Why are multis/same-IP interaction considered "cheating"?

[dsheroh]

[Markets] are very troublesome! To run a successful market/trading center in your game you are going to have to heavily admin that area and just accept you are not going to be able to stop all the cheating.

I see these kinds of sentiments expressed around here quite often, but nobody ever bothers to define what exactly they consider to be "cheating"[1] or why this "cheating" is supposedly bad for the game.

I then look over the fence to the MMO world where it's practically expected that most (if not all) players will have multiple "alts" - EVE Online gives you three character slots per account and subtly encourages purchase of at least one extra "mule" account; City of Heroes/Villains gives 12 character slots per server with the option to purchase up to three times that number; I don't recall how many character slots WoW gives per server, but it's somewhere around a dozen as well; etc.  I've also never heard of an MMO which has attempted to limit trades within guilds/alliances/whatever (as codestryke said he does in his BBG), between multiple accounts owned by the same player, or even between different alts on the same account[2] - although many have some form of either shared storage or item mailing which allows you to pass goods between your alts without needing to go through the trade system and face the taxes or the risk of someone else buying it first which would be present there.

Is this just a question of scale, because the MMOs have so many more players than BBGs, or is it a cultural matter, or is there some actual fundamental reason why having multiple alts and trading freely among them is considered so benign in MMOs, but so heinous in BBGs?


[1]   By implication, it seems to generally be some mix of "having more than one character in the game" and/or "playing cooperatively with your husband/wife/roommate/best-friend-who-usually-plays-from-home-but-happens-to-be-visiting-your-house-tonight", but the exact limits of what is or is not "cheating" are rarely spelled out.

[2]  I have seen cases where trading between alts was impossible because the game only supported direct trades between two online players, simply because you can't have both alts online at once, but I've never seen any steps taken to actively prevent it.

[Chris]

There are 2 kinds of games. Time based (most 3D MMO) and skill based (most browser games). In time based you have "farming" in skill based you have "multis".

If you make it that the person who spend more time wins, then adding "the person who spend more time on more accounts total wins" does not make much of a difference. Time based already have a limit built in, it is real time. If we had a technology to alter time flow (OK, OK, I know we have that tech already, but I mean something that can be used practically ) then such game would be broken.

Games that are skill based, where time spend is irrelevant (or not such important) to victory are much more vulnerable. You have here unlimited time (not restricted by real time, since the time used to play is extremely low), which can easily lead to near unlimted resources.


Or more simply, if you play my Lords (which require 5 minutes a day) you can easily manage 20 accounts, without any quality decrease per account. Managing 20 accounts in WoW is almost impossible and even if you manage, your chars would be low level at best.

[133794m3r]

i have players starting off with one character slot until they complete the tutorial. Then they get a second one. And this "multiple accounts" thing is also ALWAYS seen in the same sentiment. Let's look at those games for a second. What do they all have in common? They're all Pay to Play. So it makes sense that they'd want you to have as many accounts as possible. Why wouldn't they? They get more money from you with each additional account.

Now let's look at browser based games shall we? What do 99.9% of all of them have in common? They're all Free to play. So having a second account doesn't guarantee additional revenue for the game operator. This means that one person is taking up additional resources without providing anything to the game operator. This same sentiment is sometimes echoed even in the 'big name' mmos wherein they say "only one account per person." The reason is the same more than one account does not guarantee additional wealth.

I'm also going to let people buy more alts so that a player can experience more of the current 16 classes. Also about trading between IP-addresses it's currently monitored to check to see if someone's funneling items into a mule account and if so i'll close it down since i offer them an option to get more slots.

This is common to all games P2P games want you to have more accounts, F2P games want you to have one account and buy a lot of stuff with it. By having more than one account there is no guarantee that you'll be spending more money but with P2P there is. So thus the F2P group hates it since your'e busy using up their resources without providing them anything extra in return. Also MOST P2P games also require that you buy the game too. So that's additional revenue for the game operator.

[JGadrow]

They're all Pay to Play. So it makes sense that they'd want you to have as many accounts as possible. Why wouldn't they? They get more money from you with each additional account.

What dsheroh is describing is actually available with a single account. So, essentially, they are doing the opposite of what you're describing. They're allowing a single payment to provide multiple play options.

Now let's look at browser based games shall we? What do 99.9% of all of them have in common? They're all Free to play.
So having a second account doesn't guarantee additional revenue for the game operator.

Well, then make a quality game and make it subscription-only. lol That's a joke... I'm not being serious....

This means that one person is taking up additional resources without providing anything to the game operator. This same sentiment is sometimes echoed even in the 'big name' mmos wherein they say "only one account per person." The reason is the same more than one account does not guarantee additional wealth.

This is actually somewhat untrue. By sticking around your site, they're actually proving that your site has visitor traction. If you were to do direct ad sales for your site, this would actually be a selling point for you because you're able to guarantee that people will see the ads on your site (whether consciously or subconsciously) which is useful to the advertiser because it provides brand awareness. If you get big traffic, you can go after big advertisers. Especially snack / junk food advertisers. They know that people are prone to impulse buys. Someone plays your game for a while and suddenly sees a Taco Bell advertisement. The think to themselves... "Hmm, a burrito actually sounds pretty good right now." and that leads to sales for Taco Bell. But, to get large clients like that, you need a high traffic volume.

I'm also going to let people buy more alts so that a player can experience more of the current 16 classes. Also about trading between IP-addresses it's currently monitored to check to see if someone's funneling items into a mule account and if so i'll close it down since i offer them an option to get more slots.

Personally, I think most people are unable to convert users to paying customers because they fail to provide enough value for the asking price. I've recently been playing HOMMK. I'm a member of the largest guild on my server. I play for free. I have considered paying for an upgraded account, but they want $8 / month for the subscription. I think of that cost and I say, "Hmm.... that's half the price of playing WoW for a month." (or 2/3 of the price if you take the 6 months option). For that price, you're allowed to have more heroes and cities (which free accounts get access to as well, just much later) and you get to use a battle calculator. I just feel that, for the money, I'd rather play WoW. Or save that $8 until Diablo III comes out or something like that. Now... if they were charging $3 / month... I'd have bought the subscription. Maybe even $5.

This is common to all games P2P games want you to have more accounts, F2P games want you to have one account and buy a lot of stuff with it.

Actually, I think they're quite happy with people still only having a single account. After all, even one account, for their business model, means revenue has been generated. If you want to make more than one, they're definitely not going to complain, but their goal is just to get you to purchase one account. And if they're subscription-based, their secondary goal is to get you to re-purchase that account every month perpetually.

By having more than one account there is no guarantee that you'll be spending more money but with P2P there is. So thus the F2P group hates it since your'e busy using up their resources without providing them anything extra in return. Also MOST P2P games also require that you buy the game too. So that's additional revenue for the game operator.

Actually, the practice of buying the game too has started dying out. Most p2p games that use a subscription-based model now allow you to download the game client for free. They realize that their real market is not in the direct sales but in keeping players investing their cash on a recurring basis.

It works the same even for unrelated business types. I just stopped working with a client of mine because he was always calling me up asking questions off the books and stuff like that but was unwilling to provide more actual work. Conversely, I have two of my previous employers who are usually good for several hundred each month. I work very had to keep them happy. After all, it's their revenue which allowed me to purchase my Photoshop license, to keep paying for my dedicated server, that's making up for the income I lost from my primary employment this month due to healthcare issues, etc..

