Increasing Playerbase/Targets/Interest: Legalised Multying

[Alcibiades]

Somehow; 90 % of posts in this thread are CFALCON responding to other peoples posts; but the posts aint there.

Overactive moderators.

C'mon guys; we have less than 400 players in game; hardly ever more than 50 peops in IRC and now the mods are killing discussions in Forums too ?

yeah i was WTFing a lot over that. I don't know if it's mods, or the poster deleting their posts, but it makes for a very bizarre reading experience.

As for the topic: More targets would be nice, but as Twigley et al have stated, it does nothing to improve the ratio of land/interest/players.

Furthermore, when reading, i didn't know if you had a plan for the ability to log in to your multis? Could you log in on both at the same time? Or would you only be able to do one then the other (akin to the 30m rule)? It would be annoying to be attacking one player (and his multis) to simply have him send them all out. That wouldn't increase targets or interest in my mind, it would reduce both, significantly.

I'm intrigued, definitely, CF, i think it could be an interesting experiment for a PW or something? open invite hosted by Azzer? played as another 'wonderful' mini round (who doesn't love mini rounds?! )

I think the game perhaps would be a lot more "interesting" if there were two worlds, with less ticks.

One game world, PURE-SOLO only. Every man for himself. No defending, with well tuned up AR.

One game world, as normal. Just for 20-30 days, with no dev modifier.

In the 'normal' game world, are there solos included like a truly normal World 1, or have you simply moved all the solos to the PS World?

 

[Dark_Angel]

Somehow; 90 % of posts in this thread are CFALCON responding to other peoples posts; but the posts aint there.

Overactive moderators.

C'mon guys; we have less than 400 players in game; hardly ever more than 50 peops in IRC and now the mods are killing discussions in Forums too ?

"CrimsonFury" removed a number of his own posts, no moderation has taken place on this thread.

 

[CrimsonFury88]

Somehow; 90 % of posts in this thread are CFALCON responding to other peoples posts; but the posts aint there.

Overactive moderators.

C'mon guys; we have less than 400 players in game; hardly ever more than 50 peops in IRC and now the mods are killing discussions in Forums too ?

"CrimsonFury" removed a number of his own posts, no moderation has taken place on this thread.

I did indeed.

CFalcon moaned about me being the only person talking. So to teach him for being ungrateful, I removed my posts so it was only him talking ¬_¬

 

[Alcibiades]

considering he quoted you almost everytime, i'm going to have to say he won

 

[CrimsonFury88]

considering he quoted you almost everytime, i'm going to have to say he won

"Won".

Oh god, not you as well.

Total contradiction of your post in the other thread

Sounding a bit more like Alciholic rather than Alcibiades XD

 

[Alcibiades]

Yes my friend. Debates have 'winners' and 'losers' despite what others say.

I have nothing against you personally, other than that we, more often than not, seem to e on the opposite side of arguments.

I think CF rebutted most of your points quite well, so if we're scoring people here, he 'won' and you 'lost'; not to say what you posted wasn't valuable, but if you tried to 'teach him a lesson' by deleting your posts, i would think you didn't manage to do it very effectively

 

[CrimsonFury88]

I think the game perhaps would be a lot more "interesting" if there were two worlds, with less ticks.

One game world, PURE-SOLO only. Every man for himself. No defending, with well tuned up AR.

One game world, as normal. Just for 20-30 days, with no dev modifier.

In the 'normal' game world, are there solos included like a truly normal World 1, or have you simply moved all the solos to the PS World?

Apologies for missing this one...

I think in the normal world, solo's should be included but without p-naps and with standard levels of AR, to encourage the alliance game.

The pure-solo, "no p-naps with improved AR" world would be for the soloing.

So then you can have a champion(s) of the team game, and a solitary winner of the solo game.

There would be immense amounts of competition in a world where it is purely all about yourself, and I think that's probably the rivalry that people are crying out for. You'd just need to bring back the "global politics" I've heard about to bring about the banter.

 

[Max]

I think that, as I think Twigley mentioned, allowing people to multi would only mask the problem of a shrinking playerbase. Sure, there would be more IDs around the place, but this wouldn't necessarily solve the problem.

