The Sacred Alt

[koboshi]

I’m going to go ahead and put my head on the block and ask a serious question.

Why is the idea of alternate characters in a MMOG sacrosanct?

Why do you need multiple characters on the same server?  Why do you need multiples at all?  Is it for diversity, so that you can try all the character types at once?

I ask all this because it occurs to me that there is no good reason for the alt to exist.  It just makes opportunities for misbehaving.  And shortens the subscriber duration by letting players do all the class content early on, think of the alternative, every characters’ life is made all that much more important because it is the exclusive agent in the game.  The decision to look for greener pastures in other class or player types would be a serious one because it would be tantamount to character suicide to change characters   Most people play with only one main character to begin with so why not extend that to all players?  It doesn’t follow story logic or common sense for everyone to have many bodies in their possession.  How about only one character per server/world.

[Dark Vengeance]

Ultimately, if you don't allow alts on the same account, some people will just by additional accounts. It's not that people actually need them, but there are some benefits to having alts....moreover people commonly BELIEVE they need alts to be competitive.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[daveNYC]

Some of it depends on the character development system the game has.  SWG and UO allow you to play many different aspects of the game with a single character, EQ and DAoC don't.

[eldaec]

Because it's impossible, in all current games, to experience all content with a single character (except maybe atitd or puzzle pirates - which don't have alts anyway).

[Koyasha]

Storage space in some games.  FFXI comes to mind.  While you can concievably get one character to 75 in all jobs, storage space is at a premium in FFXI.

Other games, to try different aspects of the game.  Like you said, it would be tantamount to committing character suicide, and most people won't do that..but they might also be tired of playing the same thing.  I would have likely quit EQ much earlier if I hadn't had other characters to play (though mine were on separate accounts so I could multi-box, which is another issue that comes to mind).  Even if you limit 1 character to 1 account, some will just get more accounts.  You'd have to require some sort of biometric scan in order to create an account and log in so that each person could only have one account..  And that seems silly...not to mention reduces profits, so it's unlikely any company would go to such lengths at any time in the foreseeable future.

Story logic and common sense are pointless, since people play them as games and not as RPG's.  If you had a game where people actually roleplayed, that would make sense to limit things that break continuity...but then, if people *did* roleplay, they would play those characters as unrelated to each other, or at least not 'the same person', and the problem wouldn't exist anyways.

Personally, I'd rather go the other way with this.  Let people log in multiple characters on the same account simultaneously.  But, like I said, that would reduce profits since all the multi-account people would just have a single account, so I don't see it as likely.

[AOFanboi]

Personally, I'd rather go the other way with this.  Let people log in multiple characters on the same account simultaneously.  But, like I said, that would reduce profits since all the multi-account people would just have a single account, so I don't see it as likely.

Well, they could do a variant on the FFXI solution, and charge an extra monthly fee for each extra "simultaneous" character. So you could log in with one of your X characters for the base fee, but for e.g. $5/mo extra you could run two clients on the same account using different characters.

[HaemishM]

I'm one of those rare people who just don't play "alts." I've never played more than one character to any significant "level" in any MMOG ever. Since most of these games are time-based advancement schemes and I'm a notoriously slow leveller, I just don't have the time for alts, nor the patience to repeat content just to experience a slightly different playstyle. But there are people who will not play a game without the possibility of alts. I have one friend who finally quit EQ recently who had 3 accounts and almost all of them were filled with characters.

[Nebu]

I see the benefit in having alts (varied gameplay, style differences, different items/quests, mule accounts, etc.) but I have to say that a single_character_per_account format does present some benefit to the gaming community.  