[dsheroh]

Games that are skill based, where time spend is irrelevant (or not such important) to victory are much more vulnerable.

I don't buy it.  The first time I saw a "no multis" rule was on Torn City and, from memory, it was the most draconian case of "if you trade with someone who has ever been on any IP address you've ever used, then both accounts will be deleted, all your IP addresses will be permanently banned, and we'll use IP geolocation to nuke your home town, just to be sure" I've ever seen.  Torn City is not "skill-based" by any meaningful definition of the term, but is instead the epitome of "click 'attack' until you run out of turns, then come back in an hour and do it again after your turns regenerate" gameplay.

As for time spent being irrelevant, that style of game may "only require 5 minutes a day" to stay competitive, but that's because turns/energy/fuel/whatever is used as a limiter to prevent you from effectively playing for more than that - you can stay on 24/7 if you want, but, after 5 minutes, you're not really going to be able to do anything that affects the game.  (Based on past conversations we've had about turns, I suspect that Lords is similar, but I've never tried it, so I can't say whether it actually is or not.)  But, if "time spend is irrelevant"... why does the game limit time spent?

I submit that the typical BBG is just as time-based as any MMO, the only difference is that the BBG only lets you play (meaningfully) for a few minutes a day, while the MMO will allow you to play 24/7.

...which then leads into my last "questioning BBG dogma" post (which I can't find at the moment to link to), in which I asked "why are BBGs so opposed to the idea that someone who plays the game for six hours a day might earn an advantage over someone else who only looks at it for five seconds on alternate Thursdays, unless the weather is nice out and they go play tennis instead?"

This is common to all games P2P games want you to have more accounts, F2P games want you to have one account and buy a lot of stuff with it.

The thought had crossed my mind, but...

On the BBG side, I've seen a number of cases where they'll loosen up IP-sharing restrictions on paid "premium" accounts, but I have yet to see one which removes them entirely.  Most often, they keep the restrictions in full effect - threatening to cancel the paid accounts with no refunds - unless you notify them in advance that "my account and this other account which belongs to a different person will both be using the same IP address because we live/work together" and, even then, they still often forbid any trading or other direct in-game interaction between paid accounts on the same IP address.

On the MMO side, a number of MMOs have gone F2P/freemium, such as DDO and LOTRO, but have not set up multi-detection, anti-address-sharing, or similar policies.  Also, many conventional MMOs, such as CoH and WoW, offer free trial accounts which, again, are not aggressively policed for multi-account violations (if there's even a rule against it in the first place) in the way that BBGs are, despite the higher per-player resource requirements of an MMO relative to a BBG.  What limits they do have on trial accounts seem to be primarily targeted at shutting down spammers and gold sellers, not people who want to play with their roommates or transfer items from one (free) account to their other (free) account.

[133794m3r]

i was mostly speaking about the base option and why THEY do what they do on the most part. I personally do believe that being unable to monetize properly is the key reason most players don't become customers. I was speaking from an outside perspective of why they do it. Also having more than one character per account takes extra development time and also more design work since they have to balance it better. A lot of games don't want to deal with that extra hassle that comes with coding up the ability to allow players to have multiple characters and also the balance that goes along with it.

I personally don't understand why quite a few games figure out their costs. For example in perfect world US edition they sold some mount for 70USD(i believe it was) and it was only  special model adn that was it. They honestly expected it to sell well. sure it did for the people who wanted to show off but i highly doubt that that was really worth all of the effort required to market the bloody thing. Sure they're going to make it back but they could make back so much more if they'd have priced it better. Also with very high quality games like WoW charging a flat $15/mo and $50 every 18 months. It's surprising why others are trying to charge that much for some of the additional features that WoW already woudl provide for the users. Other games that come close are ones like EvE and Aion. I've not tried EvE yet due to how unbalanced it all is but Aion was fun for those who played it adn wow was/is too.

I don't know if others are doing what i'm doing but right now when i think about a feature i sit there and try to decide if it's even worth trying to sell to some people or if it'd go over better in marketing since i'd be able to say "we have feature x". Thus far everything but some vanity items, and some boost like scrolls have gone on the give it as free during a content patch slab.

Also those trial accounts are IMMENSELY LIMITED as to what they can do. So it's haredly able to be called 'multing' since they're unable to use the auction house, send mail to players or even trade with them(i'm not sure about that last one). And the freemium games you're speaking of still DO have the option to go P2P to get access to all content.

Also they're different worlds. For most pbbg players they've become accustomed to it. It's like with traditional mmos, you know that you're going to have to download 4GB+ of an installer before you can even play. It's how the cultures are, and most people don't change it because they don't see any reason to even attempt to. Most games don't really attempt to raise the bar above what is common. Some do have generally interesting game designs but the mechanics are generally the same.

It's like how it is with browsers right now, until chrome came onto the scene mozilla didn't really care about performance now they do. And with ie9 coming they now care about being html5 compliant. Also look at the iPhone it was all alone and no one else tried to push teh boundaries then android came and slowly pushed them.

Currently there's no push to leave those draconian laws. WoW did it for the traditional mmos the game became more single player friendly and it's never went back to the ways of old. Ganking is much harder to do and 'noobs' have more protection than ever. The PBBG needs some EXTREMELY HUGE game that comes out and does away with the draconian laws of old. Until then everyone's going to follow the flow.

[codestryke]

We don't allow multi's because our games are nowhere near the size of the boxed games. The games are mostly round based competitive games that are very focused on some sort of resource domination.  With that style of game multi's produce a way for one person to gain more resources then they are suppose to and thus dominate the game unfairly.

The other problem for us is the attack system. A multi could have a number of smaller accounts weaken a target then have the main account come in for the final blow. If you have a perma-death system like we do in one of our games then having multi's can be devastating.

We can design around such problems by making them have less of an impact but then you are taking away the competitive part of the game. With the boxed games there is no end goal, no winner is or will ever be named so if you and all your accounts have all the worlds troll furs it doesn't throw off the game balance like it would in one of our PBBGs. In fact in that instance the boxed game developer would probably devalue troll fur on the next patch cycle LOL.

If I had a never ending game with no type of perma-death or a very weak attack system (weak as in winning doesn't devastate the loser of the battle) then I would let multi's in at a cap amount and charge people if they wanted more (and of course scatter ads at non-paying multiple account holding players to offset there resource drain).

[Chris]

They're all Free to play. So having a second account doesn't guarantee additional revenue for the game operator. This means that one person is taking up additional resources without providing anything to the game operator.

Not true, at least usually not true. You need free players so paying players have an audience that they can brag in front of. Also, you need players, any kind of players, before anyone start paying. I can even give the exact number, you need minimum 150 real active players before people find it worth paying for anything.

Games that are skill based, where time spend is irrelevant (or not such important) to victory are much more vulnerable.

I don't buy it. [...] Torn City [...]

I'm not surprised Once again mafia games give bad reputation to the whole BBG genre and once again majority of players won't care and will continue playing this crap That's life.
Please, give another example, I have no clue why anyone would want to play mafia games so I can not reply.

As for time spent being irrelevant, that style of game may "only require 5 minutes a day" to stay competitive, but that's because turns/energy/fuel/whatever is used as a limiter to prevent you from effectively playing for more than that - you can stay on 24/7 if you want, but, after 5 minutes, you're not really going to be able to do anything that affects the game.

