Player characters limitations vote.

[Leviathan]

I support the idea of one nation per account as well. I think it being a hard choice is a positive and serves to make sure people go where the truly belong. If you do allow people to switch nations I think it should only be allowed every 30 days (or longer) as Schuetzengel said, or perhaps allow a window for new users to decide which nation to settle in.

[Chustler]

1 char or multi char in 1 nation with shared labor hours, but definitely not muti char in multi nations. I very much think it is very important to commit to 1 nation for the health of the game.

[Siegfried]

People will buy another account anyway. With another or various accounts, people will exploit labor hour and spying and trading... etc, but with real money. Is a sort of Pay to Win at end of the day.

 

Limit the labor hours and faction is the same. People can skip that buying other account.

 

If you believe that limit is good for the gameplay is like ostrich hidind the head in the sand. The problem is not fixed but, Hey! all people is happy thinking all is fine. And exploiters will be hiding in the shadows.

 

Limit at one character is only good for Devs. This is good for them of course.

[Anarcke]

I agree with you Siegfried, as i have said in previous posts.

 

1 Character per server could solve a lot of those issues i think. People can have multiple characters, they can't spy/ exploit, etc, and still enjoy all the features of the game. If a second pvp shard is created, that's all good for those who only want to play pvp, for the others there is already the pve shard.

[Siegfried]

I agree with you Siegfried, as i have said in previous posts.

 

1 Character per server could solve a lot of those issues i think. People can have multiple characters, they can't spy/ exploit, etc, and still enjoy all the features of the game. If a second pvp shard is created, that's all good for those who only want to play pvp, for the others there is already the pve shard.

 

Anarcke, one character per server is the same. Only limits people who don't pay two or three times the game. And meanwhile, the mayority of people believing that all is fine and nobody can exploit two characters. Is a problem without fix.

 

Give 3 characters per account, at least equal opportunities for all without hidding the issue.

[Anarcke]

I won't go against you, but a lot of people can't accept that.

 

I've already been accused of trying to not reward the work of the devs and pirating just by asking 1 character per server...

[Siegfried]

I won't go against you, but a lot of people can't accept that.

 

I've already been accused of trying to not reward the work of the devs and pirating just by asking 1 character per server...

 

Really???? lol. That is because they have not valid arguments. Don't care for that. 

 

This is only a opinion thread. You must give your respectful opinion without influence by others. Is the task of Devs decide based in our opinions. 

[Mansen]

As long as any nation can completely dominate the PvP server and make the game completely unfun for the smaller factions, you should be able to have at least one backup character available to play something else.

 

This is however merely a stopgap feature as far as I'm concerned - Until we get the ability to seek asylum with other nations. And what about if your friends decide to all join another faction - long after you've made your character. Now you'll either have to fight them, or delete all of your progress.

[Vidocq]

I really had enjoyed playing more than one character. If I offer you the first time in your life ice cream but I tell upfront, choose well if you choose chocolate you will eat it for the rest of your life! so what do you choose ?

maybe the community of the country you choosed is not what you thought and a friend of yours is really happy with an other country. you say but this will help cheaters ? I say if somebody wants to cheat, he will buy a second account and it will be far more difficult to prove.

 

Neutral, yes !

 

why? you are from no country offered, you want to start the game and can only choose from a) unknown countries or a country you don't like.

 

so for me it's very clear. I would like to have 3 characters and neutral as well.

 

thanks

[Spitzenhund]

And what about if your friends decide to all join another faction - long after you've made your character. Now you'll either have to fight them, or delete all of your progress.

This is the problem I'm at right now. All my friends are another nation and I'm USA. And I painfully don't want to lose all my redeemables and progress.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Spitzenhund

[poison]

Neutrals are (in my opinion) pointless fodder towns. Few if any players join (haven't seen one) and even then all they can do for PvP is fight pirates...

However, I wouldn't mind seeing a rework, something like neutral and free towns get combined and uncapturable, neutrals can enter any port and pick up mercenary-style missions where they have to hunt down any pirate(s) or fulfill contracts posted by national players against pirates (a hefty fee should be required for putting up the bounty, to prevent farming).

