Permanent Realm Lockouts

[Grolar]

Lets be realistic. Because we can make 20 characters per account I don't imagine many sane people have more that one account and use up what they are given. The people who have more than one account will be the ones driving up the vote against a lock out because they have more than one vote.

A lockout timer whether its 4 hours or 24 hours will keep players honest. It forces them to make a decision on what faction they truly want to support. It means they don't get to flip flop anytime they are losing in order to be on the "winning" team.

Winning should actually take effort, and should not be handed to you.

Spoiler:

[sotora]

No amount of lockout would prevent people from creating a second account. Quitting & restarting is only a small hindrance compared to logging out & switching characters. So users would be bothered with limitations without anything really being solved.

There is possibility of a hardware lock (no not on IP) in future so multiple accounts might get a whole lot harder than 'just restarting' or even "just restarting and launching VPN".

[Luth]

Permanent lockout? I'm out, will miss yall though. Catch me in arma 3

Edit: i would be ok with a 30 min lockout timer though. Gives me enough time to check reddit, grab two breers, a smoke, a piss and the chance to check tinder.

That's exactly the data that is needed for the x-realm analysis; the whole point of the analysis is it to make sure that the timer is long enough that every single player has the chance to check reddit, grab two beers, a smoke, a piss and the chance to check tinder. But not too long, so that they don't get bored in the meantime.

[Jaycub]

No amount of lockout would prevent people from creating a second account. Quitting & restarting is only a small hindrance compared to logging out & switching characters. So users would be bothered with limitations without anything really being solved.

There is possibility of a hardware lock (no not on IP) in future so multiple accounts might get a whole lot harder than 'just restarting' or even "just restarting and launching VPN".

spoofing hardware is easier than IP, there was a decent discussion about it recently with overwatch hardware banning cheaters. Links to that site in particular I am sure are banned here btw so don't ask.

[Dabbart]

I didn't vote, 'cause it'll never happen. We don't have the playerbase to support 100% lock-outs.

In regards to any timer, my only request(which might be like a broken record at this point, in which case I apologize) is that the first login is allowed at minimum a 5min window in which to relog. It would suck to login to dessie to find out everyone you like is playing order. Now, I also enjoy killing/kiting these people, but you get the point.

Preferably, start the lock-out upon PvP action, and make it last 6hrs or until all zones are capped/reset(as proposed in the previous thread, Awesome idea, Sau I think?)

But do as you will... I'll still be playing.

[geezereur]

I voted No but a 8 hours lockout or something would be fine.

[Grock]

Think deeper, people.

There are logical reasons why "xrealming" exists and occurs, by putting artificial barriers you aren't fixing the problem, you only making other people unhappy and some of those people didn't mean anything bad.

Instead of trying to blindly fight "xrealming" how about we actually use it for good?
It mostly happens to get easy reward when one side clearly dominating and the good way to counter that is to offer an alternative reward.
(WAR in general has terrible win/loss reward ratio, but thats a topic for a separate thread)

Give people a good incentive to stay or switch to underdog side when it really needed.
Not like AAO which is completely lost when balance is achieved and is almost useless when its active because you can't really get kills when outmatched.
But something which will actually make people stick with the side for some time, like a personal buff, a guaranteed reward or static extra bonus for keep/zone capture - even if it was lost.

And make a global "call-to-arms" announcement when such even happens. People who manage to get there in time before balance is achieved get the buff/bonus, others get nothing special

[Dresden]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No.


Wouldn't it just be easier to have:

. more/stronger npc's on keeps & bo's controlled by the current weaker side?
. less/weaker npc's on keeps & bo's controlled by the current stronger side?

I dunno what you'd need to do to make that work.

Narratively (real-world logic wise) it would just reflect getting in more reinforcements or needing less reinforcements.

[Grock]

Why trying to introduce a NPC crutch when you can call for the actual reinforcements in form of players?

[dur3al]

One thing is interesting though, from what I read in this thread 90% of the people who posted said they voted no, yet there are 53 votes yes, yet nobody came forward explaining why they voted this way? Kinda pointless to have a forum to debate ideas when people are not explaining their point of view.