Exactly. You pinpointed the core of the traditional (or even any?) BBG. There are some limits that prevent you playing meaningfully (everywhere I posted "limit playing time" I meant "limit playing it meaningfully").

...which then leads into my last "questioning BBG dogma" post (which I can't find at the moment to link to), in which I asked "why are BBGs so opposed to the idea that someone who plays the game for six hours a day might earn an advantage over someone else who only looks at it for five seconds on alternate Thursdays, unless the weather is nice out and they go play tennis instead?"

Why people want to be happy? People want to be happy, because they want to be happy.
Why would you want to have sex with that absolutely gorgeous and hot woman over there?
Why would you want play games that let people with skills win over those who just mindlessly click buttons all day?

You simply don't ask such questions, such questions are illogical At least to those attracted to this type of games.
(Besides, come on! Do you really think these mindless games are worth anything? I am capable of comprehending that there are people who think so, but that's the upper end of my imagination )

Also with very high quality games like WoW charging a flat $15/mo and $50 every 18 months. It's surprising why others are trying to charge that much for some of the additional features that WoW already woudl provide for the users.

Because WoW sux. The don't compete with WoW, it would be pointless and impossible. They cater to those who loathe WoW for some reason.

[JGadrow]

First, I'd like to say that everyone has great points these last few posts. I thrive on intellectual debates and I have generally beaten my ego into submission enough that I don't mind being proven wrong. Heck, I think I may actually enjoy being wrong most of the time because it gives me an opportunity to learn.

Personally, I believe browser-based games are going to start being the new battleground for gaming dominance once technology starts catching up. Remember back, years ago, when box games were in the same state that browser-based games are today. I remember you could download (or buy in store) shareware games. They'd let you play a little bit for free but to access the full potential of the game, you had to register the game with the company that made it. Then they'd give you a "key" that would unlock the full functionality.

I say, learn lessons from the box games and apply them to how you make your browser-based games. This isn't comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing peaches to nectarines (different, yet very similar).

@codestryke - The type of game you describe is, definitely, the hardest to make multi's harmless. However, it's a matter of balancing tactics. If there is a potential problem of gang-up attacks that you want to remove you'd have to make some design decisions to count it. Actually, the issue you describe is not a problem presented by multi-accounts. It's just an easy way to abuse broken game logic. There's nothing stopping a legitimate gang of players (say a bullying guild or whatever) from making a multitude of the smaller members attack someone and then the larger member goes in and delivers the coup de grace.

I think that's the main take-a-way point of this discussion is that most of the perceived imbalances of multi-accounts are actually abuses that are present in the system. To my mindset, as a designer, a multi-accounter is in no way different than a large group of players.

Thus, in designing to make multi-accounts a non-threatening option, you are also discouraging the "baby eater" tactics that take away value from so many other games.

@Chris, yeah 150 sounds about right. That's probably about the level of players where I'd think it was worth my time to play competitively against. Provided, as always, that I enjoyed the game.

As far as intentionally limiting meaningful play... that's a concept that has never really sat well with me. In fact, that's part of the reason why I would be hesitant to pay to upgrade aspects of my account. Why should I pay $5 to get X component for a game I only play for 15 minutes?

Basically, what you've done is force your entire user base to be "casual" players. Except, there is now such an emphasis on making sure you play all of your available turns whenever they are available that huge power gaps can be achieved in a relatively short amount of time.

[MystressNyx]

I will preface this post with the fact that I am in a timezone other than my own due to travel and have only gotten a few hours of sleep each night this week, so I apologize in advance if I fail to make much sense lol

@codestryke - The type of game you describe is, definitely, the hardest to make multi's harmless. However, it's a matter of balancing tactics. If there is a potential problem of gang-up attacks that you want to remove you'd have to make some design decisions to count it. Actually, the issue you describe is not a problem presented by multi-accounts. It's just an easy way to abuse broken game logic. There's nothing stopping a legitimate gang of players (say a bullying guild or whatever) from making a multitude of the smaller members attack someone and then the larger member goes in and delivers the coup de grace.

Yes, it is always possible for a legit group of players to do that. However, that involves sacrifice. They each take losses and run the risk of bringing retribution upon themselves whereas a player achieving it with 10 multis couldn't care less about that as they have an endless supply of throw-away accounts and the gain is purely theirs.

One of the things that no one touched upon is the playerbase perception of multis. For each player that wishes to multi, there are 5 that hate the idea. Even in games where it has little impact, people will still often feel as if they are being directly cheated themselves. That alone is not an idea that breeds happiness in a game.

Worse though is that many people will take that as a green light to push the envelope further in the gray areas. From the POV of a player: "If the game owner doesn't care about people with multis imbalancing their game, would they really care if I found some other underhanded method to gain an advantage?" Sadly, this is a mindset that I run across often in our games. It's amazing how people manage to justify things to themselves.

Yes, in a perfect world we would be able to design away any imbalances that multis create, but as has been stated a lot lately, it's a very slippery slope into the realm of losing features that the honest players truly value. From my experiences as both an owner and a player, I would much rather people be restricted to a single account with more freedoms than have multis with less features.

@Chris - I'll have to disagree on needing X amount of people before anyone is willing to pay. There are plenty of people who just have a lot of free time and cash to spare. We have one running right now with a whopping 29 active players and people have already made purchases this round.

[JGadrow]

Yes, it is always possible for a legit group of players to do that. However, that involves sacrifice. They each take losses and run the risk of bringing retribution upon themselves whereas a player achieving it with 10 multis couldn't care less about that as they have an endless supply of throw-away accounts and the gain is purely theirs.

Excellent point. However, I almost wonder if you have any guilds who might have figured out that they could tell their newer members to attack with minor forces to soften opposition and then redistributing resources they acquire through conquering their opponent (I'm assuming this is what happens based upon what codestryke said in another thread). This means they can sacrifice the power of their lower-class members (who don't really suffer much because they're screwed against larger opponents anyways and rely upon the protection of more powerful members) to take out larger opponents. Which has the double impact of weaking their opposition and strengthening their own members.

Don't get me wrong, I know it's a tightrope walking between these two things especially in games that are of the sort that you build power over time and you're able to weaken your opponents through attrition tactics. But this is a design flaw, not something unique to multi-accounts. Multi-accounts just gives the design flaw greater visibility.

One of the things that no one touched upon is the playerbase perception of multis. For each player that wishes to multi, there are 5 that hate the idea. Even in games where it has little impact, people will still often feel as if they are being directly cheated themselves. That alone is not an idea that breeds happiness in a game.

The player perception is often greatly influenced by the designer's intent. Since most browser-based games these days limit multi-accounts, of course players are going to think anyone who does it is cheating (and rightly so in your game where that would definitely be exploitable). However, they might still perceive multi-accounts as being imbalanced but because they would rarely (if ever) actually see this imbalance in-game, they'd likely proceed exactly the same as if they weren't allowed.

Worse though is that many people will take that as a green light to push the envelope further in the gray areas. From the POV of a player: "If the game owner doesn't care about people with multis imbalancing their game, would they really care if I found some other underhanded method to gain an advantage?" Sadly, this is a mindset that I run across often in our games. It's amazing how people manage to justify things to themselves.

Well, that's just basic human nature. lol "How can I turn this to my advantage?" These kind of players are actually good for a community though in the long-term. Especially if you have a group of players who seems really good at finding loopholes in your system. These are the players you should befriend and invite to your next game's closed alpha / beta before having a general release.

Yes, in a perfect world we would be able to design away any imbalances that multis create, but as has been stated a lot lately, it's a very slippery slope into the realm of losing features that the honest players truly value. From my experiences as both an owner and a player, I would much rather people be restricted to a single account with more freedoms than have multis with less features.

Again, I agree that it's a balancing act and I have nothing but respect for yourself and codestryke. I hope you realize that the tone of my message is not meant to belittle you or your knowledge in any way but to try and create an open discussion. This conversation between everyone on the board has been, in my opinion, one of the most valuable conversations budding designers can read on this forum. It shows different design philosophies, has people who have used some of these strategies voicing their opinions with data to back them up, and for each issue that comes up, there are suggestions for how to deal with it.

We have one running right now with a whopping 29 active players and people have already made purchases this round.

lol That's an odd number... is this one of your newer games? And are they members of other games who have enjoyed competing against one another? I can definitely see that being a contributing factor to some of them spending money for your games even though there are few players. The fun for them might come in the form of competing against a select set of individuals. I think Chris was talking more about if you're starting with a brand-new community.

[MystressNyx]

Excellent point. However, I almost wonder if you have any guilds who might have figured out that they could tell their newer members to attack with minor forces to soften opposition and then redistributing resources they acquire through conquering their opponent (I'm assuming this is what happens based upon what codestryke said in another thread). This means they can sacrifice the power of their lower-class members (who don't really suffer much because they're screwed against larger opponents anyways and rely upon the protection of more powerful members) to take out larger opponents. Which has the double impact of weaking their opposition and strengthening their own members.

Don't get me wrong, I know it's a tightrope walking between these two things especially in games that are of the sort that you build power over time and you're able to weaken your opponents through attrition tactics. But this is a design flaw, not something unique to multi-accounts. Multi-accounts just gives the design flaw greater visibility.

While that is certainly possible, it's not really a situation that is common for us. We seem to attract particularly selfish players lol Even so, in that situation, losses that will truly impact the game occur since those weaker players would be attacking for damage while only the last player goes for gains. That helps keep the balance where the throw-away accounts create losses only for the targeted player.

The player perception is often greatly influenced by the designer's intent. Since most browser-based games these days limit multi-accounts, of course players are going to think anyone who does it is cheating (and rightly so in your game where that would definitely be exploitable). However, they might still perceive multi-accounts as being imbalanced but because they would rarely (if ever) actually see this imbalance in-game, they'd likely proceed exactly the same as if they weren't allowed.

I suppose this one is even more situational as each group of people in any given situation will view things differently. I do agree that designer intent can have a large impact on how the player perceives things. However, we've had plenty of outcry in the past to get rid of multis even during alpha rounds where we allow them for testing and when the ranks mean nothing.

Well, that's just basic human nature. lol "How can I turn this to my advantage?" These kind of players are actually good for a community though in the long-term. Especially if you have a group of players who seems really good at finding loopholes in your system. These are the players you should befriend and invite to your next game's closed alpha / beta before having a general release.

Oh don't I wish that were true! These players, however, don't tend to have a helpful bone in their body and are rarely forthcoming with what they learn. Mind you, I am not referring to every player that seeks out exploits as we do have dedicated players that are do it and tell us. I am only referencing the people that are likely to either multi themselves or develop an angry streak when they feel we're not keeping balance.

Again, I agree that it's a balancing act and I have nothing but respect for yourself and codestryke. I hope you realize that the tone of my message is not meant to belittle you or your knowledge in any way but to try and create an open discussion. This conversation between everyone on the board has been, in my opinion, one of the most valuable conversations budding designers can read on this forum. It shows different design philosophies, has people who have used some of these strategies voicing their opinions with data to back them up, and for each issue that comes up, there are suggestions for how to deal with it.

Nope, didn't feel any negativity at all. I was pretty happy that there was a topic I actually felt comfortable posting on as they are so rare and it's helping keep me awake lol

lol That's an odd number... is this one of your newer games? And are they members of other games who have enjoyed competing against one another? I can definitely see that being a contributing factor to some of them spending money for your games even though there are few players. The fun for them might come in the form of competing against a select set of individuals. I think Chris was talking more about if you're starting with a brand-new community.

heh I just happened to look over at the panel to see what we were up to since I knew it was low. It is one of the newer games, but not actually new. It was down for a while and we did a nearly silent relaunch for various reasons. While it's true that we do have a lot of... brand loyalty, I guess you could call it, the top spenders last round were brand new to XC Games. We see it a lot, a new player pops in and just gets so excited that they get a little spend-happy. We love them

[Nox]

Agree with MystressNyx

Of course in games like WoW this does not really matter, you either would be acting as your alt or main, no gain

In most BBGs player could create an array of supporting accounts to buff himself. Even if we make some limitations so players can't buff extremely one player[1], but in case of limiting multis power I believe we would always have to go several steps further, resulting in what Nyx said.
We could also put some limitations on transfer between the same IP etc. etc. etc., but why root out symptoms when we can target the source.

And I also second the perception - I'm yet to find a player that would not consider multies cheating

Well... in a case of really brilliant design and balance multies would probably be possible (and not influencing the balance) for more fun for players, but... I don't see any way to do it properly


dsheroh
Depends on target audience, but I think one of BBG's advantages is possibility for players to remain competitive while not spending insane amount of time in the game and can often get distracted, do some work along with it etc. If one want's to play for a long time...dunno, I would choose "normal"(?) game (other than browser one) myself

The way I'd choose would be limiting the core competitive part time-wise (a mechanic you don't like), but include side activity/ies for players that wish to remain in the game. These might not change ladder or stats (or very slightly), but can for example provide achievements or that sort of stuff

[1] I actually played 2 games where buffing of a very few players by others was part of the design and I must say it was very annoying. One of the games was total crap design-wise and I could understand the (small) group that played it... maybe 200 players total, cca 6 players actually having a bit of fun, 97% of players served as support ... WTF?

[Chris]

I don't mind being proven wrong. Heck, I think I may actually enjoy being wrong most of the time because it gives me an opportunity to learn.

I feel pain in my chest when I have to agree with you. Unfortunatelly, I have to agree on that one this time

I think that's the main take-a-way point of this discussion is that most of the perceived imbalances of multi-accounts are actually abuses that are present in the system. To my mindset, as a designer, a multi-accounter is in no way different than a large group of players.

You are almost correct. There are plenty of similarites when you look at it design wise. But you forget psychology.
- it is far more acceptable to lose the game because others ganged up on you (you always can gather a bigger gang and take a revenge, at least in theory)
- humans have a strong sense and desire for justice, if others break rules that you obey something *has to* be done
- killing somene ingame is neutral morally, cheating is immoral (to most players)
- ganging up might be the goal of the game by design

As far as intentionally limiting meaningful play... that's a concept that has never really sat well with me. In fact, that's part of the reason why I would be hesitant to pay to upgrade aspects of my account. Why should I pay $5 to get X component for a game I only play for 15 minutes?