Essentially, as long as they have something to be useful to the rest of the player base and unique, they should be kept around. But as it stands now, their ports should be reassigned or swapped into free towns, and the players allowed to join a new faction.

As for allowing multiple accounts based on family, I do wonder how people are able to play on the same computer at the same time. I shared my library with a few friends, and none of them saw naval action before EA. So what's the difference now? Why should they be able to play now when they couldn't before?

If you're coming from the idea that two people are sharing the same computer and steam account at different times, I suppose that's another matter entirely. However, it doesn't change my view. If you're willing to share your computer and all the private info in it with someone, you should be willing to share your naval action account as well.

Every other point I might make against having multiple toons per steam account has already been stated. Suffice it to say that I'm very much against it. Not talking out of my ass either; I bought the game for myself and my girlfriend, and never had more than one account. As far as I know none of my friends have even tried to look for it in my library either.

Edited January 25, 2016 by poison

[Mansen]

Neutrals could have an assortment of NPC ships protecting it?

[Anarcke]

@ Poison

 

Regarding the fact of sharing the NA account, i think there is no problem, sharing a character however is a completely different thing.

Be unable to create two characters (or more) on the same server can allow to share the NA account, without sharing a character, and with no possibility of exploit.

[VariousArtist]

Having several players per account gives good flexibility but could interfere in the conquest mechanics (spies, briefers etc). Removing neutrals can make capturing ports for resource control more meaningful

 

 

Thats not an argument against multiple characters per account. Troublemakers will always just buy multiple accounts. But its more lucrative...

[Tibbetts]

There is an easy way to have multiple characters, and yet stop people from quickly changing to another nation to spy, etc...

 

1. Allow up to 3 Characters per server, but have them be seperate from each server( you know, like normal MMOs do).  But require them to wait 1-2 hours before switching to a new Character(nation) on that server.  It would help with potential spying and stop those who want to screw with any Port Battles they see happening.  However, if they wish to go to another server, PVP 2 etc, they can do that and it would have no effect on what is going on in PVP 1.  So they could play the other nation they want to play to their hearts content, but do so on another server.

 

2. If you want to allow only 1 character per server, then cool, but allow the servers to be seperate.  For example, on PVP 1, I have an American character but would like to also sail another nation.  Personally, I'm more than willing to play that new nation/character on PVP 2 while I'm waiting for queue times or until friends get on PVP 1.

 

3. Perhaps make a poll asking about 1 character per server versus 1 character per account.  See how it turns out.

 

Seems like a simple solution to me.  The current way appears to be backwards from normal MMO operational procedures.

 

Regards.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Tibbetts

[Amendus]

I have no problems with neutrals

 

for the player accounts, I really love 1 but i have friends that want to go pirate and some go dutch. now im forced to choose 1 and i cant play with my other friends im in a real pickle!

[poison]

Meh. I don't see a good compromise on the account number situation. However, as for neutrals:

Edit: Last night I joined a neutral v pirate fight on neutral side...didn't realize pirates got missions against neutrals and players got them against pirates. I took a few shots at the pirate, then realized the neutral "players" we're sailing stupidly...Asked if they were ai, pirate said yes, and I apologized and left. I also wouldn't be against seeing neutral ports being converted into free ports, and players doing missions only against the "neutral" faction.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/8986-got-a-good-laugh-today/#entry166086

[Gumby]

I've only just found out that the player limit decision was made as a result of this feedback, and I really strongly feel the need to post here in some vain attempt at convincing or making people (hopefully even the devs) appreciate just what it means and why it's not a good idea.

First of all, as my post is perhaps evidence of, this is a poll (only available on this forum and not, to my knowledge, advertised anywhere) that many were and still are unaware of, so I seriously doubt the validity of this being a community decision or true representation of what the majority of the current players want.

Secondly, though of course I appreciate and am glad for feedback being sought and used for the development, I feel like decision as a whole indicates poor direction and decisive intent on the final game. Feedback should, of course, be used and listened to greatly for this, but I feel that this is different in that the decision has effectively been made by the people who have voted in this poll (which, don't forget, cannot possibly be considered a majority of current players) and not by the developers. This ian't itself a huge issue, but given that it is early access I think that allowing feedback to control development decisions so easily is perhaps dangerous in the future. Assuming (and I have no reason to believe it won't be the case) that this game builds success and becomes significatly more popular, these decisions will have been made by a small minority that perhaps won't even still be playing a long way down the line. Given that the developers are a) more constant than us currently and the ones meant to be leading decision-making, I would like to think that perhaps what I have to say below might be noticed (by the people greatly preferable to be making decisions than us):

It is not a good idea to limit player characters to 1.

To address the main issue people have brought up about people having multiple - ie, the potential issue of people making characters for the purpose of gaining an advantage of information for their original character ('spying'):

1) This cannot be considered an issue that restricting players to 1 character can solve. Given the nature of the PvP gameplay and the software and connectivity available anyway, players will always be able to meta (gain knowledge about the game not using the game) to the same end as 'spying'. People will still (and always) be able to transfer knowledge only available in-game to one group to another group. This is just something that will happen and cannot be prevented.

2) Most similar popular and successful games that utilise a similar gameworld.and style of play do not limit players to only being able to create 1 character, where the decision to limit yourself (choose nation) is at the start and irreversible. They just don't. It might be jumping the gun a lot, but to compare this to one of the most obvious comparisons, EVE Online, there is no such restriction on character creation despite the hugely developed and popular PvP element of the game. In fact, many unconventional things like spying, etc. actually add depth and interesting elements to the social/PvP aspect of the game. Let's not forget that one nation being able to have players with alts in another that can relay information is not at a unique advantage - everyone could do it! It is therefore not unfair and, for that fact alone, unnecessary to be addressed (in my opinion).

Perhaps most importantly, though: having such a restriction on the game and multiplayer world will undoubtedly impact player retention and perhaps even interest. If, as currently, a player has to choose a nation and then stick with it, and has no option other than to delete their character - potentially heavily invested in with time (and possibly money in the future):

- They will feel greatly restricted in terms of accessing all content of the game.

- They will undoubtedly have friends who start differently and are then unable to play with.

- They will probably reach a point (or several) in the future of the game where they reconsider their nation and have to weigh up whether to start anew or put up with it unhappily.

- They will, in the early stages of the game with a (relatively to future potential) small playerbase, have had to make an uninformed decision on which of many nations to invest their one character (with time and possibly money) into when they all may receive huge amounts of individual development in the game and playerbase.

All of these things above alone should, especially to a game developer, convince anyone that a restriction on only having one player character will put player retention and satisfaction at serious risk - especially in the future.

Which brings me back to my earlier point about the developer leading decision making over the playerbase: many in this thread and who have voted will perhaps not consider the potential impact this could have to player retention and the health of the game.

I've also already, in a brief skim read of the first few pages, seen that many have voted for there to be a restriction to 1 based not properly on the main worry (spying/meta-gaming), but something actually not mentioned (I assume to be unexplained personal preference).

There has been people suggesting that, far from actually enforcing a restriction on one character in an attempt at preventing an 'issue' (which, as I've stated, is unavoidable anyway), you should be able to pay a certain amount of money and be able to have more than 1 anyway.

Frankly, that suggestion alone is absurd and highlights an opinion that is not fully thought-out or at the very least explained, considering the main problem people seem to assert that there is with multiple player characters is that people could 'abuse' it to give a group an advantage of information over another.

I'm not sure how likely it is that this will be read by the devs, but please consider it even if you're not them, even if you'vr already voted.

[SwartzT]

1 character per account... its the only option. If other's wish more characters, let them buy more accounts.

And force plays to pay another $40? Are you serious?

[Ampen]

I belive the notion that multiple characters would kill the game etc is very emotional arguments, especially if one makes references to PotBS. First of all PotBS is still running even if alot of players (including me) left long ago, and second, I highly doubt anyone of us can say for sure what had an impact on that game and what didn't. My theory for instance is that sealclubbing brought the player numbers down more than anything, based on the fact that if you have an enviroment where the influx of new players is less than the amount of players leaving during a month, the net will undoubtly be negative.

There's also alot of emotions about "cross-teaming" and "spying", but I must say that looking back I can't say that actually had an overall impact on the gameplay. I might recall 2 incidents of that type, and I do recall alot more where everything went just fine, but I never played on Tiggy, and it might have been worse there than on Roberts.

 

I will say though, that societies that rolled for another nation some maps, definetly re-wrote the balance of the PvP, wich now and then was a good thing. I really don't understand the arguments here about a "healthy server", neither those about "fair play" and such if we only have one character who is locked to one nation. Truth is, if it's to be drawn from PotBS, that it was far from healthy and far from fair alot of times due to certain nations steam-rolling the map, while societies wich rolled for another nation to even odds actually did that.

I do not think you should be allowed to swap back and forth as you like though, but I definetly think you could be allowed at least 2 characters on each account, and that those characters should be locked to the same nation. And you should be able to swap to another nation, but only during certain intervalls as it was with PotBS where you could change nation between maps, or with a fixed intervall of say 30 days or something.

Wether we like it or not, there is the risk some nations just turn into a gathering of true asshats, wich will fit some and definetly not fit others. Being allowed to choose another nation if it's limited to intervalls or something I would say is pretty much a needed option for players. This is a game people pay for.

What really worked PotBS over was the introduction of f2p, when players could just spam multiple accounts, not that you could change the nation between maps on one account.

[akd]

Spying is a minor concern and could actually be addressed quite simply by including all of a player's alts under player info. The real concerns (actually experienced, not theorized) are breaking the economy and players using alts to aggressively exploit mechanics and grief other players.

Again and again people are saying these concerns don't matter because someone can buy another account. They do not seem to consider that payment is a real limiting factor that puts some restraint on the problems and that if we are allowed multiple characters, people buying additional accounts simply creates exponential problems.

That said, I see no reason why there can't be multiple characters on multiple servers if a mechanic is in place to limit switching servers once you have multiple characters active on your account.

[Gumby]

Again and again people are saying these concerns don't matter because someone can buy another account. They do not seem to consider that payment is a real limiting factor that puts some restraint on the problems and that if we are allowed multiple characters, people buying additional accounts simply creates exponential problems.

They don't then matter. While it's still possible through any means (however limiting) to exploit the economy or mechanics of the game, this is still a problem. It doesn't matter if it's limiting or even if it gives money to the developer - howevermany people that would do it woild still be able to exploit the game. So long as it's possible by ANY means it will still be a problem, limiting it and doing no more is no help.

What needs to be done is a fix in the mechanics of the game that prevents everyone from being able to do such exploits. Limiting the player characters to 1 does more harm to the game than benefit, and even despite this: the fact that you can STILL exploit the game but that it is a bit more limiting doesn't make it any fix at all.

All that needs to be done is a change in the mechanics of the game so that everyone is unable to do such exploits.

[Capn Jack Rackham]

I'd say no to neutral for many reasons which I'm sure have been covered by other people in this thread. As for characters per account, at least 3 is ideal. Once I build up a good character with pirates I'd like to create a new one as british or something so I can experience multiple factions.

[Sylven1]

I don't see a problem with multiple characters of different nations on the PvE server.

HOWEVER I do think on a PvP server if allowed multiple characters they should all be of same nation and share labor hours.

Worst decision World of Warcraft made in my humble opinion was allowing characters of different factions on same PvP server.

There where ALWAYS spys in your faction after that.

[Mansen]

Worst decision World of Warcraft made in my humble opinion was allowing characters of different factions on same PvP server.

There where ALWAYS spys in your faction after that.

 

Come now - WoW hasn't had any meaningful PVP cross-faction warfare (least of all any that warranted "spying") since before Battlegrounds were introduced (yes - that long ago).