On Co-playing and MultiAccounting

you said in your previous reply that you are making 0 co-relations, but you just made a co-relation between twinks and non-twinks based on anecdotal evidence , yes I can see how it is natural for people to quit after continuous defeats owing to frustration, but the problem lies in finding the root cause for that frustration based on solid background research, not just anecdotal evidence. I simply can't conclude on anything just because a few/group of players are getting their beaten repeatedly cause of lowbie twinks in their respective servers and decided to make a video about it and post it on the forums (crying) (conclusions made on theories like these which are based on anecdotal evidence , is what ruined the game in the first place (post-r155))

all I asked was a question (mixed with some humor) towards the previous player in the post about the reason behind them being dis-satisfied in the whole-game just cause of twink chars (f2p- twinks are a minor group of people which not much effect on anything when compared to p2p chars/bullies exploiting exp-block in game), and not to mention they where (and you also apparently) raising arguments against my feature-suggestions for no good/valid reason. never in any of my posts did I say that "rich blokes and twinks in general ONLY cause bad experiences to low level players" (I already told you this and I'm repeating myself again) it is not my conclusion/claim (you are mis-interpreting that simple question I asked and blowing it out of proportion, and ignoring my main points).

nope I don't think you did, you are talking about draken and how it grants an advantage to the f2p community (by serving as a common currency for f2p and p2p), this is far from true however, (but it sure used to be post r155) now they are an obsolete from of currency and grant access to gears not even worth possessing (except for life keeper (which has little use beyond it's 5v5 flag-running application) maybe and bloodtooth) when you compare them with possible results you could get from craft 2.0 system (which favors p2p players more significantly than f2p) they amount to nothing...

now this I can relate to, and I have the same feeling, and it may seem that the only possible way to address this issue is to remove the payment features/elements (i.e. basically 'real life money.currency', if only it were possible lol, this can happen if we live/move in/to a Resource Based Economy (https://www.thevenusproject.com/resource-based-economy/), but that is beyond the scope of this discussion and I don't think this is the right place for discussing it as well, but anyways for what it's worth I mentioned it nonetheless) from game to you (this is not necessarily true, adding features the likes of which suggested or some-other new feature the f2p community can exploit enabling them to be on at-least a 'competitive level' (again I emphasize , p2ps can have their "advantage" all they want, but that's not the issue/problem here, the problem is the f2p gaming community can't even come close to being even competitive)

there you go, yet another co-relation between a topic (to which there is more than just "anecdotal evidence" (unlike your claim) on and which plays a significant role in player dis-satisfaction) i.e. "p2p dominance" and 'player dis-satisfaction', which is based on your personal anecdotal experience/evidence, I'm sorry but yet again this is non-scientific and I cannot support this, and lacks research/testing.

oh and Twink dominance is?.. hilarious xD...

where did I make personal insults?. I was just replying/addressing their argument in a similar fashion, may I know why you deleted my previous post?. is it cause of the reply I made to this particular comment that was directed towards me?

, if so then why don't you delete it as well?, as I found it personally insulting..

Sorry but I simply do not understand how my 'Feature-Model implementation request/suggestion' is a negotiation on the existing GTCs, as suggesting a feature is only a suggestion and not in anyway an attempt to negotiate/modify a previously made statement/decision by BP, I cannot relate to your usage of the word "wiggle room" here at all. maybe you are talking about your personal decision about the issue? (I thought you're supposed to be a representative of the BP Corp, and serve the Corp in it's and gaming community's best interests, but your speech reflects that you serve only based only on your personal interest/opinion and not on the Corp's/gaming community's, this means there is a lack of synergy between you and the BP Corp) if you are convinced (have a fixated mindset/opinion) about the the topic/issue and are un-willing to consider any reasoning whatsoever to implement it, then can I talk to someone else/employees working for BP about this?, will that aid me/f2p community in anyway? how about mailing support the suggestion?. anyways, getting back to the discussion (my attempt to convince you that this feature can be made fool-proof if properly designed ),

further I already quoted from a reply you made against a similar suggestion request last year, here it is again,

" "If you want the concept of Exp-blocking buffs/potions to be seriously considered, you'd need to come up with a very good reason for it. I don't see that in the OP.
Allogeneous, Sep 28, 2015" and I believe that I have come up with a good enough reason that's all." this feature suggestion however is about Exp blocking only, whereas mine is about both Exp blocking and Co-playing. I can understand how restrictive-co-playing via usage of sitters can seem to be similar to account sharing but they are not the same (but you seem to use them as replaceable words for some reason), I don't understand why you are so opposed to 'even consider my reasoning' to implement this feature as a 'possible suggestion', now suddenly (earlier you were referring to it as a 'possible solution' even, now you've changed your view point on it entirely and are referring to it as an attempt to modify the established GTC, what has caused this change in your viewpoint?, (whatever it is I think you need to make up your mind about it, when referring to it in the future as your referral to it is in-consistent, which is not a good sign for a Team leader)) , when you were so open to new suggestions and even willing to consider suggestions to feature implementation if a 'valid/strong reason' is put-forth, just a year ago, what has changed in the mean time?.

as for your other so-called reasons to not consider co-playing/Sitter feature, I think they can be easily overcome if proper restrictions are enforced/inbuilt into the feature, and you can employ the same "your character your responsibility" logic to address issues relating to account abuse by a 3rd party.

I can invalidate this reasoning with just one 'question/factual reality that exists in game', "and P2P features granting users god-like attributes and advantage over F2P is supposed to be fair, isn't it?".

Regards.
(if this post is deleted again with no apparent/valid reason, then I will (and so should everyone) be forced to assume the worst about the person who is doing so and about functionality of BP Corp as a whole).

 

@AniMagus93 I have explained the current Big Point policy re. a/c sharing, and I have explained why I know your suggested changes would be a very bad idea for the DSO community, for Support volunteers, and why Big Point would not accept them. One of my functions is to gather up well conceived and feasible ideas from players (via Support and this forum) and forward them to Big Point for their consideration. Unfortunately, your suggestions fit neither the "well conceived" nor the "feasible" conditions. This is not an opinion of mine based on personal bias. It is based on my 4.5 years of DSO game play, my 4 years of being a DSO admin, my experience in processing many multiple of thousands of DSO Support tickets, my 4.5 years of reading forum poster feedback, and my understanding of how Big Point operates. I have also carefully read other poster's concerns in this thread and I know way my team feels about this. Your proposal, if implemented, would cause a barrel load of headaches for everyone involved in this game. I have tried to remain polite and neutral in my replies to you on this topic. Now I will be as clear as I can possibly be: your idea is abhorrent, unworkable, and ill-conceived. I not only refuse to support it, but I would actively argue against it if I even heard a vague rumour of Big Point considering it in any way, shape or form.


Note: my view of your suggestions in this thread regarding a/c sharing has not changed from my first reply until now. Seriously: what part of this is ambiguous?

Again: thank-you for coming up with some creative ideas. They will not work. I cannot support them. I hope they have a stake driven into their wizened black hearts and that they remain dead for all eternity. Love 'n' kisses, Allo.