Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 6.2K All Categories
- 3.1K Everything Achaea
- 1.5K North of Thera
- 26 Archives of the Terraformer
- 257 The Matsuhama Arena
- 885 The Golden Dais of Creation
- 299 The Scarlattan Theatre
- 149 The Blank Canvas
- 2K Getting Help
- 412 General Questions
- 258 Quick Class Questions
- 1.3K Tech Support
- 313 Client Help
- 486 Curing Systems and Scripts
- 841 Off-Topic
- 255 The Wander Inn
- 586 The Universal Membrane
- 298 Class Discussions
- 298 Individual Class Sections
- 20 Alchemist
- 9 Apostate
- 30 Blademaster
- 9 Depthswalker
- 14 Druid
- 4 Infernal
- 20 Jester
- 19 Magi
- 34 Monk
- 11 Occultist
- 8 Paladin
- 7 Priest
- 29 Runewarden
- 18 Sentinel
- 26 Serpent
- 20 Shaman
- 9 Sylvan
Making alts in the same orgs
Skye
The Duchess Bellatere
Okay, it's no secret that I don't really care for this practice. But I'm curious if there's actually any legitimate reason why anyone would have multiple characters in the same city/house. Further to that, why this practice is even allowed anymore.
You can't vote in elections with those characters and I don't think anyone likes House requirements that much that they'd do the same reqs twice. You don't even have the 'I want to play different classes' excuse because we now have multiclass. You also can't (or well, you shouldn't) be holding seats of office with multiple characters either. I've only known one person to do this and he wasn't a fuckwit, and it was between different organisations/cities (come back bb I miss you).
Sharing orgs with your alts restricts your character in more stringent ways than just regular alting, and cross-character accountability constantly hangs over your head. It's also really damn creepy if you think about it.
You can't vote in elections with those characters and I don't think anyone likes House requirements that much that they'd do the same reqs twice. You don't even have the 'I want to play different classes' excuse because we now have multiclass. You also can't (or well, you shouldn't) be holding seats of office with multiple characters either. I've only known one person to do this and he wasn't a fuckwit, and it was between different organisations/cities (come back bb I miss you).
Sharing orgs with your alts restricts your character in more stringent ways than just regular alting, and cross-character accountability constantly hangs over your head. It's also really damn creepy if you think about it.
3
Comments
However, the class thing could be a very flimsy but still somewhat valid excuse. Yes, we have multiclass, but lets not forget multiclass gets more expensive with each new class you add to it up until the fourth one or so. So someone scant on resources might presumably create an alt to experience another class from the same faction while having all the benefits such as bound credits bonus and no lesson inflation.
And you won't understand the cause of your grief...
...But you'll always follow the voices beneath.
Of course, most of these things I can look for on my main character. What I am talking about more specifically, is for example, bugs that I have found in the task system and other similar errors. Other than that, it's even more fun to enjoy your splendid organization without all the responsibility
I've seen some stupid opinions in the past, but holy shit, this one is extra stupid.
Shouldn't you be more worried about cross-character accountability from someone from an opposing org making an alt in yours? What's stopping them from just getting rank in your own house and then blabbing all your secrets to their main's friends? If we're trying to restict how people are allowed to play and enjoy the game, we'd be better off restricting opposing-faction alts, like even World of Warcraft does in their PVP servers, not same-faction ones, which are more harmless than a baby mouse's first fart.
But you shouldn't be arguing against letting people play the game the way they want to play it in the first place, especially about something as ridiculously petty and inconsequential as "Why is making two characters in the same org allowed?". There are much more important things to argue about, like why paralysis shouldn't instantly prevent all actions or why Cyrene should be deleted.
That love soon might end You are unbreaking
And be known in its aching Though quaking
Shown in this shaking Though crazy
Lately of my wasteland, baby That's just wasteland, baby
Paralysis has already been fixed in every other IRE game by changing it to a 'numbness' aff that only blocks tattoos and leaving the room, and turns into full paralysis after six seconds if left uncured. This lets it retain its viability as a hinder and lock aff while preventing every fight with an aff class from being a race over who can spam para/clumsy the fastest.
If that bothers you, then maybe the problem is you.