You miss the point (assuming heavy strategy games with very good gameplay design). You don't play only when you play. You also play when you don't play.

I used to love Civilization 1. My route was like 10 turns in front of computer, then break (even turning off the computer) to think. At the end of a day I made a thinking session (again computer turned off) to make strategic level choices what to do next. The part of the game when I was not in front of computer was the most enjoyable to me.

Player will talk about best solutions and think about best solutions. That's an important part of strategy games. Maybe not as hardcore route as I described, but still players who enjoy the game should plan or think also when they aren't in front of computer.

Second, you forgotten the whole social interaction part Forum, shoutbox, chat, IRC, private messages, messages to clan mates, massages to those who hate, messages to those you want to threaten, messages to those you want to befriend and lure to your organization, etc (that's why I always say that at least basic communication features should be done in the very first version of the game, even at the expense of important gameplay features).

You might need 15 minutes to do all the *chores* of the game, things essential to keep you going an progressing. But these are not all things you usually do in a game. Just the minimum for busy people or people busy at the moment.

But this is a design flaw

I came to a strong and definite conclusion. There are two types of games, those that are flawed and those that are boring. Removing all flaws from the design will lead to boring gameplay and I can not think about any exceptions right now. Designer's goal can not and should not be the elimination of all flaws, but the choice what combination of flaws include in the game.

lol That's an odd number... is this one of your newer games? And are they members of other  games who have enjoyed competing against one another? I can definitely see that being a contributing factor to some of them spending money for your games even though there are few players. The fun for them might come in the form of competing against a select set of individuals. I think Chris was talking more about if you're starting with a brand-new community.

heh I just happened to look over at the panel to see what we were up to since I knew it was low. It is one of the newer games, but not actually new. It was down for a while and we did a nearly silent relaunch for various reasons. While it's true that we do have a lot of... brand loyalty, I guess you could call it, the top spenders last round were brand new to XC Games. We see it a lot, a new player pops in and just gets so excited that they get a little spend-happy. We love them Wink

The number of 150 was for games in decline. The games that were bigger in the past but started to shrink. Around 120-150 is the borderline when players stop paying. It was for scenario without any relaunch or comeback, just plain and obvious to everyone decline. Also, lack of fresh blood might be the factor...

I would change the theory then to: "150 active players is a safe number to assure that some players are paying"

[JGadrow]

You have a point. There is a difference once the game is already in final format between multi-accounts and large player groups. Personally, I believe I'll always design to allow multi-accounts. It makes the design more difficult to do (which, honestly, makes it more interesting as well) and forces me to make decisions early on about swarm tactics.

I'm not really sure if players would know the difference between being crushed by a multi-account and being crushed by a gang of players unless someone pointed it out to them. Or if the multi-accounter had accounts like:

bigdawg
bigdawg2
bigdawg3
...
etc.

Of course... in a game where multi-accounts were legal and you got hit by a multi-accounter, you'd probably just make one yourself and get them back. Why bother making a public outcry for something you can do right back to them to take your sweet revenge?

In some way, allowing multi-accounts might actually be good for the game. Especially games where your time is extremely limited and you have meaningful decisions that you can make. If people enjoy your game enough to dedicate their time to the game creating multiple accounts... that's a good thing. I guess I just choose to walk the other side of the tightrope. Instead of taking time trying to fight multi-accounts from being created, I would spend the time trying to make it so that the community doesn't feel that it's the only viable option to play the game.

@MistressNyx
By the way, one thing I've noticed about alpha / beta: Just because nothing "counts" in an official sense, doesn't mean that the community isn't still fighting for rank. lol It's kind of like the kid sports games where there is no officials keeping score. The kids are still keeping score all by themselves. lol

[dsheroh]

Also they're different worlds. For most pbbg players they've become accustomed to it... most people don't change it because they don't see any reason to even attempt to. Most games don't really attempt to raise the bar above what is common...
Currently there's no push to leave those draconian laws... The PBBG needs some EXTREMELY HUGE game that comes out and does away with the draconian laws of old. Until then everyone's going to follow the flow.

I could go along with the theory that "multis are taboo because that's what's expected and nobody wants to make the effort of changing it", if not for one little detail:  Judging by all the threads I've seen around here about how to detect multis, allusions to secret sauce for identifying them which can't be shared openly, blacklists of hundreds of proxy IP addresses which have to be constantly updated, etc., it seems very clear to me that maintaining the status quo of draconian restrictions requires far more effort than being open to multis.  Granted, you would have to design the game with that in mind (e.g., no artificial "X turns per day" limitations), but, if you're doing your own original game system design rather than copying an existing design, then:

• The additional cost of designing to allow for multis is only a marginal increase over the base cost of creating an original design in the first place.
• The additional cost of designing to allow for multis will be offset, or perhaps even exceeded, by the reduced cost of not having to build systems to detect and punish multis.
• Even if a multi-allowing design results in a higher total startup cost, this will be quickly repaid by reduced ongoing admin costs for keeping multi detection up-to-date and enforcing a prohibition on multis.

Games that are skill based, where time spend is irrelevant (or not such important) to victory are much more vulnerable.

I don't buy it. [...] Torn City [...]

I'm not surprised :) Once again mafia games give bad reputation to the whole BBG genre and once again majority of players won't care and will continue playing this crap :)

Yeah...  I really wish I'd gone with my first impression and acknowledged Torn for the crap it was rather than insisting on sticking with it for a couple months in hopes of eventually discovering its underlying greatness, or at least gaining insight into its popularity.

I still feel that my point stands, though:  From what I've seen, it seems that the games with the strictest no-multi policies tend to also be the ones that require the least actual skill to play (well).  If this is true, then it contradicts your assertion that BBGs limit multis because they're skill-based rather than time-based.

As for time spent being irrelevant, that style of game may "only require 5 minutes a day" to stay competitive, but that's because turns/energy/fuel/whatever is used as a limiter to prevent you from effectively playing for more than that - you can stay on 24/7 if you want, but, after 5 minutes, you're not really going to be able to do anything that affects the game.

Exactly. You pinpointed the core of the traditional (or even any?) BBG. There are some limits that prevent you playing meaningfully (everywhere I posted "limit playing time" I meant "limit playing it meaningfully").

If BBGs are skill-based and not time-based, then why do they limit playing time?  If "time spend is irrelevant to victory", then shouldn't I be able to put all the time into actually playing the game that I want (as opposed to, say, chatting while I wait for turns to regenerate), since that won't affect the outcome?

Your original answer that "MMOs allow multis/alts because they're time-based and BBGs prohibit them because they're skill-based" doesn't look to me like it holds up.  Both are (in general) primarily time-based.  Furthermore, if such a distinction were accurate, I'd expect to see the opposite result, with the skill-based games allowing multis/alts (play on one character or a hundred, it won't have any effect because it's all about the player's skills) and the time-based games prohibiting them (because more characters allow you to put in more time and more accounts let you put in time on multiple characters simultaneously).

...which then leads into my last "questioning BBG dogma" post (which I can't find at the moment to link to), in which I asked "why are BBGs so opposed to the idea that someone who plays the game for six hours a day might earn an advantage over someone else who only looks at it for five seconds on alternate Thursdays, unless the weather is nice out and they go play tennis instead?"

Why would you want play games that let people with skills win over those who just mindlessly click buttons all day?

False dichotomy.  Limiting playing time is not a requirement for a game to be skill-based.  On the contrary, increased playing time (against competent opposition) allows players to develop their skills to a higher level and to do so more quickly than limited playing time does.  Would the top-level professional FPS or RTS players be nearly as good as they are if they were only allowed to play for 15 minutes a day?

First, I'd like to say that everyone has great points these last few posts. I thrive on intellectual debates and I have generally beaten my ego into submission enough that I don't mind being proven wrong. Heck, I think I may actually enjoy being wrong most of the time because it gives me an opportunity to learn. :)

Unlike Chris, I have no problem agreeing with you, so I'll just say "Seconded!"

I say, learn lessons from the box games and apply them to how you make your browser-based games. This isn't comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing peaches to nectarines (different, yet very similar).

Actually, apples and oranges are pretty similar.

I think that's the main take-a-way point of this discussion is that most of the perceived imbalances of multi-accounts are actually abuses that are present in the system. To my mindset, as a designer, a multi-accounter is in no way different than a large group of players.

Excellent point and one which has occurred to me before, although not in the context of this thread.  Game mechanics don't care whether multiple characters are being controlled by the same player or by different players, so any mechanic which can be abused by multis can also be abused by a group of players.  The one difference is that the multis can be better-coordinated.

One of the things that no one touched upon is the playerbase perception of multis. For each player that wishes to multi, there are 5 that hate the idea. Even in games where it has little impact, people will still often feel as if they are being directly cheated themselves. That alone is not an idea that breeds happiness in a game.

Worse though is that many people will take that as a green light to push the envelope further in the gray areas. From the POV of a player: "If the game owner doesn't care about people with multis imbalancing their game, would they really care if I found some other underhanded method to gain an advantage?"

As JGadrow alluded to (but didn't say straight out), this is based on the presumption that multis are, a priori, "cheating" and "underhanded".  I've never encountered anyone who has felt "cheated" by someone else having alts in an MMO, nor even anyone who hates the idea of them being in the game, because the game design and rules allow for them.  Even dual-boxing, while often seen as cheesy, doesn't get used as an excuse by other players to "[find] some other underhanded method to gain an advantage" because it's allowed, at least implicitly and often explicitly.

The perception of multis in games where they're prohibited has no real bearing on the question of whether they should be prohibited in the first place or why.

Yes, in a perfect world we would be able to design away any imbalances that multis create, but as has been stated a lot lately, it's a very slippery slope into the realm of losing features that the honest players truly value.

What features do you consider to be inherently incompatible with multis?  An earlier post mentioned permadeath, which I can go along with (outside of schemes like the Communist Zombie MUD concept, where you're making a new character every time you log in anyhow), but that's due to broader difficulties with making permadeath work in general which are exacerbated by throwaway characters.  What others are there?  (Multis are also an obvious way to sidestep turn limits, but I have a hard time placing them into the category of "features that the honest players truly value", so that's not relevant here.)


Well, that certainly got to be rather long...

[JGadrow]

Actually, apples and oranges are pretty similar.

I just got pwned... lol

[Chris]

The whole "problem" is that JGadrow and dsheroh never played such games or played them a long time ago or don't like them or don't understand them, etc. Actually, the stuff discussed here doesn't have much to do with multis, but with a specific game type. The topic should be "Why people play games that have energy/turns and are reset periodically", only when you understand this you will be able to understand why multis are perceived as such problem in some (not all) game types.

no artificial "X turns per day" limitations

Do you remember when you asked how to solve some design problem and I said the solution is trivial, you just have to introduce resets? You just did the same in this topic

"X turns per day" is not a limitation. It is the core of the game. It is the purpose. It is the sweet spot. This "limitation" is one of very important reasons why people play such games. What you just suggested is "Change WoW so each player has a deck of cards and each player deal damage depending which card they draw" It would be a completely different game then. It's like "I have a great idea how to solve the problem of fights on stadiums, just let them watch sport on TV".

I still feel that my point stands, though:  From what I've seen, it seems that the games with the strictest no-multi policies tend to also be the ones that require the least actual skill to play (well).  If this is true, then it contradicts your assertion that BBGs limit multis because they're skill-based rather than time-based.

I have no clue about majority of games. Majority is strange for me and completely uncomprehendable. Like those games where the play never ends and there is no winner announced and you just click stuff and nothing concrete comes out of it. Still, these are quite populaar and some people play these.

If BBGs are skill-based and not time-based, then why do they limit playing time?  If "time spend is irrelevant to victory", then shouldn't I be able to put all the time into actually playing the game that I want (as opposed to, say, chatting while I wait for turns to regenerate), since that won't affect the outcome?

These games are about "You have 1000 turns/energy total, use them the best way you can to get the most score/whatever". It's not that you have X turns per day. Not at all, the daily allocation is purely for other reasons (so players come back next day). The real thing is you have X turns for a whole game and that's how the best players think, calculate and talk. They talk like that "On day 10 of the round you should be getting 1000 gold per turn used, on day 100 you should get 2000 gold per turn". They also can give from their memory the current "ratio" of gold to turns and other bizzarie things like that

Have you ever played Heroes of Might & Magic? Have you ever tried to beat a scenario with the lowest possible turns taken? If you did you will like these games we talk here about, if you don't you probably will never understand the beauty of energy/turn based games.

[Nox]

Furthermore, if such a distinction were accurate, I'd expect to see the opposite result, with the skill-based games allowing multis/alts (play on one character or a hundred, it won't have any effect because it's all about the player's skills) and the time-based games prohibiting them (because more characters allow you to put in more time and more accounts let you put in time on multiple characters simultaneously).

 I've never encountered anyone who has felt "cheated" by someone else having alts in an MMO, nor even anyone who hates the idea of them being in the game, because the game design and rules allow for them.

Because playing MMO - you can't split yourself into several persons, you can't play more characters at once, you have 1 timeframe and even if you have many accounts/character, you still be at 100% effectivity, not more, while when playing many of the BBGs when you set up e.g. 15 accounts, then it's like you 'somehow' got 1500% resource, army etc. gain

Maintaining these player's farms is often easy.
If we make them easy to be defeated, even single account would be easily defeated,
... resulting in bad gameplay
... resulting in easy farming of weaker players
If we make them difficult to manage, even single account would be - pointlessly - difficult to manage.

Seems to me anti-farming measures and anti-multi measures go against each other.

The other way is to make accounts not to have siginificant effect - but then we remove cooperation between players



I know this seems like yammering "it's not possible, it's not possible" without trying, but... ignoring all theoretical perfect world's "it should be this or that way" - I don't see a concrete way how to design game allowing multiple accounts while not tearing most other features apart

[codestryke]

I honestly can't stand the comparison of PBBG's to boxed games nor can I stand it when people compare PBBG's to the majority of "games" on Facebook. To me boxed games are more like the new wave of social games where everything has been socialized and/or nurfed so no one gets hurt or really loses anything.

With the boxed games most of your content is based on PvE. Your excitement comes from attacking something in the environment and then you are rewarded for said conquest.  So for this you need to continually add content as they do with boxed games. Most PBBG developers don't have the time to create content on that scale. Content takes time to create so much time that I bet it takes less time to work with multi's then it does to create said content

How many people have read the articles about Eve Online? There are at least 3 or 4 really articles about how one player rocked that entire game, so much so news outlets go nuts even telling the story. The reason this can even happen is because the game is open enough to allow such tactics. You are never going to read a story like that about WoW, LOTRO, Farmville, Ultima Online, NeoPets, Everquest or FishVille.. You may see the occasional article about a new patch, how fast someone went though the new content or other oh hum articles like that.

