Removing old accounts from circulation.

[eqjenius]

In response to Kazimir's wish that I limit threads to one idea at a time...

Here's my latest (and, of course, greatest) idea for dealing with old accounts hanging around SoD indefinitely.

The idea is largely take from the Rift idea that Oozu put forward in the other thread:

im not sure how they do it but Rift has a system where if you log in from a different IP address then the one that put a password up it will automatically Guestlock the account. and the only way to ever shut it off is to have the password typed into that comp (meaning YOU dont have to deal with Guestlock.... everyone who has your info's does) and you cant do really squat shit but exp

Sooooo, here's the idea (and it has nothing to do with IPs):

All characters operate as normal until level 60.

At level 60, guest-lock would be enabled for all characters, via a similar mechanism that a character flagged for a name change must choose a new name.

If guest-lock is not deactivated for 30 days, a toon is sent to PoJustice upon login with 60 second prison sentence. That player has 59 seconds to deactivate the guest-lock, or they are booted to server select.

Once guest-lock is deactivated on a character, it operates as normal. It will not be sent to prison again unless the guest-lock has not been deactivated for 30 days or more.

Under this solution, if players (or a single guild, for instance) want to keep a toon around indefinitely (even toons that didn't originally belong to them) by passing the guest-lock password around, they've got that option, but in doing so they risk the toons items and factions. Additionally, they risk that someone else might change the guest-lock information and lock them out. If they find themselves locked out but can't prove that they're the original owners of the account, they may be SOL.

Potential Benefits:

- All accounts would be automatically guest-locked upon character login, improving character security and reducing opportunities for other people to muck up another person's character.

- Will potentially (and likely) remove old toons from the system, but not immediately - not even the ones where the original account owner is inactive. No toon would be removed from the system until currently active players with the guest-lock information stopped logging in a toon for 30 days or more.

- With fewer utility bots in the system, game economy and zone utilization would improve: people would be leveling up their own utility toons and buying gear for them. Fewer utility bots available would also mean that people would pay more often for translocates, buffs, summoned items, etc. (a benefit in my book, ymmv).

Potential Downsides:

- Everyone beyond level 60 would have to put in their guest-lock password in order to operate their fully unlocked account, rather than just the people that currently use the guest-lock feature. This is an inconvenience, though I don't imagine it's a major one.

- Implementation could get messy, because accounts owned by players that have left the game which are still in use would be contested by everyone who has access to that character. Basically, the first person to log on a character would be the person who determines the guest-lock password and would have access to that character's items and bank - at least until such time that a retired player returns to the game and petitions for a guest-lock password reset.

This solution incentivizes the protection of a guest-lock password: if you give the guest-lock password away, you would risk losing some (and potentially all) of your access to a toon, which I think would prevent the mass-sharing of guest-lock passwords while allowing for toons to eventually cycle out of the system if the people with the guest-lock information all become inactive.

That's pretty much it. Have at it!

 

[Rorne]

Under this solution, if players (or a single guild, for instance) want to keep a toon around indefinitely (even toons that didn't originally belong to them) by passing the guest-lock password around, they've got that option, but in doing so they risk the toons items and factions. Additionally, they risk that someone else might change the guest-lock information and lock them out. If they find themselves locked out but can't prove that they're the original owners of the account, they may be SOL.

Aside from the the automated jailing system isn't this essentially how things are already? People can change the actual account password and lock people out and I doubt anyone even bothers guestlocking a majority of bot characters. Prior to guestlock even being implemented they risked all that stuff and even then it was obviously not much of a deterrent.

 

[eqjenius]

There are two primary differences from the way things are now:

1) It introduces a degree of maintenance to keep a character active: you have to enter the guestlock password once a month

2) Maintenance is the responsibility of the primary user rather than the owner of the account. This allows for transfer of maintenance responsibilities.

 

[Rorne]

Old System:
"Hey here is the login info"

Your New System:
"Hey here is the login info and guestlock password"

 

[Rorne]

Also you don't have to enter the password once a month. You could log in again in the year 2069, glance at the yellowed parchment containing ancient login info, and as long as you can eventually beat a 1 minute time trial you are fine.

 

[Rorne]

I mean if you break this feature down you are banking on the hope that players will hold accounts they don't own hostage and that by way of time or negligence access to the accounts will ultimately be lost to anyone other than the owner. I don't even know what to say here.

 

[eqjenius]

Also you don't have to enter the password once a month. You could log in again in the year 2069, glance at the yellowed parchment containing ancient login info, and as long as you can eventually beat a 1 minute time trial you are fine.

The person with the guestlock info is supposed to be able to get the character out of jail.

I mean if you break this feature down you are banking on the hope that players will hold accounts they don't own hostage and that by way of time or negligence access to the accounts will ultimately be lost to anyone other than the owner. I don't even know what to say here.

Say, "creative!"

I think that's a fair analysis.

However, the "hostage" (guestlock pw) has to be worth protecting or the whole idea goes out the window. I think it would be worth protecting, but maybe you can think of situations where it wouldn't.

 

[Wulamdar]

To sum it up:

Make your own buff bot because people who have buff bots that they didn't level up themselves are getting something for nothing. That's bad for the game.

