I'm thinking that a lot of STO players didnt find that because it applies to (PWI) not (STO), two different games by two different companies, hosted at two different groups of data servers.
Well...that still offers nothing new regarding Cryptics policy of multiple accounts for STO, but I did find this in the 'Jade Dynasty' forums:
Based on community feedback and after much deliberation, taking into account the various subtleties of Jade Dynasty, we have devised a Jade Dynasty specific policy regarding multiclienting/multiboxing.
You may only have 2 accounts per person, regardless of how many computers you own.
There isn't a viable reason to create an excessive number of accounts, so any suspicious activity from now on will be fully dealt with. We aren't going to punish you for having existing accounts prior to this rule, but you can only be online on two at once at the most.
*Note: Excessive account creation has been and will continued to be pursued. Provided you did not abuse this before, you should have nothing to worry.
-Greenthorne (community manager)
It does NOT mention any other game except Jade Dynasty, but as you can see from the post PWI does have a policy regarding multiple accounts, just not one specific to STO that I can find, other than whats already been quoted.
Well...that still offers nothing new regarding Cryptics policy of multiple accounts for STO, but I did find this in the 'Jade Dynasty' forums:
It does NOT mention any other game except Jade Dynasty, but as you can see from the post Cryptic does have a policy regarding multiple accounts, just not one specific to STO that I can find, other than whats already been quoted.
Jade Dynasty and PWI referenced above are both PWE games not Cryptic games.
Jade Dynasty and PWI referenced above are both PWE games not Cryptic games.
Different companies/developers
Different developers, yes; same company, though.
Perfect World Entertainment owns Cryptic. All the games have the same TOS, so in the absence of a rule prohibiting multiple accounts, and with evidence that other games with the same TOS allow at least two accounts, it's reasonable to assume there's no rule against multiple accounts in STO unless and until PWE creates such a rule.
They don't explicitly allow it, but they don't explicitly prohibit it, and there's nothing that seems to otherwise indicate it's prohibited.
Unless you see a rule that you think it violates, I think you're pretty much in the clear, unless you make a second account to avoid the ban of the first.
The forums, however, explicitly have a rule; so it's prohibited here.
Make sense?
Former moderator of these forums. Lifetime sub since before launch. Been here since before public betas. Foundry author of "Franklin Drake Must Die".
What broken game mechanic are you referring to? The storage limit on email attachments isn't broken, that was part of the repair to fix the email feature.
Right, fixed without warning or notification to players.
it's reasonable to assume there's no rule against multiple accounts in STO unless and until PWE creates such a rule.
They don't explicitly allow it, but they don't explicitly prohibit it, and there's nothing that seems to otherwise indicate it's prohibited.
People thought the same way about the mail system. Assumption is, as they say, the mother of all f*** ups.
Only now if they DO go and make more accounts, they later run the risk of being in breach of any changes to or clarifications of existing rules, not to mention the implementation of new rules. That's why some people are getting rather annoyed by PWE/Cryptics lack of response to this situation.
They need to stop being on the fence about this kind of thing. Customers expecting properly clarified rules and some consideration is not unreasonable given that they are running a business out to make money from us, and whilst the customer is by no stretch of the imagination "Always right", without customers a business dies.
Perfect World Entertainment owns Cryptic. All the games have the same TOS, so in the absence of a rule prohibiting multiple accounts, and with evidence that other games with the same TOS allow at least two accounts, it's reasonable to assume there's no rule against multiple accounts in STO unless and until PWE creates such a rule.
They don't explicitly allow it, but they don't explicitly prohibit it, and there's nothing that seems to otherwise indicate it's prohibited.
Unless you see a rule that you think it violates, I think you're pretty much in the clear, unless you make a second account to avoid the ban of the first.
The forums, however, explicitly have a rule; so it's prohibited here.
Make sense?
No it doesn't. Cryptic is a subsidary. Meaning they are a are separate, distinct legal entities for the purposes of taxation, regulation, and liability. I would imagine that follows for game rules too especially since they took the time to designate which rules apply to which games with the (STO) (PTI) (ETC) indicators.
There are a number of things Cryptic doesn't explicitly prohibit but still does not allow. Your guessing and thinking what Cryptic intends creates mis-information.
You may not get paid by Cryptic/PWE. But you do work for them. You are in a position of trust and authority (however limited it may be). So your statements may automatically hold more sway than my comments for example.
I personally feel that if moderators wish to interject their opinions in a thread, then they should do so with normal accounts. Rather than use their empowered accounts to give strength to their arguments.
