Page 1 of 4
Multiple PC idea brain storm
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:32 am
by Rumple C
Hi,
Please post your idea or variations on potential changes to the multiple PC rule here. Ideas only please, no debates.
Potential Variation 1. 1 PC per server
Potential Variation 2. 1 PC per region (TSM, MS, BG/WHL)
Potential Variation 3. 1 Alternate PC (2 PCs at any time)
Variation 4. ?
*Edited for ease of reading/clarity
Re: Multiple PC idea brain storm
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:46 am
by Swift
If we are going to do it, 2 PCs with the temporary retirement kept with its current limitations.
That allows players to have 2 PCs at a time while also giving them the liberty of having one in temp retirement if they really strike on a character they want to keep but is growing stale.
Re: Multiple PC idea brain storm
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:51 am
by Magile
Swift wrote:If we are going to do it, 2 PCs with the temporary retirement kept with its current limitations.
That allows players to have 2 PCs at a time while also giving them the liberty of having one in temp retirement if they really strike on a character they want to keep but is growing stale.
Re: Multiple PC idea brain storm
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:55 am
by Ksiel
2 pc's with temp. retirement as it is implemented now.
Re: Multiple PC idea brain storm
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:58 am
by Ithildur
Option 3 aka 2 PCs maximum at a time seems reasonable; someone running 4+ PCs in ALFA... I just can't see it. If someone wants to invest that much time/effort RPing different characters, I recommend taking up the DM wand and RPing some interesting (possibly recurring) NPCs.
Re: Multiple PC idea brain storm
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:06 am
by CloudDancing
#3
I'd like us to havea free alternate like they do on Haven.
That means we would have to extend the "do not loot yourself" rule to "do not drop loot for yourself" rule which as we Dm/Ex-Dm types know is something we can easily track with the log parser and I assume the current "Self-Looting" parser option.
This also means that meta-information would have to be closely thought about as well. Players would have to check themselves to make sure they were'nt using information gained by the opposite character OR treat the opposite character AS IF their other character was listening or present.
Re: Multiple PC idea brain storm
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:16 am
by Xanthea
One PC per server seems simple and straightforward and comes with the benefit that increasing the number of servers ALFA has would no longer be further splitting the playerbase.
Re: Multiple PC idea brain storm
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:10 am
by FoamBats4All
Xanthea wrote:One PC per server seems simple and straightforward and comes with the benefit that increasing the number of servers ALFA has would no longer be further splitting the playerbase.
Re: Multiple PC idea brain storm
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:37 am
by Blindhamsterman
option 3 would be my preference
Re: Multiple PC idea brain storm
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:36 am
by rorax
Option 3
Re: Multiple PC idea brain storm
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:46 am
by Dorn
Blindhamsterman wrote:option 3 would be my preference
Re: Multiple PC idea brain storm
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:01 am
by kid
are we all in favor of 2 PCs? damn... I'd still go with one.
Re: Multiple PC idea brain storm
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:06 am
by Adanu
rorax wrote:Option 3
My vote.
Re: Multiple PC idea brain storm
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:07 am
by Ronan
My preference is two PCs per player, doing away with temp retirement. More PCs is more work for staff to keep up with, and if we have people playing 2+ I could see it becoming a headache.
Its also a lot easier to increase this number than decrease it, so we should start small.
Re: Multiple PC idea brain storm
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:23 am
by Swift
Ronan wrote:My preference is two PCs per player, doing away with temp retirement. More PCs is more work for staff to keep up with, and if we have people playing 2+ I could see it becoming a headache.
Its also a lot easier to increase this number than decrease it, so we should start small.