Multiing

[Chisul]

I like the idea. As for the whole "he who know more rules" argument...given the current state of the mud, it is very difficult for mid-quality players to learn new zones. Usually a mid-quality player can fill a role in the group, but is not skilled enough to lead it.

Zones are cleared so quickly by zone leaders that it is very difficult to learn the zone simply by playing it. Even after going over the log several times.

I like the idea of multi because it will open up new areas to explore when others are reluctant to "go exploring". If you doubt this, try shouting for a group of adventurers to go explore with you. Also, just see how fast people recall and regroup once they figure out you are leading from a log...or worse yet, reading the room descriptions to figure the zone out.

"Swap me"

[SteveO]

I think in regards to people saying what made them play back in the day or why they started should stop and think where are 90% of the people I used to play with? The answer is not mud, it's either life, wife other (graphic) games. You need to stop living in the past.

I vote yes. I do not currently bot and you might notice the constant shouting for people to group, it's too bad when I log ( and I'm on quite a bit) and theres never anyone on and you can either find 1 tank and if lucky a damager (not likely) let alone find a random tank and healer...and I'm in one of the bigger clans of the wipe(MINE). I can say honestly if things don't change in somewhat of a near future I'll likely not play either (I'm not saying change it or I'm quitting) but, the facts are simple how many times do I need to log spend 30 mins shouting for people to come group having an odd thief or mage tell to me and thats about it, before I just stop logging?
Yea sure I'll probably always come back and race but after the first two months of the wipe the game dies and most of the old players who  returned to race for gear are gone back to deeprent, back to WoW, back to LoL, back to....

If I could play a healer and a damager for example atleast I could form with the other few people who are online and people could play the game instead of jerking off afk in the inn all the time.

[Gnua]

I like Reed's idea of improved npc/charmie/mercenaries/pet/sidekick more than multies. I'd also rather see multi-classing rather than multies. That being said, the status quo of having rules that aren't being efficiently enforced doesnt seem right either.

[Cyren]

No Bots.
HUGE penalties for botting.
BIG penalties for clans who knowingly group with bots.

Add mercenaries. Limit it to Cleric, Warrior, Scout (and maybe Thief)
I favour mercenaries over bots because it gives everyone an equal AI base and relies on playing skill in game to make them good, bad or otherwise (not scripting skill).
Mercenaries take 15% of all coins loads, plus an upfront fee of 500 coins/level of mercenary.
You can't hire a mercenary higher than your own level.
Each mercenary starts with an average skill/spell set but can be trained, given equipment or spells
Mercenaries won't engage in pk.
If you die, mercenary waits in zone at corpse (unless killed by mobs) for a max of 30 mins.
If mercenary dies, can be resurrected for a fee

My 2 cents

[Felix]

For full disclosure, I voted yes on this issue - but with the following thoughts.

I have played this game off and on since its inception, served a brief period as a low ranking member of the staff before real the hammer of real life came down, and have once again dipped my toes into Arctics chilly waters.  I think the same can be said for many on this board, and those that remain playing the game - we have decades of the hate/love experience with this game.

Arctic exists for pleasure, pure and simple.  I have neither the time nor inclination to become a full fledged member of a clan I cannot at this time give proper time and attention to.  Yet I still thirst for the exploration, the quest for knowledge and secrets that this game has in spades.  We all know, however, that finding a group willing to be led by someone "just learning" - and potentially throwing away hours of your hard work - is nearly impossible.  For this selfish reason, I say yes - only to allow me to play the game on my terms and granting me access to areas to expand my knowledge.

The flip side, and one that we all need to acknowledge, is that this game still exists due to the love and enjoyment by those at the top of the food chain - the imms.  It is only by their investment of time -  and money -  that this game still has a home, and I'll wager that the instant Arctic becomes something they dread logging into is the last day it will be a home for all of us.  The pandora's box of "policing" multiplayers threatens to be just such a thing.

What is missing is a level of mutual trust.  For as long as I have known this game, players have distrusted the imms, and every good imm knows a pc is just half a heartbeat away from doing something illegal.  What this presents is an opportunity - on a trial basis - to show that we as a community can abide by rules set out by the imms.  If it doesn't work, so be it - what have we really  lost?

Lastly, we stand here at the twilight of Arctic.  The sun has not yet set - yet there will be no great influx of new players, no resurgence of the old veterans coming back in droves.  It will be like me and those like me - coming back to relive old memories, have some comfort and enjoyment away from the real world, and having fun doing it.  For pleasure.

[Stride]

I have marked no.  people need to accept and enjoy the game as is.  I agree with the charmie/pet/mercenary thing.  Have it be possibly quest driven/rent a cop type thing?  I miss the old days of the gods coming down hard on people who don't follow the rules.  And  if they have been doing that, they need to have a board or someplace that they announce it.

