GENERAL

please don't remove this link and say its irrelevant

Control of multiple characters in OP Battles.

this topic was dealt with previously by the community manager and CSR, people using multiple toon's was at the heart of the problem, the answer as to how players are so coordinated is within that thread.

Heh, went and read a bit of the thread that Nitrouss referenced.

Thought it was kind of funny that Beeficus was one of the complainers and for this current thread he was the target of accusations.

And the wheel keeps turning...

Yes, we went through this all before on Arispotle. The CSRs/Devs refused to do anything about the botters, and in response we leveled our own alts to try to even the playing field. It wasn't until the alts affected non-English speaking players that anything was done upon the merging of the servers (at first, being told controlling any more than 1 toon was a bannable offense which was a hilarious twist, then the 4 account limit was settled on.) To turn around and change the rules again after all of the work put into developing characters to play within the rules because the French are complaining is the issue. As Beef stated earlier in the thread, we have talked it over and are fine with whatever the devs decide on. Our faction losing 4 toons total is not going to turn the tides of war. But the bias has and continues to be on display from those making these decisions.

deleted

Haven't commented on this because to be completely honest I hardly care. I like to dig with 4 toons. 2 dig masters, 2 cp. PvP on the other hand, is much more fun for me with 1 toon. Here's my opinion.

What I'd like to see is op wars where it's players vs players. Not 30 players vs 30 players + 30 alts (or more).

Really don't care what people do in pve, or even open world pvp. But alts should be banned from ops at the very least.

For those who say it doesn't create an advantage.. you have 4 toons healing or 4 toons nuking at one time. Even to coordinate 4 players to have a targetted nuke would be very hard to sync like these players with their alts do at ops, and one shotting someone on the opposite side who cannot damage you because he is a single toon and you have 3 toons healing your main is not fair nor balanced one bit.

With that being said, I even took an alt to this last OP war, and sure I had a blast, but it was very difficult for anyone to kill me cuz i could easily alt tab and heal myself. Doesn't make for really balanced pvp dynamics.

My vote is, ban alts for OP wars, let people use them outside of OP wars.

OR

Set a cap to amount of toons per op battle. Say, 30 toons max for example, then whether they are alts or not wouldn't matter.

Its not just the French who have issues with multiboxing.  I understood from the RF meeting that the devs were concerned about the addition of new content in game that could be executed by a single player and their 3 alts.

However, putting aside the impact of multiboxing on PvE elements of the game, this disucssion has undoubtedly focused heavily on the PvP aspects of the game.

Crailus you state that you don't believe losing 4 alt toons will change anything.  I myself noted a number of players who had 3 toons on follow from the Kara faction at the last OP.  IF losing these toons is not in your opinion going to result in a difference then why bring them?

In any case I strongly believe that the number of toons that appeared to be used as alts in use at that last OP was a lot more than 4.

I can appreciate that an alt cp can be very helpful, however, I really want to understand from those players who bring 2+ alts to OP battles why you do this?  Why did you decided to bring not just 1, maybe not just 2 but 3 to the last OP battle at Gu-Quin?

Personally I believe it gives you an advantage to do so - you can so you do it - you don't care it gives you an advantage.

I also dont buy some of the justifications I have heard on this thread (about PvP elements) including that it is a challenege and even some arguing that alts dont give you an advantage at all.  It certainly gave you an advantage last OP, so much so that one of your faction put it like this:



On a last point regarding the time and effort that people spend leveling their alts and how all this will go to waste, its funny that quite a lot of the "alts" are old players who clearly do not play any longer.

**DEL** Irrelevant - Non pertinent

I am the multiboxing worst case scenario!

Is there a title for that? :D



In all seriousness, if I can do this in war without getting my collective butts handed to me you are all so scroooooood.

give him the title of noobie!!!! :D
yeah noobie that will work, just focus madness your 4 toons so you wipe your own side out xD

Adding my voice to those who have argued that a two-toon limit has no rational justification. One and many are rational options, but two is just arbitrary.

My preference is for a one-toon limit, and this is why:
The reason I play an MMO rather than a single-player game is that I want to play with other people. I want it to be a social experience. But if everyone else is playing with their own alts, they have no need to play with me.

your argument would be vaid if the game had a massive population... mmorpg stand for....massive multiplayer online roleplaying game. ryzom has maybe 200 players at max, different factions, time zones and languages.. most times its hard to even find a team.

I draw the opposite conclusion from the same facts. The fewer people there are online, the more imperative it is that they play together rather than alone.

i consider this an MMO in the sense of Minimally Multiplayer .. especially in my timezone. I use one unsubbed second account and that lets me level and dig at a reasonable rate. Searching around every day for someone at the right level to train with is unrealistic. I agree with fleetwood that the game *should* be about cooperating to achieve stuff, but I also agree with nitrouss that it is too small and the current population too unfriendly to insist that people don't use alts

Now think about it. If I broke the whole subject down to a very naive board game. Let's say, "Don't be angry." This game is designed from the start to be a four-player board game. There are 4 slots that can be filled. All are equal and have the same prerequisites. The dice determine the course of the game.

Now it' s time for the Multiboxers!

If 2 players play and each controls 2 figures, then they have the same conditions.

But if one player occupies 3 places and the other only one, then the probability that the Multiboxer wins is tripled.

As simple as that, right?

Why should one occupy several slots as a Multiboxer at all, if there are enough people?

Social aspect: There are not enough players (which is usually not the case), or not enough who want to play with you (means there are not enough who like you or you like them), or you are just so antisocial that people prefer to avoid you.

Challenge: Since the game is much too easy for you, since you only roll the dice and move pieces, you see it as a challenge to direct several pieces to make it more exciting and exhausting for you. But you forget that this game is much more fun for company and that it is designed for that.

Art: It is truly an art to play "Don't be angry" alone, but also just as sad. You rather feel sorry for the Multiboxers and would like to play with them as one player, but then there are the others. There is no space left on the board. You make a space free and everyone can be happy, but it feels more like you're the fifth wheel: "Oh, there's the other one... He can play with himself... Why should I stay?" It gives the feeling in the game that you are unimportant as a single homin and a multiboxer doesn't need me to play anyway. I better go. You can play like that, but there's always that slightly bitter taste when you see a multiboxer. You just avoid him.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)