Hieromonk said:That is because you are new, and have not seen podcasts, or read the earlier discussion on this topic, overthe last 1.5 years.
I may be a recent pledge, but I've been following the discussions for a few months now.
Hieromonk said:Secondly, I don't care what Visionary Realms says, I only care about what they can do, and then do..
They've more or less already said what they can do, and I'm guessing they'll do it.
Hieromonk said:MY SUGGESTIONS
...are usually presented as facts, and they often are not. I've been around the boards long enough to take half of what you say with a grain of salt. My only concern is that someone new might stumble onto one of your posts and get the wrong idea from misinformation being presented as fact.
Hieromonk said:If You do not want to discuss it, or incapable of understanding a suggestion
Apparently anyone whose opinion differs from your own is a child or mentally incompetent. You must live in a very lonely world, knowing that you're the only adult in it.
Hieromonk said:And with a possible One Character per account in Pantheon, means most people boxing are not doing it for grouping, but for crafting or trading, etc.
Actually, this is very unlikely since the knight's pledge has one additional character slot already. And I think that Pantheon would hurt itself if they would make that (1 character per account) a rule. I for one am intrigued by different classes and races a lot and since Pantheon created different starting areas for different races, I guess people want to experience this zones with their alt babies. If they had to keep an active subscription for all of them, they would possibly just saying 'lol no'.
I think you want to stick to this 1 character per account because you said that THEN people have to behave themselves? I find, the opposite is true. If people run with 8 accounts, then they could take some of them to very much not behave well. A much more elegant way would be to allow for multiple characters on one account, but introduce an account wide ignore so that people who would behave badly even with their generic_alt_10, they would hurt their main as well. Problem solved.
one character per account is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
I know they are adding some progeny system, but what if i want to heal today and play my wizard and dps tomorrow?
I had a Cleric, wizard, druid, enchanter, and warrior at various levels on EQ TLP servers. and played them all.
Pantheon/VR would be ignorant to only allow 1 character per account. I don't mind paying more than $14.99 a month, but I am not going to buy and maintain 3-5 accounts just to be able to play alts.
I seriously doubt VR would do that, but if they do. I won't be playing this game at all. With SO many unknowns about this game.
its the main reason I won't do more than the $5 a month supporter. If Pantheon / VR/ Brad would release some more concrete info and I liked what I saw, I would move the the $30 a month supporter and also pledge.
I am not going to pledge until more FACTS are released. Not someone in forums that thinks they know what VR is going to do.
Brad should have a solid enough vision at this point to be able to clear up some of this stuff rather than having people say "Well 1.5 years ago, during a podcast, Brad HINTED that only 1 character per account would be allowed"
We will likely do a 1 character per shard alternate ruleset server, perhaps on the first RP/hardcore server. What will be the ratio of special shards vs 'regular' ones? That will be up to you guys. The more demand there is for alternate ruleset servers, the more there will be.
Regular servers will allow multiple characters. Retring older characters to give alts advantages via our Progeny systen will be compelling but not game imbalancing.
If our logs and other tools indicate that an account is being used by professional gold farmers, those accounts will be banned.
We will not explicitly disallow multi-boxing but we are creating a game where the player really has to be paying attention, not just using abilities you want to use, but employing 'answers' to what the NPCs are doing. For example, missing a counterspell or deflection or bash could result in a wipe against a powerful boss mob.
I think the very nature and intensity of combat will make it difficult to effectively multibox, but we'll have to wait for beta and see how it all pans out. At the very least it will be more advantageous to have other real players in your group. In almost all cases, having real (and skilled) people in your group/raid will result in a more successful and powerful group/raid.
Aradune said:We will likely do a 1 character per shard alternate ruleset server, perhaps on the first RP/hardcore server. What will be the ratio of special shards vs 'regular' ones? That will be up to you guys. The more demand there is for alternate ruleset servers, the more there will be.
Regular servers will allow multiple characters. Retring older characters to give alts advantages via our Progeny systen will be compelling but not game imbalancing.
If our logs and other tools indicate that an account is being used by professional gold farmers, those accounts will be banned.
