That's a very good idea!
Multiple Commanders Linked to One Account : 'Toons
- Thread starter Brimstone
- Start date
That's a very good idea!
So the more seasons you buy, the more Commanders you get for free? It's an interesting idea, I'll give you that, but I think it's terrible. It punishes new players.(edit) And new players already have to deal with the rest of us in the game, if they choose to play in Open.
Last edited:
How is it good value to pay for something you were suppose to get for free?
Artemis Zodiac
Banned
this idea....can we run both commanders at same time on different pc?
yeah im thinking easy bounty....
there was a time when you could run more than one version of ED on same pc.
yeah im thinking easy bounty....
there was a time when you could run more than one version of ED on same pc.
You log in one at a time, as they are both tied to one account. One account cant be active twice.
It was never said explicitly that multiple CMDRs would be included. Sandro's quote talks about their "current thinking" but it was never actually promised, unless you can give me a quote saying this.
.
So many people read talk of particular features in the early development stage and then think it is their right to have them.
.
I paid £150 for my kickstarter pledge not knowing if the game would ever get made and although it has a lifetime pass the £26.79 I paid for the Elite Dangerous Deluxe Edition which includes Horizons and some paint jobs does seem like good value to me.
.
Yes, but limited. I think this would neccesarily have to be limited. Suggest two commanders. This offers an "alt" account, without perhaps depriving the developer of support. We win. They win.
Sorted.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Well of course it is. If you could get two or three for the price of one, what other outcome is there? lol
As above, I think two strikes a nice balance.
Sorted.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Well of course it is. If you could get two or three for the price of one, what other outcome is there? lol
As above, I think two strikes a nice balance.
Last edited:
I like the number 3.
I really don't get the: I paid so much monies, I deserve more accounts, argument in the OP.
You paid to get one account. You knew this. That transaction has ended. Now you propose a new one.
You paid to get one account. You knew this. That transaction has ended. Now you propose a new one.
I think it sits more within the "rewarding existing/consistent players", than punishing new players - and it'd be nice to see a decent influx of "low level" players in open.
Wasn't 3 the number of commander slots advertised during the kick starter campaign?
I've already paid for three accounts. I don't care, each commander account affords me different options. So you won't hear me complaining because I reckon I'm getting my monies worth for the most part. But I'm possibly not a good example though. I'm not sure a second commander per account is a bad thing.
Three is a fairly standard number used for many multiplayer games. So why not. It won't concern me even if I have already bought three copies.
It gives people flexibility that can only lead to people spending a bit more time in game.
Last edited:
Sandro's comments that Robert quoted
Hello Private Backers!
Your flurry of activity has indeed, worked! Here's our current thinking. Remember of course, that all usual caveats apply; this is not set in stone - we might change our mind.
So, current thinking is to have a small number of characters available per account. Say perhaps three normal characters. These can be "normal" commanders or "perma-death" commanders. Only one could ever be active "in-game" at a time and there would be no concept of links between them (so no shared stash, or reputation ties or any such stuff).
Our reasoning so far is as follows:
* More than one person can have a commander, so family members can get in on the act (of course, to play at the same time you'd need two accounts, but this is still - I think - a benefit. Personally I like to think that multiple commanders allows additional players to dip their toes and hopefully progress into obtaining additional accounts.)
* Player choices in-game can be more about the specific commander, reducing the worry that a bad call will ruin everything achieved so far. This is actually quite important; I want to train people away from the idea that there are "right" and "wrong" ways to play Elite: Dangerous. There are just choices and consequences, and we're trying to ensure that all lead to more fun. I want to remove barriers to player experimentation, whilst retaining consequence; I think multiple commanders helps this cause.
* Any potential exploits for multiple commanders almost certainly exists the the multiple account level as well, so limiting an account to one commander would not save us the time and effort of guarding against multiple commander exploits.
* Any serious player infractions (exploits and cheating, player abuse etc.) would always be dealt with on an account basis rather than at the commander level.
* Multiple commanders allow a player to have multiple roleplay options available at the same time, which could be very useful (e.g. I have a scoundrel pirate and a legit trader available depending on my mood, which friends are online etc.)
* I don't find the terms "main", "alt" or "toon" particularly useful in what we are creating. Whilst at a basic level you could certainly argue that the commander with the best current gear/most money/best contacts is your "main" there are no levels - that money can be lost, the gear can be broken, powerful friends can become deadly enemies.
Now this is not to say that we are casually dismissing potential dangers of multiple commanders. We are and always will be on the look out for exploits and activity that undermines the experience (the "cheapening" effect is a valid concern we have considered). But at the moment, we feel a more compelling argument can be made for multiple commanders.
I hope this gives a clear enough picture of our intentions as they stand currently.
Your flurry of activity has indeed, worked! Here's our current thinking. Remember of course, that all usual caveats apply; this is not set in stone - we might change our mind.
So, current thinking is to have a small number of characters available per account. Say perhaps three normal characters. These can be "normal" commanders or "perma-death" commanders. Only one could ever be active "in-game" at a time and there would be no concept of links between them (so no shared stash, or reputation ties or any such stuff).
Our reasoning so far is as follows:
* More than one person can have a commander, so family members can get in on the act (of course, to play at the same time you'd need two accounts, but this is still - I think - a benefit. Personally I like to think that multiple commanders allows additional players to dip their toes and hopefully progress into obtaining additional accounts.)
* Player choices in-game can be more about the specific commander, reducing the worry that a bad call will ruin everything achieved so far. This is actually quite important; I want to train people away from the idea that there are "right" and "wrong" ways to play Elite: Dangerous. There are just choices and consequences, and we're trying to ensure that all lead to more fun. I want to remove barriers to player experimentation, whilst retaining consequence; I think multiple commanders helps this cause.
* Any potential exploits for multiple commanders almost certainly exists the the multiple account level as well, so limiting an account to one commander would not save us the time and effort of guarding against multiple commander exploits.
* Any serious player infractions (exploits and cheating, player abuse etc.) would always be dealt with on an account basis rather than at the commander level.
* Multiple commanders allow a player to have multiple roleplay options available at the same time, which could be very useful (e.g. I have a scoundrel pirate and a legit trader available depending on my mood, which friends are online etc.)
* I don't find the terms "main", "alt" or "toon" particularly useful in what we are creating. Whilst at a basic level you could certainly argue that the commander with the best current gear/most money/best contacts is your "main" there are no levels - that money can be lost, the gear can be broken, powerful friends can become deadly enemies.
Now this is not to say that we are casually dismissing potential dangers of multiple commanders. We are and always will be on the look out for exploits and activity that undermines the experience (the "cheapening" effect is a valid concern we have considered). But at the moment, we feel a more compelling argument can be made for multiple commanders.
I hope this gives a clear enough picture of our intentions as they stand currently.
I can see why it might not be seen as a high dev priority, but I think there's a lot of people that would love to experience starting over again, as long as that didn't mean losing all progress in their main account. It would also allow you to try things out and experiment a bit. You can do that in most games (especially "solo" games where you can reload saves), and only 1 active cmdr per account seems an obvious and fair restriction.
Personally, I suspect if I did try starting over and did a wipe, I'd regret it shortly afterwards. I'd love to see whether the posters saying you can get an anaconda within a matter of hours from a clean start are anywhere near the truth though!
This is indeed a good argument in favour of multiple CMDR slots. As long as players have only 1 slot, 1 CMDR, of course they will be more afraid of negative consequences, of course they will want to be King and Admiral on the same CMDR - otherwise they as a player would be permanently locked out of experiencing the other side, all the other alternatives. That alone is reason enough there should be multiple CMDR slots.
As opposed to buying a 2nd account?
Also, anonymity could solved in many ways. Lots of MMOs go the char name vs account name route where all characters are tied to the account name so you could still see that anonymous new character X belongs to known griefer account Y.
At least you're not being a ballcock about it.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Buying and keeping a second account up to date at least adds to Frontier's revenue.
Interesting regarding the approach that other games take to identification of characters by tying them to the account that "owns" them....
I'm sure that a lot of commanders would like another commander so they can experience beginning again, the game has changed so much since release and the only way it can be experienced currently is to buy a second copy of the game (OK...) - or to delete hundreds of hours of progress (unreasonable). Not purely so they can f* about on one, and take it seriously on the other.
Having separate commanders available would also sort out the awful auxiliary navy issue - where you can be a high ranking officer (albeit auxiliary) in two opposing armed forces - since it would then be OK to restrict naval careers.
Having separate commanders available would also sort out the awful auxiliary navy issue - where you can be a high ranking officer (albeit auxiliary) in two opposing armed forces - since it would then be OK to restrict naval careers.
Last edited: