(11-25-2015, 03:26 PM)Can Wrote:

(11-15-2015, 01:38 PM)Yurrechire Wrote: RO is a social game, and encouraging people to play with themselves goes against the spirit of it, in my opinion.

As far as parties go, why are people so intent on declaring that they don't exist? They happen consistently, and would happen even more if folks were less set on an ideal (bard, HP, prof, etc, etc) makeup. Yesterday's 70+ Muspel run was a lovely example of it: 4 wizards, and a paladin who doubled up as both a healer and a lure. We went through dozens of ygg leaves, people 89'd left and right, and much fun was had.

That said, additional incentives, such as permanently increased %exp per party member, wouldn't hurt.

I'm that healer pally, and it was good yes But it was agonizing to get to that point of 75-ish.

I know it's a social game and that should be encouraged, but let's face it, this is a decades old game and I doubt anyone expects the server population to increase drastically as there are more and more newer and shiny graphics etc games, and the people who would know about this game would go down every day, it is just the nature of things.

I think the population in this server is mostly very nice and talkative people who like doing things together when they can, and personally I would prefer partying with a priest over bringing a "slave-priest" of my own, as I think most of you would prefer as well, because it is more fun that way, you get to chat around and stuff.

But at some point, if you cannot find what you need/want, that "encouraging" social situations also mean "discouraging" you to play at all, if you're a lone player. As someone mentioned, this situation has turned me into "just waiting for puppies and healer quest" for several days, and that's just not enjoyable.

And with the said situation above, ro being an old game and the low population, I think keeping your currently active players happy and involved is more important than chasing unrealistic expectations of a huge crowd.

(11-25-2015, 05:12 PM)Story Teller Wrote: And how could you be so sure that multi client can give more positive means than negative? The proof you've given is only by 'your' experience while not considering the effect in the populace.

The game is old and so how does make it a reason to include multi self cloning instead of alternatives that GMs are trying to make like events? This multi self cloning is basically so easy to exploit and harder for GMs to track. Sure just make a rule of 'only 2 clones', but how are you sure that this rule will be maintained and how?

(11-26-2015, 11:03 AM)Can Wrote: Firstly, it is not just me or just "my" experience, several people have addressed this, and unless we have some arbitrary graphs and charts to talk of, players' personal experiences are one of the best "proof" you can have, yet you just prefer to dismiss it for no good reason. And I can ask the same thing then, since you talk so negatively on the subject, where is your proof? You say I'm not considering the populace, but you're the one dismissing my experience, or a few others like me. I can say I have played on a multiclient server with no major problems, can you tell me of a server that broke down just because of this?

On the second point, no one said multi-clienting should be "instead" of alternatives like GMs making live events, you can do both.

And finally, the technical appliance of that limitation is on the GMs end. I think if they can keep track of whether you have just 1 or more clients on the same IP right now, they could potentially do the same with "just 2 or more clients" instead. If they say they cannot implement such a limitation, then we can talk about that.

(11-10-2015, 06:17 PM)The Roger Wrote: Multiclienting limited at non-woe times and maybe limited to 2~3 total clients, imo.