With the game of old we had and the new game we have coming I want to create that type of environment where there is a rush of playing against someone else and in doing so I'm going to need someone to referee the game It's a competition not a cooperation.

[Sunchaser]

How many people have read the articles about Eve Online?

Link? thanks

[JGadrow]

The whole "problem" is that JGadrow and dsheroh never played such games or played them a long time ago or don't like them or don't understand them, etc. Actually, the stuff discussed here doesn't have much to do with multis, but with a specific game type. The topic should be "Why people play games that have energy/turns and are reset periodically", only when you understand this you will be able to understand why multis are perceived as such problem in some (not all) game types.

Well, that's quite wrong in both assumptions in my case. Most of my discussion has been directly about multi-accounts. I think I maybe said two sentences about turn limits. lol And, I have played these sorts of games. Many of them. Some for longer periods than others. Generally, I enjoy the games but just because I enjoy a game overall doesn't mean I don't think parts of it could be better if they'd have chosen to do X instead of Y. Mostly, I don't stick with games too long because I find they're a major time-sink for me (even the ones that limit my interaction! lol) and I generally force myself to stop playing so I can go and get something productive done instead.

These games are about "You have 1000 turns/energy total, use them the best way you can to get the most score/whatever". It's not that you have X turns per day. Not at all, the daily allocation is purely for other reasons (so players come back next day). The real thing is you have X turns for a whole game and that's how the best players think, calculate and talk. They talk like that "On day 10 of the round you should be getting 1000 gold per turn used, on day 100 you should get 2000 gold per turn". They also can give from their memory the current "ratio" of gold to turns and other bizzarie things like that

This is a sweet way of explaining and validating an "energy-limit" or whatever you call it system. However, it's not, technically, true in most cases. This could easily be true with one factor: no cap on stored turns. If the core of the game is: You have X turns over the course of the game... will you be the best? And maybe you miss a week because you go into the hospital with a ruptured appendix. If the game generates 100 turns / day and caps you out at 100 turns, you have now been placed at a 600 turn disadvantage. But, if you come back and you have 700 turns to spend, then you still have the same chance to win as everyone else.

Of course, the issue with no turn cap is that... what's the incentive to play every day? Why not just wait until the last day and use up all of your turns at once? So, while your explanation is a good one in theory... it doesn't translate in practice. When playing such a game, it always feels like the reason for implementing turn limits is solely so that "casual" players have an easier time keeping up to the curve of "hardcore" players. But, miss even a single day and you'll quickly realize how false this notion is.

Have you ever played Heroes of Might & Magic? Have you ever tried to beat a scenario with the lowest possible turns taken? If you did you will like these games we talk here about, if you don't you probably will never understand the beauty of energy/turn based games.

I have played every HOMM game they have ever made. Don't ask me to choose my favorite... it would be way too hard! lol I actually got my ex-girlfriend and her kids into playing HOMM V with me. lol And the one and only time I skipped school... My little brother and I drove over to a friend's house (they had a snow day and we didn't) to play HOMM III. lol

[dsheroh]

Actually, the stuff discussed here doesn't have much to do with multis, but with a specific game type. The topic should be "Why people play games that have energy/turns and are reset periodically", only when you understand this you will be able to understand why multis are perceived as such problem in some (not all) game types.

I agree with that to an extent.  Through the course of this thread, my understanding of the situation has come to be that most BBGs prohibit multis because they are of a specific game type (specifically, games which depend on daily or hourly turn limits) which doesn't work unless you also ban multis.

I've tried to avoid going into the question of why BBGs are typically that type of game or of why people like that type of game, but I won't try to say how successful I've been with that...

The real thing is you have X turns for a whole game and that's how the best players think, calculate and talk. They talk like that "On day 10 of the round you should be getting 1000 gold per turn used, on day 100 you should get 2000 gold per turn". They also can give from their memory the current "ratio" of gold to turns and other bizzarie things like that

Note that none of this player talk is dependent on turn limits.  I've seen RTS players frequently talk about "10 seconds into the game, you should have these buildings finished, those units in production, and be generating this many resources per second".  This is related to round-based play (which, incidentally, I believe to be compatible with multi-allowed game designs), not turn-limited play (which does not appear to be compatible with multis).

Have you ever played Heroes of Might & Magic? Have you ever tried to beat a scenario with the lowest possible turns taken? If you did you will like these games we talk here about, if you don't you probably will never understand the beauty of energy/turn based games.

I've played three or four iterations of HOMM - 2, 3, 4, and the demo for 5, as I recall.  But, no, I've never particularly cared for speed runs.  I tend to prefer to build up a "perfect" attack, which will bring victory with a minimum of losses, rather than attacking at the first opportunity.  This tends to be incompatible with trying to win in minimum turns.  Of course, there are always times when I'm forced to make a preemptive strike before I'm entirely ready to do so, but I'm rarely satisfied with a pyrrhic victory.

Because playing MMO - you can't split yourself into several persons, you can't play more characters at once, you have 1 timeframe and even if you have many accounts/character, you still be at 100% effectivity, not more, while when playing many of the BBGs when you set up e.g. 15 accounts, then it's like you 'somehow' got 1500% resource, army etc. gain

You've obviously never encountered a good dual-boxer...  Even the incompetent ones can increase their primary's effectiveness significantly by logging into a healer on their secondary and setting it to auto-follow and spam heals as fast as they recharge and maybe switch over to manually buff the primary every so often.  Or, for the EVE equivalent, have one character idle-mining while the other plays bodyguard and flies ore back to the nearest station every so often.  It may not scale perfectly to "2 accounts = 200%, 3 accounts = 300%, 15 accounts = 1500%", but it absolutely is a major boost over what a player with only a single account can manage.

A good dual-boxer can be hard to tell from two separate players.

Seems to me anti-farming measures and anti-multi measures go against each other.

Interesting point.  I'm not sure whether I agree or not; I'll have to think more about it.

The other way is to make accounts not to have siginificant effect - but then we remove cooperation between players

Agreed that this isn't good, but it's also a big part of why anti-multi measures bug me so much.  If a co-worker and I both play the same game and occasionally check in from work (the same IP address!  oh noes!), the anti-multi policies will remove our ability to cooperate while at the office.  In many cases, we wouldn't even be able to cooperate when playing from our respective homes, since multi-detection often checks recently-used IP addresses in addition to those currently in use.

I don't see a concrete way how to design game allowing multiple accounts while not tearing most other features apart

Like I asked in my last post, what specific features do you believe to be incompatible with allowing multis?  Chris and I seem to be in agreement that turn limits and multis are incompatible and multis seem like they would compound the difficulties in making permadeath work to the point of breaking it completely (zerg someone with throwaway multis until they either die or are weak enough for your "real" character to safely take down), but where else do you see multis creating problems which don't also exist at a similar severity with groups of distinct players?

I honestly can't stand the comparison of PBBG's to boxed games nor can I stand it when people compare PBBG's to the majority of "games" on Facebook.

