Poll + Bonus Dev Discussion - Multiboxing

18911131425

Comments

  • I only play MMOs with my wife. So we always have 2 PC going. If this was not a option, I would not play Ashes. As to one player running two accounts. As long as there is no scripts and the person is playing them. I have np with that. I used to run 3 account with EQ1 but with action combat that's almost impossible, so without scripts this wont effect combat. At best a 2nd account to craft and mule items. Do we really care at that point? Also they would need to sub so thats just more money for new content. Bring it on..
  • papabear2009papabear2009 Member
    edited July 29

    Because if we (the community) probably can't find a way to stop this "problem", chances are the devs can't either... probably because it's something that will ALWAYS have a circumvention. So, it's not worth the devs time in providing a "flimsy" solution or selling us a dream that "multiboxing will be impossible". I completely respect Intrepid's stance.

    P.S. As a Software Engineer, I can comfortably say (multi-pc) multiboxing will exist, regardless of whatever barriers you put into place to contain it. IP Ban? They'll use a VPN. Account Ban? Buy another Sub on a new account. The list goes on.
    For AoC, this is not worth the energy.

    Good job cherry-picking just one of my posts, I did state in a later post that just because something will always exist like multi-boxing (1 person playing 2 or more accounts online at the same time) doesn't mean there shouldn't be rules in place against it. With that logic then botting should be okay, obviously, it shouldn't. I am fine with Ashes adding multi-boxing against their ToS because it would be a deterrent.

    Kind of like J-walking laws, it discourages people from doing it but people who do it rarely get punished for it.


  • Sajanim wrote: »
    My son and I have played MMO's for 20+ years, from the same home, I would hate to see anything that could or would prevent that, Simply because both accounts are from the same IP. I 2 boxed in Everquest for a time, after my daughter quit, but never after that, it was just not fun. I personally have no desire to 2 box, but do want to be able to play with my family members. I think Intrepids stance is a good approach.

    Some people defending multi-boxing are really overblowing the "People playing from the same household will get banned" game developers are smart people and I trust the Ashes team to figure out a fair and common-sense way to catch people multi-boxing if they decide multi-boxing won't be allowed.

    There is no way for them do this (if the multiboxer does not use tools, which is forbidden even now). This is not a problem where someone can find a genius solution.

    The IP address is the only thing that can be remotely associated with a physical location. So it is the only viable way to potentially identify a person using multiple instances of a client (if said person does not use multiple proxies...). To further distinguish between a case where one person uses multiple clients or multiple persons using one client Intrepid would have to run surveillance on their house.

    So there exists a solution which works partially (see proxy comment), but would also 'criminalize' multiple persons playing behind the same IP address. This would be the only way to partially prevent multiboxing. But for me, the benefits do not outweigh the costs in this case.
  • SepiDNSepiDN Member
    As it's been said it's impossible to stop dualboxing BUT it should still be bannable.
    If you don't make it bannable I assure you were are going to end up with debaits like "No dude he's not using scripts he's just very good with 2 computers".

    Account sharing is bannable in most games and that is equally hard to prove but still can be proven in certain circumstances. It steers the mindset to the right direction.
  • DemondimDemondim Member, Braver of Worlds
    I was a little disappointed that the poll is heavily weighted towards the positive agreement of allowing multiboxing.

    There are 3 choices for agreement, 1 for disagreement and 1 for apathy.

    Curious to know why you thought it would be a good idea to dilute and confuse the results instead of have a simple 3-way split between Agree, Disagree & Apathy.
    & yes, I understand you can just add the 3 agreement responses together.
    After all, people will generally expand on the reasoning for their choice if the answer options aren't succinct enough.

    FWIW I voted Disagree :|
    mysig.jpg
  • OnyStyleOnyStyle Member, Braver of Worlds
    I believe there should be more restrictions on multiboxing. The reason is simple, bots. While I believe players should be able to own more than one account if they so choose, I believe they have a right to play multiple at the same time. However, the restrictions put in place should be based off of one's ip.

    Before I address a solution, I will first address the issue. Targeting someones ip brings about the idea that one can encounter issues when multiple people in the same household are playing the game at the same time. The normal way to implement this idea is to put a certain limit to the amount of times an ip address can be concurrently accessing the game at the same time. This approach, however, is flawed when it comes to things like LAN parties and can lead to a ton of false flags.
    Alternative (better) Approach:
    Instead of limiting the number of simultaneous users to an ip address, limit the number of HOURS each ip address should be allocated per day (or better yet, per week). Say you make the upper limit of a households access time be 504 hours a week. (This would allow 3 clients to be online for 24/7) This is fine in the majority of cases because one, most people will not be leaving their client on for 24 hours straight, and two, most households will not have 3 people playing the game. Now, if one surpasses this limit, one can easily automatically flag this ip as a potential bot address. Then, one just needs to send a GM to view one (or multiple depending on your chosen procedure) of the accounts to check for suspicious activity. You guys can even choose to set a total limit like 2000 hours per week which just automatically bans people for suspicious activity.
    If one wants to do a daily approach (since a week is still a ton of time) then you can flag an ip address each day if it goes over a certain amount of allotted hours. After it reaches a certain amount of flags, a GM can again, review it. This approach works well because a week may be a lot of time to get gold farmed, but say, 3 days? You may be able to cut bot activity even better.
    Obviously the above is not a strict guideline and can be adapted into however many hours you guys would like to choose. The only potential issue this may cause is for people who use public vpn's. However, not allowing vpn's is 100% an acceptable policy. Asking them to turn off their vpn while playing the game is not at all unreasonable.
  • I keep seeing the issue come up of family being locked out, and I have a good feeling the team will be able to address it, though some of their attempts to straddle the line may give dedicated multi-boxers a way to avoid detection for some time. Here's some things I expect to see:

    1) Not always being in the same place and doing the same thing. Especially not being on at the same time all the time.

    2) Seeing that every payment source of suspected users is from different people. Two different family members using their own personal credit cards is a lot less suspicious than 8 players who are always together and always pay with the same source, or from non-identifiable sources like subscription cash cards.

    3) Constantly changing patterns in battle, and making poorly optimized actions and combinations with others instead of actions that seem highly coordinated. Making lots of little poor choices in general. This is different from an absence of choices, which may occur if a player is trying to optimize the use of their multiples.

    4) Conversations and interactions with other players, and interactions with NPCs. This could be anything from analyzing typing and language patterns to looking at the actual content of their messages to matching up the user's voice in-game to other members of their crew who use voice--though a filter could subvert that. Yes, I understand this will potentially be anti-cult if everyone always says the same line "Give your blood unto Yigzrai's Blades" or "Just doing my job" or something else that may just be their standard one-liner in a group.

    5) 2FA could require unique phone numbers, except for accounts flagged as under-18 that are linked to a subscriber and subject to their parental controls. Two accounts using the same number wouldn't be flagged on the website, but would be detected for gameplay.

    6) VPN / Cloud detection. Hey so when a game is running on your machine, it can basically act as a backdoor to protocol analysis on your connection. This is maybe a bit intrusive, but it should be able to tell exactly where the flow of information from client to server is going.

    7) Hire real-deal network security and fraud experts to implement and develop solutions that curtail multboxing while freely allowing families and LAN-party style gatherings to play together. Like the people who would normally work at a bank, security firm, or in the space of gambling.
  • EvilHer0EvilHer0 Member
    It's hard to vote whether you should allow multiboxing or not, as most of us don't really know how the game works so far.

    Whether bards are mandatory to be able to farm high level mobs. How much effect they have, maybe some classes won't be able to kill certain mobs without bard buffs. As Steven has played Lineage 2 himself and anyone else that have played L2, will know what im talking about. If buffs have a huge effect in the game, then it would smart to allow players to box at least 1 extra character considering if they are playing solo and they need buffs. That means 1 main character + 1 box (chance to have buffs (bard)).
  • NeurathNeurath Member
    As a Bard player I'd hate to be replaced by a Multiboxed Bard. As a Solo Player I'd also find it unfair if I can't solo but someone with multi-boxes can. If that would be the case I would possibly even Multi-Box just to solo too. I've never multi-boxed before. I have other computers. I voted no to allow Multi-Boxing but if I am faced with being cut from groups because people are boxing Bards and not inviting Bards, would I have any other choice?