As much as I would love to have a Pure Solo world, clearly some people prefer allied play and others prefer solo. If we were to split the playerbase into two chunks, it would mean even fewer targets for each round and no alliance / solo rivalry, which for me is an enjoyable dynamic of the game. I think that a Pure Solo PW for 2 weeks (with perhaps prizes for a variety of different goals?) might help mix things up and stimulate some more enthusiasm, but in W1 I really think we're better off mixing solos and allied players alike.

If we want to increase the playerbase, I think that the mobile phone market is the way to target it. Make bushtarion slimmed down and available to play on the mobile, and I think that it could be onto a winner.

 

[CrimsonFury88]

I think that, as I think Twigley mentioned, allowing people to multi would only mask the problem of a shrinking playerbase. Sure, there would be more IDs around the place, but this wouldn't necessarily solve the problem.

As much as I would love to have a Pure Solo world, clearly some people prefer allied play and others prefer solo. If we were to split the playerbase into two chunks, it would mean even fewer targets for each round and no alliance / solo rivalry, which for me is an enjoyable dynamic of the game. I think that a Pure Solo PW for 2 weeks (with perhaps prizes for a variety of different goals?) might help mix things up and stimulate some more enthusiasm, but in W1 I really think we're better off mixing solos and allied players alike.

If we want to increase the playerbase, I think that the mobile phone market is the way to target it. Make bushtarion slimmed down and available to play on the mobile, and I think that it could be onto a winner.

Flashtarion.

When you log on you get bright flashing lights and red's everywhere saying

"YOU JUS GOT ZEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEEEEEED".

Complete with sirens when you recieve incomings.

 

[Max]

Pure genius Crimson, I can see it as a flagship Apple applet now

 

[Hobo]

I don't play world of warcraft, but I'm under the impression that you're allowed to have several characters simultaneously on there? To keep up interest in the game and allow people to fully explore all the various ways of playing it? That's what I'm driving at here.

You can, but having one or more character in WoW doesn't change the actual mechanics of the game, as you can only play one character at once.

For me this change would only be a 'plaster over a crack' change that fabricates the truth.

And just for the record, I am for rounds being shorter than they currently are to stop boredom and keep things fresh.

What he said about the round length

3 months...... if your a new player three months is a VERY long time. then if you want to try something else you can only chose one route.... 4 routes a year. Asking for a lot of commitment.

 

[Davs]

I don't play world of warcraft, but I'm under the impression that you're allowed to have several characters simultaneously on there? To keep up interest in the game and allow people to fully explore all the various ways of playing it? That's what I'm driving at here.

You can, but having one or more character in WoW doesn't change the actual mechanics of the game, as you can only play one character at once.

For me this change would only be a 'plaster over a crack' change that fabricates the truth.

And just for the record, I am for rounds being shorter than they currently are to stop boredom and keep things fresh.

What he said about the round length

3 months...... if your a new player three months is a VERY long time. then if you want to try something else you can only chose one route.... 4 routes a year. Asking for a lot of commitment.

but many new players take a long time to fully develop their route...

 

[Davs]

I think the game perhaps would be a lot more "interesting" if there were two worlds, with less ticks.

One game world, PURE-SOLO only. Every man for himself. No defending, with well tuned up AR.

One game world, as normal. Just for 20-30 days, with no dev modifier.

With the PS world, when you say "tuned up AR" do you actually mean make AR more sensitive?
I regularly play solo, but even I'll say that the AR currently in W1 would be OTT for PS world. As it stands, if someone gets solo they're pretty much off-limits for a few days before someone else can attack them. If this was the case for EVERY ID in the round, it would make the game rather tedious imo.

I love the idea of a PS round, but I think it would be better for AR to be tuned down rather than up to actually make the round interesting.

 

[Elevnos]

ie. if I had an ID in the same alliance as Ogluk, I wouldn't be allowed to have a different ID in a different alliance that Ogluk was also in.

But that would mean that if you had the alliances of 20 people then you're going to need at least 400 alliances if you all want to join separate ones with different accounts, and that's only with 2 ids.
That would be one stupidly large alliance page.

