conavar

Voted no Cant really have a " community " Rule to protects your items when the game gives you a 100% guarantee no drop on death. Community rules as your rosto ftl But that being said I think outside of any community rules its the right thing to do as a person to return a non-pk db, I have done it in the past (even to red tagged guilds when the db has contained 1mil+ worth of items) and I will continue to do so in the future. For the simple reason I know how much hard work can go into getting those items and I wouldnt like to spoil ppl's fun by depriving them of them.. that just my personal opinion though *shrugs*

Think Im pretty much with neverman on this. Radu could post a basic outline of what he wants to do .. then locks the thread " OMG NO WHY" , this would give ppl time to digest and think about the idea without knee jerk reactions. After 2 days the thread is unlocked for comments,suggestions. depending on how this goes Radu could then make a fully detailed post about the idea for people to vote on..

Not really a good choice to base it on high levels. unless you can 100% guarantee that its not a bought char... Mr 140's a/d might have only been playing the game for a few months

Or means they are not bothered if its ingame or its not, they will just get on with it

I think you will find thats hard enough to do with 2 chars let alone 4 and that is more trouble that what it would be worth. Trying to flee on char 2 and char 3 dies or flee on char 1 but char 4 needs quickly healing and by that time number 1 spawn has legged it. Outside of pvp and spawn resupplying not sure multi alt will have that must affect on combat. But say you are correct. Where do you draw the line at resources ? Fe's etc are a resource, do we limit how many a char can make per day ?. kinda get out of hand and stupid pretty quick imo. Quick question: Were not depletable resources an answer to having multi alts sit at resources and supply the main ? (How I understand Radu's first post) . So without one is there any need for the other ?

*sighs* Spawns are limited anyway, somedays players have to go without or change what they train on.Comparing the two would only stack up if there was an unlimited supply of spawns (which there isnt if ppl didnt realise)

Fighter have a few changes to adapt to . ie: last update MCW spawn time increased.. I get 10% less xp per hour now than before.. have I complained ? no ? The game changes and if you dont like a change then that is fine , it is your right not to want it or like it, but your knee jerk " omfg its the end of the world " reaction doesnt solve anything.Contructive critisism does though And people wonder why Radu gets pissed

Lol yeah since a/d trainers never have to check 2,3 or more maps to find an open spawn, they just materalize when and where we need one

Any harvestables that take 10 boat trips, with no rings or tele ess to get close to ? if not its a pointless over exgageration knee jerk reaction no ?

Nope I know that isnt the case, but you cant generalise and say players who have bought shop items havent earned theirs levels. Alot of players have started from scratch and helped the game from buying from the shop. So for an Admin (wether in her admin role or not) to turn around and say by supporting the game player A hasnt earnt his 100+ Manu, 100 Alch or 140 a/d is a bit of a kick in the teeth for the average honest Joe player But anyway its getting kinda off topic (and we are not going to agree on this point anyway ) Yeah since I didn't even say that. Where did I say the shop buyer didn't earn his levels? Maybe I misinterpruted your original post, since alot of shop items are bought to be sold for GC , So a player doesnt have to worry about earning it ingame and hence being able to spend more time doing what they enjoy. It came across to me that you were saying the benifits that came with doing that ie: extra time on a spawn, extra time in a manu school were not earned. Now if that wasnt the case and I got the wrong end of the stick then I apologize

Nope I know that isnt the case, but you cant generalise and say players who have bought shop items havent earned theirs levels. Alot of players have started from scratch and helped the game from buying from the shop. So for an Admin (wether in her admin role or not) to turn around and say by supporting the game player A hasnt earnt his 100+ Manu, 100 Alch or 140 a/d is a bit of a kick in the teeth for the average honest Joe player But anyway its getting kinda off topic (and we are not going to agree on this point anyway )

If you allow multi play though, you might just get your way. For example if i can have 3+ alts making Gc for my main then why would I need to buy items from the shop ? if the shop loses money and hence Radu and Roja do is that good ? And seriously wether you like it or not EVERY player who has leveled a skill from scratch has earned it, wether they buy shop items, buy gc for $ or dont spend any $ at all

NVM had the answer

Actually it is not fine as it is now, which is why this keeps coming up. I ment fine gameplay wise (1 char is enough per person at a time ), I agree it maybe not be fine for the mods having to work through all the trouble. If the whole point is to ease the work of moderators then just allow unlimited alts with no restrictions. Is that the case ? Nope. It is not fine gameplay wise. It has nothing to do with moderator workload. How so ? (not including the problems of familys playing from the same IP) why does a player need an alt(s) he can interact with ? The whole point of an mmo is to interact with others not only yourself

Actually it is not fine as it is now, which is why this keeps coming up. I ment fine gameplay wise (1 char is enough per person at a time ), I agree it maybe not be fine for the mods having to work through all the trouble. If the whole point is to ease the work of moderators then just allow unlimited alts with no restrictions. Is that the case ?

