Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Queen Lo
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 21:10:00 -
[1]
It seems that with the introduction of capital class ships, and the increasing growth of highly organised and efficient alliances, that account sharing (despite being forbidden by the EULA) has become quite commonplace.
In another game I play, there is an option to have an account 'sitter' and here's how the system works:
Player A in his account options names player B as his sitter. This means that player B can log into player A's account in the following way: he uses player A's account name, but he uses his own password to do so. Therefore no password information is exchanged, and control of key account issues such as password control and subscription matters is not transferred to the 'sitter', merely the ability to play as that character.
The game i got this idea from is considerably less complex than eve, so I would suggest this to regulate the system a bit:
The account owner can specify a level of access for his 'sitter', a bit like corporate roles and titles, allowing certain things like skill changes to be made, or ships to be flown. Perhaps however forbidding market transactions or station trades/contracts, or high level director access within a corp. The specifics would obviously need to be thought out by CCP. Perhaps allow a maximum of two or three sitters per account.
This system would allow large alliances to legally do what they are all currently breaking the EULA to do. Corp or alliance investments on the scale of capital ships need to be shared to maximise their usefulness and provide a good return on the large investment that they represent.
A good plan, or stupid ramblings? I think it would allow an extra level of flexibility that is now required in the game without causing a serious security risk to people's accounts.
|
Marcus TheMartin
Gallente Tuxedo.
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 21:18:00 -
[2]
I character per IP problem solved
Half Assed Rhymage |
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 21:25:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin I character per IP problem solved
Problem solved except for the large portion of EVE players with dynamic IP addresses
-[23] Member-
EVE-Trance Radio! (DSTrance channel ingame) |
Fswd
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 21:27:00 -
[4]
Or ppl who use alts and CCP is not gonna do that because they would lose about a third of the current playerbase
|
Marcus TheMartin
Gallente Tuxedo.
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 21:27:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin I character per IP problem solved
Problem solved except for the large portion of EVE players with dynamic IP addresses
well ccp could always install cameras in ever ones home and keep an eye on them to make sure they weren't cheating
Half Assed Rhymage |
Daddy's Belt
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 21:34:00 -
[6]
Two dumb ideas in a row, Marcus?
And now, it time for your buttwhippin! |
Marcus TheMartin
Gallente Tuxedo.
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 21:35:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Marcus TheMartin on 11/02/2007 21:32:17
Originally by: Daddy's Belt Two dumb ideas in a row, Marcus?
How is the removal of alts and multiple characters a dumb idea?
and in case your head was too far up your ass that 2nd post of mine was made using the ancient art of sarcasm
Half Assed Rhymage |
Anatolius
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 21:36:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin I character per IP problem solved
Problem solved except for the large portion of EVE players with dynamic IP addresses
And the people who can purchase multiple IPs from their ISPs.
And kind of screws over families who play together behind your standard generic router and NAT.
"If God be for us, whom can be against us?" |
Junot Nevone
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 21:37:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin I character per IP problem solved
And how many couples, myself and my wife included, will quit the game because we cannot play together anymore since our household is limited to one character?
I despise alts also, but that is not a solution that will ever work.
|
Queen Lo
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 21:37:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin I character per IP problem solved
I don't understand this. I have two accounts, 6 characters, and have never had a 'problem' playing two chars from different accounts simultaneously from the same IP. I understand that a new trial account cannot be played as the same time as one of my main accounts.
Anyway thats not really what this is about, its about things like cynonets and dreadnought alts that are shared by alliances, risking bannage according to the EULA.
Could you explain a bit more what you mean in the post I quoted I'm not sure I get it
|
|
Marcus TheMartin
Gallente Tuxedo.
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 21:39:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Queen Lo
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin I character per IP problem solved
I don't understand this. I have two accounts, 6 characters, and have never had a 'problem' playing two chars from different accounts simultaneously from the same IP. I understand that a new trial account cannot be played as the same time as one of my main accounts.
Anyway thats not really what this is about, its about things like cynonets and dreadnought alts that are shared by alliances, risking bannage according to the EULA.
Could you explain a bit more what you mean in the post I quoted I'm not sure I get it
My idea was just saying get rid of alts and multi characters and the problem is solved I had better go edit that post
Half Assed Rhymage |
Taedrin
Gallente Mercatoris Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 21:40:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin I character per IP problem solved
Problem solved except for the large portion of EVE players with dynamic IP addresses
I swear... he's EVERYWHERE.
On top of this IP addresses can be spoofed, so this would solve nothing.
|
Daddy's Belt
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 21:40:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
How is the removal of alts and multiple characters a dumb idea?
An idea where CCP loses money automatically goes to the top of the Dumb Idea List. Sorry.
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin and in case your head was too far up your ass that 2nd post of mine was made using the ancient art of sarcasm
Sarcasm is the lowest form of humor. My head isn't up my ass, I just find sarcasm to be a sign of stupidity.
You:
"CCP lose money. Duh."
"Sarcasm. Duh."
