GENERAL

Pour moi, je ne connais pas de mmo, autre que Ryzom qui permet de jouer avec plusieurs comptes.
Donc ça ne me pose pas de problème. Je ne pratique que le forage avec un reroll soigneur.

Si j'ai bien compris, jouer avec x comptes poserait un problème avec certains contenus futurs, qui serait optimisé pour 4 joueurs, d'où ma question :
Ne pourrais ton pas bloquer le multiboxing uniquement lors de ses nouveaux défis ? Si c'est possible techniquement.

Comme Jorgensen l'a montré avec ironie, prouver que vous avez la capacité à multiboxer sans tricher est très compliqué.

Je pense que ces 3ème et 4ème alts pourraien être interdits sur certaines activités :
- Guerres d'avant poste
- Nouvelles features de la story line que Ulukyn a mentionné
- Chasse aux rois, s'il y a un seul "vrai" joueur dans la team (autrement les alts ne changent pas grand chose à l'affaire)

Si ces règles n'étaient pas respectées, il serait assez facile le prouver avec quelques screenshots et un ticket. Les joueurs qui multiboxent pourraient en plus être obligés de communiquer le nom de leurs toons aux GM pour faciliter la modération.

L'idée est de les exclure des aspects les plus compétitifs du jeu pour que personne ne se sente lésé.

Je pense que sur les spots Magiques les alts ne sont pas un gros avantage; c'est très simple de les tuer avec une petite équipe en PvP tournoyant car quand un ou plusieurs alts sont morts leurs macros ne fonctionnent plus et les joueurs qui multiboxent manquent de mobilité. Mais ça pourrait aussi leur être interdit.

Que les inquiets se rassurent, je me réabonne pour endiguer le flot de départ ! Blague à part, jolie performance de Beeficus.

A mon époque, le multiboxing existait, mais n'était pas non plus monnaie courante. C'était plutôt la "signature" de certains joueurs, et ça faisait plus sourire qu'autre chose. Je repense notamment à Xylog et Canonia.

Ne jouant plus, je suis incapable de visualiser l'importance que cela a pris ces dernières années. En tout cas, ça soulève les foules. Il a bien longtemps que le forum n'avait pas été aussi animé ! Peut-être est-il venu le moment de relancer les vrais débats intéressants, comme celui d’un Ryzom full-PvP ?


Retourne troller seul dans sa caverne

I was the first one to swear 3000% that beeficus was cheating (so in reality... I'll be dead...). After seeing his stream I realized how wrong I was.
I then tried to understand my mistake

And I understood that it was a server optimization that doesn't send the information in real time, but rather aggregates it to send it all at once. (I still wonder how I could not have thought of that? :( )

Therefore, although it may seem obvious to the eye in the game, this is not really the case.

I wanted to make my mea culpa and say that one of the reasons why I, from my point of view as a dev, made this change was totally unfounded.

Bonne idée - mais est-ce possible ?
Je veux dire, comment, en pratique développer de telles sfonctionnalités ?

Sans développer quoique ce soit, plutot en suivant le meme principe que l'idee de base : on met en place la regle, et (comme l'a dit Zarden), si elle n'est pas respectée, c'est facilement prouvable avec screenshot/video et ticket.

Vous aimez rendre une chose simple compliquer dis donc, la limitation a deux personnages en simultané ne demande aucune main d'oeuvre ou modification autre que les conditions d'utilisation générale, en plus d'éviter de nouveau problème lié à l'abus du multi-compte a outrance et rend le jeu beaucoup plus équilibré que de faire une longue liste de ce qui est autorisé ou non de faire avec quatre personnages en simultané...

Car donner un passe droit à un joueur qui utilise quatre personnages en simultané n'empêchera pas le staff de devoir traiter régulièrement des tickets et autre réclamation concernant ce joueur et sont utilisation du jeu qui lui rapporte un avantage que tout le monde ne peut pas se permettre d'entreprendre ou d'apprécier.

Et si vraiment vous désirez laisser la possibilité à un joueur de contrôler quatre personnages en simultané, je vous invite a reconsidéré les avantages en terme de gameplay et de relation sociale que pourrait apporter un Ryzom bien plus pvp ne disposant que d'une zone 250 non pvp. (Et certainement pas la meilleur).

I don't engage in PvP so have no real "horse in the race" so to speak.  But  I see I am going to have the unfortunate opportunity to argue / disappoint both sides of this argument.   I did not "quote" from individual posts so much as presenting commonly made arguments by taking snippets from various posts (in italics).  I didn't not want to address any one person in particular ... Just picking comments of views that were put forth by several people.  My biggest issue is that, as the great Senator from New York, Daniel Moynihan said:

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

And that's what we have here .... Baseless accusations primarily directed at a single player from other players upset about losing in PvP because they can not understand, or prefer not to understand, how they are being outskilled.   These accusations have been completely and utterly disproved and the powers that be have openly and unabiguously stated so (see post 150).

BAN the players using software that allows synchronized actions Problem: the proofs requested by the staff are impossible to provide even if the fault is highly visible in the game (Yes yes, it is VERY visible).

There are many people who claim the earth is flat using the very same argument ... They use those exact words .. Are we convinced the earth is flat by those words?   I am not.  The proofs have been provided; I have seen them, the game staff as seen them.  Having seen the proof ... It is readily apparent that he use of 3rd party software is by no means necessary to perform the recorded actions.  It's a false claim and has been accepted by the game staff that no cheating was taking place by the accused.     And it's not a recent change, people were doing the same thing pre-merge.

But since you want to talk about the way the game was intended to be played why don't we ban Chanchey NPC hunts? They were intended as guild challenges, not to be killed by a random mob.

I have not seen anything in the CoC, lore or  anywhere else that says this is the way it must be done.   And historically, it has been rarely done.  Before the pandemic, we often cancelled the hunts because we didn't have the 14 people necessary to take down the tougher ones.  Looking at the Ryzom bosses, page:

2020-20-02 Aen:  Out of 11 Guilds, 2 guilds had more than 1 member present. 1 guild had 2
2020-20-02 Sergio:  Out of 11 Guilds, 3 guilds had more than 1 member present, 2 guilds had 2

2020-20-02 Aen:  Out of 11 Guilds, 1 guild had more than 3 members present. 2 guilds had 3
2020-20-02 Pei:  Out of 12 Guilds, 3 guilds had more than 1 member present, 2 guilds had 4
2020-20-02 Lixie:  Out of 12 Guilds, 5 guilds had more than 1 member present, 1 guild had 4
2020-20-02 Sirgio:  Out of 9 Guilds, 7 guilds had more than 1 member present, 1 guild had 4

And while guilds do conduct their own hunts, only 1 or 2 are capable of taking an NPC down and it's rare that s single guild will take down all 4 ... Doubtful now if  the # of alts limited.   While it may be an opportunity for guilds to take on alone, like many other game mechanics, there is no prohibition or even suggestion that factions, alliances, toon genders, or any other group of people can't do the same.

As to the hunt being a post merge thing, that statement is also blatantly false.  The practice was routine on both the german and english servers since the getgo.

I would like to add that in the U.S. with many different time zones that it makes it difficult to play as cooperatively as I and many people that I know wish that it could be. Sadly that is the reality.

The 48 continental states has 4 time zones ... same as Europe.  The population difference is however real in that I think the player base is skewed to Europe due to most events ocurring during Euro hours which is a function of staff availability.   Is that a matter of not enough players volunteering, or not enough volunteers being selected ... that's a question I'm in no position to answer nor has any player to influence the decision making in this regard.