Anyway, I don't expect this thread to stay open much longer as its gone off topic and is now just people bickering back and forth (not that I'm helping that)
I personally feel that if moderators wish to interject their opinions in a thread, then they should do so with normal accounts. Rather than use their empowered accounts to give strength to their arguments.
We're prohibited from having two accounts, just like you, and required to use our moderator titles. Our signatures are intended to take care of the "give strength to their arguments" issue.
We don't give up the right to participate in the forums just because we volunteer to use that time trying to keep them clean and pretty.
Former moderator of these forums. Lifetime sub since before launch. Been here since before public betas. Foundry author of "Franklin Drake Must Die".
Vitriolic abuse is never warranted under any circumstances, but classifying something as an exploit is entirely possible because there is no set rule as to what constitutes an exploit. Exploits come in such wide variety they are impossible to define and predict.
Since you appear to have misunderstood my statement, I shall clarify. I was referring to the term exploit and verbal abuse being hurled around by forum users, not Cryptic.
Since neither Cryptic nor PWE nor any of the volunteer moderators have used any abusive language, and Cryptic/PWE have not made any kind of official statement using the word "Exploit" in relation to this situation, I would have thought my earlier statement was rather clear. Sorry for any confusion.
We're prohibited from having two accounts, just like you, and required to use our moderator titles. Our signatures are intended to take care of the "give strength to their arguments" issue.
We don't give up the right to participate in the forums just because we volunteer to use that time trying to keep them clean and pretty.
Just out of interest, and being a former moderator for CCP, I am wondering if you also had to sign an NDA?
No need to close it, we ARE trying to suggest a solution to this problem. It's a shame the issue gets clouded by misinformation but that still dosent invalidate the effort put forth by some to find a workable solution for the problem the devs created by not creating a DOFF storage solution before eliminating the only one that existed.
Just out of interest, and being a former moderator for CCP, I am wondering if you also had to sign an NDA?
Yep, but we're not actually exposed to much information anyway; nobody tells us anything about the game, we just have access to the information you would expect from having access to ALL of the forum, including moderated posts etc.
It's actually pretty boring being a PWE forum moderator, but if I'm going to be here anyway reading and posting, I might as well help out.
Former moderator of these forums. Lifetime sub since before launch. Been here since before public betas. Foundry author of "Franklin Drake Must Die".
No need to close it, we ARE trying to suggest a solution to this problem. It's a shame the issue gets clouded by misinformation but that still dosent invalidate the effort put forth by some to find a workable solution for the problem the devs created by not creating a DOFF storage solution before eliminating the only one that existed.
Indeed, closing this thread would be a shame. I did note (with some trepidation and not a little bit of skepticism) that there are changes going live on Tribble tomorrow regards DOFF's and their usage on Starbase projects. Namely that in some instances, the requirement for specific types of DOFF's has been dropped, allowing the use of, for example, any Engineering DOFF rather than Engineer or Operations.
That said, it did also state that the current system of separation would be retained for certain projects, though it did not state just how many projects this change would encompass. Hopefully, if there are any fleets active on Tribble since the wipe, they can check, test and verify just what effect these changes have had.
Yep, but we're not actually exposed to much information anyway; nobody tells us anything about the game, we just have access to the information you would expect from having access to ALL of the forum, including moderated posts etc.
It's actually pretty boring being a PWE forum moderator, but if I'm going to be here anyway reading and posting, I might as well help out.
I appreciate your answering my query, thank you. I can sympathise with how difficult your job can be at times, when people think you have insider knowledge and expect direct answers, when in reality you know little more than they do.
If I may be so bold as to offer some advice that was once given to me. Be a little more cautious when offering interpretations of rules. Though you may mean nothing but the best, having that nice purple text will, in many peoples eyes, lend a weight to your words that they cannot carry and make you seem like the bad guy.
Indeed, closing this thread would be a shame. I did note (with some trepidation and not a little bit of skepticism) that there are changes going live on Tribble tomorrow regards DOFF's and their usage on Starbase projects. Namely that in some instances, the requirement for specific types of DOFF's has been dropped, allowing the use of, for example, any Engineering DOFF rather than Engineer or Operations.
That said, it did also state that the current system of separation would be retained for certain projects, though it did not state just how many projects this change would encompass. Hopefully, if there are any fleets active on Tribble since the wipe, they can check, test and verify just what effect these changes have had.
They were rather explicit about what projects would and would not be affected.
basically the projects requiring 90 of each (at tier 4, 60/70 at tier 3) are untouched.
If anything the changes made will make the problem worse
Well after some thought I figured I'd just create an account for my wife, on her PC. That way I can reach over and move doffs and items around at will whilst I'm playing since it wouldn't be an exploit to have her account running at the same time as mine.
Saves me the trouble of running a second VM thru a proxy on my PC, and possible viewed as exploiting the system.
I was also referring to the responses by other forum members, and while I'll admit I have used the term exploit myself about using emails as storage I hope I've been clear that I don't know if Cryptic feels it was an exploit, and if they say it wasn't then it wasn't. Until then we can only speculate about their motives and decisions.
Oh and while I've butted heads with you a few times I hope you don't think I was one of the ones being abusive and vitriolic.
Firstly, I appreciate your candor Sopwith, you speak your mind and do so freely, I admire that. Secondly, while you have indeed been guilty (as have many others) of using the term exploit to describe your personal feelings regarding this situation, you have not done so in as vicious and callous way as many others.
The problem with using the term exploit in the way many have, is that they are attempting to put that word into the mouths of the developers, and thus by proxy, trying to add some sort of "official" weight to their vitriol and it is this I find most distasteful.
If Cryptic/PWE publicly announce that this was indeed an exploit, then I will gladly hold my hands up and apologise for exploiting. Unless and until that happens, I think it best that such needlessly antagonistic terms be kept to ourselves. We need to be coherent, collected and reasonable if we are to find some sort of remedy to a situation that clearly ails a large number of people. After all that is what we are trying to achieve, right?
Just out of interest, and being a former moderator for CCP, I am wondering if you also had to sign an NDA?
I actually don't remember one way or the other, to be honest. I just know I'm not supposed to talk about things the rules say I'm not supposed to talk about, and I have to follow certain procedures when I mod.
We don't really get insider information.
Anyhow... the topic is not Mods, the topic is storage solutions to replace the mail attachments... can we please return to topic?
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
We're prohibited from having two accounts, just like you, and required to use our moderator titles. Our signatures are intended to take care of the "give strength to their arguments" issue.
We don't give up the right to participate in the forums just because we volunteer to use that time trying to keep them clean and pretty.
For the record, when I said Cryptic should rethink the face they are showing to the world, I was referring to you. Yes, there is a lot on the forums that I see that is rather unpleasant and rude but YOU are right up there with the best of them. Valentine's Day patch?
The fact is that you can say pretty much what you want to, but you can edit everyone else and even close down threads if they aren't going a direction you personally like. You cannot get around that fundamental inequality between "you" and "us" with the 'just another forum member like you kids!' stuff. It was Cryptic that granted you that extra power.
For the record, when I said Cryptic should rethink the face they are showing to the world, I was referring to you. Yes, there is a lot on the forums that I see that is rather unpleasant and rude but YOU are right up there with the best of them. Valentine's Day patch?
The fact is that you can say pretty much what you want to, but you can edit everyone else and even close down threads if they aren't going a direction you personally like. You cannot get around that fundamental inequality between "you" and "us" with the 'just another forum member like you kids!' stuff. It was Cryptic that granted you that extra power.
As has been said, this is not a thread about moderators, please don't disrupt it further. Thanks.
the topic is storage solutions to replace the mail attachments... can we please return to topic?
Well, so now that we know the details of the new holding, we know a few things.
1) Since the doff requirements were partially, but not completely altered, we can conclude that the doff storage problem still exists, and that managing doffs is intended to be a problem.
>> Evidence: they could have 'genericized' all the doff requirements, but they chose to leave some intact.
2) The new holding also doesn't offer any direct method of doff storage. Nor would it be thematically appropriate for a Dilithium Refinery.
So, the problem still exists, and two potential solutions have been taken off the table.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
I honestly wouldn't mind even paying for some Doff-specific storage. That said, the more stuff you cram into a database, the slower it runs & the more prone it is to bugs. At a certain point, it becomes cost-ineffective for Cryptic to keep adding slots they have to track.
____
Keep calm, and continue firing photon torpedoes.
Anyway... Cryptic decided to limit mail attachments. If the second-hand info is correct, they did it because it was contributing to server stability issues. Over and done, not going back. So we need a Plan B for the future.
Very true, but customers also giveth and taketh away.
It would be nice if Cryptic would give some warning and heads up when they chose to taketh away once in a while.
Agreed, I also think we should keep in mind that sometimes unpopular changes get made which are never changed back. That doesn't mean we should accept defeat, but at some point we should realize some requests/suggestions are an exercise in futility. (T5 connie :rolleyes:)
With things such as the T5 Connie, I can see why there would be issues. That said, requesting some changes to, or rather increases of, currently available storage systems would be beneficial to all involved. The increased sales of an expanded storage system should, by all accounts, be more than enough to cover any potential hardware expansion requirements, meaning that PWE's bottom line is not negatively affected.
At the same time it would alleviate a quite considerable issue for the customers, allowing them to get back to some semblance of normality with regards game-play styles, and improve relations between service provider and end user. A win-win situation if ever there was one.
Comments
I'm thinking that a lot of STO players didnt find that because it applies to (PWI) not (STO), two different games by two different companies, hosted at two different groups of data servers.
But its a good reference, as its something
Well...that still offers nothing new regarding Cryptics policy of multiple accounts for STO, but I did find this in the 'Jade Dynasty' forums:
It does NOT mention any other game except Jade Dynasty, but as you can see from the post PWI does have a policy regarding multiple accounts, just not one specific to STO that I can find, other than whats already been quoted.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
Jade Dynasty and PWI referenced above are both PWE games not Cryptic games.
Different companies/developers
ya, changed it before you posted. Good catch.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
Different developers, yes; same company, though.
Perfect World Entertainment owns Cryptic. All the games have the same TOS, so in the absence of a rule prohibiting multiple accounts, and with evidence that other games with the same TOS allow at least two accounts, it's reasonable to assume there's no rule against multiple accounts in STO unless and until PWE creates such a rule.
They don't explicitly allow it, but they don't explicitly prohibit it, and there's nothing that seems to otherwise indicate it's prohibited.
Unless you see a rule that you think it violates, I think you're pretty much in the clear, unless you make a second account to avoid the ban of the first.
The forums, however, explicitly have a rule; so it's prohibited here.
Make sense?
Hmmm.......
<edit> changed broken to fixed
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
Right, fixed without warning or notification to players.
Fixed it is !
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
People thought the same way about the mail system. Assumption is, as they say, the mother of all f*** ups.
Only now if they DO go and make more accounts, they later run the risk of being in breach of any changes to or clarifications of existing rules, not to mention the implementation of new rules. That's why some people are getting rather annoyed by PWE/Cryptics lack of response to this situation.
They need to stop being on the fence about this kind of thing. Customers expecting properly clarified rules and some consideration is not unreasonable given that they are running a business out to make money from us, and whilst the customer is by no stretch of the imagination "Always right", without customers a business dies.
Sig by my better half.
No it doesn't. Cryptic is a subsidary. Meaning they are a are separate, distinct legal entities for the purposes of taxation, regulation, and liability. I would imagine that follows for game rules too especially since they took the time to designate which rules apply to which games with the (STO) (PTI) (ETC) indicators.
There are a number of things Cryptic doesn't explicitly prohibit but still does not allow. Your guessing and thinking what Cryptic intends creates mis-information.
You may not get paid by Cryptic/PWE. But you do work for them. You are in a position of trust and authority (however limited it may be). So your statements may automatically hold more sway than my comments for example.
I personally feel that if moderators wish to interject their opinions in a thread, then they should do so with normal accounts. Rather than use their empowered accounts to give strength to their arguments.
Anyway, I don't expect this thread to stay open much longer as its gone off topic and is now just people bickering back and forth (not that I'm helping that)
We're prohibited from having two accounts, just like you, and required to use our moderator titles. Our signatures are intended to take care of the "give strength to their arguments" issue.
We don't give up the right to participate in the forums just because we volunteer to use that time trying to keep them clean and pretty.
Since you appear to have misunderstood my statement, I shall clarify. I was referring to the term exploit and verbal abuse being hurled around by forum users, not Cryptic.
Since neither Cryptic nor PWE nor any of the volunteer moderators have used any abusive language, and Cryptic/PWE have not made any kind of official statement using the word "Exploit" in relation to this situation, I would have thought my earlier statement was rather clear. Sorry for any confusion.
Sig by my better half.
Just out of interest, and being a former moderator for CCP, I am wondering if you also had to sign an NDA?
Sig by my better half.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
Yep, but we're not actually exposed to much information anyway; nobody tells us anything about the game, we just have access to the information you would expect from having access to ALL of the forum, including moderated posts etc.
It's actually pretty boring being a PWE forum moderator, but if I'm going to be here anyway reading and posting, I might as well help out.