And now, it time for your buttwhippin! |
Marcus TheMartin
Gallente Tuxedo.
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 21:58:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Daddy's Belt
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
How is the removal of alts and multiple characters a dumb idea?
An idea where CCP loses money automatically goes to the top of the Dumb Idea List. Sorry.
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin and in case your head was too far up your ass that 2nd post of mine was made using the ancient art of sarcasm
Sarcasm is the lowest form of humor. My head isn't up my ass, I just find sarcasm to be a sign of stupidity.
You:
"CCP lose money. Duh."
"Sarcasm. Duh."
I'm not thinking about the money I'm thinking about the game. If they wanted to gouge cash out of this game then the macro miners wouldn't be banned unless they unveil their own isk buying system.
And the lowest form of humor would be fart jokes afaik
Half Assed Rhymage |
Billy Sastard
Amarr Zephyr Enterprises Inc. Astral Wolves
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 22:17:00 -
[15]
I cannot see how any MMO provider in their right mind would make multiple accounts against the rules. There is just too much money involved, and when it comes down to it, the company is in business to make money. Losing 30% of their profits to make 10% (or less) of the playerbase happy is just not going to happen. -=^=-
|
Argenton Sayvers
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 22:19:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
Get rid of alts and multiple characters and the problem is solved
Get rid of alts and multiple characters, and the problem is a hundred times worse.
How is a cyno network supposed to work without alts? How is anything in eve supposed to work without alts?
The slot and alt concept is burned deep into eves very core. Changing it wont be easy...
As for the topic - interesting approach, but its a bit too OOG. One should try to rework most of the reasons for systematic account sharing, and then try metagaming aproaches. Remotely controlled cyno-drones for example.
|
Marcus TheMartin
Gallente Tuxedo.
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 22:22:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Argenton Sayvers
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
Get rid of alts and multiple characters and the problem is solved
Get rid of alts and multiple characters, and the problem is a hundred times worse.
How is a cyno network supposed to work without alts? How is anything in eve supposed to work without alts?
The slot and alt concept is burned deep into eves very core. Changing it wont be easy...
As for the topic - interesting approach, but its a bit too OOG. One should try to rework most of the reasons for systematic account sharing, and then try metagaming aproaches. Remotely controlled cyno-drones for example.
And thusly the hole has been dug the options are dig deeper and get money and eventually crash and burn or fill the hole take the temporary money sink and get money later.
Regardless the pro alt arguments are always made from an oog perspective instead of an in game perspective when I raise the point. And suicide cyno alts are BS in my opinion (along with all alts for that matter)
Half Assed Rhymage |
Ralara
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 22:25:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Queen Lo It seems that with the introduction of capital class ships, and the increasing growth of highly organised and efficient alliances, that account sharing (despite being forbidden by the EULA) has become quite commonplace.
In another game I play, there is an option to have an account 'sitter' and here's how the system works:
Player A in his account options names player B as his sitter. This means that player B can log into player A's account in the following way: he uses player A's account name, but he uses his own password to do so. Therefore no password information is exchanged, and control of key account issues such as password control and subscription matters is not transferred to the 'sitter', merely the ability to play as that character.
The game i got this idea from is considerably less complex than eve, so I would suggest this to regulate the system a bit:
The account owner can specify a level of access for his 'sitter', a bit like corporate roles and titles, allowing certain things like skill changes to be made, or ships to be flown. Perhaps however forbidding market transactions or station trades/contracts, or high level director access within a corp. The specifics would obviously need to be thought out by CCP. Perhaps allow a maximum of two or three sitters per account.
This system would allow large alliances to legally do what they are all currently breaking the EULA to do. Corp or alliance investments on the scale of capital ships need to be shared to maximise their usefulness and provide a good return on the large investment that they represent.
A good plan, or stupid ramblings? I think it would allow an extra level of flexibility that is now required in the game without causing a serious security risk to people's accounts.
OGame? I'm a SGO there :)
|
Argenton Sayvers
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 22:32:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
Regardless the pro alt arguments are always made from an oog perspective instead of an in game perspective when I raise the point.
No. My arguments are all about the inner workings of the game, not about CCPs wallet. Show that you understand the inner workings of eve by listing comprehensive changes to eve's core gameplay that need to be done in order for eve to still be playable after a one person one character rule will be enforced.
|
Marcus TheMartin
Gallente Tuxedo.
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 22:36:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Argenton Sayvers Show that you understand the inner workings of eve by listing comprehensive changes to eve's core gameplay that need to be done in order for eve to still be playable after a one person one character rule will be enforced.
Read the post in the link under my sig and it has a few things that would change if the alts were gone
Half Assed Rhymage |
|
Argenton Sayvers
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 22:43:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Argenton Sayvers on 11/02/2007 22:42:55 Yes great, i asked for facts, not ideology. For example, are you prepared to pay 200m per Raven, and 100m per Cap recharger II? Production slots ... thought about that?
Where are you going to get the dozens of players who willingly waste their entertainment time freightering goods in empire or playing cyno-beacon?
