TECHNICAL SUPPORT / WEB APPs BUGS

Thats exactly what i meant. But its not explizit "You are not allowed to drive 2 cars at same time".

And thats also ment with Ryzom. You can make as many accounts as you want as long as you pay for them. But tht does not automaticaly mean you are allowed to play them at the same time. This is just some interpretation by some/many ( i dont know how reality looks like) players. So the rules have never changed but perhaps the interpretation. And no one can ever say: "hey i didnt know" now because sofware is changed to prevent it.

I admit this is not an optimal way but it was comunicated before and it showed that some didnt care or didnt get it.

And you are abolutly right that this last rule is formulated in an non fitting way. It is clear what is ment (you can play your char as lpng as you want) but it in fact realy indicates that using multiaccounts is legal. Well, no but you can interprete it this way. This has to be changed.

Sorry Azarael, but you are just repeating yourself without giving anything to support your intetpretation.
Your analogy is flawed too, it is not physically possible to drive two cars at once ( yeah sure I can imagine how it could be done) while playing more than one char is easy as can be.
Once people start arguing how rules are meant to be read my hackles rise. A subscription is a contract. Show me where this is expressly forbidden and I will change my mind. Interptrtation shouldn't play any part whatsoever in deceiphering this. As for the earlier clause which speaks of 'an account' ( look it up in the thread) only says that when you enter into an agreement you get one account.

I am not against the limit which has now been imposed (though it will inconvenience some people that I know and which WG will still need to redress) but if you want to convince people come up with a solid argument to prevent accusations of trolling.

Interpretation is always part of what follows a contract. That's why we have so many folks suing each other. Both parties usually claim that something is "obvious". But obviously the only obvious thing is that they obviously disagree (pun intended).

Interpretation always goes along with any communication. Even if you don't want to use subjective interpretation, you always do when you listen to someone or read some text. It's your context, your bringup, your education, your cultural, your linguistic knowledge that shapes your thoughts and understanding about things. It's only natural e.g. that I read the part of the terms of service that Holina cites differently than you do.

And it's neither bad nor good, it's just the way it is.

Misunderstanding this basic principle is often what leads to frustration and rage and prevents detecting and resolving miscommunication.

Well, if we want to get technical the world 'limit' (without specifics) is too vague/broad to safely use in a contract. An advisor/auditor well versed in IT service delivery would tell you to expand on it or split the clause into 4-5 parts each detailing an aspect of the service, for example
- availability in terms of time (24/7, 24/5, 8/5 etc.)
- availability in terms of client location (country, IP subnet, IP address, blacklisted, whitelisted etc.)
- availability in terms of delivery channel (internet, intranet, mail pigeon etc.)
- availability of disaster recovery site, hot backup, cold backup etc.
- expected recovery times
- procedure for planned outages
- procedure for unplanned outages
- contact lists for specific issues
- etc.

Granted, stuff like the above I've only seen in professional contracts, not even Blizzard, SOE or NCSOFT have guarantees for service recovery times for their gaming customers. Which by the way nicely illustrates the state of gaming industry in this regard.

Oh! THIS COMMENT IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS COMMENT, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

On the topic of multiple accounts per controlling person my opinion is that unless they are used in PvP or prevents other players from gathering sup mats I don't really see a problem, even if it would be 4+ accounts.

In the above two scenarios I'd say 1 account per person for PvP (unless both parties agree to have no limit in place in which case they should contact a CSR beforehand to avoid any misunderstanding) and 2 for supremes digging.

For supreme boss hunts I'm torn between imposing a limit or not. If there is no direct competition for the boss then I don't see a problem but if there is then I'd say PvP rules apply. Edit: By direct competition I mean the scenario when two (or more teams) are gathering for a supreme boss and both could realistically take down the boss on their own. If they do not want to work together and split the spoils then I'd go with PvP rules for the "nuke-race".

I brought arguemts to show my personal opinion. If you dont like them this doesnt mean they are wrong. No u did not sign a rule where stands "You are not allowed to play...". There you are right. But if you just would read with a bit less prejustice waht i wrote you would perhaps understand that there are rules wich can be interpreted this way. Like in RL to there are rules that were made for all cases. Could you even imagine to set up rules wich would include anythin that could happen in 10 years of gameplay? So for sure a publisher makes rules and after something strange comes up they must decide wether it is ok or against the law.

So no its not me repeating myself on and on, but what you wrote i read in every third post. I respect everybodys opinion and i try to understand you too.In some points i would even say you are right but i also try to under stand WG and i have to admit in some cases they are right. In the end its their game and they make/interprete the rules and enforce them.

But to say it clearly, i never justified you, i just wanted to give another point of view. Use it or not, its your choice.

Not that I think I care anymore but.......

http://app.ryzom.com/app_forum/index.php?page=topic/view/15053/8 ;)

I host lan parties at my house, I've been getting friends into the game and now our group is too big to play at the house now, how do I get things changed so we can play? Some of us are paid accounts some are free to play, someone please let me know how to get or go about fixing this.

Ironically, I mentioned exactly the same thing in my email to support.

Did they comment on that remark? And has the original issue been resolved now for your family by support?

No comment to me at all on the LAN party issue. Otherwise resolved.

Lol, the date on that link is 10-29-2012 pratically the same day if not a day before the promise I quoted.
Did they edit a post and add the 4 account statement?

Was going nuts trying to figure out how I missed it, just took a bit to figure out someone is playing games.


Nice to see that they at least are making a decision and statement though.

still no word for lan parties yet either, and i've had an issue with a public place a few days ago, can't believe that happened but it did, what's the odds that there would be more then 4 players at a mc donalds? there needs to be a way to fix this quickly, without too much hassel for the player. i'll keep you all posted on the lan parties thing as soon as i find something out that will be of use to us all.