 

[Davs]

ie. if I had an ID in the same alliance as Ogluk, I wouldn't be allowed to have a different ID in a different alliance that Ogluk was also in.

But that would mean that if you had the alliances of 20 people then you're going to need at least 400 alliances if you all want to join separate ones with different accounts, and that's only with 2 ids.
That would be one stupidly large alliance page.

you could make it so that you can only have one allied ID...

not that I support this idea

 

[CFalcon]

Moving into this thread to stop cluttering the bot alliance one.

do tell what was illogical about twigley's posts in that thread?

Let's see, Twigs' points were

1. The ratio of inactive and active players would be the same
2. You'd have the same amount of people sending at the same amount of targets, just more ids doing it.
3. You would have the exact same ratio of acre:id than before.
4. "I don't see any benifits?"

So, addressing them in order.

1. This merely highlights that the idea isn't as good as getting 10,000 new people to join. That doesn't make the idea a bad one.

And before anyone says "doesn't make it a good idea either"; there are other benefits to this idea. This point is equivalent to saying "Ice cream is tasty. This doesn't make the idea a good one. ROFLSHOTDOWN"

2. More ID's isn't a good thing? :s If there are more ID's, there is more variety (in terms of routes, playstyles, encounters, interactions etc), more interest in the game, people are less likely to RQ when one of their IDs gets 0'ed, people interact with different people more building community..... I could go on. There are *plenty* of benefits to more IDs.

3. Not neccesarily true. Hard to compare stats with previous rounds, due to land formula changing, but I don't think the ratio would be the same. Land has a way of migrating upwards. And even if it were true, that doesn't make the idea a bad one.

4. Lunacy. As I said in 2. more ID's brings plenty of benefits in terms of interest, variety, community and player retention.


Satisfied?

EDIT: and if you're going to nitpick, Twigs made another point about this being a "plastering over cracks" solution to dwindling playerbase. To which my original rebuttal still stands: plaster > nothing.

 

[tobapopalos]

I am not satisfied. More bots or more multis are both horribly desperate ideas.

 

[Alcibiades]

I am not satisfied. More bots or more multis are both horribly desperate ideas.

While I do like you CF, I don't think multis being legal is a valid idea. :shock:

 

[Garrett2]

Moving into this thread to stop cluttering the bot alliance one.

do tell what was illogical about twigley's posts in that thread?

4. Lunacy. As I said in 2. more ID's brings plenty of benefits in terms of interest, variety, community and player retention.


Satisfied?

EDIT: and if you're going to nitpick, Twigs made another point about this being a "plastering over cracks" solution to dwindling playerbase. To which my original rebuttal still stands: plaster > nothing.

first and foremost, just cuz you had responses doesn't mean the concerns were Illogical.... 'You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.'

furthermore, legal multis just entertains the needs of a few and doesn't help the game in the least.

more id's might bring variety, but only in the limited of senses. It's still the same players. The community wouldn't grow from multi's, and would not help revitalize the playerbase. It would simply allow the few left more accounts to rape bots and eventually themselves as their multi's would be the only targets left to them at some point in the round.

In that sense it doesn't even equal plaster. It's more like smoke and mirrors to make oneself believe that the game is full of life.

 

[CFalcon]

Of course this is a cover up for a lack of players. That's kind of the point.

furthermore, legal multis just entertains the needs of a few and doesn't help the game in the least.

Right now, all we have left are the few. What's wrong with boosting the entertainment value for them? They might hang around longer and remain active community members.

I don't know how I can spell it out more clearly. This is not an alternative solution to advertising, new player protection, tutorials, sleep protection etc, the things which might help draw new people in and retain them. This is purely to try and keep the interest up of those already here.

Honestly tell me the game wouldn't be marginally more interesting if everyone had (or at least had the option of) 1 allied ID and 1 solo ID? I know I would like to have a solo briber ID on the side for fun, but I don't want to dedicate an entire round to it, and I know other people who feel the same. Why would you want to deny that option?


And btw, I'm only arguing this because I like a debate. The suggestions forum has been purely academic for years.