How do you think will the markets look like when all the market alts are removed?
|
Marcus TheMartin
Gallente Tuxedo.
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 22:50:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Argenton Sayvers Edited by: Argenton Sayvers on 11/02/2007 22:42:55 Yes great, i asked for facts, not ideology. For example, are you prepared to pay 200m per Raven, and 100m per Cap recharger II? Production slots ... thought about that?
Where are you going to get the dozens of players who willingly waste their entertainment time freightering goods in empire or playing cyno-beacon?
How do you think will the markets look like when all the market alts are removed?
For one the t1 market won't be as lucrative and overstuffed as it currently is.
And since I don't fly battleships I don't think I'll have much of a problem with paying 200mill for a raven
Half Assed Rhymage |
DuckQuack
Caldari Decisive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 23:52:00 -
[23]
yeah i definately vote for 1 character per account...
might even give ccp more of a profit that way as well..
|
teeze
|
Posted - 2007.02.11 23:54:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
Originally by: Argenton Sayvers Edited by: Argenton Sayvers on 11/02/2007 22:42:55 Yes great, i asked for facts, not ideology. For example, are you prepared to pay 200m per Raven, and 100m per Cap recharger II? Production slots ... thought about that?
Where are you going to get the dozens of players who willingly waste their entertainment time freightering goods in empire or playing cyno-beacon?
How do you think will the markets look like when all the market alts are removed?
For one the t1 market won't be as lucrative and overstuffed as it currently is.
is it lucrative or overstuffed.... it cant be both. please formulate a correct argument.
Quote:
And since I don't fly battleships I don't think I'll have much of a problem with paying 200mill for a raven
and that is despite you claiming to be talking for the game you couldnt give a monkey's left testicle about the price of the single most popular missioning ship the player base uses...
and as for you winning any threads... if winning is defined as "looking like a complete nubbin who cannot formulate a cohesive and defensable argument, but just wants to wind up as many people who actually care about the game as possible...." you win. otherwise.... well I am sure you can finish that with another irrelivant and inane remark.
|
Queen Lo
|
Posted - 2007.02.12 00:10:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Ralara
OGame? I'm a SGO there :)
Hehe not Ogame actually, but I assume that uses a similar system. The game i was referring to was travian, which is kind of a strange little free-browser thing but i like it. :D
I just thought the idea could be applicable to EVE.
|
Queen Lo
|
Posted - 2007.02.12 00:12:00 -
[26]
Originally by: teeze
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
Originally by: Argenton Sayvers Edited by: Argenton Sayvers on 11/02/2007 22:42:55 Yes great, i asked for facts, not ideology. For example, are you prepared to pay 200m per Raven, and 100m per Cap recharger II? Production slots ... thought about that?
Where are you going to get the dozens of players who willingly waste their entertainment time freightering goods in empire or playing cyno-beacon?
How do you think will the markets look like when all the market alts are removed?
For one the t1 market won't be as lucrative and overstuffed as it currently is.
is it lucrative or overstuffed.... it cant be both. please formulate a correct argument.
Quote:
And since I don't fly battleships I don't think I'll have much of a problem with paying 200mill for a raven
and that is despite you claiming to be talking for the game you couldnt give a monkey's left testicle about the price of the single most popular missioning ship the player base uses...
and as for you winning any threads... if winning is defined as "looking like a complete nubbin who cannot formulate a cohesive and defensable argument, but just wants to wind up as many people who actually care about the game as possible...." you win. otherwise.... well I am sure you can finish that with another irrelivant and inane remark.
Can you lot stop bickering off topic please This isn't a thread about whether people should have alts or not. I don't make many threads and tbh you are ruining the whole experience for me.
/cries.
Now can you live with yourselves?
|
sirbest
British Legion The Core Collective
|
Posted - 2007.02.12 00:20:00 -
[27]
ok, i understand its against the eula whatever, but my question is why? what difference dose it make to anyone but the person who is doing it? if i want t share my account and let a friend, wife, whaterver log in on my account that i am paying for when i am not on it myself then why cant i? i am still soly responsible for what happens on my account wile its in game so whats the problem? SirBest |
Itoz
Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.02.12 00:56:00 -
[28]
well ccp could always install cameras in ever ones home and keep an eye on them to make sure they weren't cheating
I play eve naked...
|
Shameless Avenger
|
Posted - 2007.02.12 01:06:00 -
[29]
Any group of player trying to make a cyno-account-sharing system could dedicate a computer and do it undetectable. Set up a dedicated computer, not even a high end one, just a box capable of running eve at minimal resolution. Don't need to 'share' the account, share the whole computer instead. (Hint - Tight VNC).
And no, I'm not doing it. I can't fly capitals yet.
|
JForce
N.W.A Soldiers of the Forgotten Abyss
|
Posted - 2007.02.12 01:13:00 -
[30]
I was JUST about to start a thread on account sharing.
I like this idea.
Can anyone give me the actual reason why account sharing is prohibited by the EULA? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |