will be at least one more server. The thing i can't understand is the "one game copy, one character, if people want more they buy another copy", because as we agreed, there is at least an alternative, maybe more. As i said i understand your worries about exploiting the multi character option, and only wish we can find a compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratline Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) Multiple characters per account, 1 character per server. Best of both worlds. I have friends that will likely only play on the PvE server. I play PvP but taking away the option for me to create a PvE character to play with them from time to time would not go down well. Edited January 17, 2016 by Ratline 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Boneboys Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) Voted.. 1 character per account. Remove Neutrals. I've created two characters British & Pirate and previously played as Neutral. At the end of the day I stuck with one character, imho the game does not work well when running multiples because of trade / crafting and neutrals are just that, neutral, although I enjoyed learning as a neutral the situation soon became rather limited. I have not been the most active of testers but the above seems the most coherent gameplay wise in my experience. Thanks. Edited January 17, 2016 by Captain Boneboys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colorado71 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Voted. Three characters per account. Five would be better. Played this game for a week and is difficult to me to return to real world. It's addictive!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Well, the debate is mainly for multiple persons playing on the same account. Because someone willing to take advantage and having enough money will buy an other copy, limiting to 1 character will not solve anything. Or yes it will. Because it will create an additional barrier that needs to be overcome wheras in your example you not only get the possibility to outperform every 1-character crafter, more than that, for that very reason it becomes basically i necessary to have to crafting alts to be competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarcke Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 And so if you can afford it, no problem you can unbalance the econ, but if you don't have enough money, you're left behind, but that's not a problem. What is the worst, let a few "more" privileged people be favorised in game thanks to their money, and make the others unable to do the same because they don't have real money to give, or let everyone do it, and be rewarded by the time they spend playing? And i repeat, my point is for people willing to share an account, but not a character, so they can have the game experience they want. Maybe the problem is that people tend to forgot that no matter how good it is, it is a game. I have no problem sharing my account, maybe you can share lets say 1/2000 of the econ with 1 more player? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) Well, it's exactly not just "1 more player". If some people are willing to pay money for an additional account (which will be a lot, but neither will that will be a majority, nor can we really prevent that) we'll be able to say that those people "unbalance the econ". However if everyone has the possibility to use three crafting pools and a tonn of additional outposts/teleports they will no longer unbalance the econ, this 3-character crafters will become the new balance with everyone using multiple characters on an account to actually play like you proposed lagging enormously behind. Edited January 17, 2016 by Nathaniel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarcke Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Ok, and if those buying two or more copys end up unbalancing the econ, how can you solve it? It would be too late because they have paid a whole new copy, and you can't take them. If you give everyone the possibility to do the same thing, the time you can / are willing to spend in the game will limit your capacity to interact with the econ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elouda Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) Ok, and if those buying two or more copys end up unbalancing the econ, how can you solve it? It would be too late because they have paid a whole new copy, and you can't take them. If you give everyone the possibility to do the same thing, the time you can / are willing to spend in the game will limit your capacity to interact with the econ. I don't think you get it. If its one character per account (or per server, or with split hours per account), then one account can only accumulate X crafting hours to use on the economy. If you have multiple characters per account (on the same server, without split hours), then they can accumulate C x X hours, where C is the number of characters. Furthermore, anyone who DOESN'T make full use of all their possible alts for crafting hours in this second scenario, is loosing out, by only accumulating C/M x X hours, where C is the actual number of characters and M is the maximum. The second copy of the game does not change this at all. In each of the above instances, it just means that if one has two full copies of the game, one has the potential to accumulate twice the hours. This will happen regardless of if its one character per account, or 10 characters per account. A second account will always give you an advantage, but it comes at the cost of buying a second copy, and I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem is that by insisting that there should be multiple characters on one account (on the same server, without splitting hours), you are essentially saying to anyone who wants to be competitive in the economy that they have to take advantage of those alts for crafting. Again, I bring up EVE as a very good comparison - EVE is the only other MMO that I can think of that had a very key aspect of the game (skill point gain) tied in to real time progression, like crafting hours are in NA. Eve allowed you to have 3 characters, but only one of those could gain skillpoints at a time. Why? Because otherwise anyone who didn't use all 3 characters and have them training in things simultaneously was being extremely inefficient. This is exactly the case with NA and crafting hours, and why I still think either shared (one pool between characters) or designatable (checkbox for which character is accumulating hours on the login screen?) crafting hours is the only way to prevent this kind of rat-race of having to use all the alts just to be competitive. Edited January 17, 2016 by Elouda 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain146 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Thinking about it, 1 char per server sounds more reasonable, I would have a Brit cap on euro and then pirate on the us server, having multiple chars per server is a recipie for abuse IMO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarcke Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 One character per server is what i'm asking for almost from the beginning, but at this point i don't care anymore. If the one character per account is applied, i'll just ask for a refund and all is solved. But take care that it may (i hope not for the game) prevent quite a lot of new players from buying the game if they are aware of this, or ask for a refund. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inkompetent Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 (edited) I'd like to take it a bit further, as I think the poll options are too limited. If being limited to one character it should be per server or game mode. My PvE and PvP characters should be separate. They at least shouldn't be like they are now, where I retain rank and nothing else if I switch between servers. It would give some wiggle room for playing different nations, or having your kid play on your account on the PvE server, but it wouldn't offer the full game experience for more than one player/character per account. Multiple characters per account and server can not be allowed to have individual labour hours. It is bad enough what multiple characters can cause as far as espionage, buying out goods from harbours, etc. goes, but they must NOT be allowed to also have full crafting potential as long as they are on the same server. The game shouldn't force people (which it would indirectly do if individual labour hours existed) to have three characters and work the game till their backs break just to get the most out of their three characters' crafting hours. By having a server/account wide crafting pool that all the characters have to share all players get an equal amount of crafting done, no matter of if they play one, two, or three characters. There must be nation transfer option. Maybe your nation has basically no players, maybe the server is so far gone that your nation either has been pushed into a corner or is so big that you don't think it's any fun to play. People must be given some kind of power over their gaming experience, which one single faction-locked character doesn't offer. My suggestion would be that you get one free nation change for your character, maybe within a limited time like a month, and an unlimited number of paid nation changes ($5 for a nation change, maybe?) that can be done say... once every month, or every three months or something. EDIT: Grammar Edited January 18, 2016 by Inkompetent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Feathersword Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 (edited) Remove Neutrals as player factions. (keep some NPC ports as neutrals) Make 2 - 3 characters per account. 1 nation per account/Server crafting to be time and cost based not labour based. This fixes issues with the current system and prevents loopholes. It doesn't punish players that share computers or want to RP or have characters for different reasons. Edited January 18, 2016 by Jack Feathersword 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts