Tsukasa wrote: » 1- Teleportation/summon with an alt family 2- Attacking a caravan requires a group(unknown size), family(or not) alts can be summoned/brought to minimize the time needed to find a group to initiate an attack on a Caravan rider 3- Use of Cleric or Bard for buffs and heals, which helps @solo grinding. Whether or not auto-follow is a thing in this game, proximity based skills are just a matter of 1 button press. Assuming the range is large for raid purposes. 4- Owning more than 1 freehold. It doesn't matter how difficult it is to build a freehold, people will do it anyway. 5- Mastery of all professions! They can ignore the limit, if they planned to add one. 6- Queue against your alt in Arena for perfect score or KDA or win for your group! 7- Votes and votekicks! (group PvP included) 8- Multiple dice rolls for higher chance of winning the loot for your main! (Very common in Archeage) I can come up with more and more and moreeeeeee32ediowedjweod potential exploits. Finally I want to say: An MMORPG that encourages its players to use alts isn't an MMORPG, but just a slaves simulator like BDO and AA, nothing special. A person's identity, existence and RolePlay in this world is their main character. THE. MAIN. CHARACTER. We are reality escapists; RPers. Not slave drivers! Not asking for self-sufficiency. Just stop giving us reasons to play alts !!! Need alts to play other classes despite possibly needing new gear anyway. Need alts to utilize all 3 paths on your own. This is too wrong. Alts don't have identities! You have to tell your friends your main's name to know who you are and break the immersion, because alts are nobodies, walking trash bags.
Tsukasa wrote: » Bump(since it's still relevant) ~ One of the fun parts of main characters is collecting and grinding achievements. FFXIV did a great job at this.
Tsukasa wrote: » Doesn't seem that way to me AT ALL. Just because I didn't respond back doesn't mean I got correctly countered. Regardless of what happens. No one can deny that multi-boxing is Pay2Win/Convenience.
zhurk wrote: » Originally posted this on the YT AMA vid, was told by AoC there was a forum thread for it, copy/pasting my feedback. I think we should really readdress the multi-boxing stance. There are multiple reasons to not allow this. 1. Instead of thinking about it as a P2W feature within the game itself, put yourself in the shoes of the players in regards to their personal financial range. Perhaps not every player has the hardware to run multiple instances of the game, or the Benjamins to buy the hardware, thus giving those that do an advantage. I for one am sitting over here with a $7k PC but I refuse to perform multi-boxing because it simply doesn't feel right. 2. We all know one of the main reasons for multi-boxing is account selling which is already outlined in your ToS as illegal so why would you allow one of the primary delivery vehicles to be allowed? "No Account Transfers/Sales . Accounts are registered to you personally and may not be sold, traded, gifted or otherwise transferred at any time under any circumstances." - https://ashesofcreation.com/terms 3. Last but not least, the promise of AoC is to make MMOs great again and bring back the nostalgia we all desire. Players driven by software has no place in that vision.
Atama wrote: » What exactly are you trying to prevent? If you disallow two people in the same house from playing, that’s stupid. You are literally telling customers you don’t want them to play and you will piss off a lot of people. How about preventing multiple accounts from the same payment method? Oh well, I guess I can’t pay for my kids to play, see above. What exactly do you want AoC to not allow? Don’t say “multi-boxing” because that means 30 different things. If you want them to disallow multiple clients running on one PC, that easy and fair (and not uncommon) but please be specific.
zhurk wrote: » Atama wrote: » What exactly are you trying to prevent? If you disallow two people in the same house from playing, that’s stupid. You are literally telling customers you don’t want them to play and you will piss off a lot of people. How about preventing multiple accounts from the same payment method? Oh well, I guess I can’t pay for my kids to play, see above. What exactly do you want AoC to not allow? Don’t say “multi-boxing” because that means 30 different things. If you want them to disallow multiple clients running on one PC, that easy and fair (and not uncommon) but please be specific. Asking the players how they would prevent multi-boxing is not a valid argument. That is up to the design studios engineering team to determine. The players job is to provide feedback in how the subject matter could be exploited or unfair. I never said disallow two people in the same house from playing. I never said prevent multiple accounts from the same payment method. But since you asked, this is absolutely doable in more modern ways than the archaic ones you mentioned. Implementing modern security tactics such as host-based IDS or IPS systems are 100% necessary in today's world. If you're unfamiliar with this type of technology, the most known example is something like BattleEye. Obviously for a studio like Intrepid, it would be in their best interest to invest in a proprietary solution for their platform (They've already set it up for scaling and it will need this in the future)
Atama wrote: » zhurk wrote: » Atama wrote: » What exactly are you trying to prevent? If you disallow two people in the same house from playing, that’s stupid. You are literally telling customers you don’t want them to play and you will piss off a lot of people. How about preventing multiple accounts from the same payment method? Oh well, I guess I can’t pay for my kids to play, see above. What exactly do you want AoC to not allow? Don’t say “multi-boxing” because that means 30 different things. If you want them to disallow multiple clients running on one PC, that easy and fair (and not uncommon) but please be specific. Asking the players how they would prevent multi-boxing is not a valid argument. That is up to the design studios engineering team to determine. The players job is to provide feedback in how the subject matter could be exploited or unfair. I never said disallow two people in the same house from playing. I never said prevent multiple accounts from the same payment method. But since you asked, this is absolutely doable in more modern ways than the archaic ones you mentioned. Implementing modern security tactics such as host-based IDS or IPS systems are 100% necessary in today's world. If you're unfamiliar with this type of technology, the most known example is something like BattleEye. Obviously for a studio like Intrepid, it would be in their best interest to invest in a proprietary solution for their platform (They've already set it up for scaling and it will need this in the future) I’m not asking for a solution. I’m asking what you mean. Again, there is no one definition of “multi-boxing”. I’m really growing to hate that term because it is meaningless. Define what you want. Do you not want two computers running on the same IP connected to the AoC server? Do you not want two versions of the client on the same PC? Do you not want people running scripts to run multiple characters? Do you not want one person owning multiple accounts? You first gripe about asking a customer for a solution, which I never did. I asked you to define the problem. Then you contradict yourself by giving an unsolicited solution, again without saying what you’re objecting to in the first place. This is the equivalent of saying, “I want to prevent cheating.” And then someone asks, “Can you clarify what kind of cheating you want to prevent?” Do you complain about not having all the answers, then mention some kind of software. Please, clarify your position if you want to join the discussion.
zhurk wrote: » Atama wrote: » zhurk wrote: » Atama wrote: » What exactly are you trying to prevent? If you disallow two people in the same house from playing, that’s stupid. You are literally telling customers you don’t want them to play and you will piss off a lot of people. How about preventing multiple accounts from the same payment method? Oh well, I guess I can’t pay for my kids to play, see above. What exactly do you want AoC to not allow? Don’t say “multi-boxing” because that means 30 different things. If you want them to disallow multiple clients running on one PC, that easy and fair (and not uncommon) but please be specific. Asking the players how they would prevent multi-boxing is not a valid argument. That is up to the design studios engineering team to determine. The players job is to provide feedback in how the subject matter could be exploited or unfair. I never said disallow two people in the same house from playing. I never said prevent multiple accounts from the same payment method. But since you asked, this is absolutely doable in more modern ways than the archaic ones you mentioned. Implementing modern security tactics such as host-based IDS or IPS systems are 100% necessary in today's world. If you're unfamiliar with this type of technology, the most known example is something like BattleEye. Obviously for a studio like Intrepid, it would be in their best interest to invest in a proprietary solution for their platform (They've already set it up for scaling and it will need this in the future) I’m not asking for a solution. I’m asking what you mean. Again, there is no one definition of “multi-boxing”. I’m really growing to hate that term because it is meaningless. Define what you want. Do you not want two computers running on the same IP connected to the AoC server? Do you not want two versions of the client on the same PC? Do you not want people running scripts to run multiple characters? Do you not want one person owning multiple accounts? You first gripe about asking a customer for a solution, which I never did. I asked you to define the problem. Then you contradict yourself by giving an unsolicited solution, again without saying what you’re objecting to in the first place. This is the equivalent of saying, “I want to prevent cheating.” And then someone asks, “Can you clarify what kind of cheating you want to prevent?” Do you complain about not having all the answers, then mention some kind of software. Please, clarify your position if you want to join the discussion. Perhaps you just didn't read my original post well enough, it clearly states the kind of multi-boxing I'm referring to in my original post was software based."Players driven by software has no place in that vision." - This is referring to demultiplexers/mud clients. Any type of multi-boxing that can create an advantage in game should not be allowed. Here is a breakdown for those that aren't aware of the types: Software = Demultiplexers, MUD clients (Automated) Hardware = Separate physical machines, virtual machines (Manual) The argument to state which one is being referred to doesn't really matter as they both provide advantages to the game through mechanical AND monetary exploitations. However, for the sake of this argument I'm clearly referring to software based multi-boxing per my original comment. Perhaps your new to how forums work, this "discussion" is not regarding the "type" of multi-boxing so telling someone to "clarify their position" in that regard is an invalid statement, you do not run the forum. The subject of this thread being "Here's How Multi-Boxing Can Be Exploited" which I provided valid points towards in terms of exploitations and a rebuttal to AoC's no P2W concepts.
Atama wrote: » zhurk wrote: » Atama wrote: » zhurk wrote: » Atama wrote: » What exactly are you trying to prevent? If you disallow two people in the same house from playing, that’s stupid. You are literally telling customers you don’t want them to play and you will piss off a lot of people. How about preventing multiple accounts from the same payment method? Oh well, I guess I can’t pay for my kids to play, see above. What exactly do you want AoC to not allow? Don’t say “multi-boxing” because that means 30 different things. If you want them to disallow multiple clients running on one PC, that easy and fair (and not uncommon) but please be specific. Asking the players how they would prevent multi-boxing is not a valid argument. That is up to the design studios engineering team to determine. The players job is to provide feedback in how the subject matter could be exploited or unfair. I never said disallow two people in the same house from playing. I never said prevent multiple accounts from the same payment method. But since you asked, this is absolutely doable in more modern ways than the archaic ones you mentioned. Implementing modern security tactics such as host-based IDS or IPS systems are 100% necessary in today's world. If you're unfamiliar with this type of technology, the most known example is something like BattleEye. Obviously for a studio like Intrepid, it would be in their best interest to invest in a proprietary solution for their platform (They've already set it up for scaling and it will need this in the future) I’m not asking for a solution. I’m asking what you mean. Again, there is no one definition of “multi-boxing”. I’m really growing to hate that term because it is meaningless. Define what you want. Do you not want two computers running on the same IP connected to the AoC server? Do you not want two versions of the client on the same PC? Do you not want people running scripts to run multiple characters? Do you not want one person owning multiple accounts? You first gripe about asking a customer for a solution, which I never did. I asked you to define the problem. Then you contradict yourself by giving an unsolicited solution, again without saying what you’re objecting to in the first place. This is the equivalent of saying, “I want to prevent cheating.” And then someone asks, “Can you clarify what kind of cheating you want to prevent?” Do you complain about not having all the answers, then mention some kind of software. Please, clarify your position if you want to join the discussion. Perhaps you just didn't read my original post well enough, it clearly states the kind of multi-boxing I'm referring to in my original post was software based."Players driven by software has no place in that vision." - This is referring to demultiplexers/mud clients. Any type of multi-boxing that can create an advantage in game should not be allowed. Here is a breakdown for those that aren't aware of the types: Software = Demultiplexers, MUD clients (Automated) Hardware = Separate physical machines, virtual machines (Manual) The argument to state which one is being referred to doesn't really matter as they both provide advantages to the game through mechanical AND monetary exploitations. However, for the sake of this argument I'm clearly referring to software based multi-boxing per my original comment. Perhaps your new to how forums work, this "discussion" is not regarding the "type" of multi-boxing so telling someone to "clarify their position" in that regard is an invalid statement, you do not run the forum. The subject of this thread being "Here's How Multi-Boxing Can Be Exploited" which I provided valid points towards in terms of exploitations and a rebuttal to AoC's no P2W concepts. Look, newbie, you’ve been on the forums for a couple hours, I’ve been here for years. Get down off your wobbly soapbox with your hypocrisy. You’re the one who clearly struggles to communicate in a written medium. “Players driven by software” is badly broken English but in the midst of your clumsy rambling I think I’m starting to glean what you’re struggling so badly to say. You don’t want automated bots or scripting. Fortunately, they are already taking a stance against that (Steven himself said it won’t be acceptable) and I don’t see anyone in the community who is asking for this to be done. So I don’t think you’ll get any arguments.
Tsukasa wrote: » Kohl wrote: » Having everything on 1 character is a nightmare to manage. (for me at least). Take ff14 as an example. I love the game, but I never got to fully level up everything, simply because it's beyond annoying. Now my main character doesn't have a "sense of identity" when I look at the professions, and classes page, and see bunch of numbers that doesn't mean shit. If I want to play 2 characters side by side while paying 2 subscriptions, I should be allowed to. Leave it to the devs to come up with ways to figure out a way to find people who exploit it. If you care about sense of identity then you are not supposed to multi-box or accept feeling forced to play an alt.
Kohl wrote: » Having everything on 1 character is a nightmare to manage. (for me at least). Take ff14 as an example. I love the game, but I never got to fully level up everything, simply because it's beyond annoying. Now my main character doesn't have a "sense of identity" when I look at the professions, and classes page, and see bunch of numbers that doesn't mean shit. If I want to play 2 characters side by side while paying 2 subscriptions, I should be allowed to. Leave it to the devs to come up with ways to figure out a way to find people who exploit it.
zhurk wrote: » Software = Demultiplexers, MUD clients (Automated) Hardware = Separate physical machines, virtual machines (Manual)