Let's see if you can provide a valid argument as to why spamming paralysis on every attack is a fun or interesting game mechanic, instead of just accusing everyone you disagree with of being a troll HELP SECONDS
HELP CROSS CHARACTER
These regulations already exist so that responsible people can responsibly play same-org alts. There is no reason you can feasibly present to mechanically disallow or even discourage doing so. "I think it's creepy/dumb" is not an argument.
Durr someone disagreed with me, better get hostile as fuck. Because that proves you're smarter than them, yessir.
Edit: We're way off topic and pretty much hijacked this thread. So I'm done. You guys have fun.
I somewhat agree and that is why I did not attempt to present an argument as to why it should be disallowed. I think alting in the same orgs opens up to potential for abuse, but as you pointed out, there are clear guidelines on what is allowable. The only concern I have is that alt-helping isn't always black-and-white, like voting for yourself. It can be grey area as well, for example, everyone knows Houses tend to get divided into "cliques". So you have alt 1 be buddy-buddy with Clique A and alt 2 be buddy-buddy with Clique B, and even though you aren't tangibly helping yourself, you're in a very grey area because you can potentially harvest gossip etc. Basically, Achaea is a social game, and there are ways to "help" yourself that aren't, y'know, dropping a pack of gold and picking it up on an alt.
But as I said before, the admins would be very hard-pressed to sniff out a dedicated multiplayer, so it'd just become a waste of resources. They'd pretty much need to force everyone to use the website client and verify everyone's character by personal phone call.
Imagine like two city Ministers that have technically never met, and will never meet?
At what point does this point in HELP SECONDS cross?
Because since we are talking that help seconds are in (the stridently advocated) unambigious terms wouldn't this apply to the goals of the city, Order or house the person has both their characters are in?
Firstly, while the 'rules' are certainly listed in great detail, they are also not very well policed. I can't recall the last time someone was shrubbed for logging in to see who took a bounty on them, or switched characters for a more desirable class in the middle of the raid, or (when trade skills were class-locked) logging on to their alchemist/forestal because the city needed refills. Characters who get shrubbed are more likely for doing more traceable things like sharing items/stalking/harrassment etc.
Secondly, having a finger in every pie isn't just 'creepy' but it can severely affect your experience IG as well. It influences your perspective of certain players. In theory, you could say that this would not affect the way you interact with those players, but in practice, you would have to be a saint to remain 100% impartial from your OOC experiences. That goes for alts and forums alike. People who behave like shitheads on forums are also generally perceived to be shitheads IG, for example.
For players who learn that you're doing this, it would affect them negatively as well because you're basically inserting yourself into multiple avenues like some kind of Big Brother surveillance.
Anecdotally, I would say that most people have less problems with alts in different cities than they do with players having multiple characters in the same organisation. I suspect a good part of it has to do with trust: A(n active) character in a different city with a different IC social circle has a more tangible boundary between X's interests and Y's interests. The crossing of that boundary is also far more apparent.
For a player with X and Y both in the same city, what becomes your motive? Maybe like Aesgar, you just want to make a throwaway to see how the city functions from the lowest level. That's pretty harmless. Or maybe you want to see what other people are saying about you behind your back. That's pretty uncomfortable.
>Characters who get shrubbed are more likely for doing more traceable things like sharing items/stalking/harrassment etc.
Key word there is "traceable things" - if admins already have a hard time policing the more difficult things to trace, banning same-org alts entirely would just inspire the dedicated multiplayers to be more untraceable through more technical methods. And while outright banning of same-org alts would lessen the amount of alt policing the admins need to do, it'd take considerably more effort to focus on tracking down those few who would find ways around it.
Furthermore, lets assume that the admins assume everyone who has an alt is following the rules, and that alts are good for business because it means people will spend money on multiple characters. Banning same-org alts would effect business. Its our guess just how much, whether it'd be a really negligible amount or if there's actually a handful of people dropping serious cash on same-org alts, only IRE would know for sure. I'm sure we could all think of a few well-known people who have multiple chars in the same city and each of their chars are piled in arties.
So basically, the argument against banning same-org alts in theory would boil down to A: increased headache in trying to stop the really dedicated multiplayers, and B: potential loss of revenue.