Hang on hang on, now you're saying "unlimited alts", anything i'm saying is related to having as little as one alt that can be traded with... i cant figure out what you're suggesting Cona My straight up question; with whatever it is that you are suggesting, if i could log in 2 chars, without hax0ring the client, would they be allowed to trade? If your suggestion has become: Allow multiplay, but limit the amout of logged in chars from an IP to a 'low' number, sounds good. I just didn't see the point in the 'make the client (try) and detect other running clients, and not work if any found'. My suggestion is based on the bosses first post, where he doesnt put a limit on the amount of alts allowed.( you quoted me from Cru's post which missed half my suggestion out,which was based on Radu's post of maybe 3-4+ harving for the main) If you allow alts to be logged in at the same time but limit the number allowed per IP then the mods would still have to check to see if player A had 2 alts or 3 or 4 etc.So only slightly lessens their workload So imo you have 3 choices A ) allow total unlimited freedom of alts (with all the problems that might bring) B ) Allow alts and between alt trading etc but only allow 1 logged in at a time C ) keep at as it is now.(which is fine imo)

But, all this is just so Anti is less-so 10 free pp's? While just for the likes of me; HoS, HS, inorg:6, vegetal:4, arti:1... would all become "free" pp's? ...why bother with this just for the sake of Anti? (Again i wanna stress, i dont think these being "free pp's" is bad, everyone will be able to do it, all fair.) Not just anti, ppl have raised alot of other possible problems with allowing unlimited alts.. such no more need for rosts while training, pvp, resource sitting (even worse if they are depletable). resupplying main at spawns etc etc etc If it was just about anti i would say just remove the perk

No. 1. Two computers, One desk. 2. I'm 99.9% sure without touching the client's code i can run more than one at a time, no matter what method of implementation is used. My OS controls my apps, and i control my OS... i know that's not the case with some people, but tis for me Well in that case you would have the alts tied to one account. as it stands now each char is a seperate account. How it could be is when you type in your password it takes you to your char list to choose which one you log in (ie your account being all your chars not just one). Logging on from a seperate computer to the same account would A ) not be possible while the other is open or B ) in the case of a forced log, logging out the original

Why bother? What's the point? ...and if i am capable of having 2 chars logged on at once, than i am controlling, with what you're suggesting would they be allowed to trade? If the client was made to only allow 1 logged in at a time and you had 2 ,then you have hacked the client no ?

sweet. we l33t puter nerdz will have an advantage... as we should. O im sure l33t puter nerdz would find a way around it, but if they got caught it should be a lifetime ban or total sto and skills wipe, none of this 1 month ban soft stuff Ah, that's what i wanted to determine. You guys are suggesting, in essence, nothing different than what we have now: You're still wanting what's currently defined in EL standards as "illegal multiplay" to be illegal. So why bother? It's a waste of a client developers time. erm no, if you had read my full post in which Cru quoted from, you would see the suggestion came with player being able to have as many "alts" as they wanted but only one logged on at a time, trading between alts would be done via an NPC. Limiting players to 1 char logged at a time per comp would do away with most of the problems players have raised. ie: resource sitting/pvp/spawn hogging/bypassing anti perk while still allowing alts and familys to play together on seperate computers with out any problems. Edit: So it wouldnt be illegal to have alts, but as it is now it would be illegal to hack the client to serve your own needs

sweet. we l33t puter nerdz will have an advantage... as we should. O im sure l33t puter nerdz would find a way around it, but if they got caught it should be a lifetime ban or total sto and skills wipe, none of this 1 month ban soft stuff

One way to solve the alt problem and not sure if its possible programming wise, would be to programme the client so only one window per computer could be opened, any further windows would overide the original. Then players could be allowed to have as many alts as they wanted. How the alts would trade with each other is (WARNING idea used in another game ) via a postal system. An Npc would be accessed by player A he types in the name of the alt he wishes to send items to, deposites the items, the alt would then go to the same Npc and retrieve them. Since Npc's ignore anti it solves that problem Families are safe ( unless they use the same computer at the same time which I doudt) No abusing the alts by resource sitting/spawn hogging/alt pvp etc etc etc

That is an issue, but we can make rules against camping at resources. Very easy to detect if players from the same IP do that, then I can make it so they can't harvest for a few hours. Instead of having the counter on the resources, would it be possible to have them tied to the player ? ie: player A has a hourly/daily harv limit at a certain spot, when that limit is reached they have to move, would stop ppl with multi alts depleting resources and also would negate problems with time zone differance

Anything that makes mobs auto attack you is bad imo (apart from normal ignore level), the whole point of removing the neg effect from the TS pots was to help stop this. Ie: Player A tsing down and taking 4+ Mobs If you want more than one mob at a time, there are ways such at Life drain and mana drain, which can be difficult and expensive, but hey it shouldnt be easy xp ( a/d gives alot of xp as it stands )

If being realistic shouldnt places like damp caves have cold dmg ? but then again probs get the harvesters up in arms