Flaws in F2P Design [Archive] - PlanetSide Universe

p0intman

2012-05-25, 03:36 PM

I wrote this last night, very quick thing, but go read it (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=698926&postcount=119), ill wait.

To expand on it, F2P means that I can have an alt on an opposing empire, spying on things for me on another monitor. It means that I can have a cloaky alt specced as a leader to allow for me and my entire team to spawn on him when he is inside a base, behind someone's lines. It means I can use his resources to spawn vehicles for me and my team, when we don't have any extra. It means I can have an alt dedicated to inter-empire sabotage on an enemy empire. I can have my alt bombing in a liberator when I'm flying it, or gunning when I'm driving a tank. I can have an alt dedicated to being a beefy max that spawns on me when I've cloaked into a base and want to surprise people.

Theres no cost, so theres no reason NOT to do any of that. Whereas theres a subscription to deter people in planetside 1, theres no such deterrence here.

Prove me wrong, I dare you to try.

JPalmer

2012-05-25, 03:39 PM

You can bomb and fly at the same time? Sir you deserve to have the ability to do this.

The cloaker just to spawn on will just take a squad slot away by the way.

Sirisian

2012-05-25, 03:42 PM

Prove me wrong, I dare you to try.
Here's what I'm going to say. Go for it. I don't think the game should deter players from creating multiple characters across factions. If someone wants to play multiple characters the game should let them. It's really no different than the people in EVE with multiple accounts or people in WoW with multiple computers. If someone wants to do it then let them.

The effect on the game is extremely exaggerated.

onwee

2012-05-25, 03:43 PM

Your multiboxing team will not be more coordinated than my real player team.

Your move.

Gogita

2012-05-25, 03:44 PM

You do that, log in and out and switch between different specced characters. You'll be wasting a lot of time doing so and ruin the fun for you.

You cannot bomb in a liberator, it's not in the game

You cannot squad spawn inside, only outside

If you want to put so much effort just to gain a slight advantage, go ahead, you won't impact the game and hardly anyone else is willing do that.

p0intman

2012-05-25, 03:45 PM

You can bomb and fly at the same time? Sir you deserve to have the ability to do this.

The cloaker just to spawn on will just take a squad slot away by the way.

The nature of VTOL aircraft allows for it, and one spot doesn't mean much when it can be used to surprise, and stun people. You would be amazed at how long it takes some people to realize they've been caught in a trap. Assuming full size, ten person squads at launch... thats potentially 9-30+ people for a platoon that can be made to suddenly appear pretty much.

Your multiboxing team will not be more coordinated than my real player team.

Your move.

Its about using one alt character for utility for a larger group of players.

Here's what I'm going to say. Go for it. I don't think the game should deter players from creating multiple characters across factions. If someone wants to play multiple characters the game should let them. It's really no different than the people in EVE with multiple accounts or people in WoW with multiple computers. If someone wants to do it then let them.

The effect on the game is extremely exaggerated.

Thats a pretty good example of what can be done with multiple characters with EVE. A cloaking leader alt is effectively the same as a cyno alt in EVE. Cyno alts can do a lot of terrible things to people.

Here's what I'm going to say. Go for it. I don't think the game should deter players from creating multiple characters across factions. If someone wants to play multiple characters the game should let them. It's really no different than the people in EVE with multiple accounts or people in WoW with multiple computers. If someone wants to do it then let them.

The effect on the game is extremely exaggerated.

You do that, log in and out and switch between different specced characters. You'll be wasting a lot of time doing so and ruin the fun for you.

You cannot bomb in a liberator, it's not in the game

You cannot squad spawn inside, only outside

If you want to put so much effort just to gain a slight advantage, go ahead, you won't impact the game and hardly anyone else is willing do that.

I have multiple computers, using one alt for various utility when I need it is not a problem. As for spawning specifics, I can use such an alt to spawn right outside someone's door and walk in while bypassing other defenders that dont catch me.

Gogita

2012-05-25, 03:48 PM

Gandhi

2012-05-25, 03:49 PM

The nature of VTOL aircraft allows for it, and one spot doesn't mean much when it can be used to surprise, and stun people. You would be amazed at how long it takes some people to realize they've been caught in a trap. Assuming full size, ten person squads at launch... thats potentially 9-30+ people for a platoon that can be made to suddenly appear pretty much.
You're assuming you can invite enemies into your squad, I really doubt that. Unless you're talking about a same empire alt doing the "anchoring" for you, in that case what's the point? Surely in a 30 man platoon someone will have squad spawning anyway, there's no need for you to go through all the trouble of sneaking an alt in there. And what's your main doing while you're sneaking in? Being totally useless. I don't see a problem at all from a balance standpoint. If you want to go through all that hassle be my guest.

KTNApollo

2012-05-25, 03:49 PM

you won't be able to control two characters effectively (piloting/bombing) if you want to stay alive for more than ten seconds after entering combat. /thread

Gogita

2012-05-25, 03:51 PM

The nature of VTOL aircraft allows for it, and one spot doesn't mean much when it can be used to surprise, and stun people. You would be amazed at how long it takes some people to realize they've been caught in a trap. Assuming full size, ten person squads at launch... thats potentially 9-30+ people for a platoon that can be made to suddenly appear pretty much.

Theoretically this was also possible in Planetside 1. Nothing in the system stopped a person from doing so. The player only had to pay for a second account. What you are worried about is BS, because the effort one has to put in it to have a whole team played by one person deters people from using this strategy as casually as you imagine.

Rbstr

2012-05-25, 03:51 PM

I don't see how doing exactly what any person could do undermines anything.

Shogun

2012-05-25, 03:51 PM

you don´t need to use another account for spying. all gamedata will be released realtime and there will be info apps en masse

p0intman

2012-05-25, 03:54 PM

Also, how does "having a cloaker as leader and let it run behind enemy lines" count as exploiting the system? It sounds like you cannot imagine people working together as a group and can only see people kill whoring.

Any team can have a cloaker as a leader and let it run behind enemy lines to spawn their team....

The goal is not to determine if its useful, its to determine how people will use it for purposes other than what is intended by design. My experience says that if people can use a tool to bloat their ego via k/d design, they will do so without fail. I know quite enough about playing as a team, but thats not the purpose of this thread.

MyMeatStick

2012-05-25, 03:54 PM

p0intman

2012-05-25, 03:54 PM

you don´t need to use another account for spying. all gamedata will be released realtime and there will be info apps en masse

Doesnt matter, Higby claimed you wouldnt be able to change teams in the middle of the fight. I'm calling him a liar and/or incompetent.

p0intman

2012-05-25, 03:58 PM

How many computers can you afford to run this off? / Good luck trying to sandbox/VM this graphically intensive game on a single computer?

What a waste of time and money?

You'd have to log out of one character to log in another one and by that time there's no point in what you were originally going to do because someone else has already done it without the need for extra accounts?

Having 1 spy on another faction will make no difference to the platoons on teamspeak and squad chats?

You would need to actually use those characters in the first place to gain the right certs to do what you want with each of your accounts?

It won't make a blind bit of difference to mine or anyone else's gameplay?

So many reasons why this thread is moot. Sorry bud!

I have two computers right next to one another, and just finished building my newest in december.

Imagine that while I'm talking on TS, I can have an alt sitting and watching your tank column move out, and follow you while I relay their exact position to others over voice by the minute. This is much faster than any XML/Api data can provide information.

KTNApollo

2012-05-25, 03:59 PM

Doesnt matter, Higby claimed you wouldnt be able to change teams in the middle of the fight. I'm calling him a liar and/or incompetent.

Why are we flaming the discussion with haters/trolls?

Coreldan

2012-05-25, 03:59 PM

I have two computers right next to one another, and just finished building my newest in december.

Imagine that while I'm talking on TS, I can have an alt sitting and watching your tank column move out, and follow you while I relay their exact position to others over voice by the minute. This is much faster than any XML/Api data can provide information.

Not like this was unusual even in the first Planetside.

Probably will be a bigger problem now, but it happened all the time the Planetside all the same.

Most decent folks had some amount of opsec stuff going on. EVE is also notorious for this thing itself. Any smart big alliance intel chat didnt allow for blue intel to be given for this exact reason, there was always spies in the chat.

Gogita

2012-05-25, 03:59 PM

Dude, you don't see it do you?

Yes it is possible, yes you can have multiple computers and have an account on each of them and then have an account online on each of them....

But how incredibly pathetic are you when you do that... just have some friends over and play together in a team....

Really, how many people have the opportunity to do so Pointman? How many people have multiple computers available to do so and have no friends to play with them? How much of an effect does this have if a handful of players control a completely incompetent team on their own, whose power is limited by only 2 hands?

p0intman

2012-05-25, 04:00 PM

Why are we flaming the discussion with haters/trolls?

What was claimed was patently false. There is no way they can prevent it, and trying to regulate design around it will not work.

Dude, you don't see it do you?

Yes it is possible, yes you can have multiple computers and have an account on each of them and then have an account online on each of them....

But how incredibly pathetic are you when you do that... just have some friends over and play together in a team....

Really, how many people have the opportunity to do so Pointman? How many people have multiple computers available to do so and have no friends to play with them? How much of an effect does this have if a handful of players have a completely incompetent team on their own whose power is limited by only 2 hands?

Not about what I would do. If you have ever actually played with me, you would know that the assumption does not fit me. It does, however, fit others.

KTNApollo

2012-05-25, 04:02 PM

What was claimed was patently false. There is no way they can prevent it, and trying to regulate design around it will not work.

Not about what [I] would do. If you have ever actually played with me, you would know that the assumption does not fit me. It does, however, fit others.

You can't have two different empires on one server on one account. They never said you couldn't have two accounts with different empires that you could use to spy.

p0intman

2012-05-25, 04:02 PM

You can't have two different empires on one server on one account. They never said you couldn't have two accounts with different empires that you could use to spy.

Its still the same thing, its splitting hairs. It doesnt make it any less false. I will do exactly this upon launch just to prove the point for a month or two.

Not like this was unusual even in the first Planetside.

Probably will be a bigger problem now, but it happened all the time the Planetside all the same.

Most decent folks had some amount of opsec stuff going on. EVE is also notorious for this thing itself. Any smart big alliance intel chat didnt allow for blue intel to be given for this exact reason, there was always spies in the chat.
GOOD JOB, YOU GET IT!

Turdicus

2012-05-25, 04:06 PM

p0intman

2012-05-25, 04:10 PM

yeah...it does. I don't think there is a reason to stop this kind of behavior because it will have such a paltry effect on the gameplay. A few guys running multiple accounts at the same time wont do much to influence a game with battles raging with hundreds of combatants.

Hacking is the real issue with f2p, but if SOE says it is working on it then we will have to let them work on it.

You don't get it. You seriously don't see how this can and will be abused. I can put an alt in any outfit I want, listen to their TS3 and relay information to my squad at speeds much faster than any XML exports/imports can display them.

I can have an alt flying a galaxy, orbiting an operational area for my squad to spawn in while I'm on my main shooting you in the face.

Better yet, when my empire is losing, all I have to do is reboot my client (happens all the damn time, infact) and log in to a different account, same server, different empire. Provided I spread time across them equally, I have equal characters on two or more empires, on the same server, potentially in different outfits.

You don't think that I won't probably give intel about those outfits to my main empire? Because, if I do it correctly, there is nothing you can do about it. At all. This completely negates one empire, one server. I have been doing exactly this in EVE for years.

MyMeatStick

2012-05-25, 04:13 PM

What do they gain out of this?

They won't gain more resources out of it and they won't gain a better KD ratio out of it because in the time they would be taking out of one account that player could have already had those kills.

The fact that this hasn't come up before means that you're the only guy to think of it so far, I'd count that as a win.

Delete this thread before you give people ideas.

onwee

2012-05-25, 04:13 PM

You don't get it. You seriously don't see how this can and will be abused. I can put an alt in any outfit I want, listen to their TS3 and relay information to my squad at speeds much faster than any XML exports/imports can display them.

I can have an alt flying a galaxy, orbiting an operational area for my squad to spawn in while I'm on my main shooting you in the face.

Better yet, when my empire is losing, all I have to do is reboot my client (happens all the damn time, infact) and log in to a different account, same server, different empire. Provided I spread time across them equally, I have equal characters on two or more empires, on the same server, potentially in different outfits.

You don't think that I won't probably give intel about those outfits to my main empire?

You don't need alts to do any of this. You are replacing actual roles with alts and making it sound game breaking.

Gogita

2012-05-25, 04:13 PM

You don't get it. You seriously don't see how this can and will be abused. I can put an alt in any outfit I want, listen to their TS3 and relay information to my squad at speeds much faster than any XML exports/imports can display them.

I can have an alt flying a galaxy, orbiting an operational area for my squad to spawn in while I'm on my main shooting you in the face.

Better yet, when my empire is losing, all I have to do is reboot my client (happens all the damn time, infact) and log in to a different account, same server, different empire. Provided I spread time across them equally, I have equal characters on two or more empires, on the same server, potentially in different outfits.