For the record, while I have been making comparisons to MMOs and references to other styles of boxed games, I have not made any reference to Facebook games.  I've never played any of them, nor have I even read up on their details, so I couldn't make a meaningful comparison even if I wanted to.

With the boxed games most of your content is based on PvE. Your excitement comes from attacking something in the environment and then you are rewarded for said conquest.  So for this you need to continually add content as they do with boxed games. Most PBBG developers don't have the time to create content on that scale. Content takes time to create so much time that I bet it takes less time to work with multi's then it does to create said content

Good point on PVE focus and one I hadn't considered.

I disagree on content creation (I'm a big believer in procedural and user-generated content), but that's a topic for another thread, so let's not get into it here.  If you are reliant on admin-created content, then, yes, creating content fast enough to keep up with your players (even if they don't have multis!) will take more time and effort than multi-prevention.  Another very good point.

How many people have read the articles about Eve Online? There are at least 3 or 4 really articles about how one player rocked that entire game, so much so news outlets go nuts even telling the story. The reason this can even happen is because the game is open enough to allow such tactics...

With the game of old we had and the new game we have coming I want to create that type of environment where there is a rush of playing against someone else and in doing so I'm going to need someone to referee the game It's a competition not a cooperation.

Agreed - I'm all about world-building (more so than game-building) and creating an open environment where player actions have consequences, although I'm not terribly concerned about whether players cooperate or compete.  Which, I suppose, is why I question the norms of BBG development so often, since a normal BBG isn't such an environment.

When playing such a game, it always feels like the reason for implementing turn limits is solely so that "casual" players have an easier time keeping up to the curve of "hardcore" players. But, miss even a single day and you'll quickly realize how false this notion is.

I invariably get that same feeling, too.  Especially in games which actively advertise "you only need to play 5 minutes a day!" or the like.

[Chris]

in most cases

Majority/most is beyond my comprehention and unbelivably crappy. And I think it is true not only in gaming Majority has plenty of disadvantages, crappy incompatible mechanics and almost anything bad you wish to add.
In one game (there are plenty of these actually) I saw an energy bar that fills within 15 minutes... I don't know, maybe they made it as an anti refresh feature, because I can not see how it could work as a gameplay feature.

maybe you miss a week

Bad luck You can still aim for lower final rank, but the 1st spot is out of reach for sure.

miss even a single day

Most games require being online several times a day. If you plan to "miss a whole day" then online gaming is not for you. Your playing patterns are simply too incompatible with majority or even bigger niches, no one make games for such audience. I sympathize with you since I'm in the same situation. I want to have 1 or 2 days off in a week and therefore I can not find any (competitive) game to play... I wonder of there would be an extremely short game, like one that run for 7 days and then ends and ranking is shown, for people like us.

I've tried to avoid going into the question of why BBGs are typically that type of game or of why people like that type of game

Why they like that games it would be hard to explain, why they make them is easier.
- PvP is much cheaper to make than PvE, much less content (list me all, non extremely big, BBGs that have more than 10 quests total )
- WoW and almost all gfx heavily and highly polished games are PvE, you can't compete with these on a typical BBG budget, so catering for PvP audience sounds reasonable
- PvE games are basicly the same, with PvP you have more chances to shine as a designer
- PvE have much higher ratio of unfinished projects (so maybe they make the same amount of these but are unable to complete them)
- people who start making games as a hobby are usually unhappy with current state of gaming, so "traditional BBGs" (unlike casual Facebook games) seems a natural choice

And, once we got PvP, the natural combination is: PvP+competition+final ranking+rounds+turns/energy+no multis allowed.
If we go for PvE the natural combination is: PvE+cooperation/solo+no ranking+everlasting+time based+irrelevant multis.

Like I asked in my last post, what specific features do you believe to be incompatible with allowing multis?

You get 100 gold per day, you can not increase it by any means, 1 soldier costs 10 gold, there is send gold feature. You create 50 accounts and send all gold to the main account each day.

[JGadrow]

maybe you miss a week

Bad luck You can still aim for lower final rank, but the 1st spot is out of reach for sure.

But, if your game's stated mechanic is to see "How well can you do in X turns?" you've just proven this to be false. Not everyone will get the full X turns. Thus, it becomes another game where those who put in more time win. Essentially, your games are not casual-friendly. You make games only for hardcore players. Sure, casual players can play, but the exist only as fodder for the hardcore.

Most games require being online several times a day.

And I'll use your own argument against you here:

Majority/most is beyond my comprehention and unbelivably crappy.

If you plan to "miss a whole day" then online gaming is not for you.

I'd love to live your life. Apparently nothing happens to you! lol I just missed a few days of work (over a 3 week period of time) due to hospital visits and diagnostic testing!

Your playing patterns are simply too incompatible with majority or even bigger niches, no one make games for such audience.

False. I'd have accepted "it's difficult to make games for such an audience." But to state that nobody does it? Well, all of Blizzard's games are casual-friendly. It's even become easier to play in raids as a casual player in WoW. And raiding is the epitome of hardcore gaming in WoW. I know, I know, it's a box game. So, Dungeons and Dragons is also casual-friendly. It's also a solely multi-player game. Sure, you could play by yourself... but that's not how the game is meant to be played.

I sympathize with you since I'm in the same situation. I want to have 1 or 2 days off in a week and therefore I can not find any (competitive) game to play... I wonder of there would be an extremely short game, like one that run for 7 days and then ends and ranking is shown, for people like us.

Well... you could always make one.

You get 100 gold per day, you can not increase it by any means, 1 soldier costs 10 gold, there is send gold feature. You create 50 accounts and send all gold to the main account each day.

Unit	Cost	Queue (daily)
Soldier	10	5

Now, it is only possible to train at a rate of 5 soldiers per day no matter your stockpile of resources. Of course, you could still multi so that you have 5 accounts with 5 soldier each per day. But then you're no better off than if you and 4 of your buddies played.

I'm sure you'll claim that the "send resources feature doesn't have value now!" Sure it does! It's only not so valuable as a broken method. Maybe you have a friend who spent most of his finances on infrastructure. Drop him a quick 50 so he can train some soldiers. Or maybe you spent all of your money on soldiers and now realize that you need an economy or you'll die. "Hey! Can someone send me some gold please?"

The multi-accounter could be sending gold to his account so that his "main" account can perform both conditions optimally every day. As a result, his other accounts are spreading their resources thin and are vulnerable to attack. Thus denying the multi-account access to the resources those accounts were created for.

And, of course, if a group of players gangs up and defeats the multi-accounter's primary account, their efforts are largely wasted.

Personally, if I really had an issue with someone multi-accounting so that they were an imbalancing force... You're the admin. Create an admin account (which is not tracked by any rankings, you're not competing with your players as that would be completely unfair) and give it enough to knock the multi-accounter down a few pegs. Or, if you have a random event system... Make sure you give yourself a way to craft events as well. Maybe that player will suddenly find they have a string of bad luck and pirates keep intercepting the cargo meant for their primary base.

Are these methods underhanded? You bet! But as long as they're done so that the player never suspects that it's an admin behind it, it all just feels like a part of the game. And I'd rather resort to some sneaky tactics every now and again to keep rampant power-gaming under control rather than limit my available audience.

But, we'll see. Maybe one of these days I'll have enough money that I'll not flinch at turning away potential customers just because they happen to be from the same internal network.