Removing rule 5 (multiplaying)

[Shadeslayer]

I voted yes with limits, but im having a hard time trying to figure out what limits would be "fair" and every1 would enjoy. One example i was thinking of was that you could pay radu rl $$$ to transfer your storage to another char. He could make it a decent amount of money so people wont do it for 1k silver or anything. This way multiplay will still be illegal and helping your main char mule/bypass negs will require $$. Then the argument is "omg teh irl rich ppl win again" but you can always pay some1 in gc to do it.

[Wynand]

Wtf? no...

[Headbangster]

Voted NO

[XenaMT]

Thank you to Aislinn for clarifying the validity of multiple people (ie. family members) playing on the same IP (it can be done, worry-free if you have honesty and integrity) - this I think is the main pr0?

 

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Yogi Berra

[Kylara]

When i just started playing, DrCrusher, my husband used to play as well. We traded as normal friends would and we never had any problems or questions asked. It *is* possible. The only thing we did was to declare on a special section we were playing from the same IP. I voted No.

[KillerNoName]

I voted yes, but now to think that many people would character spam, it gives advantages to people with faster computers that can run more clients at the same time. Also, the number of characters online might lag the servers. The economy is also a good point. Maybe, if people really want to multiplay, give them the right to have only one pair of alts, and only those two alts can interact, as long as they pay a hefty monthly fee, like elebendy billions of dollars

[niemand]

No

 

It would alter the spirit of the game and would make things too easy imo.

Not being "filthy" rich gives me a goal.

Having acces to easy gc would make the game boring.

Edited October 13, 2008 by niemand

[Rasool]

No

it'll just make things worse in EL, we've had enough cheating even with having this rule so... NO

[SquE]

No thanks.

[Alia]

Rule 5 is not only about multiplaying. Is this poll about the entire rule or

only multiplayer part is in question?

 

For me it seems that it is multiplayer part that should be kept intact, as it

prevents character flooding on the server.

However 'illegal client' part might be reviewed, as it may give other possibilities

and ways for playing, as I pointed out in our conversation with Entropy couple of years

ago. True, demand for this is very low, mostly for those who are skilled in programming,

and wants to make some sort of AI scripts; but there are also quite few pure role-players,

still we have useless pure role-playing clothing in game.

 

So I would vote

1. definitely NO, for removing multiplayer prohibition

2. YES, for removing modified/self-made/etc. clients prohibition.

[Wloczykij]

I voted NO.

[Learner]

Rule 5 is not only about multiplaying. Is this poll about the entire rule or

only multiplayer part is in question?

 

For me it seems that it is multiplayer part that should be kept intact, as it

prevents character flooding on the server.

However 'illegal client' part might be reviewed, as it may give other possibilities

and ways for playing, as I pointed out in our conversation with Entropy couple of years

ago. True, demand for this is very low, mostly for those who are skilled in programming,

and wants to make some sort of AI scripts; but there are also quite few pure role-players,

still we have useless pure role-playing clothing in game.

 

So I would vote

1. definitely NO, for removing multiplayer prohibition

2. YES, for removing modified/self-made/etc. clients prohibition.

The problem is that in the past modified clients that gave advantage to players were being distributed. Things like that are why illegal client's aren't permitted.

[BloodSucker]

Voted NO without any doubt.

[Alia]

The problem is that in the past modified clients that gave advantage to players were being distributed. Things like that are why illegal client's aren't permitted.

 

I understand, but this distribution may be limited with 'pay for using self made client' option?

Like, you can connect with modified clients only from certain IP or under certain login.

 

Anyway, it can not even nearly give advantage of using several characters for your purposes.

So, if you still care about equal opportunities for players, why bring up this question at all?

[OldSchool]

Well i see all ppl here crying about lot of alts, bla bla, market ruined, economy bla bla

1 Its aint easy to train a char with good p/c and harv/other skills

2 Fighters will still train/make gc from mobs and buy sr/he

3 More Mixers use alts=more sr/he/other in markt = cheaper stuff for treiners/Pkers = more fun and stuff

4 For me and i believe for lot of other players it will be to boring to make an alt....

Ofc Macro or "upgraded" clients shoulb be still illegal, that would be to easy

Edited October 13, 2008 by OldSchool

[groomsh]

3 More Mixers use alts=more sr/he/other in markt = cheaper stuff for treiners/Pkers = more fun and stuff

This would last only for short time ...

What is the main thing that attracts mixers to mix loads of things ?

The ability to mix higher level items, to have better level then playerXY...

So after some time (which would be MUCH shorter, with few harving/muling alts) a mixer will be able to mix all items from his main skill, then what ? quit ?

[HeLLRaiZeR]

Well, as I see it I think it's okay to transfer stuff between your own accounts.. I mean, heck, aslong as you dont macro it's your own hard work that has brought you the items..

 

If I want to make a new "main" account I kinda would like this accounts stuff on it.. And transfering that is illegal..

[Entropy]

Ok, it seems that people do not want this to happen, so I'll close the thread.