You don't think that I won't probably give intel about those outfits to my main empire? Because, if I do it correctly, there is nothing you can do about it. At all. This completely negates one empire, one server.

Nope, and we don't care because you're blowing this way out of proportions

p0intman

2012-05-25, 04:15 PM

You don't need alts to do any of this. You are replacing actual roles with alts and making it sound game breaking.

You tell me that when I'm relaying your TS conversations to another empire word for word.

Hyiero

2012-05-25, 04:15 PM

Imagine that while I'm talking on TS, I can have an alt sitting and watching your tank column move out, and follow you while I relay their exact position to others over voice by the minute. This is much faster than any XML/Api data can provide information.

No offense but even if you see my tank column move out and you are relaying it to your buddies which will more likely let you set up some type of defense and give you a slight advantage,this game is a FPS down to its core. So you still have to be a group of better players to stop our assault or have greater numbers than we do,if neither of these happen,you have just officially wasted your time.

Turdicus

2012-05-25, 04:16 PM

It's fine dude, it happened in PS1 and outfits dealt with it. Not a big deal

MyMeatStick

2012-05-25, 04:16 PM

One or two whining babies switching empires because they are "Losing" Is no skin off my back either.

Gogita

2012-05-25, 04:17 PM

You tell me that when I'm relaying your TS conversations to another empire word for word.

Man, you must be enjoying the game soo much right? pfff... pathetic

p0intman

2012-05-25, 04:18 PM

One or two whining babies switching empires because they are "Losing" Is no skin off my back either.

There are a lot more than that on PS1 doing that.

Hyiero

2012-05-25, 04:18 PM

I can have an alt flying a galaxy, orbiting an operational area for my squad to spawn in while I'm on my main shooting you in the face.

You sure are one skilled player ... and deserve to do whatever it is you want,not only are you flying without getting killed but your shooting me in the same instance.

KTNApollo

2012-05-25, 04:19 PM

Stop feeding the troll/hater and close the thread please.

onwee

2012-05-25, 04:20 PM

You tell me that when I'm relaying your TS conversations to another empire word for word.

Now you're going from a flaw in F2P to just spying. Two completely different things. Like I said, F2P isn't the cause of this. Any outfit worth a damn understands how to deter spies.

Edit: clarifying alt vs F2P

IronMole

2012-05-25, 04:22 PM

I can just headshot you guys from across the map without having to worry about my accounts...

p0intman

2012-05-25, 04:22 PM

Now you're going from a flaw in F2P to just spying. Two completely different things. Like I said, you don't need an alt to do this. Any outfit worth a damn understands how to deter spies.

Its a flaw because I'm pretty sure they won't be designing for this, and it is in fact facilitating it. It doesn't make the 'one server one empire' ideal any less false, point made, yeah?

Gogita

2012-05-25, 04:26 PM

Alright alright, P0intman little boy, no system is perfect and you are blaming all possible ways to "cheat" on the fact that it is F2P. All of this is still possible even if it is P2P, because you just need 2 accounts.

And if you say "well but you need to pay for 2 accounts and that deters it".... Well, YOU NEED 2 FREAKING COMPUTERS TO DO THIS! How does that not deter this so called magnificent strategy of yours....

onwee

2012-05-25, 04:30 PM

Its a flaw because I'm pretty sure they won't be designing for this, and it is in fact facilitating it. It doesn't make the 'one server one empire' ideal any less false, point made, yeah?

Sorry I had to edit my post to clarify alt vs F2P.

Is your concern really F2P, or spying, or multiboxing? All of the above?

The concerns are valid. They really are. But that's why they are making the information so available. It's not an advantage if anybody can do this. I think multiboxing would be more problematic than helpful. I'd rather have an actual friend play that role than me play two. Spying will also exist no matter what. P2P doesn't stop eve spies.

I think the major problem would be empire loyalty if people made multiple accounts. But that's not anything that will affect gameplay for me.

p0intman

2012-05-25, 04:33 PM

Sorry I had to edit my post to clarify alt vs F2P.

Is your concern really F2P, or spying, or multiboxing? All of the above?

The concerns are valid. They really are. But that's why they are making the information so available. It's not an advantage if anybody can do this. I think multiboxing would be more problematic than helpful. I'd rather have an actual friend play that role than me play two. Spying will also exist no matter what. P2P doesn't stop eve spies.

The combination of the three creates a perfect storm of circumstances that nullifies any other design meant to be neat for empire loyalty to keep to one empire per server. It is effectively false that Matt Higby claimed that people wouldn't be able to empire hop. Its a lie if he consciously thought about it.

Alright alright, P0intman little boy, no system is perfect and you are blaming all possible ways to "cheat" on the fact that it is F2P. All of this is still possible even if it is P2P, because you just need 2 accounts.

And if you say "well but you need to pay for 2 accounts and that deters it".... Well, YOU NEED 2 FREAKING COMPUTERS TO DO THIS! How does that not deter this so called magnificent strategy of yours....

One good computer can be made to multibox more than one account, two is useful, but not mandatory.

This will make you rage:
https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/

Cline

2012-05-25, 04:35 PM

It means I can have an alt dedicated to inter-empire sabotage on an enemy empire.

Because that obviously doesn't happen now. Oh wait!:rolleyes:

On a serious note. If you can multibox and be successful, more power to you. Go for it! I'm on your side!

I personally can't do it. I'll take my one screen, one computer.

Gogita

2012-05-25, 04:36 PM

The combination of the three creates a perfect storm of circumstances that nullifies any other design meant to be neat for empire loyalty to keep to one empire per server. It is effectively false that Matt Higby claimed that people wouldn't be able to empire hop. Its a lie if he consciously thought about it.

One good computer can be made to multibox more than one account, two is useful, but not mandatory.

This will make you rage:
https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/

So what prevented people from doing it in PS1?

p0intman

2012-05-25, 04:38 PM

So what prevented people from doing it in PS1?

Nothing, it actually makes my point that its just opening it up further. I think one of the main reasons it wasn't so common was that PS1 wasn't as popular as EVE. But hey, trying to draw the COD and bf3 crowds in.. can't assure you there won't be problems. I'm betting it'll be widespread.

onwee

2012-05-25, 04:40 PM

It is effectively false that Matt Higby claimed that people wouldn't be able to empire hop. Its a lie if he consciously thought about it.

I think I'm done now.

Mechzz

2012-05-25, 04:41 PM

*yawn*

Gogita

2012-05-25, 04:41 PM

Nothing, it actually makes my point that its just opening it up further. I think one of the main reasons it wasn't so common was that PS1 wasn't as popular as EVE. But hey, trying to draw the COD and bf3 crowds in.. can't assure you there won't be problems. I'm betting it'll be widespread.

So your whole argument that the F2P model is causing is is completely false and your whole argument's basis is the fact that more people will play PS2? Waw....

JPalmer

2012-05-25, 04:44 PM

Could careless for any of these gameplay things. I just hope they come up with something to limit any attempting hackers to one account per computer or something.

roguy

2012-05-25, 04:46 PM

Nothing, it actually makes my point that its just opening it up further. I think one of the main reasons it wasn't so common was that PS1 wasn't as popular as EVE.

Or..... Perhaps there just wasn't much point doing it in the first place? In the years i played PS i wasn't ever aware of spy alts... Any "intel" we got from other empires came from opposing outfits with whom we had some "connexions".

So really, some guys actually spent 50 euros/dollars to do that? :rofl:

Higby

2012-05-25, 04:52 PM

I never said anything about people not being able to play on multiple accounts, in fact I've said several times we won't actively do anything to discourage that and that outfits would need to police their members themselves to avoid spies. I consider that meta-game. The difference now is that you don't have to pay a seperate monthly fee to spy on other empires, right? Is that the complaint? I don't get it.

p0intman

2012-05-25, 04:53 PM

Quovatis

2012-05-25, 04:53 PM

Similar thing existed with the Reserves for years in PS1. The world didn't end then.

MyMeatStick

2012-05-25, 04:54 PM

I'm not worried and no one else here has agreed with you on any of your points.

Even if this does happen, it won't change my empires gameplay and to be honest I'd rather people multi-client than use third party cheating software.

Hacking is a much bigger issue than this.

Satexios

2012-05-25, 04:56 PM

Your claim that people would be kept to 1 empire per server is false. period, doesnt matter what its used for.

He said 1 account per empire/server.. which is correct. Don't know why you are trying to call him out, but I suspect it has something to do with you and boredom.

Gogita

2012-05-25, 04:57 PM

Higby, please don't put any effort in replying to nut jobs, you're way too important for this.

Higby

2012-05-25, 04:58 PM

Your claim that people would be kept to 1 empire per server is false. period, doesnt matter what its used for.

I said that you would not be able to create multiple characters (of different empires, although with our cert design the distinction is sort of moot and we'll probably just say 1 character period) on the same server on a single account.

Noone ever said that players wouldn't be able to create multiple characters on multiple empires if they wanted to, how can you stop that with a pay-to-play game? Lock down IP addresses? So if you go to the starbucks you can play your other characters? Come on. This is like if I said "We won't let you chat with players on other empires" and you coming here calling me a liar because we're not preventing you from getting on the phone with your friend on another empire.

Gimme a break, man!

p0intman

2012-05-25, 04:58 PM

He said 1 account per empire/server.. which is correct. Don't know why you are trying to call him out, but I suspect it has something to do with you and boredom.

Its also stupid design, and fairly pointless given what I've said. There are too many loopholes for it to be worthwhile.

I said that you would not be able to create multiple characters (of different empires, although with our cert design the distinction is sort of moot and we'll probably just say 1 character period) on the same server on a single account.

Noone ever said that players wouldn't be able to create multiple characters on multiple empires if they wanted to, how can you stop that with a pay-to-play game? Lock down IP addresses? So if you go to the starbucks you can play your other characters? Come on. This is like if I said "We won't let you chat with players on other empires" and you coming here calling me a liar because we're not preventing you from getting on the phone with your friend on another empire.

Gimme a break, man!

You say it like its something you're putting in for a design goal or something, I can and have proven that it can be circumvented. What is the design reason for it? I cant see one beyond data created for/by characters. The only other logical reason for it is to say that there are x accounts playing your game, when half might as well be alts.

Hell, they say 300k people play EVE. I say its 150k tops.

ichebu

2012-05-25, 04:59 PM

p0intman,

I totally get where you are coming from. I was one of the people that had a cloak scout alt for my corp - a necessity especially when it came to mining ops in 0.0.

However, in an FPS (even though it is persistent), I fail to see how this is really going to give so much of an advantage it can be classified as a cheat or exploit.

You reference EVE, so I'll go with that. In EVE, you have your alt triangulate several safe spots in a system and hop around in them - maybe even with Autohotkey so you don't have to worry about doing that manually. We all know this, right? It was a simple "set it and forget it" system that allowed for scouting systems and "warp to" points for fleets, so on.

The major difference you are neglecting is the method of travel methods between MMORPGs and MMOFPS/MMOTPS. Without getting into the nitty gritty of bot designing and other taboo software, you will have to manually maneuver and position yourself on the alternate account to be of any use. During that time, you would be "useless" on your main, I would imagine.
Once you're into position, sure, you might be able to lightly exploit your alt, but to the extent of changing the course of an entire battle? I highly doubt that.

Also, your argument seems to hinge on cloaking. EVE you could set yourself up to cloak indefinitely, and in PS1 (iirc) you could cloak nearly the same. Is that still going to be true in PS2? The brief encounter TB showed us with cloaking, it seemed to deplete at a significantly higher rate than what it was in PS1 - I could be wrong on this point though.

All in all, it honestly seems like you are blowing this way out of proportion, and taking some sort of personal vendetta to the devs. Seems like people need to calm down in this thread. As awesome as Planetside and Planetside 2 is/will be, they're games - no need to get personal with this stuff.

ArmedZealot

2012-05-25, 05:00 PM

Higby, please don't put any effort in replying to nut jobs, you're way too important for this.

:D I think it is cool that he gets involved. Hopefully when beta rolls around he will join in on the trashtalk too, unofficially of course.

MyMeatStick

2012-05-25, 05:01 PM

Its also stupid design, and fairly pointless given what I've said. There are too many loopholes for it to be worthwhile.

Stupid design?

Come up with a better one then.

onwee

2012-05-25, 05:02 PM

Its also stupid design, and fairly pointless given what I've said. There are too many loopholes for it to be worthwhile.

p0intman you went from voicing a valid concern to becoming a neckbard trolling on the internet. Grow up.

p0intman

2012-05-25, 05:04 PM

p0intman you went from voicing a valid concern to becoming a neckbard trolling on the internet. Grow up.

No, im not trolling. I'm quite simply saying that there is no logical reason for it and the loopholes will create problems. Simple probability says that two thousand people are more creative than 200 developers.