Having a single character per account in a game that promotes social interaction (as any mmog should... else it's a single player game in a multiplayer world) may prevent some levels of grief play.  A Tale in the Desert supports this and while there is griefing in the game, it usually is minimized to some extent by:

a) social support being necessary for less painful advancement (i.e. trading, votes for passing tests, etc.).  If you are a known pain-in-the-ass, you'll have a rough time making trades for rare commodities and obtaining support to pass tests.

b) the fact that a character must cancel to change characters rather than simply rerolling on the same account.  You are a representation of your character.  If you want to be an ass, that's fine.  You just have to accept the fact that being an ass comes with some accountability.  In other words, you become a self-sufficient ass.

I think what this issue comes to is a simple cost/benefit analysis.  People by-and-large want the ability to have multiple toons on a single account and game makers oblige.  This generates a tradeoff in that it opens the doors to more grief possibilities, but I think that the additional subscriptions may be making up for this.  Of course, I have no data to back this up and state openly that it is an assumption on my part.

I would prefer a single toon per account scenario myself, but I think that's because I fall into a Haemish category.  I usually play one character at a time and focus my energies in that single direction.  Perhaps a nice compromise would be to affix a name to each account and allow you to change professions at some minimized loss while maintaining the same name.  It would be nice to keep idiots accountable in at least some manner rather than "create noob, harass a few people, delete noob, lather-rinse-repeat".

[WayAbvPar]

I will not play a game that does not allow alternate characters on the same server. I don't play alts for any gameplay advantage; I play them for a change of pace. If playing a support character gets tedious, I can switch to my combat character. If my stealth character gets boring (or hits a exceptionally steep section of the treadmill), I can switch to my distance weapon character.

It is all about choices. Why not SCS (single character per server) then? Simple. I want to play with my friends/guildmates. I do not have the time nor the inclination to forge new and separate social groups on each server for each character I play. Starting over on a new server with absolutely no social network just for a change of pace is completely intolerable.

I ranted on and on about this subject when SWG was in beta. Thankfully it was one of the main things that drove me away- I never got invested in it during the beta, since I knew I wouldn't play at release. This saved me the heartache of paying to play it at all. In fact, my total /played time in beta was probably >5 hours. I just didn't care, and it was because the single character issue completely drove me away.

[koboshi]

OK time to break this down,

Nebu, Haemish,

Spot on.

daveNYC,

You’re absolutely right and I wouldn’t suggest eliminating the alt for a game which keeps a significant amount of race/class exclusive content.  But a SWG style class system would seem to require or at least encourage single character play.

WayAbvPar,

I guess I get what your saying but, would you prefer the economy killers and the griefers to the inconvenience of having to say hi to a couple of new people... shit, if an MMOG isn’t about meeting and playing with people what the hell is it about?

Oh yea and SWG did suck but not for lack of good ideas.  If the game was any good, well, wouldn’t you swallow your pride and play it, even if it had SCS.  I mean seriously all your saying is, if the game is a treadmill then you want to distract yourself from it, but if the game is that bad why the fuck are you playing it.  Maybe the alt system is a crutch but that’s all it is, games need to wean themselves off them.

Koyasha, Dark Vengeance,

I think that if you charge people who desperately want two characters on the same server, as a game company, I wouldn’t have a problem.  And as a player if there is a serious impediment to creating a grief character I’ll be happy

[Dark Vengeance]

Koyasha, Dark Vengeance,

I think that if you charge people who desperately want two characters on the same server, as a game company, I wouldn’t have a problem.  And as a player if there is a serious impediment to creating a grief character I’ll be happy

The problem you run into is that some players will pay the extra money and get an advantage. If other players perceive that advantage as being essential to success, some will resent the need to pay for another account to get that benefit.

I can hear the vault posts now:
"You mean if I buy a second account, I can make a blacksmith and create and repair my own armor?? No fair, why should we have to pay extra for that??? We can't all afford to pay for 10 accounts and be totally self-sufficient, apparently MMOG_Developer_01 only cares about catering to the people who pay the most money"

If it is a perceived advantage, all players will want that advantage....some will even demand it. I agree that "too bad, send us more money" is a good response, but it may drive away your more casual players when they see multi-account owners getting ahead in ways they cannot.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Rasix]

If a game offers different types of gameplay based on your race and class (most notably your class), you better allow more than one player per server.  This is more prevalent for me in class based games rather than skill based.  In a more skill based arena, there better be a way to respec/untrain or I'll likely not patron the game.