 

[Kedrin]

- All accounts would be automatically guest-locked upon character login, improving character security and reducing opportunities for other people to muck up another person's character.

Forcing people to use something they do not like or enjoy using is NOT a "Benefit" sorry try again.

- Will potentially (and likely) remove old toons from the system, but not immediately - not even the ones where the original account owner is inactive. No toon would be removed from the system until currently active players with the guest-lock information stopped logging in a toon for 30 days or more.

Why are old toons bad again?

Do you really want everyone to be forced to level their own buff bots? Because that is all that "removing old toons from the system" will do. Other then piss people off for other reason.

AND that means that high end characters will have a reason to farm and kill low content for every one of their alts to get the relic buff spells they currently already have access to.

How does having lower end content being farmed by people far over its tier at a far higher rate then every before help the server again? oh wait, it doesn't.

- With fewer utility bots in the system, game economy and zone utilization would improve: people would be leveling up their own utility toons and buying gear for them.

Buff bots need zero gear. You can level any class up to 65 naked. Forcing people to make alts for buff bots does nothing for the "game economy". If anything people, like the example above, will kill raid targets lower then their tier for their buff butts to have Duration Increment gear, the only thing that matters on a buff bot.

Fewer utility bots available would also mean that people would pay more often for translocates, buffs, summoned items, etc. (a benefit in my book, ymmv).

No it would only force people to level up one of each class they feel is important so they could "own" that character, because for some odd reason you feel that people using other peoples accounts is terrible and needs to be stopped yet have no good reason for thinking this way.

Potential Downsides:

Everything. When there is zero upsides to an idea, there is ONLY downsides.

- Everyone beyond level 60 would have to put in their guest-lock password in order to operate their fully unlocked account, rather than just the people that currently use the guest-lock feature. This is an inconvenience, though I don't imagine it's a major one.

Dying when you didn't need to died, is a huge inconvenience. Your imagination would be wasting MY TIME as I played the game. If you have to rebuff, sometimes 2 characters, and then run all the way back to where you were simply because you died because the game booted you when trying to do something you wanted to do with your own character you did not just experience something minor.

- Implementation could get messy, because accounts owned by players that have left the game which are still in use would be contested by everyone who has access to that character. Basically, the first person to log on a character would be the person who determines the guest-lock password and would have access to that character's items and bank - at least until such time that a retired player returns to the game and petitions for a guest-lock password reset.

I am amazed you typed this out and didn't just delete your whole post and realize how bad this whole idea is simply from this alone. I just don't know what to say.

Here is to hoping you are just the best troll I have ever seen on the SoD forums.

 

[eqjenius]

I feel like I'm eating a roast beef sandwich at a Peta convention.

Dying when you didn't need to died, is a huge inconvenience. Your imagination would be wasting MY TIME as I played the game. If you have to rebuff, sometimes 2 characters, and then run all the way back to where you were simply because you died because the game booted you when trying to do something you wanted to do with your own character you did not just experience something minor.

I'm not sure if I know what you're saying here. You mean, like, if you tried to delete an item while in combat with guestlock on?

Your imagination would be wasting MY TIME as I played the game.

That may be the most ironic statement I've ever read.

 

[Silosobi]

So you want Devs to invest a bunch of time in this terribly system that, as far as I can tell, banks on players maliciously stealing character passwords/accounts from eachother in order to remove old bots from the game, and in the process, will waste huge amounts of GM time.

Please just stop making posts.

 

[eqjenius]

So you want Devs to invest a bunch of time in this terribly system that, as far as I can tell, banks on players maliciously stealing character passwords/accounts from eachother in order to remove old bots from the game, and in the process, will waste huge amounts of GM time.

It banks on nothing happening, while relying on players feeling that something will happen if they give away their info. You know, kind of like the current system tries to prevent the mass sharing of account information through a half-broken guest-lock. It's the same principle at work.

How does it waste any GM time?

 

[Tarutao]

- Implementation could get messy, because accounts owned by players that have left the game which are still in use would be contested by everyone who has access to that character. Basically, the first person to log on a character would be the person who determines the guest-lock password and would have access to that character's items and bank - at least until such time that a retired player returns to the game and petitions for a guest-lock password reset.

This is entirely unacceptable. If you are indeed just trying to help, please keep in mind that you're doing the opposite. Ideas of this level of destructiveness do nothing but make the people that read it scared that the staff is going to have a lapse of judgment and implement your idea.

Please don't post anything this destructive again.

 

[eqjenius]

Please don't post anything this destructive again.

It's no more "destructive" than the way the game is currently designed. Determining a primary user other than the account owner only applies to accounts where the owner is retired, and the use of those accounts can already be contested.

If it's the "mad dash" scenario I'd originally envisioned, this could certainly be dealt with in a number of other ways. The point is that somebody would have to maintain an account for it to remain in circulation, and if the account owner is gone, then an active player would have to be assigned. I would say the mechanism isn't destructive at all, since it lets all currently used accounts remain in circulation.

 

[Wiz]

I briefly return from retirement to tell you that your ideas for the guestlock system are terrible.

OK, back to the retirement home.

 

[eqjenius]

Well I certainly can't argue with that.