What is your opinion about multiplaying?

[Entropy]

I had some talks with some mods about this issue, and I would like to know what do the players think about it.

However, notice that this thread is for our information, and for our informtion alone; it doesn't mean that if people vote for it we'll make it legal, or that if people vote against it we won't make it legal. We are just trying to see what people think of it, and we'll have the final vote.

 

So basically, we are thinking about the posibility to allow multiplaying. That is, multiple characters from the same person that are allowed to interact between them, both economically (trade, mule, swap items) and during fights.

 

There would still be some restrictions, for example scamming. You won't be allowed to trade scammed items.

Macroing/scripting would, obviously, still not be allowed, and if caught doing so it would get all your chars banned.

[jowwow]

If I choose no in the first poll, I'm not allowed to vote without picking an option in the 2nd poll too..

[LadyReni]

same as joww, wanted to vote NO, but is impossible without clicking second poll, so didn't vote

[vytukas]

I voted no, defeats the purpose of antisocial perk

[cho-yun]

before you know it... you'll see a guild full of the same ip

 

be easy to host contest when giving prizes away on 2 accounts etc...

Edited June 6, 2007 by cho-yun

[Entropy]

Sorry, I added a neither option.

[Stardark]

In my opinion...

 

There are 2 sides of it, the 1st is good and the other is bad.

 

The good thing of multiplaying is that you trade things you've made YOURSELF to 1 of your accounts.

Say you have some account wich is just afk harving, and got loads of (lets say:) shrooms but you need the money on the other account, it wouldn't be a problem to trade the flowers or the money to that account since it were all actions by yourself.

 

The bad thing is the muling etc wich means you can make aloooot of provide wich is unfair compared to others wich may even can't have 2 clients running to eachother (including poor me )

And also scammed items would disappear because that person traded it to his other account wich is unknown to others...

 

Well, after all i think it shoul be legal, but it should be just your responsibility.

[Scorpius]

Well.. sadly there was no answer i could've chosen but oh well...

I dont think its a bad idea to allow it but of course it should have limits which should be declared before.

its like in rl.. you have to run through alot of offices before you get the permission formula you need. So

should it be here imo. on the other side i see the prob now that you dont wanna get bothered with even more

nubs begging you for permission and you having a bigger forum pm amount

So yeh i couldnt decide so i just let it be.. how ever it goes.. ppl managed to live with it how it is so they will

further as well.

 

with regards,

 

Scorpius

[ShYne]

I agree with vytukas, but i still voted yes for both

[Cycloonx]

If you want mass production it's a good idea to make multiplaying legal, otherwise I think it would become like simcity: 'Who can manage the most accounts'.

[Nintenduh]

A loud resounding NO.

[nicky]

Thanks for visiting this idea.

[Nidan]

i cant only vote 'no'?

Anyway my reason to vote no:

- I can already see 100 mules around the BL in PL

- trading scammed items will still happen? how are you gonna check if an item was scammed? Or will scamming just be made illegal? (i would like that)

 

Sure if it became legal i would definately do it too, especially handy for the antisocials among us

[Gohan]

I have several characters next to my main, BleedingSoul.

I control 2 low-level characters and BloodSoaked.

 

Kinda hard to tell. I voted no for the multiplaying. Altho I would play my alts a bit more, if Blee was capable of giving them some items to fight/do other stuff with. The lower level alts that is.

 

If its allowed, I'd say economical only.

 

-Blee

[RallosZek]

Voted No. Might change opinion if antisocial perk was removed. Also see a problem whether "not being able to trade scammed items" will be enforcible.

 

As for PK/magic/pvp training, defenitely not. A/d is already protected at lower levels, it doesn't need more protection. I'd rather have time devoted to better interfaces for combat/inventory and choices of training (like cockatrice).

[Quimbly]

i think it would kill the economy. everyone could have endless supply of gc since they could have several chars muling for themselves.

[conavar]

I voted no.

 

To me being able to have multiply characters who can interact takes away the challenge of the game and makes the choices to easy, instead of having to worry about where to spend there pick points and in which direction to take the character, everyone will just make a diff character for each situation, Harving,muling, pking etc.

 

The game will become full of alts all with the same abiltys, EL would become a game of drones.

 

So no think it would be bad for the game as a whole

[Brasero]

For me the answers is yes, because poeple with lot of freinds are able to do this kind of cheat, without be detected if all trade are no made the same day.

So i dont see why poeple who are playing alone or only short time each day, dont have these chances.

[Isenguard]

I choose yes but i also believe there should be certain restrictions. For ex. you only trade if you have a middle man. In other words if i have char and i found a rost on 1 and want to transfer it i must trust some1 else enough to give him my rost to give to my main. I also think you should only be allowed 1 alt. Just my oppionions and views.

[OldSchool]

i Voted NO twice because:

1 What with antisocial perk?now i can have 1 char in PL flower shop w/o it and second full negzored to harv..easy money make game suxx

2 What ppl with IP Bann and Whitelisted?They can have only 1 account,so its not fair i think

[Lotheneil]

Voted NO. I don't like the idea of a person having several alts harvesting blue lupine or whatever else - imagine the crowd around popular resources (bl, silver in mm, etc.)

What is more, this is unfair for people with slower machines, who can't open several game windows - why evil reach irl people should have an advantage here?

ANd what about people on whitelist? They can't have more than one account - or at least it's harder for them.

 

EDIT: If multi becomes legal I think 90% of player will create mule-harvester to get more resources faster - if that's what you want how about making harvesting faster or raising players' emu? The same effect and less strain for the server.

Edited June 6, 2007 by Lotheneil

[Stone]

Big NO!

[Jarld]

I'm not sure about what to vote.

 

I don't like the idea of someone who's got a powerful enough computer (or several computers - evil IRL rich players ) and uses lots of alts to harvest stuff that s/he will use to raise skills faster.

 

On the other hand, my wife and I play from the same IP, and we interact as less as possible so that we're not accused of multiplaying, and I'd like to benefit of playing as a real couple without having to fear a ban.

 

So, what could we do? Limit the number of characters who can trade from the same IP? What would be the limit? Some people play with their children too, sometimes 4 or 5 persons of the same family play from the same IP...

 

 

Edit: I voted NO.

Edited June 6, 2007 by Jarld

[Knuckles]

Hmm, I guess this is the right time for this.

 

I have personally been banned, had stats wipe, and a #reset, because of me multi-playing, yes I know it's my fault, but I feel it should be allowed, to a certian level, what I mean by that is, there should still be rules against it, like you said in your post Ent, trading scammed items to a lower level account to help it level (For example scamming 20k Leather, and making a Manu Char shouldn't be allowed) I don't really like the idea of them being able to PvP either, Or the PK'ing aspect, cos then the don't lure people rule would be useless..

 

I would like to see the rule gone, but thats my opinion.. I'd also like to see other peoples views on the matter.

[Blodoks]

I voted NO