Novacane

2012-05-25, 05:05 PM

If someone wanted to spy with two accounts, they would do it if it was free or not. It just costs less if its free. Makes no difference on game play which payment model is used, just the accessibility of the game. Free means more are likely to try without consequence of having to drop $60 with the fear that they might only play 10 mins before they hate it.

Its FREE, stop complaining...

onwee

2012-05-25, 05:05 PM

No, im not trolling. I'm quite simply saying that there is no logical reason for it and the loopholes will create problems. Simple probability says that two thousand people are more creative than 200 developers.

Yes, your opinion is more important than decades of testing and experience with a successful international corporation.

You are just ranting, you don't even have a solution. You are basically telling the dev team "LOL F2P CONCEPT DOESN'T WORK, TIME FOR LAYOFFS" -- Even though F2P has proved incredibly successful.

Give it a break.

Baneblade

2012-05-25, 05:07 PM

The more there is to shoot at, the better off we all are.

MyMeatStick

2012-05-25, 05:08 PM

The more there is to shoot at, the better off we all are.

I like this, I like the person behind this post. Grats. :groovy:

SuperMorto

2012-05-25, 05:09 PM

Just watch Planetside TV its much easier! :D

Sirisian

2012-05-25, 05:09 PM

I said that you would not be able to create multiple characters (of different empires, although with our cert design the distinction is sort of moot and we'll probably just say 1 character period) on the same server on a single account.
Think about this more for membership remember. If you agree that making multiple accounts to have multiple characters of different empires on the same server isn't bad then having multiple characters of different empires on the same server on the same account shouldn't be game breaking either. (Hopefully all with the same character name if possible).

Hermes

2012-05-25, 05:10 PM

Generally you have addressed barely any of the points people have put to you here over 4 pages. You seem more concerned with short, evasive answers that look succinct, than actually defending your claims.

And (surprise) I agree with everyone else.

There's no difference between you multi-boxing those characters you describe and 2 people playing them from everyone elses perspective. Except you will be unable to play them both as effectively. And you have to pay for that setup.

No one would even know you were doing this, because just as legitimately it could be a couple of players working together. And people will be running in teams exactly because of this. It's predominantly a large scale game where your extra boxed player gets lost in the mix.

You are not negatively impacting anybody with this behaviour.

But please, carry on with your thread. You get a medal if everyone else gets bored and leaves before you do.

EDIT: So many replies while I typed :) lol

p0intman

2012-05-25, 05:11 PM

Yes, your opinion is more important than decades of testing and experience with a successful international corporation.

You are just ranting, you don't even have a solution. You are basically telling the dev team "LOL F2P CONCEPT DOESN'T WORK, TIME FOR LAYOFFS" -- Even though F2P has proved incredibly successful.

Give it a break.

And this is where you grossly misinterpret me. What I am saying is that one character per account per empire per server will not help this not be a problem. I cannot see a (logical) design reason for it that cannot be circumvented with minimal effort.

p0intman,

I totally get where you are coming from. I was one of the people that had a cloak scout alt for my corp - a necessity especially when it came to mining ops in 0.0.

However, in an FPS (even though it is persistent), I fail to see how this is really going to give so much of an advantage it can be classified as a cheat or exploit.

You reference EVE, so I'll go with that. In EVE, you have your alt triangulate several safe spots in a system and hop around in them - maybe even with Autohotkey so you don't have to worry about doing that manually. We all know this, right? It was a simple "set it and forget it" system that allowed for scouting systems and "warp to" points for fleets, so on.

The major difference you are neglecting is the method of travel methods between MMORPGs and MMOFPS/MMOTPS. Without getting into the nitty gritty of bot designing and other taboo software, you will have to manually maneuver and position yourself on the alternate account to be of any use. During that time, you would be "useless" on your main, I would imagine.
Once you're into position, sure, you might be able to lightly exploit your alt, but to the extent of changing the course of an entire battle? I highly doubt that.

Also, your argument seems to hinge on cloaking. EVE you could set yourself up to cloak indefinitely, and in PS1 (iirc) you could cloak nearly the same. Is that still going to be true in PS2? The brief encounter TB showed us with cloaking, it seemed to deplete at a significantly higher rate than what it was in PS1 - I could be wrong on this point though.

All in all, it honestly seems like you are blowing this way out of proportion, and taking some sort of personal vendetta to the devs. Seems like people need to calm down in this thread. As awesome as Planetside and Planetside 2 are/will be, they're games - no need to get personal with this stuff.

You know why I'm railing and ranting about it? Because it isn't logical. Its asking for problems, begging for them even. Single most frustating thing to me is design for novelty reasons, without a logical reason behind it because of 'ooh shiny'. The only exception to this are technical limits because of data retention or whatever else.

There does not seem to be a logical design reason, and it seems to only encourage it.

Is that something you all want to encourage? Is the idea to encourage the meta game? Is this a desirable outcome where trusting your own outfit members is as much of a problem as it is in EVE?

Mechzz

2012-05-25, 05:13 PM

...
But please, carry on with your thread. You get a medal if everyone else gets bored and leaves before you do.

Agreed.

Is this thread an example of grinding for forum rank by means of pointless posts?

Red Beard

2012-05-25, 05:15 PM

:D I think it is cool that he gets involved. Hopefully when beta rolls around he will join in on the trashtalk too, unofficially of course.

Account name: " "Higby" " lol

Novacane

2012-05-25, 05:19 PM

It's the internet, you can't get around people not being who they say they are. You can't fight spy accounts, the only thing you can do is to maybe try and track them by IP or unique hardware ID and try to match one person to two accounts then have someone or something watch their activity.

You can get around having the same IP using proxies or a VPN. You can have multiple emails, you can have multiple computers. Not much you can do.

It's really up to the Outfits to police their members if they believe that spys are that big of a problem.

LightningDriver

2012-05-25, 05:21 PM

People have had multiple accounts in every single team based MMO, DaoC, Warhammer, Planetside, etc. It's never made a difference.

onwee

2012-05-25, 05:22 PM

And this is where you grossly misinterpret me. What I am saying is that one character per account per empire per server will not help this not be a problem. I cannot see a (logical) design reason for it that cannot be circumvented with minimal effort.

You literally just told a whole team of 200 experienced game developers that their idea is stupid. What is there to misinterpret?

They thought of this a long time ago. Don't think you just came up with some sort of ground breaking discovery before the game has even left studio alpha.

p0intman

2012-05-25, 05:24 PM

You literally just told a whole team of 200 experienced game developers that their idea is stupid. What is there to misinterpret?

They thought of this a long time ago. Don't think you just came up with some sort of ground breaking discovery before the game has even left studio alpha.
Yes, it is stupid, because its a design that can be circumvented. Any other design reason for it is then made immediately moot. It doesn't matter whatsoever, and that's a problem unless its what they want to deliberately encourage.

TrenchcoatNinja

2012-05-25, 05:25 PM

I really hate to keep this at the top of the page with another post, but good lord this can't stay there, please lock this already too long personal rant at a single, small design decision.

KTNApollo

2012-05-25, 05:25 PM

So how's the weather? It's pretty nice over here.

Kipper

2012-05-25, 05:26 PM

What a pointless thread.

Really? Someone making multiple accounts is going to hurt my game experience?

I think its going to be pretty clear where the fighting is happening and where people can get a fight as soon as they log in. I don't think anyone will need spies to tell them that people are coming out of their bases and heading towards your bases.

If you want to relay someones TS conversations to someone else then enjoy. Actually, in a game about fighting battles - directing opposing troops toward each other is no bad thing anyway!

If you want to create a couple of accounts and try to play a couple of toons at the same time, enjoy that too. You probably aren't going to have as much fun as I am when I am concentrating fully on what I'm doing.

p0intman

2012-05-25, 05:30 PM

referencing EVE again..

Clear Skies 3 - Hot Drop O***39;Clock - YouTube

Same thing with a cloaker.

maradine

2012-05-25, 05:31 PM

I am intrigued by the following assertions:

1. multiboxing is gamebreaking
2. multiboxing is rampant in EVE.

From this we would get:

3. EVE is broken.

And while EVE is broken in so many delightful ways, it is certainly not broken like that. Indeed, multiboxing, alliance spying, and good corp employment hygiene were (are) extraordinarily valuable parts of the metagame.

So which of 1 and 2 would you like to restate?

p0intman

2012-05-25, 05:32 PM

I am intrigued by the following assertions:

1. multiboxing is gamebreaking
2. multiboxing is rampant in EVE.

From this we would get:

3. EVE is broken.

And while EVE is broken in so many delightful ways, it is certainly not broken like that. Indeed, multiboxing, alliance spying, ands good corp employment hygiene were (are) extraordinarily valuable parts of the metagame.

So which of 1 and 2 would you like to restate?
Its implying that they want the metagame in PS2.

In other words, confirm/deny?

Stardouser

2012-05-25, 05:32 PM

Got in too late to read the whole thread, but the subscription basis system has a fatal flaw itself: While MMORPG players are used to a subscription, shooter players are not, and they won't pay it. Therefore - if we want MMOFPS to exist, they can't be subscription based.

QuantumMechanic

2012-05-25, 05:33 PM

Sure multiboxing is prevalent in regular MMOs...

But multiboxing in an FPS game? I lol'd. You probably rank 1st and 2nd place at the same time when playing counter-strike or battlefield. uh huh.

** edit **

We might as well allow 3rd person view for infantry now! Because you can just have one alt place the boomer and then be looking around the corner with the other alt to see the incoming enemies!

EdLev

2012-05-25, 05:34 PM

Spying leads to interesting and dynamic gameplay. Balance is a poor second to that.

Kipper

2012-05-25, 05:35 PM

Its implying that they want the metagame in PS2.

In other words, confirm/deny?

I've said several times we won't actively do anything to discourage that and that outfits would need to police their members themselves to avoid spies. I consider that meta-game.

Confirmed.

onwee

2012-05-25, 05:35 PM

Sure multiboxing is prevalent in regular MMOs...

But multiboxing in an FPS game? I lol'd. You probably rank 1st and 2nd place at the same time when playing counter-strike or battlefield. uh huh.

I'd totally draw a comic of pointman controlling four mice with his hands a feet with "1st place" all over the screen.

Too bad I can't draw :(

Captain1nsaneo

2012-05-25, 05:37 PM

Its implying that they want the metagame in PS2.

In other words, confirm/deny?

I never said anything about people not being able to play on multiple accounts, in fact I've said several times we won't actively do anything to discourage that and that outfits would need to police their members themselves to avoid spies. I consider that meta-game. The difference now is that you don't have to pay a seperate monthly fee to spy on other empires, right? Is that the complaint? I don't get it.

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/5209/1254980804141.gif

edit:
BAH! Kipper beat me to it. That's what I get for uploading images.

ichebu

2012-05-25, 05:39 PM

You know why I'm railing and ranting about it? Because it isn't logical. Its asking for problems, begging for them even. Single most frustating thing to me is design for novelty reasons, without a logical reason behind it because of 'ooh shiny'. The only exception to this are technical limits because of data retention or whatever else.

There does not seem to be a logical design reason, and it seems to only encourage it.

Is that something you all want to encourage?

Is there a flaw? In a matter of speaking, yes. You've tried to raise an awareness about it, and have also reiterated your case several times. The problem I see, is that the way you're responding in this thread makes it seem like we are all promoting or planning to do exactly what you're suggesting, as if it will be the norm in PS2.

Are there Gold farmers in EVERY MMO? Yes. Are their Aimbots in every FPS/TPS? Yes. Are there people who regularly exploit games? Yes. When people do these things, do they have multiple accounts? Usually (stupid if they don't). Will being free-to-play give them easier access to do any of these things? Perhaps.

The real question that should be asked is this: Will the community as a whole (Devs and Players alike) support these things?

Multiboxing for some games is against the EULA, and for others it's not. We don't know if it will be against PS2's or not, and we don't need to until it's nearly released.

I've seen this knee-jerk reaction in SEVERAL threads (here and on reddit) where people are raising a huge ruckus over an ALPHA! Seriously guys, wait until it's at least in closed or open beta to start freaking out. I'm not saying don't voice your opinion, but also don't present every concern as a game-breaking issue.

Novacane

2012-05-25, 05:40 PM

Honestly, comparing EVE to PS2 as far as spys are concerned.. That's not even in the same ballpark. In EVE, a high level spy can bring down an entire corporation. In PS2, you get your re spawn blown up or have a line of tanks and AA waiting for you outside a warp gate..

p0intman

2012-05-25, 05:41 PM

maradine

2012-05-25, 05:43 PM

My business card actually reads promotor fidei, so you'll forgive me, but there is actually an undesirable scenario out of this - if empire limits are strictly enforced, filling up the other team with sock puppets would be annoying.

MadPenguin

2012-05-25, 05:54 PM

p0intman

2012-05-25, 06:01 PM

My 2 cents would just be that everything you have mentioned is going to happen in any game, even with subscription.
The only problem that you could argue would be increased with f2p is the spying on people and telling your outfit on TS what enemy is doing. I dont know about you but the outfits i was in would just kick me out straight away if i tried this. If this is what your doing, good luck finding an outfit.