Indeed, closing this thread would be a shame. I did note (with some trepidation and not a little bit of skepticism) that there are changes going live on Tribble tomorrow regards DOFF's and their usage on Starbase projects. Namely that in some instances, the requirement for specific types of DOFF's has been dropped, allowing the use of, for example, any Engineering DOFF rather than Engineer or Operations.
That said, it did also state that the current system of separation would be retained for certain projects, though it did not state just how many projects this change would encompass. Hopefully, if there are any fleets active on Tribble since the wipe, they can check, test and verify just what effect these changes have had.
Sig by my better half.
I appreciate your answering my query, thank you. I can sympathise with how difficult your job can be at times, when people think you have insider knowledge and expect direct answers, when in reality you know little more than they do.
If I may be so bold as to offer some advice that was once given to me. Be a little more cautious when offering interpretations of rules. Though you may mean nothing but the best, having that nice purple text will, in many peoples eyes, lend a weight to your words that they cannot carry and make you seem like the bad guy.
Keep up the good work fella.
Sig by my better half.
They were rather explicit about what projects would and would not be affected.
basically the projects requiring 90 of each (at tier 4, 60/70 at tier 3) are untouched.
If anything the changes made will make the problem worse
Saves me the trouble of running a second VM thru a proxy on my PC, and possible viewed as exploiting the system.
GG Cryptic.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
Firstly, I appreciate your candor Sopwith, you speak your mind and do so freely, I admire that. Secondly, while you have indeed been guilty (as have many others) of using the term exploit to describe your personal feelings regarding this situation, you have not done so in as vicious and callous way as many others.
The problem with using the term exploit in the way many have, is that they are attempting to put that word into the mouths of the developers, and thus by proxy, trying to add some sort of "official" weight to their vitriol and it is this I find most distasteful.
If Cryptic/PWE publicly announce that this was indeed an exploit, then I will gladly hold my hands up and apologise for exploiting. Unless and until that happens, I think it best that such needlessly antagonistic terms be kept to ourselves. We need to be coherent, collected and reasonable if we are to find some sort of remedy to a situation that clearly ails a large number of people. After all that is what we are trying to achieve, right?
Sig by my better half.
Thank you for that clarification, it seems my brain managed to skip over that part somehow.
EDIT: And from what you say, my skepticism was not as unfounded as I first thought.
Sig by my better half.
I actually don't remember one way or the other, to be honest. I just know I'm not supposed to talk about things the rules say I'm not supposed to talk about, and I have to follow certain procedures when I mod.
We don't really get insider information.
Anyhow... the topic is not Mods, the topic is storage solutions to replace the mail attachments... can we please return to topic?
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
For the record, when I said Cryptic should rethink the face they are showing to the world, I was referring to you. Yes, there is a lot on the forums that I see that is rather unpleasant and rude but YOU are right up there with the best of them. Valentine's Day patch?
The fact is that you can say pretty much what you want to, but you can edit everyone else and even close down threads if they aren't going a direction you personally like. You cannot get around that fundamental inequality between "you" and "us" with the 'just another forum member like you kids!' stuff. It was Cryptic that granted you that extra power.
As has been said, this is not a thread about moderators, please don't disrupt it further. Thanks.
Sig by my better half.
Well, so now that we know the details of the new holding, we know a few things.
1) Since the doff requirements were partially, but not completely altered, we can conclude that the doff storage problem still exists, and that managing doffs is intended to be a problem.
>> Evidence: they could have 'genericized' all the doff requirements, but they chose to leave some intact.
2) The new holding also doesn't offer any direct method of doff storage. Nor would it be thematically appropriate for a Dilithium Refinery.
So, the problem still exists, and two potential solutions have been taken off the table.
Keep calm, and continue firing photon torpedoes.
Agreed.
Very true, but customers also giveth and taketh away.
It would be nice if Cryptic would give some warning and heads up when they chose to taketh away once in a while.
I responded to a post made by a moderator within this thread.
Here's a handy tip. GrEy for England and GrAy for America.
Sig by my better half.
With things such as the T5 Connie, I can see why there would be issues. That said, requesting some changes to, or rather increases of, currently available storage systems would be beneficial to all involved. The increased sales of an expanded storage system should, by all accounts, be more than enough to cover any potential hardware expansion requirements, meaning that PWE's bottom line is not negatively affected.
At the same time it would alleviate a quite considerable issue for the customers, allowing them to get back to some semblance of normality with regards game-play styles, and improve relations between service provider and end user. A win-win situation if ever there was one.
Sig by my better half.