[Jorquin]

i voted yes. bots are easy to slaughter anyway.

frankly i find it amusing that most of the people who are saying no are people who barely play anymore, and are living in a time warp.

[Rhys]

Voted yes - hate shouting for non existant groups as well.

Only concern is the imbalance created in PK for multiers vs those who choose not to multi (there might be some). I think the multiing should be for zoning purposes only but I am not sure how to best police / implement this.

[octan]

I voted YES because I hate underdogs!

-OC

[Ericj]

I have to lean to Daniel's argument on this.  When we are warring someone and you know the enemy group has 2 or 3 bots in it, you should be able to just roll them.  Even the best scripted bots have flaws, and for folks botting without a script, how effectivley can they play two characters during a pk battle?

I also agree with Ilya that any leader wants real life blood in a group over a bot, but the only issue I see is this.  Would some folks kick their own bot out of the group to group some random neutral who is shouting for a group?  If folks are not willing to part with some bot they are trying to rank to help neutrals, then we have issues.

This comes back to the main argument of where we stand as a game and it is up to the players to help.  Basically try to treat others as you want to be treated, we all remember those days of taking our first steps outside the Solace gates, can be a scary place :)

[Jorquin]

after re-reading things in this thread i see things about "wishing the gods would come down hard on people who break the rules" and "no bots, punish people severely".

often times i log on and see that there are 6-7 people online. at peak times there might be 40 at the absolute maximum. if you were to stand by these statements, that 40 people maximum would probably drop to 30, and instead of 6-7 in my evening (australia ftw) there would probably be 3-4. say you punish some playing group of about 4 people, that has 2 people in it that play 2 characters each. this playing group may have a total of 6 active characters - 4 of which are now gone. all of these people quit playing. who does this benefit? the answer is noone. i would suggest that anyone who promotes the "go all medieval on their asses" mentality does not have this games best interests at heart, and either has their own self serving agenda or lacks the foresight to understand the consequences that an all out witch hunt would have.

as for the mercenary/charmie/pet thing this seems like a poor idea. charmies are useless at the best of times and all they would really represent is built in scripted ai bots crafted by the staff, which might i add would also increase the time this lube project would take (since someone has to actually design these things, right?) - leading to an even more stagnant game, and even more quitters.

[Mike]

Is this really a question? For years I've heard nothing but "botting/multying ruins the game". When did the staff become hypocritical? What's the goal of allowing bots? To make the game SEEM like it has more players than it actually does? I prefer quality over quantity. Why on earth would anyone play when it's possible to have 3 players, log a 30 man? They could brute force any zone ot one shot any player. 3 or 4 wipes ago people did nothing but complain about how annoying ben/reed/bryton were. Now really,  picture them with a 30 man. if your answer is "well ill just log my 90 man and kill them" then you're playing the wrong game. Arctic is about finding people you work well with and exploring zones/quests/storylines etc. Not about 100 bots PKing in Solace square.

Hoss, if this is your idea of improving the game you need to get your priorities straight.

[Gramm]

Im more worried about what the game will become, whos to stop full time pkers from just sitting in a norecall room with a botted basher waiting to step into the room and have his way with your face during summon lag? I recommend giving us 100 + nosummon items if u are going to honestly consider giving tyrants any more power than they already have.

[Kragg]

Corey, everyone's aware there aren't many people playing.  The fact there are so few players is the real problem and that problem has lots of factors.

My opinion is this change won't solve any problems and will just create some new ones.  I, in fact, think its real trouble.

For all you dorks voting yes, I think you will change your mind when you get steamrolled a couple of times by couple of hundred level ones.  How do you (yes you, see below) choose to enforce what in that environment?

If you want unreasonable zone reach, play a shaman.  Or, be at least pretend to be discreet as per the current situation.

The fact is, enforcement is a grind for staff and player alike and the point of this place for all of us is to have fun.  Players are to play and staff are here to improve the experience.

Hope that was worth the read.

[thephil]

i voted yes.

  ive logged on this wipe and been the only person on.  not that it matters.  there is no grouping to be had when people really are on.  if you are trying to level up a character from 1 to 30 right now and 20 people are on, there is maybe 1 other person in the game who isnt 30 yet and unfortunately he is a level 17 good mage while you are lvl 25 evil warrior. 

  now if you can eventually solo up to level 30 it doesnt matter.  there is still no grouping to be had.  why would a group add a warrior with bad equipment who doesnt know the zone to their group?  i am going to do 1/5th the damage of the other characters and only slow them down.  the only possible answer is pity and i dont want to slow them down anyway.  i gave up on shouting for groups.

  if i could play more characters my problems would be solved.  lets make this happen.