If I do it properly, its almost impossible to prevent. Single greatest method I've seen of accurately preventing it includes a form of counter intelligence I've only ever seen a handful of corps in EVE employ, and even then, the lists of false-positives are giant. That, in itself requires IP tracking via embedding a specific script inside an image or another object that can be linked and displayed on a website.

Very few people care enough to go to that length.

kertvon

2012-05-25, 06:03 PM

Fanglord

2012-05-25, 06:04 PM

Even if your original point stands, which I don't really see it. The sheer ball ache will put many people off and it won't be a problem... plus multiboxing on an fps? fo real?

p0intman

2012-05-25, 06:06 PM

This thread is p0intless...

Spying is not a new thing and it will remain a war tactic. Since there is equal opportunity for it to be exploited by all empires it doesn't matter. At the end of the day information does not equal win. Good outfits/players will not bother with this spying non sense as they will be too busy dominating.

I beg to differ. Some of the largest and best groups in EVE have immense spy efforts. If Matt Higby wants to encourage the meta-game, I can only say that its a can of worms that PS2 could do without.

Now, if you want to DISCOURAGE these kinds of annoyances, stop with the one char per account per server and open it up. Again, the problem is that the idiocy with one char per account per server does not serve a purpose beyond encouraging alt accounts to be used for various utilities.

Furber

2012-05-25, 06:06 PM

This thread is p0intless...

:lol:

WTB: The look on this guy's face when he gets in-game on Planetside 2 and realizes it would be nearly impossible for any of his suggestions to actually work considering the speedy flow of the game.

Thanks for the laugh though! ;)

Edit: The only valid concern is the spying element, but that is inevitable. It happened in Planetside, people would play on the other faction on a trial account to find out things, and then they could tell their whole group on Team Speak or w/e.

Hyiero

2012-05-25, 06:24 PM

I just wanna know are you gonna have 3 accounts running on all three factions cause last I checked, there were 3 factions.If I see two factions going at it,I'm sure as hell gonna rally some of my troops to go over there and have some fun...you gonna spy on me too,knowing all my plans and moves?

Kipper

2012-05-25, 06:29 PM

Erm.. why bother messing about with alternate accounts you aren't really interested in playing?

Just play a cloaker/infiltrator and do it well, you can sit behind enemy lines and see exactly where enemy troops are going to and what their composition is.

/yawn

Duddy

2012-05-25, 06:32 PM

I beg to differ. Some of the largest and best groups in EVE have immense spy efforts. If Matt Higby wants to encourage the meta-game, I can only say that its a can of worms that PS2 could do without.

Now, if you want to DISCOURAGE these kinds of annoyances, stop with the one char per account per server and open it up. Again, the problem is that the idiocy with one char per account per server does not serve a purpose beyond encouraging alt accounts to be used for various utilities.

Dude, come on, that last paragraph makes no sense.

Spies will be spies, regardless of how many characters you get per server; the functionality of making another account to have spies will remain.

Graywolves

2012-05-25, 06:33 PM

If someone uses multiple accounts to switch to winning empire then they're sacrificing character progression, it's only a little less inconvenient than if they deleted their character and made a new one constantly.

If they multi-box or use multiple accounts in an attempt to 'cover all the bases' or be prepared for various scenarios then that is more kills for me, that's like getting 2-4 kills just from killing one guy. That's awesome.

I'm not worried about spies, the only time you should be worried about spies is when they're in your teamspeak/vent/mumble/skype listening to what you're actually planning. If a player spends more time learning how to read a map and discovering the current meta-game they'll find out what you're doing a lot faster than if they spent a few hours or more trying to infiltrate your command.

If one guy is crewing a loverator or tank all by himself then he is still just 1 person and all you need to do is keep moving, he has to spend 3x more attention to what is going on than you.

I'm not worried at all about the potential exploits of a F2P model.

xIIDeAdLyIIx

2012-05-25, 06:39 PM

I'm still trying to work out how money is made from an entirely free to play model. When I first saw F2P I thought of a pat once then play as much as you wanted.

Someone please enlighten me.

p0intman

2012-05-25, 06:41 PM

I'm still trying to work out how money is made from an entirely free to play model. When I first saw F2P I thought of a pat once then play as much as you wanted.

Someone please enlighten me.
in this case, microtransactions. pay to buy things that aren't otherwise available. I'm not convinced they won't do pay to win stuff. I bet suits within SOE will strongarm it eventually.

Duddy

2012-05-25, 06:42 PM

maradine

2012-05-25, 06:43 PM

I think the OP grossly overestimates the net utility of metagame intelligence in an environment with no long term assets other than your level, which only cares about your personal performance. This isn't the goons shattering bob. This the VS taking Auraxis for an hour. It'll be right back under fire tomorrow.

I'm more interested in how SoE will deal with server stuffing, which would actually be very un-pro for an organized group to do. Questionably likely, but worth a thought.

SgtMAD

2012-05-25, 06:46 PM

Graywolves

2012-05-25, 06:46 PM

I'm still trying to work out how money is made from an entirely free to play model. When I first saw F2P I thought of a pat once then play as much as you wanted.

Someone please enlighten me.

In League of Legends you can purchase champions and skins, as well as an IP (account exp) boost.

Champion balance aside, this is proven as an ideal and successful cash shop that doesn't sell power. SOE intends to do something similar in selling cosmetics and diverse weapons (sidegrades, ie less power but fires quicker, has a tradeoff).

They may also sell an XP boost or something. Anything gameplay related should be accessible in the game itself (even if a little grinding is involved).

dachlatte

2012-05-25, 06:48 PM

lol there is absolutly no need for multiboxing in ps2 and to compare spying in eve to spying in ps2 is just stupid.

if some outfit plans a event or something there isnt much at stake. there isnt too much planing involved and the repercussions if it fails are tiny. and honestly....if you are fighting over the nearest biolab....who has time to check the char on the other empire. what is there to gain?! 5mins jumpstart on a raid? not worth it imho

eve is a different story. shit is planed months ahead and a spy can destroy an entire alliance.

so pointman dont compare apples to oranges and chill t f out. btw i dont remember any big problems with the trial accounts back in the day. almost the same situation if you talk about spies

p0intman

2012-05-25, 06:48 PM

LOL Pointe,you are wasting your time here,90% of these ppl don't have the imagination to see all the possibilities,they will see it all ingame when they are on the receiving end,they will then run to the forums and start the crying about nerfing it all.

these ppl create 12 page threads about making ppl move slow so they will be easier to hit,its friggin comical.

Ohwell, I've tried. I'll just bookmark my thread for later.

Protip for everyone: Try not to think of how you play, or how your outfit plays. Think about every mechanic being used by a person in a foul mood and an evil imagination.

lol there is absolutly no need for multiboxing in ps2 and to compare spying in eve to spying in ps2 is just stupid.

if some outfit plans a event or something there isnt much at stake. there isnt too much planing involved and the repercussions if it fails are tiny. and honestly....if you are fighting over the nearest biolab....who has time to check the char on the other empire. what is there to gain?! 5mins jumpstart on a raid? not worth it imho

eve is a different story. shit is planed months ahead and a spy can destroy an entire alliance.

so pointman dont compare apples to oranges and chill t f out. btw i dont remember any big problems with the trial accounts back in the day. almost the same situation if you talk about spies

And no problems with trial accounts? Orly? So are they going to completely prevent TKing from even being possible? I'm not even trying and I VIVIDLY remember problems with trial accounts.

maradine

2012-05-25, 06:48 PM

They may also sell an XP boost or something. Anything gameplay related should be accessible in the game itself (even if a little grinding is involved).

Dust is going this route, and I don't think I'm breaking NDA to say it seems pretty fair so far.

Maarvy

2012-05-25, 06:52 PM

Spy's and bot's well whoever heard of such things in a mmo before ...

Seriously who gives a f**k it all add's to the fun .

p0intman

2012-05-25, 06:53 PM

Dust is going this route, and I don't think I'm breaking NDA to say it seems pretty fair so far.

That is not likely to sit well with EVE players. Remember Jita?

Duddy

2012-05-25, 06:58 PM

LOL Pointe,you are wasting your time here,90% of these ppl don't have the imagination to see all the possibilities,they will see it all ingame when they are on the receiving end,they will then run to the forums and start the crying about nerfing it all.

these ppl create 12 page threads about making ppl move slow so they will be easier to hit,its friggin comical.

People have a right to be sceptical about what P0int is saying just as much as he has a right to be sceptical about the 1 character per server implementation.

What he hasn't done, nor I suspect you will either (for all of your supposed 'foresight'), is provide compelling reasons as to why it is a bad idea. Giving vague examples and telling people to "imagine" is hardly enough to convince them.

Want to convince them? provide them with prior examples, granted they will not be apples to apples but actually detail what can happen, explain how it is relevant and damaging in the context of PS2 (even if you have to be speculative).

Furthermore it's all good saying it is a problem but saying "It's bad, don't do it" without even suggesting (and reasoning) an alternative just doesn't fly, particularly when this model is intrinsic to the games on-going success.

xIIDeAdLyIIx

2012-05-25, 06:58 PM

Dust is going this route, and I don't think I'm breaking NDA to say it seems pretty fair so far.

I guess I'm just not used to such a fair deal from companies, I'm used to the standard 'Gimme all ure monies' approach from many games. I think I'll still be spending upwards of £30 as a thank you gesture, even though I'm happy to grind ;).

maradine

2012-05-25, 07:00 PM

That is not likely to sit well with EVE players. Remember Jita?

Indeed. And then people got bored and moved on.

Maarvy

2012-05-25, 07:01 PM

My repair bot's macro > you all

p0intman

2012-05-25, 07:02 PM

People have a right to be sceptical about what P0int is saying just as much as he has a right to be sceptical about the 1 character per server implementation.

What he hasn't done, nor I suspect you will either (for all of your supposed 'foresight'), is provide compelling reasons as to why it is a bad idea. Giving vague examples and telling people to "imagine" is hardly enough to convince them.

Want to convince them? provide them with prior examples, granted they will not be apples to apples but actually detail what can happen, explain how it is relevant and damaging in the context of PS2 (even if you have to be speculative).

Furthermore it's all good saying it is a problem but saying "It's bad, don't do it" without even suggesting (and reasoning) an alternative just doesn't fly, particularly when this model is intrinsic to the games on-going success.

Most dickish move in history would be having a dozen people make extra accounts to place on a continent to lessen an enemy's effective fighting force available to them.

some examples without even trying:

just twelve people with two extra accounts equals thirty six sockpuppets that aren't actually helping you.

The enclave has hundreds of members, they could probably poplock a continent alone, rendering you inable to even fight back to begin with. I'm not even suggesting you have to imagine.

Ten people with an extra account spamming broadcast chat with annoying messages without ever actually helping you fight, just imagine thirty people doing that.

If teamkilling is possible, throwaway accounts to effectively lock you down in your own tubes.

people using alt accounts to spawn tanks and fill up a court yard so nobody can do anything else.

If none of this is a problem and its being encouraged because its "the meta game"... then ohwell, PS2 will be fucking terrible. I've avoided giving examples because just the obvious ones are pretty mean and can be quite evil. I'm not even being creative.

MadPenguin

2012-05-25, 07:04 PM

If I do it properly, its almost impossible to prevent.

So when you say this is a flaw in f2p, you dont mean that at all. Just checking.

KTNApollo

2012-05-25, 07:06 PM

STOP POSTING IN THIS THREAD, YOU'RE FEEDING AN IGNORANT TROLL.

Sirisian

2012-05-25, 07:06 PM

Protip for everyone: Try not to think of how you play, or how your outfit plays. Think about every mechanic being used by a person in a foul mood and an evil imagination.
I fear you haven't thought this through at all. Any mechanic of spying your imagining in your head you've somehow multiplied it by 100 until you've convinced yourself it's going to be an actual problem. How about we wait and see what happens. If it turns out to be a problem the developers will check it out at that point. It's kind of silly to go chasing after extreme hypothetical of random players without multiple computers playing the game for a small advantage. (Wait until I join TS and play with my friends that play TR and they tell me what the enemy faction is doing 24/7 and are never caught because it's a private voice channel). On that note I hope voice works across factions. :)

Also as others have said the point that you yourself can't think of any "good" exploits for using multiple characters is why people are skeptical.

Duddy

2012-05-25, 07:08 PM

Most dickish move in history would be having a dozen people make extra accounts to place on a continent to lessen an enemy's effective fighting force available to them.

some examples without even trying:

just twelve people with two extra accounts equals thirty six sockpuppets that aren't actually helping you.

The enclave has hundreds of members, they could probably poplock a continent alone, rendering you inable to even fight back to begin with. I'm not even suggesting you have to imagine.

Ten people with an extra account spamming broadcast chat with annoying messages without ever actually helping you fight, just imagine thirty people doing that.

If teamkilling is possible, throwaway accounts to effectively lock you down in your own tubes.

people using alt accounts to spawn tanks and fill up a court yard so nobody can do anything else.

There we go good examples!

I would however contend that these examples would be the exception in the abuse, rather than the norm.

That said, if such examples did become common occurrence then it would definitely need to be addressed.

I do not agree however that changing the model, to meet these potential threats, does more good than abandoning the current model.

Duddy

2012-05-25, 07:11 PM

STOP POSTING IN THIS THREAD, YOU'RE FEEDING AN IGNORANT TROLL.

Hi, I actually know P0int from PS1.

He's not trolling, he has a genuine concern that he just didn't communicate very well.

This does not constitute trolling.

onwee

2012-05-25, 07:12 PM

There we go good examples!

I would however contend that these examples would be the exception in the abuse, rather than the norm.

That said, if such examples did become common occurrence then it would definitely need to be addressed.

I do not agree however that changing the model, to meet these potential threats, does more good than abandoning the current model.

Not even good examples, two of them won't even be possible. I mean, chat spam? Serious? A problem we've had since the 80s? Give me a break, that is easily stoppable.

Now a bunch of people poplocking a faction and taking it over could be possible. But SOE is going to have in-game devs. They will be watching for stuff like this real-time and will get reported and probably banned for doing that. It won't be worth it once the first round of bans go out to a whole guild for pop-locking an opposing faction.

p0intman

2012-05-25, 07:12 PM

There we go good examples!

I would however contend that these examples would be the exception in the abuse, rather than the norm.

That said, if such examples did become common occurrence then it would definitely need to be addressed.

I do not agree however that changing the model, to meet these potential threats, does more good than abandoning the current model.

There are people that play MMOs specifically to grief people, they're a thousand times more creative than I am. Trials did not stop these kinds of people because they just made new accounts, whats to say that free to play won't be the same way? Someone must have been incredibly creative to figure out a way to prevent this.

Not even good examples, two of them won't even be possible. I mean, chat spam? Serious? A problem we've had since the 80s? Give me a break, that is easily stoppable.

Using a line of tanks to block the vehicle pad so you cannot get in or out. Using tanks to block doors or access to buildings such as spawn rooms.

If characters cannot be passed through like PS1, then using maxes to do the same thing. There is a reason Wow characters can stand inside one another. This is just one of them.

Using stacks of magriders to form a wall, for example.

Duddy

2012-05-25, 07:16 PM

There are people that play MMOs specifically to grief people, they're a thousand times more creative than I am. Trials did not stop these kinds of people because they just made new accounts, whats to say that free to play won't be the same way? Someone must have been incredibly creative to figure out a way to prevent this.

The same question can be asked, what is to say it will?

Perhaps seeing how much intentional griefing occurs in existing F2P games would be a good start, and if it does occur regularly, how is it dealt with.

That said, I'm pretty sure Higby probably already understands this himself, considering how he talks about having studied the F2P model in other games in consideration for PS2.

p0intman

2012-05-25, 07:21 PM

The same question can be asked, what is to say it will?

Perhaps seeing how much intentional griefing occurs in existing F2P games would be a good start, and if it does occur regularly, how is it dealt with.

That said, I'm pretty sure Higby probably already understands this himself, considering how he talks about having studied the F2P model in other games in consideration for PS2.
To quote a good friend of mine,

"Banning me? pfft. I'll just get a new IP from a proxy or VPN, create a new account with a trash email address from google, and log back in"

Xyntech

2012-05-25, 07:21 PM

Did the forums just eat my post or did it get removed? lol

onwee

2012-05-25, 07:22 PM

Using a line of tanks to block the vehicle pad so you cannot get in or out. Using tanks to block doors or access to buildings such as spawn rooms.

If characters cannot be passed through like PS1, then using maxes to do the same thing. There is a reason Wow characters can stand atop one another. This is just one of them.

Using stacks of magriders to form a wall, for example.

Even though it would be possible just to blow you up and exit, I wouldn't team kill. I'd just fly over you, or walk around you, or (if possible) push you out of the way. I could also just respawn at another point and mount of from there.

Listen, I can tell you haven't read into many of Higby's statements. He's really killed a lot of these concerns already. Check out some of his ama's and I think he talks about griefing in a video out there somewhere. They are implementing a pretty good griefing system from what I'm told.

SgtMAD

2012-05-25, 07:24 PM

People have a right to be sceptical about what P0int is saying just as much as he has a right to be sceptical about the 1 character per server implementation.

What he hasn't done, nor I suspect you will either (for all of your supposed 'foresight'), is provide compelling reasons as to why it is a bad idea. Giving vague examples and telling people to "imagine" is hardly enough to convince them.

Want to convince them? provide them with prior examples, granted they will not be apples to apples but actually detail what can happen, explain how it is relevant and damaging in the context of PS2 (even if you have to be speculative).

Furthermore it's all good saying it is a problem but saying "It's bad, don't do it" without even suggesting (and reasoning) an alternative just doesn't fly, particularly when this model is intrinsic to the games on-going success.

you could easily get a bunch of alts together on another empire and just start pulling vehs and waste their resources.

I am waiting for Beta,unlike most of you I want to see what is actually in the game before I start arguing about what will/will not work.

here is one for you,on Markov we would sanc the VS all the time,we go resecure Ikanam,we see this VS CR5 that we all know on markov in the killspam,we fight for this base and hold it, the next thing we see while the VS are in the tower is this VS CR5 on an NC alt walking around the CY finding spawn points, the next thing we start seeing is every AMS we had getting sniped with VS OS's,we still held the base but the idea that they had to sneak around to spot spawn points was pretty sad.

shit like this would happen all the time,when we first moved to Emmy TR we had spies in /C that would rat us out to enemy empires,we would come up with a plan and ask on /C if anyone wanted to tag along,we then run off to this back base on another cont and lo and behold, what do we see,shitloads of enemies with zero reason to be there unless they had been told.

once PS2 starts up. all these possibilities will present themselves,just because some ppl can't see them doesn't mean they aren't going to happen.

onwee

2012-05-25, 07:26 PM

you could easily get a bunch of alts together on another empire and just start pulling vehs and waste their resources.

"Waste their resources"

Resources are not shared. You'd only be spending personal resources.

p0intman

2012-05-25, 07:29 PM

you could easily get a bunch of alts together on another empire and just start pulling vehs and waste their resources.

I was going to post that, but I was betting that it was too obvious already.

onwee

2012-05-25, 07:31 PM

once PS2 starts up. all these possibilities will present themselves,just because some ppl can't see them doesn't mean they aren't going to happen.

Excellent point. Lots of stuff is going to pop-up. But we can't blame (or for the matter, abandon) a F2P model because of it. The argument is that F2P is basically going to cause or promote this type of behavior. I just don't buy it. These problems are going to happen regardless of the payment model they have chosen.

It's called acceptable risk. They have made this decision because the benefits outweigh the costs. In the end, it will probably have a higher player population and earn the more money because of these choices. That is worth it if a few people make alts and try to spy or grief. They will be dealt with the same way they always are. Bans, patches, etc.

Duddy

2012-05-25, 07:33 PM

To quote a good friend of mine,

"Banning me? pfft. I'll just get a new IP from a proxy or VPN, create a new account with a trash email address from google, and log back in"

That just describes a low barrier to re-offending though, it doesn't describe why it would be incredibly pervasive.

That's what I am aiming at here, I don't see why this would be so common. I can understand why people cheat, because they want to win (or for some, just to show they can). But the drive behind griefing seems diminished in comparison.

Sure as you said someone might just be a total dick, but they'd be the exception.

Really the question should be what is in place to mitigate the effects of intentional griefers, as stopping those truly determined is seemingly impossible. We are less likely to get an answer to that though (at least from the technical perspective).

KTNApollo

2012-05-25, 07:33 PM

I was going to post that, but I was betting that it was too obvious already.

Resources are player-owned, not faction-owned. How do you not know that?

p0intman

2012-05-25, 07:39 PM

That just describes a low barrier to re-offending though, it doesn't describe why it would be incredibly pervasive.

That's what I am aiming at here, I don't see why this would be so common. I can understand why people cheat, because they want to win (or for some, just to show they can). But the drive behind griefing seems diminished in comparison.

Sure as you said someone might just be a total dick, but they'd be the exception.

Really the question should be what is in place to mitigate the effects of intentional griefers, as stopping those truly determined is seemingly impossible. We are less likely to get an answer to that though (at least from the technical perspective).

Its very simple: Some people just want to screw others over and don't care if they make the gameplay of others terrible. Some people get their jollies over hurting others habitually. There are entire clans that are dedicated to it for no other reason than they can. Its simple human psychology. Why did lulzsec hack all of those people? "For the lulz." Sometimes, it really is that simple.

Gogita

2012-05-25, 07:40 PM

So do you have any suggestions?

Duddy

2012-05-25, 07:41 PM

you could easily get a bunch of alts together on another empire and just start pulling vehs and waste their resources.

I am waiting for Beta,unlike most of you I want to see what is actually in the game before I start arguing about what will/will not work.

As pointed out, pretty sure vehicles are pulled from a personal pool so that wouldn't work.

Alas as you state yourself, for many things I am of the "wait and see" mentality. Not that this should prevent us from discussing what could happen, as this thread has done so, if somewhat late into the discussion.

As such, specifically the examples you provided I don't think can occur just to how the mechanics will be changing, but we'll have to wait and see.

F2P games aren't exactly known for attracting the most honorable players.

True, but I'd say that is just perception.

Every game has scumbags after all.

Gonefshn

2012-05-25, 07:42 PM

Best argument against this idea that I have noticed through reading the responses basically everybody agrees on.... ready for it???

Who gives a shit?

you? ok, good for you.

p0intman

2012-05-25, 07:43 PM

So do you have any suggestions?

Don't encourage it, don't give room for it. Theres no logical reason to one character per account per server. The metagame isn't something that is conductive to PS2, don't give it incentives to exist. Don't give people reasons to want to use alt accounts.

Did you know that if you were being spammed by a credit seller in Starwars galaxies, you could spam it in return with thousands of tells per minute, and then crash its client? Granted, it was used for a good reason, but it works both ways.

MockZero2

2012-05-25, 07:45 PM

So according to you pointman there is pretty much no point in doing anything because no matter what is done people will find ways to cheat.... Well of course people are going to find ways to cheat. That does not mean they shouldn't try to prevent it as much as they can.

This kind of goes along with the whole locked door methodology. You don't have a lock on your door to keep the theifs out but mainly just to keep honest people honest.

I am glad they are doing what they can to keep the " imaginative" people to where they have to have an imagination to do it. At least then you have to put some effort into it, isn't that what it is all about?

You know you were an ass in game spamming pointless globals and you are doing the something in the forum, do you just really enjoy this that much?

Gogita

2012-05-25, 07:46 PM

Don't encourage it, don't give room for it. Theres no logical reason to one character per account per server. The metagame isn't something that is conductive to PS2, don't give it incentives to exist. Don't give people reasons to want to use alt accounts.

Could you give a more tangible suggestion other than "don't encourage it"?

p0intman

2012-05-25, 07:49 PM

Could you give a more tangible suggestion other than "don't encourage it"?

Very simply open character slots open to multiple characters on multiple empires per server. There isn't a logical excuse not to. If they aren't given a reason to, people will use the same account to make new characters, rather than entire new accounts. If there is a will, there is a way to make it happen.

onwee

2012-05-25, 07:50 PM

Very simply open character slots open to multiple characters on multiple empires per server. There isn't a logical excuse not to.

That encourages alt characters on other factions on the same server though, exactly what you are against.

p0intman

2012-05-25, 07:51 PM

That encourages alt characters on other factions on the same server though, exactly what you are against.

You cant prevent it, though. You may as well embrace it. You may not like it, but then the choice isn't yours to begin with.

FIREk

2012-05-25, 07:52 PM

Prove me wrong, I dare you to try.I LOLd.

Go out more, please.

Gogita

2012-05-25, 07:52 PM

Very simply open character slots open to multiple characters on multiple empires per server. There isn't a logical excuse not to. If they aren't given a reason to, people will use the same account to make new characters, rather than entire new accounts. If there is a will, there is a way to make it happen.

And how does this stop people from spying/multiboxing etc.?

KTNApollo

2012-05-25, 07:52 PM

You cant prevent it, though.

Requiring more than one account is a hassle, and while not eliminating spying, it will discourage lazy players.

p0intman

2012-05-25, 07:53 PM

Requiring more than one account is a hassle, and while not eliminating spying, it will discourage lazy players.

No it wont. I personally have two SOE accounts, I know some people with three or four of them.

And how does this stop people from spying/multiboxing etc.?
If someone wants to, it doesn't matter, they will. Embrace it and just diminish the reasons for more than one account instead.

Xyntech

2012-05-25, 07:53 PM

That encourages alt characters on other factions on the same server though, exactly what you are against.