I'm the kind of person that enjoys variety and has a hard time choosing a class in a MMORPG.  In EQ, I probably had about 5 or 6 characters above level 25. In CoH, I had about 4 or 5 characters reach level 10 and not one got above level 15.  Perhaps this is just a syndrome of the games, but I don't like being caged into one play style for too long.  I did find this more palatable in EQ, but not so in CoH where I didn't like being forced into a such a constricting role.

I also, sometimes like to newbie it up.  I don't always want to be playing my high level character in the high level zones for these games. Sometimes I want a break and play the game at a much simpler level.  That's part of the reason why in EQ I got a couple characters 50+ but most others ended their lives in the 20's.

The only game that I felt pulled off single character server well was Final Fantasy XI. While I hate to compliment a game that may set back the industry a couple years if people pay attention to its success, it allowed me to tinker with many different classes without having to roll a new toon.  The only reason I would need to would be to try a new race which didn't seem that crucial to me.

To sum it up, if you're going to limit me to one character per server, I better damn be able to explore all facets of the game without totally killing all of the forward progress I've made.

[Azhrarn]

Ultimately, if you don't allow alts on the same account, some people will just by additional accounts.

Uhh, isn't that a good thing?  (although I use multiple characters even in single player games where you play solo and can advance in different directions).

[Dark Vengeance]

Ultimately, if you don't allow alts on the same account, some people will just by additional accounts.

Uhh, isn't that a good thing?  (although I use multiple characters even in single player games where you play solo and can advance in different directions).

Not when casual folks leave your game because they feel they MUST have multiple accounts in order to be competitive.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[koboshi]

If it is a perceived advantage, all players will want that advantage....some will even demand it. I agree that "Welcome to Friggan capitalisim!" is a good response, but it may drive away your more casual players when they see multi-account owners getting ahead in ways they cannot.

OK, OK, so what DO we need to do to remove that advantage?

[Dren]

I agree with WayAbvPar.  It may not be right, but it is how I feel too, and my paying dollar goes to what makes me feel comfortable.  I need the diversity, and I'm not going to invest time into more than one community in each game.  Hell, I usually follow the same community from game to game.  

I understand what you are saying about talking to new people, but I do that everyday all day in that wacky place called real life already.  I go home to relax and have fun with my Internet friends, not strangers.

[Dark Vengeance]

OK, OK, so what DO we need to do to remove that advantage?

That, of course, is the $64,000 question.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Alluvian]

I don't get why this is so hard to understand.  It is for a change of pace like Way said.  Wanting a change of pace does not mean the game is bad.  Different classes offer different playstyles.  The necro in EQ can solo but becomes a shitty mana battery in a group.  If I feel like soloing I would play the necro.  The ranger in EQ has a harder time soloing but can be a lot of fun in a group.  He melee's, manages aggro, can root park, can pull mobs off casters, etc...  Cleric ingroup role is abit more passive.  Once you get good at the base cleric you can have a laid back night of healing.  Maybe if I am not in the mood to chase mobs around and play actively I will play a cleric that night.  (note that in EQlive clerics can be VERY active now and still heal just as well, it was just an example of another playstyle).

An analogy I would make to your question is why do you require your PC to play more than one game?  If you really liked the game, wouldn't that one game be enough?  Why play a bad game you don't want to play all the time?  The answer is sometimes I want to play an FPS, sometimes an adventure game, sometimes I just want to surf the web, sometimes I want the longterm investment of an mmog, sometimes I might want the tactics of a turn based strategy game.  It does not mean that FPS games suck if I don't feel like playing one that day.