As to PR digging, there are obvious advantages to large guilds here ... But, at SNs, this has been usurped by factions and alliances.  On Arispotle, the player base decided this was unfair ... What fun is a battle when one side has an inherent advantage due to control over all Sup and OP mats ?  The player base (not game mechanics, lore or staff) decided to eliminate the advantage and (almost) no one killed anybody at SNs.   There were a few diehard RP folks who disagreed but they didn't have much success .... They were welcomed and had access, until they attacked and in turn were killed. 

Even outside of SNs, the larger guilds have an advantage .... Having guards  to draw off KP or aggro is a big advantage.   I remember feeling disadvantaged when I'd be camping a spot in Wastelands along with another player and we'd both get killed by aggro 5 minutes before Sup popped.  They had an alt sitting in an OP, I didn't so by time I got back... Sups were dug out but that was a choice I made.  I choose not to use alts .. To me it feels like an unfair advantage and like I'm ducking a challenge .  But that's a personal choice, and I have no inclination to impose my choice on others.

How can the game and the story of Ryzom evolve if you don't do RP?

Been here for 15 years, I enjoy the game as an escape but, I don't make believe that I am my toon., I liked the original 3 Star wars movies, but I don't dress up as a character and head out to Comicon.  I don't feel in any way drawn to kill a kara person I am passing because I happen to use Kami TPs.  And there's no escaping the fact that there are people in game who use RP as an excuse to behave badly.  You want to kill members of another faction at SNs because you want the advantage of superior gear so you can have the advantage at OP battles, so be it, game mechanics allow it.  But it is not mandatory, you are free to let your conscience decide.   But if you are going to kill peeps trying to get to  a new land or peeps doing missions, to my eyes, that's just being the back end of a donkey.

it is currently not possible to detect who is using third party software to control multiple characters!... I tried to manage 4 characters at the same time using the macro available in the game and yes it is possible but it is also hell so have fun controlling 4 characters at the same time in areas that exceed the level 150.

The game developers have refuted this contention and agree that everything the accused party did was perfectly legal.... let it go.   One can play 2 games at the same time using 2 screens.  On a daily basis, I move from Game to BM web site to Rocket Chat to Bunny Tools Spreadsheets simply by moving the mouse to other screen or window ... Is that botting ?   If you divide a screen into 4 windows, and locate your 4 action bars at the intersection of all 4 screens, you can easily make 4 mouse clicks very very quickly ... Even faster if you are jamming the #1 key as you move the mouse in tight circle of 1" diameter at the intersection.   This is not 3rd party software / botting.  Every action is initiated by a separate key stroke.  The source of the complaint is "a player (or players) has become very skilled at this and their skill level is affecting whether they can win or not.

The bot argument is simply a red herring or what is commonly referred to here in the US as "alternate facts".  I have seen someone controlling 4 characters fighting KP and taking Lil Pei.  Not something I would attempt because the last thing I wanna do in game is "work hard".  That does not mean I was not extremely impressed by watching individuals capable of doing exactly that.

On the other hand .... I read a user comment in Uni that essentially asked the question "Does having 4 accounts fall under the category of "Pay to Win" ... Are you not simply "paying more" money to gain an advantage in game.  This is a very valid question, and to my eyes the one which the discussion should be focused.

Now this change, my first reaction, as it was the time in 2004 when the 'lore' that many profess to adhere to was invalidated by the pvp change, was to leave. Then I realize when I was gone I missed Ryzom so much, each game i tried i compared to her, to how she functions, to how i feel in her, to her beauty.

This may be considered off-topic but I hope that it is not edited out because it is essential to understanding the underlining mindsets resulting from the merge and why we see widely different views.  Id ask that any editing wait till the subject is drawn back into the main topic.  On Arispotle, we lost 40% of our player base when PvP was introduced.  Before anyone argues the point, understand why .   At the time WxW was the big thing and they had many imitators and the competition provided player options to choose from.  The reason many folks came and stayed in Ryzom was that there was no PvP in the beginning.  The PvE crowd had one choice, the PvP crowd had a handful and therefore PvE oriented folks tended to gravitate to Ryzom

Over time, on Arispotle anyway, the player base was far less RP oriented and OP battles were boring if it was too one sided.  A substantial portion of the player base, lets call them neutrals / trytonists if you prefer (name is irrelevant) decided to maintain a balance defending Kami held OPs in Jungle / Desert and Kara held OPs in Lakes / Forest.  If it looked like one side had too many folks.... maybe one guild would switch sides.  This is how the "pick up" games in stick ball, basketball , football teams were picked on the city streets of America .... In the next game, the losing team got to pick one player from the other side.    Goal was to have a competitive game, not a goal of annihilating the enemy.  You can only improve your own skills playing against matched opponents.  Competing against a lesser skilled or lesser equipped team will not improve one's skills, is no challenge, no fun and eliminates any sense of accomplishment.  I'm not saying that one way of thinking is right and another is wrong, but it had beneficial results.

Arispotle was also more cooperative as a result of less hardline RP.  OP mats and sups were openly shared and there were "community OPs" to which all the guilds owning OPs contributed mats and cats to be doled out to smaller / newer guilds.  One of the complaints heard from "immigrants" from other servers was that Ari was too cooperative and as a result Uber weapons and NPC armor sets were too widely available.   We didn't fight over SNs ... So we were not losing 30-40% of sups to degrades and digger deaths.  One of the reasons (true or not I don't know) given for the possessions wipe at merge was that that it wouldn't be fair to peeps on other servers since Ari was so loaded with uber gear.

While it took a lot of words, many not directly relevant to the discussion at hand, it does explain the basic cultural disconnect that leads to widely disparate views on the topic.    The point is that we are products of our environment and cultures so the different communities will come from a different basic approach to game.   We can argue that each of ours is better but even assuming that such an argument could be "won", winning is a failure in and of itself as you can't have winners w/o losers.  And losers feel disadvantaged and lose interest.  A reduced population benefits no one. The goal should be finding a solution that everyone can live with.

If some people are able to use 4 accounts at the same time and can PROVE that they can do it without a bot, .... Let it no longer be up to CSRs to prove that a player uses a bot, but up to players to prove that they don't.

As the saying goes, we have "been there, done that".  It's very easy to ""when you have three alts following you and obeying you, it's very easy to see and detect"." ...that they are doing something.  It is also very easy to prove that  "what they are doing can be done w/o 3rd party software ***as has been demonstrated***.   Post 142 lays this out clearly, and the evidence has been accepted by the powers that be (Post 150) .... so suggestions by people whining about being  out skilled and unable to accept that fact should be deleted.

Normally, an account has a payment card and a payment card has a name. If you have the same name twice, you can consider that it is the same person.

In 2004, I was paying for 3 toons .... Myself, my 13 year old and my 8 year old ... my 14 year old was playing something else and my wife still won't play .... Anti-social :) ... They didn't have credit cards at the time

For me, I do not know of mmo, other than Ryzom which allows to play with several accounts.

The very 1st line at the Forge meeting on this topic was posted by the CSR conducting the meeting:

"Definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiboxing"

If you read the link:

==========================================
Most game developers allow multiboxing in their games. To date, Age of Conan, Aion, Anarchy Online, City of Heroes, City of Villains, Dungeons and Dragons Online, EVE Online, Lord of the Rings Online, Heroes of Newerth,[citation needed] EverQuest, EverQuest II, Lineage, Lineage II, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, Rakion Latin-Internacional, Warhammer Online and World of Warcraft all allow multiboxing. The Chronicles of Spellborn and Rift allow hardware multiboxing, but prohibit software multiboxing. Game publishers do not provide technical support for multiboxing, so while it may be allowed, these games may not be designed to be multiboxed.
=======================================

in addition to avoiding new problems related to the abuse of multi - excessive account

Again, there has been  no abuse by the targeted player and powers that be have stated such.  So can we just drop the bruised egos, claims of cheating and 3rd party software and any other non-relevant alternative facts ?  What has been claimed with respect to the targeted player never happened.

That still leaves the question as to whether having multiple accounts is "Pay to Win" ... If that question is a valid one, where should the line be drawn ?   Why can I increase my rewards with a 2nd account and not a 3rd or a 4th.   I have been unable to advance remaining melee skills because of the lack of people to team with.   While I personally feel that using alts is cheating myself of a challenge and missing the opportunity to interact with others, should there be a way for me to buy my way into faster progression or more rewards in game.

This is a hard question and as has been said many will view their own opinions as gospel and others flawed.  While, as I said I don't have a horse in the race in this regard as I would not use alts if they were free and unlimited.  I do feel that we need a solution that leaves those with a stake in the issue left unscathed and unfairly accused.  My initial thoughts lean toward "situational restrictions" rather than blanket , across the board restrictions.   But in order to begin that discussion the accusations and bruised egos need to be set aside.

I will just tell you something that people is keeping to tell the us.

Atys is NOT Arispotle. It's not because something happened/was allowed on Arispotle that it should be happening/allowed in Atys.

The problem at this moment is not multiboxing.

The problem is :
-1 noone makes the actual rules enforced, even when someplayer is multi boxing with 5 alts thuss 6 in total.
-2 the same players use BOTS to control other alts (dont make us laugh with "assisted control" or alike.

Eine kleine Sache, die ich noch erwähnen wollte, da die "Spielfreiheit" öfters als Argument angesprochen wurde, die durch die Limitierung der gleichzeitig zu verwendenden Clients eingeschränkt wird:

https://app.ryzom.com/app_forum/index.php?page=topic/view/29543/1

Es hat im Grunde nicht direkt etwas mit dem Thema zu tun, aber im Wesentlichen schon. Es wurde schon einmal gegen die Spielfreiheit entschieden, die durch einen künstliche Beschränkung der Einladungsmöglichkeit in Gilden eingeschränkt ist. Da das Rollenspiel "immer optional" und es hier abgelehnt wurde, frage ich mich ernsthaft, ob das Argument "Freiheit" überhaupt geltend gemacht werden kann.

Eines muss man sich vor Augen führen, soweit ich Ryzom und seine Geschichte verstanden habe:

Die Definition von "Freiheit" wird von denen festgelegt, die die Lore schreiben, gestalten und validieren im Kontext des Rollenspiels. Diese hat eine direkten Einfluss auf das Spiel durch die Spielmechanik.

Genauso wird die "Freiheit der Spielstile", hier sei nun Multi-boxing genannt, von denen festgelegt wird, die im Spiel nicht aktiv mitspielen. Man darf nur gnädigerweise seine Meinung kundtun, entscheiden tut das jemand anders.

Spielstil und Rollenspiel haben einen direkten oder indirekten Einfluss aufeinander. Die Frage, die ich mir eher stelle, ist: Was hat nun Priorität? Nun sehe ich hier 2 Parteien, die hier vorherrschen: Die OOC-Spieler und die RP-Spieler. Man versucht sich gegenseitig Regeln zu diktieren.

Festhalten kann ich zumindest:

Erstens:

• Rollenspiel ist per se eine Einschränkung. Und wer ein Rollenspiel spielt sollte keinen Sandkasten mit Freiheit erwarten.
• Das Rollenspiel schränkt die Spielmechanik ein.

Zweitens:

• Sandkasten sind nur durch die Möglichkeiten der Spielmechanik beschränkt.

Ryzom ist ein Sandkasten, aber auch vor allem ein Rollenspiel. Somit ist klar, dass in einem MMORPG das Rollenspiel der Spielmechanik diktiert, wie diese zu reagieren hat. Freiheit, im Sinne "Mach was du willst" gibt es nicht, sondern Freiheit im Sinne "Du hast die freie Wahl zu tun, was immer du willst, im Rahmen des Rollenspiels".

Ok das war jetzt eine lange Einleitung, damit ihr meinen Gedankengang versteht. Nun zum Multiboxen:

Auf den ersten Blick macht es keinen Unterschied. Die Spielmchanik und moderne Computer machen es möglich mehrere Client gleichzeitig laufen zu lassen. Rollenspieler können ganze Familien spielen und OOC-Spieler sehen darin eine Kunst des Spielens und eine Herausforderung, obwohl es ursprünglich nicht dafür gedacht gewesen ist. Es gibt keine Einschränkung durch das Rollenspiel, sondern nur eine Einschränkung von 4 gleichzeitigen Clients, um Gleichgewicht zu wahren, was eher einer Notlösung gleichkommt.

Wenn man möchte, dass man nicht mehr mit 4 Charakteren herumläuft, sollte man

• ein Konto-System schaffen, dass "Multiboxing-freundlich" ist. So kann man erstmal die ALTs/Twinks identifizieren. Man kann dann neben seinem Hauptkonto, sog. alternative Konten anlegen, die dann für das Multiboxing zulässig sind.
• Die Vorteile für Multiboxing auf das Level eines einzelnen Charakters verringern. Sodass man zwar 4,8,10 oder 100 Clients haben kann und steuern, aber keinen Vorteil gegenüber einen einzelnen Charakter hat. (Man macht es ja, soweit ich jetzt gelesen habe, ja nicht um Vorteile zu haben, sondern als Herausforderung und als Kunstform).
• Diese sekundären Charaktere könnten dann ausschließlich für bestimmte Aktivitäten gebraucht werden und müsste ebenfalls eingeschränkt werden.
• Man könnte auf diese sekundären Konten zum halben Preis anbieten.

Das verbieten von Alts bringt nichts in einem System wie Ryzom. Und das Erlauben gibt den anderen Nicht-Multiboxern das Gefühl der Unterlegenheit oder ein Dazwischen ist nur Augenwischerei. Das System sollte grundlegend geändert werden. Ein kontrollierter und offizieller Umgang mit Alts wäre sinnvoller.

If you can't see the problem of having people using 4 alts in a game where most players don't have alt or only 1 (but this is a problem too). I can't do anything for you.

I don't think Freddy was saying that Atys is or should be Arispotle. I feel like he was pointing out that there are not only different ways to play there are different mindsets on how to make the game enjoyable for the majority. And there is always a choice. Back then there was still quite a few people that didn't agree with the all for one for all mentality but it still worked for us.

People keep bringing up the "pay to win" argument. I'm not sure exactly what is being won here, no one is uber and taking over the entire server. I have an alt. Yesterday I was on for 5 hours and got 1 level in dig because cutlers are jerks. If I'm paying to win, I clearly need a refund. If people with multiple alts were camping everything, hording all the good stuff and being all around general douches; I might feel different about them. But they aren't. They're all decent people and help everyone.

Again the real problem is 3RD PARTY PROGRAMS that allow a player to not do anything but start it up and let it go. I watched someone do this for a good 2 hours one day. The main and 1 alt were digging and getting aggroed. I was close enough to be in sight too. I would have to kill whatever, then I'd rez the 2 and watch them continue digging with out missing a beat. Should I have reported? Yeah, probably but I didn't. To be fair, it made my last levels in forest interesting and they were digging junky mats so what do I really care? BUT that's the thing that needs dealt with, not the people that are actually skilled at running 4 toons.

Yes, homins only join guilds to be able to defeat Aen, Sirgio, Pei and Lixie. RP reasons, friendships, equipment, community, diplomacy, common guild halls and easier communication are completely overestimated. I'm doing bosshunts since 2007 and I'm very frustrated that guilds still exist but I'm working on it. My next step to destroy Atys is to dissolve all guilds, so everyone just logs in to sit in circles on outposts and sing Kumbayah.

And red is not blue, high is not low and pizza is not a hot dog ... that is not the point ... the point is that people have the right to eat what they want .... not eat what you dictate they should eat.