They wouldn't be able to login at the same time though, which is his primary concern.

However it would instead be encouraging empire hopping. Your empire getting steamrolled? Hop on the winning empire! Timer restricting you jumping immediately? Well we're back to the old multi-account trick!

I stand by my point that this shit happens in subscription games as well. The devs just will have to be extra vigilant.

maradine

2012-05-25, 07:54 PM

You cant prevent it, though. You may as well embrace it. You may not like it, but then the choice isn't yours to begin with.

This just degenerated into "don't make me multibox to spy, it's annoying and you can't stop me."

Nite, folks.

QuantumMechanic

2012-05-25, 07:56 PM

I am ashamed of myself that I am even still reading this thread.

onwee

2012-05-25, 07:57 PM

This feels like trying to rationalize with a drunk teenager, but I just can't stop.

Gonefshn

2012-05-25, 07:58 PM

That encourages alt characters on other factions on the same server though, exactly what you are against.

though I think the whole idea is so unimportant its barely worth discussing I'm going to have to agree with pointman on this one point.

How does opening multiple empire chars on the same server on one account encourage it any more than letting someone do it with multiple??

What pointman is trying to say is that if you have one account with multiple empires on the same server atleast you can only be on one person at a time.
And if people have the option to do this they will be less likely to get more accounts.

If more people are getting multiple accounts your going to have more people realizing "oh shit i can use this to abuse the system" rather than just having people contently making characters on one account and never coming to that conclusion.

Either way. Take the entire player base of Planetside 2
Now take that number down to all the douchebags playing planetside 2.
Now take that number down to all the douches who have more than one PC that can run the game.
Now take that number down to the number smart enough to figure that out.
Now take that number down to those who will have the patience for it.

At that point its such a small fraction of people it wont matter.

Duddy

2012-05-25, 07:58 PM

I must say it feels like circular logic at this point; I really did try to actually get some meaningful discussion...

Guess I'm tapping out!

**EDIT**

Gonefshn, you pretty much got to the heart of it, was trying to get him to get there himself but... meh.

Gogita

2012-05-25, 07:58 PM

Very simply open character slots open to multiple characters on multiple empires per server. There isn't a logical excuse not to. If they aren't given a reason to, people will use the same account to make new characters, rather than entire new accounts. If there is a will, there is a way to make it happen.

I am still waiting for an answer P0intman. How does your suggestion help to prevent spying, multiboxing etc.?

p0intman

2012-05-25, 07:59 PM

This feels like trying to rationalize with a drunk teenager, but I just can't stop.

You don't get it. It isnt your choice if people empire hop or not. The design around preventing it is easily circumvented. Two usernames and passwords aren't a huge problem to keep track of, there's no effort involved.

I am still waiting for an answer P0intman. How does your suggestion help to prevent spying, multiboxing etc.?

It doesn't. Theres no way to effectively stop it outside of IP locking clients per IP to a specific number. Rule in EVE is that for every 10 members, at least one of them is a spy. You just have to deal with it.

onwee

2012-05-25, 08:03 PM

though I think the whole idea is so unimportant its barely worth discussing I'm going to have to agree with pointman on this one point.

How does opening multiple empire chars on the same server on one account encourage it any more than letting someone do it with multiple??

What pointman is trying to say is that if you have one account with multiple empires on the same server atleast you can only be on one person at a time.
And if people have the option to do this they will be less likely to get more accounts.

If more people are getting multiple accounts your going to have more people realizing "oh shit i can use this to abuse the system" rather than just having people contently making characters on one account and never coming to that conclusion.

Either way. Take the entire player base of Planetside 2
Now take that number down to all the douchebags playing planetside 2.
Now take that number down to all the douches who have more than one PC that can run the game.
Now take that number down to the number smart enough to figure that out.
Now take that number down to those who will have the patience for it.

At that point its such a small fraction of people it wont matter.

Well to be honest it's not much of a difference. But making another account is *somewhat* more discouraging than making a new character. Not enough to stop anybody that wants one, but it's not built into the game itself therefor not necessarily intended gameplay. Having it built into the gameplay is encouraging that type of the behavior while leaving it out is discouraging. That's how I see it anyway.

Xyntech

2012-05-25, 08:03 PM

You don't get it. It isnt your choice if people empire hop or not. The design around preventing it is easily circumvented. Two usernames and passwords aren't a huge problem to keep track of, there's no effort involved.

It doesn't. Theres no way to effectively stop it outside of IP locking clients per IP to a specific number. Rule in EVE is that for every 10 members, at least one of them is a spy. You just have to deal with it.

You know what's a real problem, team killing. You just can't stop it. They should just remove the grief system, because team killing is going to happen anyways, so let's make it easier.

:rofl:

onwee

2012-05-25, 08:05 PM

Gogita

2012-05-25, 08:05 PM

So let me get your reasoning straight. When I asked you your suggestion for the problems you have been posting constantly you said:

Don't encourage it, don't give room for it.

Very simply open character slots open to multiple characters on multiple empires per server.

And when asking how this solves it:

Y
It doesn't. Theres no way to effectively stop it outside of IP locking clients per IP to a specific number. Rule in EVE is that for every 10 members, at least one of them is a spy. You just have to deal with it.

So your suggestion of not encouraging it is by doing nothing about it. Weird how you admit that your suggestion doesn't solve it either. Hmmm, very interesting logic you have there

p0intman

2012-05-25, 08:06 PM

I need to go get some other stuff done, but a point of perspective would be to look at it with how prohibition went with alcohol. You can't stop it, may as well embrace it.

So let me get your reasoning straight. When I asked you your suggestion for the problems you have been posting constantly you said:

And when asking how this solves it:

So your suggestion of not encouraging it is by doing nothing about it. Weird how you admit that your suggestion doesn't solve it either. Hmmm, very interesting logic you have there

Two different problems, neither can be prevented if someone really wants to do it. You can only make one of them less of a problem than the other.

KTNApollo

2012-05-25, 08:07 PM

You know what's a real problem, team killing. You just can't stop it. They should just remove the grief system, because team killing is going to happen anyways, so let's make it easier.

:rofl:

In fact, they should encourage teamkilling by allowing you to get resources from your allies by killing them.

ArmedZealot

2012-05-25, 08:07 PM

I need to go get some other stuff done, but a point of perspective would be to look at it with how prohibition went with alcohol. You can't stop it, may as well embrace it.

Hooray a thread about nothing! We are done here.

onwee

2012-05-25, 08:08 PM

It doesn't. Theres no way to effectively stop it outside of IP locking clients per IP to a specific number. Rule in EVE is that for every 10 members, at least one of them is a spy. You just have to deal with it.

What the hell.

Gogita

2012-05-25, 08:10 PM

Sometimes it's easier to make the lunatic admit that his idea does not work using his own arguments than convincing him with valid counter arguments.

onwee

2012-05-25, 08:12 PM

Sometimes it's easier to make the lunatic admit that his idea does not work using his own arguments than convincing him with valid counter arguments.

But there is no argument here. It's about nothing. The subject is "Flaws in F2P Design" and it ends up he's just unhappy he can't make an alt on another faction without making a new account.

Oh look, how discouraging. It's working.

Edit: But also, good job. You do win the thread.

QuantumMechanic

2012-05-25, 08:13 PM

As somebody mentioned pages and pages ago - a much bigger concern related to F2P games is that of hackers. The last time I played PS1 (maybe 1 or 1.5 years ago) the hacking problem was so bad that everybody was just giving up, as I did. And with an F2P game, hacking becomes that much more of an issue.

I certainly hope that SOE is putting far more thoughtpower and manpower into securing the client rather than thinking about how to prevent multiboxing and multiple accounts.

Ok I'm done with this thread for real now.

Gogita

2012-05-25, 08:13 PM

But there is no argument here. It's about nothing. The subject is "Flaws in F2P Design" and it ends up he's just unhappy he can't make an alt on another faction without making a new account.

Oh look, how discouraging. It's working.

I guess calling his words "arguments" give them a little bit too much credit... lets call it "rambling" instead

Xyntech

2012-05-25, 08:14 PM

Sometimes it's easier to make the lunatic admit that his idea does not work using his own arguments than convincing him with valid counter arguments.

Sometimes it's easier for the mods to lock pointless threads, but deleting my inflamatory/semi off topic posts is apparently the way to go ;)

KTNApollo

2012-05-25, 08:14 PM

Is it against forum rules to post ponies and etc. until this pointless thread is derailed into nothingness?

onwee

2012-05-25, 08:16 PM

Sometimes it's easier for the mods to lock pointless threads, but deleting my inflamatory/semi off topic posts is apparently the way to go ;)

Not totally pointless, I started drinking beer on page 2, so that's a plus.

Xyntech

2012-05-25, 08:17 PM

Not totally pointless, I started drinking beer on page 2, so that's a plus.

Take a drink every time his side of the argument switches?

Gogita

2012-05-25, 08:18 PM

Take a drink every time his side of the argument switches?

You must be wasted by now then!

Sabot

2012-05-25, 08:23 PM

What the frack did I just read?

Well... I would suggest not talking about this with this person anymore. It's clear to me that he is the kind of person that you cannot argue with, nor have a discussion. He voiced his concerns about something that isn't really a problem in the first place, everybody acknowledged his concerns but rapidly shot them down. He called Higby a liar, which in itself was just a lie as it turns out. But he refuses to accept other peoples point of views, their expertise, and their experience. I know a lot of groups of people that exhibit the same traits... religious fundamentalists, sociopaths, people with delusion of grandeur.... I'm now saying our beloved p0intman is either of these, but the similarities are there. That is why I think we should all just treat him with simple, short answers in the future, like "yes" or "no", so to avoid his flawed reasoning and complete lack of any broader kind of thinking than his own.

And yes, if you think it's ok to call someone a liar and incompitent on the net, I tihnk I can make this assupmtion about you on the net without any fear losing sleep over it.

Kurtz

2012-05-25, 08:27 PM

Multi boxing was rampant when you had to pay for an account. So what?

Xyntech

2012-05-25, 08:30 PM

Multi boxing was rampant when you had to pay for an account. So what?

The problem isn't that F2P makes multi-boxing easier, it's that it doesn't make it easy enough.

Clearly.

Zulthus

2012-05-25, 08:37 PM

You know what, I used to care about this, but now I don't give a shit what happens. There's going to be two thousand people on a continent, if one person wants to box someone to spy, it's not going to affect anything except how well he plays, which will be shit because you can't play effectively while boxing.

KrackerJacked

2012-05-25, 09:59 PM

p0intman

2012-05-25, 10:19 PM

Pointman: What's your real concern? You say you want a stop to spying/multiboxing/etc. By your posts, however, it sounds like you do it, enjoy doing it, and (by your account) quite good at it. So, it doesn't make sense that you would want that banned.

So, I ask again. What is your real concern for this very troll-esq rant?

You keep calling out Higby. I'm starting to think you have a personal beef with him and that's what this is all about. What, he stick your old lady or something?

Hmmm. My second SOE account was actually for SW:G because I had a master doc alt back in the day in 2004ish, I've only ever bothered to multibox PS1 once to help someone else out with some shenanigans.

I really don't care to multibox games if I don't have to, but for games like EVE, yeah, I do because thats how EVE is.

My real concern is that they're designing the game around having one character per faction per server, that is very simply not going to be the case, and attempting to prevent it is silly. Its a false notion and can't be looked at reliably. The real trouble is I've tried to lay out the problem to people who are unwilling to see an alternative course of logic.

I'm not trying to solve griefing, or multiboxing problems, or whatever else. If I had a catch-all solution for griefing, there are many companies that would have hired me well before now.

You need to look at my posts as not problems that need to be solved like you solve a math problem or cure a disease, or anything else, because griefing cannot be prevented until you create a single player offline game like Mass Effect.

Instead look at it as problems that will rear their heads and can only be mitigated and disincentivized to discourage people from wanting to do things to begin with.

Toppopia

2012-05-25, 10:56 PM

[QUOTE=p0intman;699677]I need to go get some other stuff done, but a point of perspective would be to look at it with how prohibition went with alcohol. You can't stop it, may as well embrace it.

To stop people multi-boxing or whatever, just get someone to hack your fancy smancy computer and basically destroy it, problem solved, you now won't spend $3000 on a new computer because your old one was destroyed because of being a troll. So all SOE has to do is pay hackers to hack the people doing this annoying stuff and we would all be better off.

KTNApollo

2012-05-25, 10:58 PM

even though p0intman is arguing a somewhat valid argument, i think people are having more fun attempting to discredit him and derail the thread (I know I am).

p0intman

2012-05-25, 11:01 PM

I need to go get some other stuff done, but a point of perspective would be to look at it with how prohibition went with alcohol. You can't stop it, may as well embrace it.

To stop people multi-boxing or whatever, just get someone to hack your fancy smancy computer and basically destroy it, problem solved, you now won't spend $3000 on a new computer because your old one was destroyed because of being a troll. So all SOE has to do is pay hackers to hack the people doing this annoying stuff and we would all be better off.

I can take verbal abuse as much as I can dish it out, but the one thing I take offense to are veiled threats like this. You ought to stop, its a bad idea to go where you have.

even though p0intman is arguing a somewhat valid argument, i think people are having more fun attempting to discredit him and derail the thread (I know I am).

I don't mind if people try to discredit my argument, like I said in my original post.. I dare you to make the entire thing invalid. I've been thinking about it and going over it almost endlessly in my own head, but when it can stand up to other's counter arguments... it only makes it more valid.

Toppopia

2012-05-25, 11:04 PM

I can take verbal abuse as much as I can dish it out, but the one thing I take offense to are veiled threats like this. You ought to stop, its a bad idea to go where you have.

I wasn't talking to you specifically, just the people doing annoying stuff, the ones hacking and stuff. And how would blocking doorways with tanks be a problem? Just blow them up. They die in 2-3 shots, so not too much of a problem.
Oh and once the character has run out of resources how will he call in vehicles to call in to block door ways? Won't he now have to fight to get resources which means he has to do quite alot of hardwork to get enough resources to block the door way again just to have his work destroyed in 20 seconds?

Edit: Thats my one comment i will contribute, now back to the discussion.

ArmedZealot

2012-05-25, 11:06 PM

I can take verbal abuse as much as I can dish it out, but the one thing I take offense to are veiled threats like this. You ought to stop, its a bad idea to go where you have.

Yeah, you need to leave the internet. You are not ready.

p0intman

2012-05-25, 11:14 PM

I wasn't talking to you specifically, just the people doing annoying stuff, the ones hacking and stuff. And how would blocking doorways with tanks be a problem? Just blow them up. They die in 2-3 shots, so not too much of a problem.
Oh and once the character has run out of resources how will he call in vehicles to call in to block door ways? Won't he now have to fight to get resources which means he has to do quite alot of hardwork to get enough resources to block the door way again just to have his work destroyed in 20 seconds?

Edit: Thats my one comment i will contribute, now back to the discussion.

You may not be easily frustrated, but others very much are. It can take precious little to make some people lose their shit with very little effort. Impeding access to a building is one method of coming to that conclusion where they say, 'FUCK THIS, IM DONE!!!!!' and ragequit.

If done enough, it can very seriously hurt subscriber numbers of other MMOs, and with PS2, it can and will certainly harm populations overall.

For example, the reason that a lot of things aren't possible in World of Warcraft is exactly this, the playerbase is protected from one another because people have short fuses and consider some things you or i might think to be normal, to instead be grief play. So your answer is maybe not what you thought, because you may or may not have a thick skin, but others take stuff like that to be quite offensive to them as players. The method of making someone lose their shit doesn't matter, the method is a tool used to come to that result in the same way that you use a hammer to come to the result of a nail being firmly in the wall. It could be a number of things that do it, some are more obvious than others.

The comment I made about chatspam being a problem? It isn't just broadcast, even the barcode hackers in PS1 used their names for a reason: it was hard to figure out what the name was to report them with and when someone went to do that, it often resulted in allowing them to exist for longer periods of time. It was one of the major flaws of PS1's chat system, and still is one of its major flaws. You don't need to think very hard about ways to make others lose their shit and quit instead of continuing to play. Once you think of every mechanic as a tool and how it can be used with other mechanics, it isn't very hard to think of ways to be evil with them.

Multiple, free accounts are only one tool of a great many, they can and will facilitate such things. If you are half as clever as I am, you are already more capable of griefing people than most.

Yeah, you need to leave the internet. You are not ready.
Find a fire and jump into it, immediately. You'd be doing the world's IQ levels a favor.

ArbitraryDemise

2012-05-25, 11:54 PM

You may not be easily frustrated, but others very much are. It can take precious little to make some people lose their shit with very little effort. Impeding access to a building is one method of coming to that conclusion where they say, 'FUCK THIS, IM DONE!!!!!' and ragequit.

If done enough, it can very seriously hurt subscriber numbers of other MMOs, and with PS2, it can and will certainly harm populations overall.

For example, the reason that a lot of things aren't possible in World of Warcraft is exactly this, the playerbase is protected from one another because people have short fuses and consider some things you or i might think to be normal, to instead be grief play. So your answer is maybe not what you thought, because you may or may not have a thick skin, but others take stuff like that to be quite offensive to them as players. The method of making someone lose their shit doesn't matter, the method is a tool used to come to that result in the same way that you use a hammer to come to the result of a nail being firmly in the wall. It could be a number of things that do it, some are more obvious than others.

The comment I made about chatspam being a problem? It isn't just broadcast, even the barcode hackers in PS1 used their names for a reason: it was hard to figure out what the name was to report them with and when someone went to do that, it often resulted in allowing them to exist for longer periods of time. It was one of the major flaws of PS1's chat system, and still is one of its major flaws. You don't need to think very hard about ways to make others lose their shit and quit instead of continuing to play. Once you think of every mechanic as a tool and how it can be used with other mechanics, it isn't very hard to think of ways to be evil with them.

Multiple, free accounts are only one tool of a great many, they can and will facilitate such things. If you are half as clever as I am, you are already more capable of griefing people than most.

Find a fire and jump into it, immediately. You'd be doing the world's IQ levels a favor.

Bud, you're basically running with a: it sucks because people suck sort of argument.

There is no winning here. You are asking why Sony, Higby, and co. have gone with one design decision when all other proposed design methods basically lead to the same problem.

I see this as the best option in the F2P format because it adds a level of factional loyalty to the game, and prevents people from just switching sides in a losing battle so they can be on the winning side.

In my opinion, that is a bigger issue than griefing, spies, and duping. You do not want people in this game to just go: fuck this, I'm out and switch sides to their other characters because they are losing a particular battle. Giving people that option in a game like this makes absolutely no sense when there are over-arching faction goals.

p0intman

2012-05-25, 11:57 PM

Bud, you're basically running with a: it sucks because people suck sort of argument.

There is no winning here. You are asking why Sony, Higby, and co. have gone with one design decision when all other proposed design methods basically lead to the same problem.

I see this as the best option in the F2P format because it adds a level of factional loyalty to the game, and prevents people from just switching sides in a losing battle so they can be on the winning side.

In my opinion, that is a bigger issue than griefing, spies, and duping. You do not want people in this game to just go: fuck this, I'm out and switch sides to their other characters because they are losing a particular battle. Giving people that option in a game like this makes absolutely no sense when there are over-arching faction goals.

You don't get it... it doesn't prevent that, at all.

ArmedZealot

2012-05-25, 11:57 PM

Find a fire and jump into it, immediately. You'd be doing the world's IQ levels a favor.

Yeah, you are taking this way to seriously. You need to leave the internet.

ArbitraryDemise

2012-05-26, 12:12 AM

You don't get it... it doesn't prevent that, at all.

No, because you can NEVER prevent it. It is the same in cyber-security. You can only hope to make it inconvenient enough that a hacker just doesn't want to put the effort into breaking your security.

Same thing here.

p0intman

2012-05-26, 12:13 AM

Yeah, you are taking this way to seriously. You need to leave the internet.
Dude, your eyes could be replaced with lenses and lightbulbs while pointing you at a wall and you'd be great to use as a movie projector.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

You clearly think something that isn't the case. You may want to stop acting as if you know me.

TrenchcoatNinja

2012-05-26, 12:13 AM

http://benisawesome.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/pants-on-head-retarded-500x400.jpg

ArmedZealot

2012-05-26, 12:19 AM

Dude, your eyes could be replaced with lenses and lightbulbs while pointing you at a wall and you'd be great to use as a movie projector.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

You clearly think something that isn't the case.

To stop people multi-boxing or whatever, just get someone to hack your fancy smancy computer and basically destroy it, problem solved, you now won't spend $3000 on a new computer because your old one was destroyed because of being a troll. So all SOE has to do is pay hackers to hack the people doing this annoying stuff and we would all be better off.
I can take verbal abuse as much as I can dish it out, but the one thing I take offense to are veiled threats like this. You ought to stop, its a bad idea to go where you have.

You took a suggestion that agreed with your point, and took it as a threat against your person. Didn't even apologize for it. This comes after calling out Higby for attention and getting shut down, and never bothered to apologize for that.

Yeah, you need to leave the internet. You've fulfilled your quota for the year.

p0intman

2012-05-26, 12:23 AM

You took a suggestion that agreed with your point, and took it as a threat against your person. Didn't even apologize for it. This comes after calling out Higby for attention and getting shut down, and never bothered to apologize for that.

Yeah, you need to leave the internet. You've fulfilled your quota for the year.

You very clearly don't see the problem with that comment then. It doesnt matter who it was directed at, I find the notion of suggesting physical or digital harm come to anyone's property as a result of doing something others disagree with to be atrocious and morally bankrupt.

Its a line I don't cross and refuse to cross, despite the fact that hackers ingame frustrate the shit out of me. If you don't see how its wrong, you may want to re-examine your opinion.

ArmedZealot

2012-05-26, 12:26 AM

You very clearly don't see the problem with that comment then. It doesnt matter who it was directed at, I find the notion of suggesting physical or digital harm come to anyone's property as a result of doing something others disagree with to be atrocious and morally bankrupt.

There was nothing wrong with that comment. It was a joke. You are taking things too seriously and being too defensive over little shit.

If you continue to post this stuff you will say something stupider than you already have and get yourself banned.

You need to leave the internet. You are not ready. It's for your own good.

Hamma

2012-05-26, 12:30 AM

Please begin to contribute constructively to this thread or I will close it out.

Thanks!

Toppopia

2012-05-26, 12:33 AM

Please begin to contribute constructively to this thread or I will close it out.

Thanks!

Since Hamma demands the topic be back on track i will start.

These are valid concerns, but since the game is soo massive in scope. 1/1000th of the population spying would be very little impact, especially the effort that it would take to tell your empire, and outfits will normally send a recon team to scout a location first to see if its clear, and if they notice 100 people gathered at a base or tower for no reason, then i would call off my attack or i would re think our strategy and go there just to kill those 100 people.

Edit: And this kind of action will help form massive battles, if i felt like having a big fight, someone could leak our location to the enemy just to start a battle.

CutterJohn

2012-05-26, 02:19 AM

Spying is a complete non issue. Yes, you'll occasionally die to a spy. Unlike games where the fight matters, though, you'll lose 5-10 minutes of preparation, rather than months upon months of effort of a bunch of people.

Practice some Opsec.

Don't head straight for your destination.

Nobody will be controlling two characters at once. I tried that for the reserves. Complete PITA. The only thing I could find that functioned with it was to hang out over an enemy base in a phantasm to spot for my flail.

ichebu

2012-05-26, 02:57 AM

Point 1) Spies are/will be of little consequence, why they are even being mentioned is beyond me. EVE has a valid reason for their gameplay - large group of players that control a commodity (ISK is valued as real currency, since it can be sold privately against the ELUA, or traded for monthly fees) will have legitimate concerns with them. Planetside will not. Period. There may be "spies" for movement intel or even insertion points, but it will be no where NEAR as detrimental in Planetside as what it can be in EVE.

Point 2) Griefers will be griefers, and there is no getting around that. Every FPS that offers FF has had issues with that, and they are dealt with by moderators or administrators - as I can be certain will be the case in Planetside.

Point 3) "Faction A is losing, so I'mma swap to Faction B" is also silly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are there not other fights? When I played PS1 we used this thing where if our plan against Faction A base wasn't working, we would reformulate, and usually attack or distract elsewhere to draw the fight - you know, trying to use some tactics. There was no table flipping or rage quitting. Granted, there may be a different crowd with PS2 than PS1, but one could assume they would want a change of scenery, not a change of "TO THE WINNING SIDE!!!" - it defeats the purpose of main characters that people WANT from MMOs today.

Example: If I was in "cookie cutter FPS game" and I was required to make the choice of being Red or Blue, I would choose a team and be committed to that characters development, both in a matter of progression with the time spent on the development to the character, and the emotional investment I have put into it (TR FOR LIFE). I would imagine that few people who invest themselves into their toon would want to give it up for the temporary satisfaction of victory when additional fights can be found elsewhere.

Yes, all of these things can exist with this F2P model - you are correct.
No, going to a subscription or purchase model will not cause it to stop.
Chew on this: WoW, EVE, SWTOR, RIFT, etc. accounts can be found for 1/3 or 1/4 their shelf price if you know where to look, and it does little to deter many players from creating alternate accounts when they can be obtained for equivalent cost of going to McDonalds a couple times. $20 for a throw-away WoW:Cata goldfarming account is a small price to pay in the event it gets banned. My point being, how does it deter people to give up 2 large Big Mac meals and a couple McChickens, if they wanted to do these things?

Your problem is that you're asking for deterrence, while most of the community here is saying there is little (a fact that you have agreed with a few times throughout this thread) to none. You should be more concerned with asking SOE how they will deal with this issue, rather than demand they find a solution for obligatory problems that plague EVERY GAME.

I've said all I will on this topic - and by god p0intman, if you can pull off some effective multi-boxing on the battlefield, you need to record it and make a "how to" video before anyone else does - THINK OF THE VIEWS! :p

P.S. I love McChickens

Pyreal

2012-05-26, 03:17 AM

Doesnt matter, Higby claimed you wouldnt be able to change teams in the middle of the fight. I'm calling him a liar and/or incompetent.

Teams? You mean leave a squad?

captainkapautz

2012-05-26, 04:01 AM

Teams? You mean leave a squad?

Nah man, he's right.

People will switch to NC when TR get's baseraped at the end of the round.

Gotta think about your W/L-statistics, ya know.

bullet

2012-05-26, 04:19 AM

I never actually knowingly came into contact with any spies in PS1. When xBob551x logs onto the game and never plays or contributes to the outfit, I can't see him staying in the outfit very long unless hes in one of those zergfits in which case you don't need a spy, you just need to watch where the mice move to next.

More organized and tight knit outfits will not have this problem to any degree what so ever. Unless one guy really hates his empire even though he plays it so much to be in one of the tight knit, good outfits.

This whole topic reminds me of the Southpark episode, Butters Bottom Bitch. Had to do some research for that one lol.

http://youtu.be/IxALtLLU46s

BTW, how do you get the video to just show up on the forums? My forum skills are lacking.

Toppopia

2012-05-26, 04:22 AM

Nah man, he's right.

People will switch to NC when TR get's baseraped at the end of the round.

Gotta think about your W/L-statistics, ya know.

I can tell you are being sarcastic, (i hope you are) and there is no way to swap empires, besides creating a whole new account, and what about all that wasted effort on your old account? You going to give it up just to get 1 win out of thousands? That sounds really stupid to me.

P.S: I wasn't talking to you captainkapautz, i am talking to anyone who thinks about empire swapping, because there is no point really.

p0intman

2012-05-26, 04:58 AM

I can tell you are being sarcastic, (i hope you are) and there is no way to swap empires, besides creating a whole new account, and what about all that wasted effort on your old account? You going to give it up just to get 1 win out of thousands? That sounds really stupid to me.

P.S: I wasn't talking to you captainkapautz, i am talking to anyone who thinks about empire swapping, because there is no point really.
to create a new account with soe, you dont need to give up your old account...

captainkapautz

2012-05-26, 05:12 AM

to create a new account with soe, you dont need to give up your old account...

But, and this is the important part really, is the point?

You swapping empire so you don't "lose" really doesn't net you much.

Sabot

2012-05-26, 05:16 AM

Oh you're still at it, eh?

Notice how he almost always takes sentences out of context so he can state the obvious and (at least to himself) seem like he's making a "winning" agrument, as he'd call it.

But, and this is the important part really, is the point?

You swapping empire so you don't "lose" really doesn't net you much.

He doesn't understand this... it's as if you wrote it in a foreign language to him.

Toppopia

2012-05-26, 05:23 AM

But why start all over again, just to begin a new character on a new empire, just to start again if that empire starts losing? There is no point to it. It just means you are an idiot person that only cares abouts win/lose statistics, you winning and losing is basically out of your control, it is what your empire/what the other empire does that changes the outcome of a battle. So trying to have good W/L statistics is a waste of time in a game like Planetside 2.

(Wasn't talking to you specifically, just stating a point, that resetting just because you are losing makes no sense and is pointless.)

xIIDeAdLyIIx

2012-05-26, 10:13 AM

I don't think it should be the case that after you make your choice on the faction to be you should be locked into it, purely for the reason that if you have a friend who wants to play a different faction you can join them. There should be a period of time where you aren't allowed to go on the server while you change alliances, this would mean that any plans you would know about could have already been carried out.

As for people who only judge people and themselves by W/L ratio who will 'Log out Delete' just for loosing, I think there is no saving people like this and they will have moved on within a few weeks

SgtMAD

2012-05-26, 10:34 AM

you ppl that don't have years of experience in PS haven't seen what the dreaded "Fourth Empire" is capable of,it can really fuck over another empire when the herd moves around together as a large group,this used to happen alot when the devs would patch PS,the resulting nerfs/buffs on all empires would sometimes create an issue like Lasher 2.0.

Kipper

2012-05-26, 12:08 PM

For the record, I do happen to think that people should be allowed a toon from each empire on one account. Maybe it should be one empire per server, maybe it should be one of each empire per server - I don't think it really matters at all.

Some new people will want to try out each empire before finding the one they prefer. Other people might just like to swap out occasionally, not for nefariousness(tm) - but just for a change of scene. It may even be (gasp) that the servers will be so full, you might not be able to get a spot on your chosen empire all the time.

You don't need any more than one of each empire per server, since its pointless to have multiple with the cert system anyway, and you can simply add a timer of maybe 2 or 3 hours so that people can't just swap around when the wind changes direction.

Anyway that aside. What I think people have been trying to say all along is that while some 'abuses' are possible - they are pointless and actually not very abusive.

As someone pointed out above - EVE is a different ball game, lots of things happen over timescales of weeks and months, real money can be involved (given that you can at least pay your subscription with in game currency) and some losses can take a long time to recover from.

In Planetside, territory is designed to change hands a lot (how much probably will be balanced in beta) and that's the heart of the game, its not going to cause anyone to lose real money or months of hard work because nobody had to grind to build these bases in the first place - and your character can't be "killed" etc. Dying here is a very minor setback as opposed the potentially expensive disaster it could be in a game like EVE.

Anything that any group does 'en-masse' to try and grief the entire enemy team (like taking up population spaces was mentioned a few pages ago) is also pointless, even if you could find enough people who thought it was a good idea and could organise it to happen, what are you gaining? The real players on the other team probably won't be too aware of it anyway since they'll be busy fighting. You'd only be kind of cheating yourself, why play an FPS if you don't actually want to fight against people? Any gains you make will be wiped out fairly quickly anyway, because the more territory a team holds, the harder it will be to retain it all with the same number of players available to defend it.

So... yes, you could do weird stuff... but no, it wouldn't really be hurting anyone in any significant amount.

p0intman

2012-05-26, 02:32 PM

I want everyone to try something in the following method:

Get an accurate timer out, a stopwatch of some sort. It can be on your phone, a watch or whatever. As long as you can accurately time how long it takes to do this.

When you have that done, start the timer as you start the PS1 launcher up. Keep the timer going until you are fully ingame on gemini and able to control your character. Do not leave the computer or timer until then.

post the time.

I was ingame in under a minute (48 seconds, actually) from launching and entering my password to being able to control my character.

With that in mind, I will re-address this and lay it out plainly.

I see this as the best option in the F2P format because it adds a level of factional loyalty to the game, and prevents people from just switching sides in a losing battle so they can be on the winning side.

The sense of imposed loyalty is flawed, and I'll explain it.

With more than one account, you can keep more than one character on a single server training 24/7. I have no doubt that there will be skill monitors akin to those used by people who enjoy EVE, and they will be useful. There is no loss in using more than one character. There is no reason not to have more than one account, and there is no imposed loyalty when you can switch characters in under a minute at will, with absolutely no trade off required. At least as it stands in PS1, there is a timer involved to deter this happening on the fly.

I can tell you are being sarcastic, (i hope you are) and there is no way to swap empires, besides creating a whole new account, and what about all that wasted effort on your old account? You going to give it up just to get 1 win out of thousands? That sounds really stupid to me.

P.S: I wasn't talking to you captainkapautz, i am talking to anyone who thinks about empire swapping, because there is no point really.
to create a new account with soe, you dont need to give up your old account. this is important, because if you look at what I said above...
(cont below)
But, and this is the important part really, [what] is the point?

You swapping empire so you don't "lose" really doesn't net you much.

the only thing that matters to some people is to be on the 'winning' team. They don't care for loyalty, they only care about not being steamrolled.

you ppl that don't have years of experience in PS haven't seen what the dreaded "Fourth Empire" is capable of,it can really fuck over another empire when the herd moves around together as a large group,this used to happen alot when the devs would patch PS,the resulting nerfs/buffs on all empires would sometimes create an issue like Lasher 2.0.

And as SgtMad has said, the "fourth empire" will exist anyway, there will not be any reason for it not to.

Last night, NC had 60 percent global population. We comfortably fought on three continents, and won almost all of them, including VS and TR home worlds. I have no question in my mind that it was due in no small part, to the fourth empire people who switch factions on the fly.

Now, heres the question: Are you prepared to gamble with that in PS2?

This problem will be further exacerbated by the data available, if it is to the degree that Matt Higby has claimed. I will be able to see what empire I want to log into before I log into the game for the first time in the day. All characters training while I'm offline will mean that unless its to change a skill on one, I don't really need to log in and can leave it slowly ticking away. It isn't a big problem, and if you've spent time in EVE, you know that it never ends anyway. It isn't a rush for many of us.

For you new guys that have never played PS1 before, and haven't been playing it very long, take into account that I've had years of experience with this.

onwee

2012-05-26, 03:01 PM

People are actually going to play PS2 unlike what PS1 is now. The populations will be more balanced and most likely close to maxed out whether you choose to switch sides or not. People faction hoping will not have any real affect on gameplay unless the server is severely underpopulated.

Believe me, I'm a doctor and have over 200 years of experience on the internet.

p0intman

2012-05-26, 03:11 PM

onwee

2012-05-26, 03:13 PM

Why are you thinking in the short term?

Do you understand how long it's going to be until there's only one underpopulated server left?

Probably about 10+ years when PS3 is getting all the hype. So, what's your question even mean?

p0intman

2012-05-26, 03:17 PM

Do you understand how long it's going to be until there's only one underpopulated server left?

Probably about 10+ years when PS3 is getting all the hype. So, what's your question even mean?

[Needs Citation]

This was a problem for PS1 when it was only three years old.

onwee

2012-05-26, 03:18 PM

[Needs Citation]

This was a problem for PS1 when it was only three years old.

It's opinion, it needs no citation.

If PS2 is down to one server in three years then they have bigger problems than people faction hoping. Your point is moot.

p0intman

2012-05-26, 03:21 PM

It's opinion, it needs to citation.

If PS2 is down to one server in three years then they have bigger problems than people faction hoping. Your point is moot.

It doesn't need to only have one server for it to be a problem. It still affects the weight of each empire and the outcome of each fight.

The ONLY mistake I am making is expending the effort to explain this kind of a problem now instead of when it comes up to people who are thinking its going to be a MASSIVEOMGLOLWTF hit and become the WoW of FPS games.

Hamma, if/when you see this, lock the thread. I've tried but nobody seems to want to see the problem they're walking into. Fuck it.

Thomas

2012-05-26, 03:24 PM

[Needs Citation]

This was a problem for PS1 when it was only three years old.

You clearly know nothing about PS1's situation when it was released.

Gonefshn

2012-05-26, 03:25 PM

I can't believe this is still going. I just don't see how people doing this will effect anyone enough for it to matter. It's going to be such an incredibly small fraction of the population doing it and unlike a real hack it takes work and micromanagement. It's not like it improves accuracy or something tangible. You won't even know its happening and 99% of the time it wont be so it's a moot point to even worry about this.

p0intman

2012-05-26, 03:39 PM

You clearly know nothing about PS1's situation when it was released.

P0INTMAN was created in mid to late 2004, before that I was MVS on markov, apart of D2A just after launch (Remember the old pounder? I do). I'd like to say I know more about it than most.

And even if you don't see it, its still a problem.

But hey...
http://www.ostrichheadinsand.com/images/ostrich-head-in-sand.jpg

basti

2012-05-26, 07:44 PM

This thread may be locked, but i get it out of its grave because i have to say something.

p0int, as annoying as you are, you got a point (heh).

The whole "hop onto a different account because its free" thing really has flaws, like cheating, Friendly fire (grief lock? Screw that, New account!), spying etc.
While some of those may be lighter flaws that dont matter much (spying may be one of them, its easy to deal with and not very effective in an FPS anyway), cheating and trolling via friendly fire are quite some big issues that need to be adressed.
BUT, that doesnt have to mean that the game needs a box price. As seen in various games, box prices dont stop cheaters, it just lowers their population. Look at COD or BF3 and you see what i mean.
But we dont want a low cheater populaiton, we want no cheaters at all. And as it seems, the devs are working quite hard to archive that. And if they do what i think they do (and the reason why they went for punkbuster on top of their own AC stuff thats hidden within the client), then they can also do with the trolls by simply denying their ability to easily create another account (or even just switch between existing accounts).

In any way, dont blame it on F2P, thats not the problem. F2P takes away the entry barrier, and thats what caused PS to not be as succesful as it could be.

At the very end, we have to wait till beta, see ourself, and figure out how to fix the problem. And dont get into page long arguments that derail into a flamewar and personal attacks, because those help nobody. ;)