A well designed MMOG has different playstyles for every class.  At least for SOME of the classes.  While you may choose a favorite playstyle over time, it does not mean it is the ONLY playstyle you will ever want to play.

I tend to stick to Ranger type characters and don't play a lot of alts.  But I sure as hell like to have them there if I feel like doing some hardcore nuking one day, or running a pet class the next.

[kaid]

After SWG I do not forsee myself ever buying a game that is SCS. My main in swg is a master artisan master droid enginer master musician. All things I really do enjoy but there are days that I would actually like to go experiance the rest of the game.

Right now with the whole force sensitive stuff if I wanted to do this I would basically have to trade off much of my droid engineering to pick up combat skills. This is not something you do lightly to get back your skills after you surrender them is expensive resource and time wise.

In theory you can change your professions in SWG but as the devs found out most will find a combo they like and stick with it. Moving from one profession to another is not fast so if say tonight you are in the mood to blast rancors with a group you just cannot do this instantly.

It is pretty much what kills swg for me. Thank god in jtls you do not need points to master piloting skills or I wouldn't bother buying the expansion.


I like variety I will find something I like to do and want to stick with it but there are days when you are in the mood for a change.

Also remember that in the great experiment that is SWG all the high and mighty ideals they proposed as being reasons for SCS were all overshadowed by the true reason. That reason was their database sucks and simply could not handle multiple characters. If SWG could handle it I would bet you would see them give folks 3 or 4 characters per server without much qualms.

Kaid

[Koyasha]

OK, OK, so what DO we need to do to remove that advantage?

Allow me to change classes like FFXI and give me infinite inventory space so I have no problem storing all the equipment I need for all my classes at any given level, as well as my quest stuff, my nodrop armors and weapons, etc, and I'm happy.

Even then, a second character (simultaneously logged in) will *always* be an advantage if 2 characters can interact.  This allows for 2-boxing, etc, which is a huge help.  In EQ, I can single-handedly do many things because I'm capable of logging in up to 4 characters simultaneously with EQW and more than one computer.  That means if I'm prepared, I can kill the rare-spawn while you're still looking for 2 or 3 friends online that aren't busy and can come help you kill him.

Well, they could do a variant on the FFXI solution, and charge an extra monthly fee for each extra "simultaneous" character. So you could log in with one of your X characters for the base fee, but for e.g. $5/mo extra you could run two clients on the same account using different characters.

You know, that's probably the best idea I've heard so far, wasn't something that had occurred to me..  Pay a fee less than the full price of another account and get simultaneous logins...the profits from more people being able to pay this fee than buying a whole new game box + expansions + monthly fee would probably be equal or better, only difference being it would reduce the total 'number of accounts'.

[Phred]

I ask all this because it occurs to me that there is no good reason for the alt to exist.  It just makes opportunities for misbehaving.  And shortens the subscriber duration by letting players do all the class content early on, think of the alternative, every characters’ life is made all that much more important because it is the exclusive agent in the game.  The decision to look for greener pastures in other class or player types would be a serious one because it would be tantamount to character suicide to change characters   Most people play with only one main character to begin with so why not extend that to all players?  It doesn’t follow story logic or common sense for everyone to have many bodies in their possession.  How about only one character per server/world.

Your first point is very UO centric IMO. Other games don't really afford the same convenience of having your pk character and your safe character
the way UO did, and even with major twinking and powerleveling the opportunities to grief anonymously on an alt just aren't there the way they were in UO, outside of the low levels.  I think the easiest fix for people who do try to use alts to cause problems for other people anonymously is, as has been suggested many times but never implemented, tying characters on the same account together with a shared last name.

As others have said, I think alts actually add to retention rather than subtract from it. I've been playing EQ since it was released, minus one 6 month time I got tired of it, and I'd say alts have actually added to their retention not subtracted from it as you theorize. Being able to play alts with friends has added enough variety to the experience to help aleviate some of the burn out I might otherwise have experienced playing my main character. Having to go to a different server to play an alt would not foster the long term social connections that many times are all that keep people playing. I'd bet that some shallower games, like CoH, wouldn't have the retention they do if people couldn't roll up alts when they got bored with their main characters once the leveling turns into a grind as well.

[Riggswolfe]

I'm the type of person who traditionally plays only 1 character to high levels. I may make one or two alts, but they rarely get very far beyond newbie areas. Honestly, to me, the number of characters I'm allowed matters very little to me.

[Dren]

I'm the type of person who traditionally plays only 1 character to high levels. I may make one or two alts, but they rarely get very far beyond newbie areas. Honestly, to me, the number of characters I'm allowed matters very little to me.

The real question to ask is, "Do you care if the other players use multiple character alts in the game?"  If you feel perfectly comfortable playing with one character and the other players are allowed to have multiple characters and you all get along, then there is no problem.  

I think the original question for this thread stemmed from people quitting because they think everyone should just have one character.  Forget about talking about two accounts.  You can't suppress that without making it really difficult on the people that only have one account too. (Random server alotments, IP funny business, Credit Card limitations, etc.)

FFXI had one thing right.  Allow the character to do all the skills and classes in the game (with rules of course.)  The problem was they didn't allow for enough storage for all of the class specific items you need along with crafting, planting, collecting, questing, etc.  I was constantly moving items around while dumping all the rest only to find out I needed to go back and get those items again for a quest later.  I did not enjoy that.

As somebody stated before, do it the FFXI way, but give plenty of storage space and you've solved many of the issues.  You could limit it to one character per server and get your accountability back (sort of) too.  Again, multiple accounts would be the issue, but that won't be easily fixed probably ever.

[Nebu]

When I stated above that I see some advantages to single player accounts, I was not tryign to imply that this is the only alternative. I think having alts have the same last name with the main is a nice solution to the issue.  An account buys you a "family" of sorts.  Accountability is there, access to multiple skill trees is there, and I assume with the family moniker that they may also make it easier to transfer items/gold between accounts.  Seems to be a win-win.

[HRose]

In my "dream mmorpg" the characters are unique entities that are server/shard independent. So a toon can walk between worlds by using special portals and planes.

This mechanic allows to have a single world but still avoiding overcrowding issues (portals will close for specific RP rules that can be tweaked even for technical reasons). At the same time you could be left out by your world of chioce but you can still log in another server and play there for a bit before moving where you planned.

The server structure is defined here. Pic included.

You can still create alts but the game has a complex aligment system and you cannot switch characters at will. There's something like a two days timeout before you can play a toon in a different faction. Instead you can switch characters freely if they share the alignment.

[Alex Mars]

Why do you need multiple characters on the same server?

Simple, it is for variety.  I usually play healers and every once in a while I get bored playing a support role and want to play a more direct character who can hurt things.  I also want to play on the same server where I know people.  I enjoy exploring the various character classes/types and always have several alts in any game (when new to a game I usually start several characters so I can see what the game offers and what I want to play in the long term).  I haven't run into a game yet where I needed to store gear on an alt "mule".

Frankly, the whole "alts cause trouble" is a bullshit line put out by game companies that want to use single-character-servers and make people buy multiple accounts to have an alt on the server where they have friends.

[Tebonas]

Alts with a linked reputation would allow that (variety of character templates) without the downsides (innocent mules for known in-game criminals).

I liked me some melee alts to blow off steam from my support role main as well in Everquest, but I knew more than enough people that used alts as bazaar mules for ill-gotten loot (cheating, ninja-looting, lying while in NBG groups). And I won't even go into the PvP-aspect.

What would be the downside of a shared reputation anyway? You can even make up some roleplaying explanation for that like being soulmates or same clan (mixed heritage clans of course, so playing different races would be possible).

[tar]

What would be the downside of a shared reputation anyway?

