Description The # of alts is causing a lack of guild loyalty and negatively influences pk (i.e. logging an alt to abuse guild resources, or to revenge yourself). IMHO, we need to get rid of it. The problem with this is that I know full well if I tell you all to pick 2 characters you are going to quit before losing the amount of work dumped into the rest. What I propose is a “freezer” system.
Solution 1: The idea needs refinement, but this is the core: You may have exactly 2 active characters at any given time. The rest of your characters will be frozen and inaccessible. After some time period (let’s say a month to make discussion easier) you will be able to freeze one of your currently active 2 characters and thaw an alternative or create a new one. This freeze/unfreeze operation needs to be infrequently accessible or we’re back to square one. It seems to me to be a good compromise of keeping all of your characters, but still having a limited # of active players. — Paradox 2010/04/04 02:46
Solution 2: This idea is a Dune themed refinement of Paradox's idea.
I posted this idea long time ago. Basically tie a players alts to one account. The account would be called your House. Thus a player would choose a name of their house and their characters would be connected to it. Your House has a certain amount of prestige (which is the resource you use to spend on your House). The prestige is gained through a variety of factors that I think should be agreed upon. Basically your House can have only a certain amount of active characters based on the prestige level of the House. All the other players are on in-active service and can only be swapped out after a period of time. Every play has a House room or set of rooms. One includes an armory that you can fill for your house. Another is a vault for solaris. This vault can be used to filter solaris through a controlled means between your characters. So the higher prestige your House is the easier it is to share money between your active characters. I think with this framework in the ground it opens up a lot of possibilities down the road.
@Vader — That's a clever idea. The only addition I would think to make would be to require the player to pay something for setting up their “house”. Money, quests, whatever. There would be a lot of benefits to having a house, so it would make sense to have the players earn it. Before they earn it, they could “rent a room” somewhere that would allow them to do similar kinds of things, but be obviously inferior to the real deal. For example, don't let them store armour or money in their rented room, make the time period longer, etc. It might even be a thought to require them to earn a certain amount of prestige before they can get a house. (I know I'm talking about the Houses as a building, and it sounds like you're talking about something more like a noble house, or clan, but I think once you nail down the theme it boils down to the same thing.) — Sav/Savannah 2010/04/06
Nod, I have posted a more detailed version wizard side. It would be a very costly system for the player but it would have payoffs. Lockers/inns and all the rest should stay around. Right now the highest level players couldn't make enough exp/solaris/equipment if they tried to keep up with a maxed out house. — Vader
That's probably indicative of bad design. You should look at the page's talk page, as I left a bunch of comments for you last night. — Mreh 2010/04/07 17:40