So, I’m actually very good at breaking things down, and this discussion is obviously not about multi-boxing. It is about defining the purpose of Ryzom gaming and how stringently it should be enforced.
I see two very simple strategies here. Either you make this game for players and adapt to their will and needs, being flexible and only put up certain frames and boundaries to maintain stability. OR you decide to stick to the core principle of a MMORPG and remove any element that conflicts with the essence and ‘true’ way of playing the game (sounds like Azazors philosophy). One aspect of the latter would for instance be to remove the possibility to use multiple accounts at the same time because the game is not designed for this (even if its technically possible).
The first strategy will require some sacrifice of these core principles to maintain a happy and motivated player base. The second strategy will not, but it will alienate players in the long run. This is evident looking at the gaming industry as a whole and the strategies they have applied which led to the downfall of many beloved franchises (sticking to their own definitions of gaming, not the communities).
I can actually respect any decision here, but what I cannot respect, is a half-way, lazy and coward decision to try and keep some elements while eliminating others belonging to the opposite strategy. Let me clarify. If you decide to go for the more conservative approach and stick to the game design stringently and enforce any style or behaviour from players that is not in parity with the games core purpose (ie multiplayer and role play element) then you cannot at the same time keep certain elements which contradicts this, such as banning four accounts on at the same time but allowing two, or allowing people to play untagged etc. It would contradict what you want to achieve on the basis of eating a cookie but still keep it.
Personally I got hooked with Ryzom because it was a SANDBOX MMORPG which I thought was defined as a freedom to creating your own game style (ofc without breaking any formal rules), but it seems that this definition has now been challenged through a quasi-discussion about so called multi-boxing.
I see two very simple strategies here. Either you make this game for players and adapt to their will and needs, being flexible and only put up certain frames and boundaries to maintain stability. OR you decide to stick to the core principle of a MMORPG and remove any element that conflicts with the essence and ‘true’ way of playing the game (sounds like Azazors philosophy). One aspect of the latter would for instance be to remove the possibility to use multiple accounts at the same time because the game is not designed for this (even if its technically possible).
The first strategy will require some sacrifice of these core principles to maintain a happy and motivated player base. The second strategy will not, but it will alienate players in the long run. This is evident looking at the gaming industry as a whole and the strategies they have applied which led to the downfall of many beloved franchises (sticking to their own definitions of gaming, not the communities).
I can actually respect any decision here, but what I cannot respect, is a half-way, lazy and coward decision to try and keep some elements while eliminating others belonging to the opposite strategy. Let me clarify. If you decide to go for the more conservative approach and stick to the game design stringently and enforce any style or behaviour from players that is not in parity with the games core purpose (ie multiplayer and role play element) then you cannot at the same time keep certain elements which contradicts this, such as banning four accounts on at the same time but allowing two, or allowing people to play untagged etc. It would contradict what you want to achieve on the basis of eating a cookie but still keep it.
Personally I got hooked with Ryzom because it was a SANDBOX MMORPG which I thought was defined as a freedom to creating your own game style (ofc without breaking any formal rules), but it seems that this definition has now been challenged through a quasi-discussion about so called multi-boxing.