The only downside I can think of to a shared-rep system is the same reason it's being proposed in the first place - you couldn't hide from people.

To give an example of why you might reasonably want to hide, and why just playing on a different server doesn't work:

Imagine your main character is in a large guild. There is a sub-set of that guild who are close friends. There is another sub-set who are, um, people you don't always get along with too well. You may want to occasionally group up with your friends, without the other set knowing you're online.

In this very limited, specific set of circumstances I can see why a shared-rep system wouldn't work and why it isn't solved by playing on a different server.

Things like 'hide' commands (hiding online status from guild lists etc.) go some way to alleviating this, but it's a problem only completely resolved by playing an alt on the same server, that isn't linked to the main character.

Now, this is a pretty obscure set of circumstances and it's probably a safe enough decision to go with linked-characters. It's the only downside I can think of.

[kemmyn]

part of the reason for limited inventory (bank, etc..) space is that it stimulates the economy.  players have to constantly manage inventory and sell stuff they don't really need, usually to players that really do need it.

if players had unlimited storage space, the trend would be to hoard everything, which would severly limit the economy.  young players would have a much harder time acquiring armor because the advanced players would save it for new classes.  

in ffxi, the limited storage space made you dump your old armor, making available for greener people.  then if you wanted to do a level capped quest (BCNM) or level a subclass (alt), you would have to buy armor for it, then resell it when you were done, because there was such a priority on vault space.

as such, the auction house of FFXI was a rich experience, the best economy in an MMOG to date, imo.  if you start allowing all players to keep infinite gear, the Auction House dries up and becomes a place where all you can buy is garbage, instead of good gear that players just can't hold onto any more because inventory capacity won't allow it.

another side effect of the limited inventory is it screws wtih the ebayers.  now instead of holding onto a LEVEL 25 SWORD OF UBER in case they want it later, they have to dump it, making it available to others.  whereas with unlimited space, i'd keep my LEVEL 25 SWORD OF UBER indefinitely (as would everyone else).  it would way limit supply and cause an inflated artificial demand that would only be met by ebay campers/farmers.

i know i got off track a bit from the original post, but i think use of alts is fine.  yes, it causes a little less social interaction, but i think unlimited inventory would cause a much larger problem.

[chinslim]

Why does there have to be character limitations on the way players play the game?  For example, I play a "tank" for 4 months and 50 something levels, I start a healer alt and play that for 2 months and 30-odd levels...now why is it necessary that I switch characters everytime I want to do something different?   My characters don't reflect the true player that I am(who knows how to both tank and heal) because they have built-in limitations, usually through the skills system and items.

Let's look at SWG:  They allow only 1 character per server, but allow unlimited "respeccing."  The only problem is, like every other MMO, you need to grind(err, macro) your way to new abilities while dropping your old abilities.  Thanks in part to their old assinine Jedi/Holocron system, the game is almost nothing more than a profession-grindathon.

DAOC: What makes this game extremely difficult to play to the mythical end-game of RvR bliss are the class/level limitations.  You can't just gather 8 players together to adventure/RVR: they need to be the right classes and levels.  It gets even worse when you factor RA's, ML's, and TOA items, but not that's needed for this argument.  For example, if you only have 1 healer for 7 other players, your playtime is going to be sub-optimal.  Those 7 other players can't just switch and heal on their characters without switching characters or permanently allocating skill points somewhere(ie a shaman).  As a result, you've got your elite groups/guilds who've figured out their regular group makeups and everyone else pickup group cannon fodder.


I guess where I'm going with this is my vision for a next-gen MMO system: some game designer has got to figure out how to let players play to their full abilities without having to artificially gimp their virtual personas(characters).  One idea would be to have group templates that define individual roles that players fill.  It would be just like the classic tank-mage-healer trinity except instead of having a character's persona defined permanently, it would be defined just for that game session.

Oh yeah, that same designer would figure out a good multiplayer player versus player combat system...which will never happen.