We will not implicitly disallow multi-boxing but we are creating a game where the player really has to be paying attention, not just using abilities you want to use, but employing 'answers' to what the NPCs are doing. For example, missing a counterspell or deflection or bash could result in a wipe against a powerful boss mob.
I think the very nature and intensity of combat will make it difficult to effectively multibox, but we'll have to wait for beta and see how it all pans out. At the very least it will be more advantageous to have other real players in your group. In almost all cases, having real (and skilled) people in your group/raid will result in a more successful and powerful group/raid.
Would love a hardcore rule set. Would be very interesting in an MMO setting.
Imagine if you ARE told you can only have ONE CHARACTER... ?
Doesn't that excite you, make you hold your breath, or anger you..? Does it cause fear..? What is that fear? Does it mean you have research & study harder, and it makes for tougher choices and decisions..?
There are so many ways to go with One Account, One Character.. like having to buy an extra Character slots ($50 bucks?), or some other mechanic, etc. But one character, one account comes down to making a hard choice and really involving yourself into your Character & his/her Role. And that promotes an adult like playstyle, as the Player is liable for his Character's in-game actions.
Any fear is overcome with a good mechanic. No idea is black or white, on/off, or even shades of grey..
An example of a grey idea is:
Once you have an account, Someone's main Character might have to pass a certain milestone (quest, lvl, travel to a place, etc) in game, before an additional Character slot opens up.. etc.
Or even a step further on that secondary character slot, is once that new Character is created, you have 1 month (& ticking) to continue that particular Character's progression. After 1-month, you have to pay $50 (?) to make that Character have a perminant Role in Terminus, etc. The idea is not to actually limit, but so each Character in the game is not treated as trivial...! If anything other, a financial COST.. and knowing you are making an investment into this new Character. The cost should be high enough to hinder trivial made characters, or childish players making chars with facetous names. Cost bring a levity and adult-like attitude and scale.
You can even squelch spammers & cheaters with putting a "anti-spam mechanic" to those secondary slots, such as a 1-week timer, before you can re-roll a Character after deleting the last.
There can be many mechanics in this game, none are really worth discussing in-depth atm, because of the board wipes coming when we move to the official alpha forums. Where discusion like this can start in earnest. !
Bluefyre said:One character would be absolutely dumb. It doesn't provide any benefit to the player or the game world. Sure, if it was a PvP focused game or a dedicated server, then maybe. However Pantheon will focus on PvE and doesn't make any sense to limit this.
One character does provide benefit in a PvE, non-instanced, group focused game as server reputation will matter. And, you'd have a lot less griefers if they knew they'd have to /delete their character and start anew if they had a terrible reputation and their progression was halted because they couldn't find groups. It wouldn't stop boxing though which is what this thread is discussing. Now, the question is, does server reputation matter enough to restrict a player to one character? Probably not unless there was a hardcore ruleset server as Aradune mentioned.
With that said, I wouldn't mind seeing a server that existed where you were originally restricted to one character, and a second character slot could be unlocked by the "progeny" system (once achieving max level or some requirement of progression) and it wouldn't require me to retire my previous. So, you could have 2 characters at that point, and, with each progeny line you could effectively unlock a 3rd, then 4th, then 5th, etc. Would combine the best of both worlds - your reputation would matter more, but you'd ultimately be able to have alts as well.
Generally speaking I prefer players to boxes. But I think multi-boxing in some games arose out of a desire for small groups of people to be able to accomplish some goals in game without having to constantly fill a group of 6 people. For example, a couple playing healer and tank could box a dps and do an instance for a couple of hours after a guild event. Or a person could go out and get some alternative advancement points in a quiet setting with their rogue and shaman box.
That spread to full groups of bots trivializing content and making a general mockery of the game and that's what people usually react against.
So for me I would like to be able to spend some hours in the game with one or two other people getting stuff done. So if there is "small group" content in addition to "full group" content, then I am all for whatever means would deter the boxers.
As for accounts, iirc SW:G was one character per account per server.
What i did not like about players I knew with multiple acounts or "boxxers" was that, they would be off on their own doing things and were not keen to group. Also they would say things in group or raids like " well, I can bring my (Class/Level) if needed" And that would always mean a 30 min delay in the raid or travelling somewhere.
Honestly, I see the time in my house and by the time I walk out the door, and get into the car- I must have passed a time warp because 10 min have passed, when in reality, it really shoud have been like 2 minutes at the most.
I have nothing against boxxing, I mean if a person wants to spend the money to create alternate accountd that is fine.
But what I did not like was the effects of boxxing in group make up or adventuring. For instance, Senario 1. " we have three, we need four, lets get soadso, although he is another (class) we could do it with two of (Class) " Soandso replies "sorry, I cannot join, I am leveing up my alt" *blink* ( snarky internal comment: We must have a label reading 1.49 a pound on our group, because soandso thinks we're chopped liver)
Scenario 2: " Hey soandso, no ones around, I am up for a bit of daring-do. Want to go see if we can do sharks in the bay? It will be hard, but we can try and always run out on land if it gets hairy, and if that is too tough we could go for bear pelts in the plains, it would be tough, but doable" Soandso" hmm yes, but I think I will take my alts and do giants in the caves. " Me:" ok can i join?" Soandso" No, it would be too hard to manage aggro" *blink*
Sometimes boxes interefere with friends that are available and who are nothing but themselves.
Manouk said:What i did not like about players I knew with multiple acounts or "boxxers" was that, they would be off on their own doing things and were not keen to group. Also they would say things in group or raids like " well, I can bring my (Class/Level) if needed" And that would always mean a 30 min delay in the raid or travelling somewhere.
Honestly, I see the time in my house and by the time I walk out the door, and get into the car- I must have passed a time warp because 10 min have passed, when in reality, it really shoud have been like 2 minutes at the most.
I have nothing against boxxing, I mean if a person wants to spend the money to create alternate accountd that is fine.
But what I did not like was the effects of boxxing in group make up or adventuring. For instance, Senario 1. " we have three, we need four, lets get soadso, although he is another (class) we could do it with two of (Class) " Soandso replies "sorry, I cannot join, I am leveing up my alt" *blink* ( snarky internal comment: We must have a label reading 1.49 a pound on our group, because soandso thinks we're chopped liver)
Scenario 2: " Hey soandso, no ones around, I am up for a bit of daring-do. Want to go see if we can do sharks in the bay? It will be hard, but we can try and always run out on land if it gets hairy, and if that is too tough we could go for bear pelts in the plains, it would be tough, but doable" Soandso" hmm yes, but I think I will take my alts and do giants in the caves. " Me:" ok can i join?" Soandso" No, it would be too hard to manage aggro" *blink*
Sometimes boxes interefere with friends that are available and who are nothing but themselves.
Again, you aren't describing boxers, you're describing people. I could easily come up with a number of hypothetical situations where it was a tremendous boon for someone to have a friend or guildmate who boxed. You're cherry picking negative scenarios that either have nothing to do with boxing, or could easily go the other way. If someone doesn't want to group, or be social, or include others, then they are going to play the game the way they want.
I was a little blown away by the idea of 1 character per account when I first experienced it in Darkfall. It didn't take long to understand why though, and today I'm 100% for it. It makes sense in every way in a role playing game, and even more sense in a massively multiplayer online rpg focusing on cooperative gameplay.
The only problem I have with it though, is that it makes purchasing additional accounts even more powerful and thus rewards those with more real life money.
Think about all the natural restrictions that can be circumvented with an alt. What, you can't port a group because you play a warrior. Log on an alt. What, you don't have the ability to craft a robe because you're a blacksmith? Create an alt. Want some intel on a rival guild? Np, join on an alt. Out of bank space? Alt. Want to watch the market from the depths of a dungeon? Log an alt.
I personally hope there will be some account restrictions in place to prevent things like this. Especially when it comes to major things like an entire form of gameplay such as crafting/commerce. Anything that allows a player to become more self-sufficient has some degree of impact on player interdependence and the virtual world aspect of an mmo.
Dullahan said:I was a little blown away by the idea of 1 character per account when I first experienced it in Darkfall. It didn't take long to understand why though, and today I'm 100% for it. It makes sense in every way in a role playing game, and even more sense in a massively multiplayer online rpg focusing on cooperative gameplay.
The only problem I have with it though, is that it makes purchasing additional accounts even more powerful and thus rewards those with more real life money.
Agreed and the only reason I'd hestitate to support it to be honest. It would promote even more of a subscription based pay to win for boxers.
Alts are my endgame. Only reason I'm opposed to the "one character per account" garbage. I'd simply just play on two separate accounts and pay VR more money if that's what it came down to. If the policy was put in, it could reasonably be reduced to being driven purely by greed. That said, there is no precedent for such a thing in a game like Pantheon.
It's completely infeasible. Talk about turning off non hardcore players. If you want to try a new class you have to delete your old character or pay for another account? That's absurd.
Liav said:Alts are my endgame. Only reason I'm opposed to the "one character per account" garbage. I'd simply just play on two separate accounts and pay VR more money if that's what it came down to. If the policy was put in, it could reasonably be reduced to being driven purely by greed. That said, there is no precedent for such a thing in a game like Pantheon.
Yeah, which is why I'd agree it wouldn't be worth implementing outside of a hardcore ruleset server. I switched over to the Firionia Vie server on EQ after it launched though, which was one character per account originally. So, maybe that's why I'm still more supportive of the idea. Even though I know if all servers had the restrictions that many/most? would be like you and obtain a second account which would defeat the purpose.
Here's the original FV ruleset:
Firiona Vie Server Feature List
This is a new server, not a split server. There will be no transfers to this server.
This is a PvE (Player vs. Environment) server, NOT a PvP (Player vs. Player) server. In other words, it's a standard "blue" server with the same rules and features regarding PvP as the vast majority of our servers. It is not one of the "Zeks".
Auction restricted to city zones: Qeynos, Surefall Glade, Highkeep, Freeport, Rivervale, Erudin, Halas, Neriak, Grobb, Oggok, Greater Faydark, Ak'Anon, Kaladim, Felwithe, Paineel, Cabilis, Kael and Thurgadin.
Beneficial buff spells will not work on characters 20 levels lower than the caster.
Each character will be assigned an "alignment" upon creation. This alignment will be described in brief on the character creation screen (in the same location their Deity is described).
Each character will be able to change their alignment once any time after they reach 10th level if they choose. A character is not required to change alignments, but may do so any time after attaining 10th level. The player will be able to choose from a list of alignments based on their race, class and deity.
A character's alignment will determine whether or not they can group or guild with other characters.
A character's alignment will determine an experience bonus or penalty when grouping with other characters.
A character's alignment will determine if they can cast beneficial spells on other characters (including resurrections).
Language skills will improve only through group chat in the same zone and from /say.
Languages will only improve 1 point each hour and will be capped at level*5+5 skill points.
Common will not exist. A Human language will be added and only made easily available to certain races.
One character per account.
The Trivial Loot Code will be in effect in all zones.
Very few items will be No-Drop. Exceptions will include things such as newbie notes and epic weapons.
Bind Affinity will be restricted for all characters to locations where melee characters can bind on other servers.
/emote will be language specific
All characters will be /roleplay.
/alignment will display the alignment of your character and probably a more detailed description of that alignment.
Here's the link if you're curious about more of the features:
http://firionavie.yuku.com/topic/1005#.VsEs28v2aHs
I had no idea FV had all of those rules. I find that encouraging. Aside from the trivial loot code, that sounds so legit. A hardcore server with those rules and PvP would be my dream.
If nothing else, the FV rules indicates that the dangers posed by things like alts and boxing occured to Brad and the EQ team long ago. Hopefully we see those kinds of options with Pantheon.
Liav said:Alts are my endgame. Only reason I'm opposed to the "one character per account" garbage. I'd simply just play on two separate accounts and pay VR more money if that's what it came down to. If the policy was put in, it could reasonably be reduced to being driven purely by greed. That said, there is no precedent for such a thing in a game like Pantheon.
That is basically the point.
Because each Character on the server has a monetary cost to the Player, making them become more liable for their Character's actions. And the secondary effect of having cost involved, is that doing so thwarts cheaters, farmers, hackers, gold sellers, etc.. by raising the cost of entry, for every time they get caught & banned. And then they have to open up a completly new account ($100?) and create a new Char.. and start all over.
What that costs mean is, if you are a min/max farmer working at maximum efficiency, you need 6 accounts for a complete multi-box farming group. That is a big upstart cost for an Asian farmer, or farming guild. If Visionary Realms keep it cost prohibitive for the Cheaters, then Pantheon won't have rampant waves of rift-raft. Just solid multi-year growth of revenues & players.
Critical players are sick of trivial Characters.. and loose names.
I think VRi should have a $100 buy in, for a Player Character account within Terminus. Period!
And that VRi sets the "Core Servers" at $15/month = ($180/year) w/ additional (* obtainable) Characters costing an extra $50.
And that VRi offers an upscale optional "Premium Server" at $20/month = ($240/year).
Easy & done.
VR, could also offer multi-year subscription discounts (ie: 3 year sub on "Core Servers" for $500, etc = $40 discount !)
Hieromonk said:I think VRi should have a $100 buy in, for a Player Character account within Terminus. Period!
And here I thought the thread below had the most hilarous thing I read today,
http://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/2663/collections-amp-titles
Queue Jack Nicholson,
Raidan said:Liav said:Alts are my endgame. Only reason I'm opposed to the "one character per account" garbage. I'd simply just play on two separate accounts and pay VR more money if that's what it came down to. If the policy was put in, it could reasonably be reduced to being driven purely by greed. That said, there is no precedent for such a thing in a game like Pantheon.
Yeah, which is why I'd agree it wouldn't be worth implementing outside of a hardcore ruleset server. I switched over to the Firionia Vie server on EQ after it launched though, which was one character per account originally. So, maybe that's why I'm still more supportive of the idea. Even though I know if all servers had the restrictions that many/most? would be like you and obtain a second account which would defeat the purpose.
Here's the original FV ruleset:
Firiona Vie Server Feature List
This is a new server, not a split server. There will be no transfers to this server.
This is a PvE (Player vs. Environment) server, NOT a PvP (Player vs. Player) server. In other words, it's a standard "blue" server with the same rules and features regarding PvP as the vast majority of our servers. It is not one of the "Zeks".
Auction restricted to city zones: Qeynos, Surefall Glade, Highkeep, Freeport, Rivervale, Erudin, Halas, Neriak, Grobb, Oggok, Greater Faydark, Ak'Anon, Kaladim, Felwithe, Paineel, Cabilis, Kael and Thurgadin.
Beneficial buff spells will not work on characters 20 levels lower than the caster.
Each character will be assigned an "alignment" upon creation. This alignment will be described in brief on the character creation screen (in the same location their Deity is described).
Each character will be able to change their alignment once any time after they reach 10th level if they choose. A character is not required to change alignments, but may do so any time after attaining 10th level. The player will be able to choose from a list of alignments based on their race, class and deity.
A character's alignment will determine whether or not they can group or guild with other characters.
A character's alignment will determine an experience bonus or penalty when grouping with other characters.
A character's alignment will determine if they can cast beneficial spells on other characters (including resurrections).
Language skills will improve only through group chat in the same zone and from /say.
Languages will only improve 1 point each hour and will be capped at level*5+5 skill points.
Common will not exist. A Human language will be added and only made easily available to certain races.
One character per account.
The Trivial Loot Code will be in effect in all zones.
Very few items will be No-Drop. Exceptions will include things such as newbie notes and epic weapons.
Bind Affinity will be restricted for all characters to locations where melee characters can bind on other servers.
/emote will be language specific
All characters will be /roleplay.
/alignment will display the alignment of your character and probably a more detailed description of that alignment.Here's the link if you're curious about more of the features:
I still feel pretty good about doing the FV server -- it was the last major thing I was personally involved with and got implemented before leaving SoE.
Aradune said:Raidan said:Liav said:Alts are my endgame. Only reason I'm opposed to the "one character per account" garbage. I'd simply just play on two separate accounts and pay VR more money if that's what it came down to. If the policy was put in, it could reasonably be reduced to being driven purely by greed. That said, there is no precedent for such a thing in a game like Pantheon.
Yeah, which is why I'd agree it wouldn't be worth implementing outside of a hardcore ruleset server. I switched over to the Firionia Vie server on EQ after it launched though, which was one character per account originally. So, maybe that's why I'm still more supportive of the idea. Even though I know if all servers had the restrictions that many/most? would be like you and obtain a second account which would defeat the purpose.
Here's the original FV ruleset:
Firiona Vie Server Feature List
This is a new server, not a split server. There will be no transfers to this server.
This is a PvE (Player vs. Environment) server, NOT a PvP (Player vs. Player) server. In other words, it's a standard "blue" server with the same rules and features regarding PvP as the vast majority of our servers. It is not one of the "Zeks".
Auction restricted to city zones: Qeynos, Surefall Glade, Highkeep, Freeport, Rivervale, Erudin, Halas, Neriak, Grobb, Oggok, Greater Faydark, Ak'Anon, Kaladim, Felwithe, Paineel, Cabilis, Kael and Thurgadin.
Beneficial buff spells will not work on characters 20 levels lower than the caster.
Each character will be assigned an "alignment" upon creation. This alignment will be described in brief on the character creation screen (in the same location their Deity is described).
Each character will be able to change their alignment once any time after they reach 10th level if they choose. A character is not required to change alignments, but may do so any time after attaining 10th level. The player will be able to choose from a list of alignments based on their race, class and deity.
A character's alignment will determine whether or not they can group or guild with other characters.
A character's alignment will determine an experience bonus or penalty when grouping with other characters.
A character's alignment will determine if they can cast beneficial spells on other characters (including resurrections).
Language skills will improve only through group chat in the same zone and from /say.
Languages will only improve 1 point each hour and will be capped at level*5+5 skill points.
Common will not exist. A Human language will be added and only made easily available to certain races.
One character per account.
The Trivial Loot Code will be in effect in all zones.
Very few items will be No-Drop. Exceptions will include things such as newbie notes and epic weapons.
Bind Affinity will be restricted for all characters to locations where melee characters can bind on other servers.
/emote will be language specific
All characters will be /roleplay.
/alignment will display the alignment of your character and probably a more detailed description of that alignment.Here's the link if you're curious about more of the features:
I still feel pretty good about doing the FV server -- it was the last major thing I was personally involved with and got implemented before leaving SoE.
I dont care for the Trivial loot system. Rest of it i'd pay more money for in a server. Limit on high player for getting item they might of missed for collection or utility purposes. If its that much of a powerful item make it no drop.
I won;t mind a Sullon Zek rulset when pvp becomes a priority.
You can laugh all you want.
I'd bet you, that even at $100 buy-in, or a $75 promotional Digital Download, you would still buy Pantheon and play it anyways..! No matter what. Crack kills.. and once you get a whiff of Pantheon, you are not going to put it down, or do without. Most crack heads will play at any cost. This game has the same sickness as EQ, VRi (& brad) have a chance to capitalize on this, and instead of business raping the community.. invest back into them, with quality content and expanded role play. Fueling the genre.
Pantheon can easily be a success starting out with 125,000 Players on 10 shards, over the first years of release. That is is still Roughly $12 million in box sales, & nearly $1.9 million in monthly subscription revenue. Those are extremely conservative numbers, as we all know there are MILLIONS of WoW refugees whom are all in their Thirties now, that will easily drop $200 on any game that has promis, given the last 10 years of F2P games.
SO laugh.. if 5 years out, Pantheon only has 325k Players..?
Who cares, certainly not Brad & Visionary Realms who are making $60 Million a year. And that is before you even account for the starving and roving mad crowd of WoW refugees, that might hear about about Pantheon & word of mouth takes hold... as they stampede Pantheon.. with additional 600k newbie players. Who coincidentally are now done complaining about the $100 buy-in on the forums, and finally ante up. The market for this game is huge (14 Million WoW players in North America & mostly in their 30s, so even if 5% (600k) of them catch wind of Pantheon, it is enough)
If done right, Pantheon will end up being another 15 Year success story. And with strong multi-year retention, over 10 years would mean nearly a billion in revenues... who is laughing then?
Understand, most here can afford $300/year for a hobby. It was already noted in an earlier poll, that 75% of the Community here is over the age of 27. (What is the cost of two NFL tickets, parking & beers again..?)