Server Limitations

[Pretentious]

While I think creating PRO Blue Server may alleviate some of the problems temporarily, I think the staff could take additional measures as well.

 

1. Remove the capability to multiclient. I realize that this may be difficult, or even impossible, since everyone has a "brother" that plays this game, but allowing someone to play on multiple accounts at once is bad for a game with limited server capacity.

 

2. Implement a daily hours cap. If PRO was a pay to play game, then I'd never make a suggestion like this. However, this is a free game. If you're spending more than "XX" hours per day playing this game, you're hurting the community.

[Orihara]

112714 1. Remove the capability to multiclient. I realize that this may be difficult, or even impossible, since everyone has a "brother" that plays this game, but allowing someone to play on multiple accounts at once is bad for a game with limited server capacity.

This would have more negative effects than positive. For example, on a GM perspective, i'll have to log out and log in to the other server everytime rather than watching from two seperate clients. If however, something can be arranged, i agree with this. since the point is to create more space for all players.

112714 2. Implement a daily hours cap. If PRO was a pay to play game, then I'd never make a suggestion like this. However, this is a free game. If you're spending more than "XX" hours per day playing this game, you're hurting the community.

Something similar was brought up and was denied iirc.

[Graffy]

Paying to play a longer hours, wouldn't that deface the meaning of "free to play"? But your reason behind is valid at the sametime

[Fenne]

112714 \

 

2. Implement a daily hours cap. If PRO was a pay to play game, then I'd never make a suggestion like this. However, this is a free game. If you're spending more than "XX" hours per day playing this game, you're hurting the community.

 

To be honest, why are you suggesting this at all. No offense, but this would hurt everyone else in the matter just because "some" users can not get online. A playing cap would make the pleasure of playing the game unpleasurable and a pain. Hence, NO free game will EVER do this. (except in the case of Elsword with its stamina system which even so, you can buy stamina with game currency or by microtransaction.)

[Pretentious]

112717

112714 1. Remove the capability to multiclient. I realize that this may be difficult, or even impossible, since everyone has a "brother" that plays this game, but allowing someone to play on multiple accounts at once is bad for a game with limited server capacity.

This would have more negative effects than positive. For example, on a GM perspective, i'll have to log out and log in to the other server everytime rather than watching from two seperate clients. If however, something can be arranged, i agree with this. since the point is to create more space for all players.

112714 2. Implement a daily hours cap. If PRO was a pay to play game, then I'd never make a suggestion like this. However, this is a free game. If you're spending more than "XX" hours per day playing this game, you're hurting the community.

Something similar was brought up and was denied iirc.

 

1. So someone would be allowed to play on both servers at the same time? :/ I'd argue that adding an additional server is almost useless, if a player can multiclient with the same account on both servers.

 

It would be necessary for staff accounts to do this, so then why not just make the restriction for players?

 

For example: Pretentious can be on Red, but not on Blue (at a given time). Deathwing can be on both.

 

Ideally...

-Only one account tied to an email can be on a server at once with staff being an exception.

[Pretentious]

To be honest, why are you suggesting this at all. No offense, but this would hurt everyone else in the matter just because "some" users can not get online. A playing cap would make the pleasure of playing the game unpleasurable and a pain. Hence, NO free game will EVER do this. (except in the case of Elsword with its stamina system which even so, you can buy stamina with game currency or by microtransaction.)

 

- The primary reason that I suggested it was to increase the amount of real players playing the game. The staff does a fine job of finding bots, but they can't find everyone.

- Server space is severely limited. Increasing the cap is obviously the solution, but it's not that easy, so I'm suggesting alternate ideas to spark a discussion. Nothing wrong with that.

[Fenne]

112724

To be honest, why are you suggesting this at all. No offense, but this would hurt everyone else in the matter just because "some" users can not get online. A playing cap would make the pleasure of playing the game unpleasurable and a pain. Hence, NO free game will EVER do this. (except in the case of Elsword with its stamina system which even so, you can buy stamina with game currency or by microtransaction.)

 

- The primary reason that I suggested it was to increase the amount of real players playing the game. The staff does a fine job of finding bots, but they can't find everyone.

- Server space is severely limited. Increasing the cap is obviously the solution, but it's not that easy, so I'm suggesting alternate ideas to spark a discussion. Nothing wrong with that.

 

I apologize, didn't wished to sound too harsh with my last reply, though with the idea you have posted in your second post. Players will still pass this with the rules allowing them to another email address so they can multi-client like so. Would there be any restriction in the case of that?

[Pretentious]

I apologize, didn't wished to sound too harsh with my last reply, though with the idea you have posted in your second post. Players will still pass this with the rules allowing them to another email address so they can multi-client like so. Would there be any restriction in the case of that?

 

No offense taken. :)

 

Ideally, I would hope not, but I don't have a solution for that.

 

It becomes very complicated when trying to restrict players from using multiple clients which is another reason why I paired the "hours played" statement together. If you restrict the amount of hours you can play by account name and then limit the user to one account per email** online at a given time, then a person would always be allowed to play.

 

**-edited for clarity

[Orihara]

1- seems ok, but i highly doubt 2 will ever happen.

[Fenne]

112733

I apologize, didn't wished to sound too harsh with my last reply, though with the idea you have posted in your second post. Players will still pass this with the rules allowing them to another email address so they can multi-client like so. Would there be any restriction in the case of that?

 

No offense taken. :)

 

Ideally, I would hope not, but I don't have a solution for that.

 

It becomes very complicated when trying to restrict players from using multiple clients which is another reason why I paired the "hours played" statement together. If you restrict the amount of hours you can play by account name and then limit the user to one email account online at a given time, then a person would always be allowed to play.

 

Understandable, yet with the open mind that this is an Open Beta rather than a Closed Beta, that wouldn't be a good idea in the case of the community actually being happy. They would just soon to complain about not being able to play from the time restriction than the actual bandwidth login issues the server have. There also the case if the influx still continues EVEN with the timer. It would not be pretty.