1 empire per account and F2P - Page 4

Crator · 2012-03-25, 09:27 AM

The very definition of Free-to-Play means no cost to play. So, I don't think they would be calling it F2P if it were the case that they had an upfront cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play

Redshift · 2012-03-25, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by IronMole

That's my major gripe. The game should be B2P, this prevents the game being riddled with hackers etc...

They'll not get the player base to sustain the game with a purchase price

DCUO got 1000% more accounts created when it went F2P, a game like PS that needs numbers, needs to get to as many people as possible

Vancha · 2012-03-25, 09:35 AM

Again, wouldn't people be more likely to spy if they already have an alternate account to play on another empire?

If I'm playing my usual NC and decided for whatever reason I wanted to spy on TR, I'm far less likely to bother doing so if I have to go and create a new account, as opposed to if I already have a TR account because I wanted to try out their weapons a couple of months ago.

An empire lock will just make spying more prevalent.

Spokes · 2012-03-25, 09:52 AM

All spying promotes is the 4th empire and griefing. Before the servers merged in planetside 1, there was a lot more loyalty to the empires you joined off the bat. When the two empires got allowed per account it just let people switch to whatever side was winning.

Redshift · 2012-03-25, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

Embedded GUID into the game client once installed via CD key. It's a little extra work, but it will stop multiple accounts from being created on multiple emails UNLESS they do a registry clean of it, probably some user.id in the local user/appdata folder.

They could also do MAC address tagging and HDD serial number tagging.

And then what do you plan to do if several people in the same house share computers? or if one team just happens to have a population of 45-50% etc? to me that throws up far more problems than it solves, it still won't solve spying as people have stated before they'll just use a second account on a second computer if they want to.

Vancha · 2012-03-25, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Spokes

All spying promotes is the 4th empire and griefing. Before the servers merged in planetside 1, there was a lot more loyalty to the empires you joined off the bat. When the two empires got allowed per account it just let people switch to whatever side was winning.

It's a free game, completely. Multiple empires per account + empire lock would promote less spying than if people naturally had multiple accounts to accommodate legitimate characters on different empires.

What you're saying would be correct if PS2 had a subscription or purchase price.

Vanir · 2012-03-25, 10:28 AM

Why one empire per account? Why not one empire per server?

IronMole · 2012-03-25, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Vancha

Multiple empires per account + empire lock would promote less spying than if people naturally had multiple accounts to accommodate legitimate characters on different empires.

Not true. Spies will spy, regardless of the situation.

KrazeyVIII · 2012-03-25, 10:30 AM

This would be a bad idea to implement. It restricts players from experiencing the game from different angles by forcing them down the most inconvenient path possible.

The old method of putting a 12 hour lock on the two empires you did not swap to was a great way to stop constant empire swapping.

If this is a way to try and milk more money from people to pay for different faction weapons and items then that is still a bad idea. People will still spend money on their alts if they enjoy them on the same account. I for one will NOT spend a dime on my alts if I am forced to split money between accounts. I have already bought enough $ in station cash to be worth more than a regular 12 mo. subscription. I would easily buy more if I knew everything I was going to play was on one account to keep everything together.

F2P is a great model, dividing my money between accounts is not a good way to go about it IMO.

In regards to spies: The select few that will do this will not be stopped by a timer, especially in a F2P game. They will make a second and third account and spy like they intended to. It doesn't seem possible to stop this.

Shogun · 2012-03-25, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by IronMole

Not true. Spies will spy, regardless of the situation.

exactly, so it´s no use to punish normal players in a futile attempt to do something against spys

Spokes · 2012-03-25, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Vancha

It's a free game, completely. Multiple empires per account + empire lock would promote less spying than if people naturally had multiple accounts to accommodate legitimate characters on different empires.

What you're saying would be correct if PS2 had a subscription or purchase price.

True, but it is empire per server, not account. I do not mind spying so much as I do the 4th empire hoppers.

This would be a bad idea to implement. It restricts players from experiencing the game from different angles by forcing them down the most inconvenient path possible.

The old method of putting a 12 hour lock on the two empires you did not swap to was a great way to stop constant empire swapping.

That 12-hour timer promoted the empire hopping to whoever had the higher global population for that night, and log off after that fight was done.

Redshift · 2012-03-25, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Spokes

That 12-hour timer promoted the empire hopping to whoever had the higher global population for that night, and log off after that fight was done.

I'm not sure that's true tbh, i used to like being underpopped, so long as you didn't get steamrolled you had far more targets to kill and normally meant more fun

Vancha · 2012-03-25, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by IronMole

Not true. Spies will spy, regardless of the situation.

All of them? Really? Added convenience wouldn't increase the amount of people doing it?

I don't deny that there will always be people who try to spy, but I wasn't suggesting it would stop everyone spying. However the idea that making something more convenient wouldn't lead to more people doing it and vice versa...Where do you get that from?

Redshift · 2012-03-25, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

All of them? Really? Added convenience wouldn't increase the amount of people doing it?

I don't deny that there will always be people who try to spy, but I wasn't suggesting it would stop everyone spying. However the idea that making something more convenient wouldn't lead to more people doing it and vice versa...Where do you get that from?

I think it's more about the damage they can do, a guy who has to log out of his char and into his spy will more than likely cause his own empire damage, since they'll be a player down and the intel isn't really helpful anyway

The only slightly useful spies would be people running it on another PC and checking the chat constantly, and locking 1 empire per account will do nothing to stop those ones.

Sirisian · 2012-03-25, 01:01 PM

I think you answered the "why" question already regarding why SOE is doing this. I came to the same conclusion a while ago that SOE doesn't want to cut into its profit by adding loopholes for content.

Originally Posted by Redshift

I can see only one benefit of this idea, and it's SOE hoping that people will pay for cash shop items more than once if they're on different accounts, i don't really have a problem with this as SOE needs to make money, even if this is a bit of a cynical way of doing it.

That's one of the reasons in the "what do you want for subscription" thread that I said 3 empires should be solely a membership thing and outlined a system for allowing it in a fair way. This gets them the money they need without inconveniencing real customers that are paying a membership.

Personally I can't imagine not playing all 3 empires. It bothers me in games where I'm locked to one character and am forced to delete all my progress. It also bothers me greatly having to create fake names to play under instead of using one account name. (I might be the only one who doesn't like to butcher his pseudonym).