    I'd still manually use multi-boxing if I'm forced to multi-box, because, by the looks of things it would be permitted by IS. I'm no rule breaker but I'm no bitch to be side-lined either.
  • jairjair Member, Leader of Men, Early Alpha One Tester
    As long as there is not a resource/loot advantage to having multiple toons in a group it wont be a big deal. I remember the words of @Steven Sharif when referencing solo players was something like; its a multiplayer game, we want people to interact with each other. I feel like multi-boxing will definitely allow certain advantages in open world pvp if they catch people out by themselves. Though, we wont really know the advantages of multi-boxing with the proposed game systems until we see it happen. For now, i think their policy is the best call and if multi-boxing threatens the longevity or success of the game I'm sure they will change that.
  • NeurathNeurath Member
    Yeah, I mean I find the prospect daunting. I don't particularly want more than one freehold, or, would want to fight PvP with two toons instead of one, it would only be an option if I can't find normal groups. I heard we should level in groups but if I can't find groups then my whole gaming experience would be ruined on Bard. I wasn't expecting to face such a conclusion. I've played many MMOs as Niche Characters and I figured the demand would be decent for a Bard, I didn't expect people to circumvent the social dynamics but I guess I was naïve.

    P.s. Tsukasa, I can't see or read your posts. I don't know if you've blocked me or what...has been like it since yesterday. I can see your Thumbs Up, and when you post, just no posts.
  • SzoloSzolo Member, Founder
    edited July 30
    Multiboxing is obviously not compatible with the spirituality of role playing games, because it grants an unbeatable advantage to its utilizer. Once you can fully coordinate the action of a group of characters, it „breaks” the game, because most of the game’s conditionalities are based on supposing action from a single character. Controling a group of characters means, that the player can perform everything multiplied by the number of the controled characters.
    The two main problems with multiboxing is, that the player can instantly gather enormous amounts of raw materials, and instantly deal out enormous amount of concentrated damage.

    If multiboxing will be allowed, there should be increasing effectiveness penalty for every controlled character after maybe from the third controlled character. Clicking on the same gatherable source, or attacking the same target should make every multiboxed character’s action less effective.

    It is really easy to identify multiboxing. When a bunch of character always performing the same actions at the same time, then they are controlled by the same person.
    Characters running together for a few seconds doesn’t mean they are multiboxed, but when characters are turning at the same time every time, when characters gathering the available raw material sources in the same order together, when the characters are always choosing the same target every time, when the characters never part away from each other, when the characters on seemingly separate accounts always logging into the game at identical time and in the same order, these are suspicious signs, and should be checked. For example by making one of the characters being attacked by wildlife. If every single character instantly engages that enemy with the same ability, then they are controlled by a common intelligence be it human or software.
    You ride that fine line of like everyone is about to die and you shall keep on casting, keep going, it awesome. Thats the best part of healing.
  • edited July 29
    A large proportion of players will use multiple computers to multibox. Multiboxing on the same computer can't be enforced. Will there be a system stopping a player setting up multiple VM's using a VPN to mask thier IP address, or even RDP into multiple Cloud VM's? When there's no way to enforce it, it's fairer to to allow everyone to do it. Otherwise the scale of it being pay to win increases.
  • Pravchenski see's multibox drama wasting intrepid time, they have done good so far with the game with what we've seen and I say they should be allowed to decide the end result of this issue, so to solve drama, whatever works works I agree with intreped simply because there are some issues that cannot be solved easiy, so let intreped so their thing and if it does not work then they adjust the multibox to be restricted, worst case they stop it but regardless this is simple as it can be for a complicated matter, Now pravchenski can go begin making his tavern and hope it may offer booze and bearded women for the community, especially intreped devs they get free booze AND bearded women on house.

    -Pravchensi, speaking to a rock in a desert, before collapsing from heat stroke
    Pravchenski's Tavern and Brothel, Down your Booze like you down your Women, Bearded Dwarves in Drag!

    -Pravchenski, yelling this at some twigs in sand, in a desert.
  • LotharLothar Member
    edited July 29
    Allowing multiple accounts of multiboxing, how can u deal with the matters of:

    1) multiple free households(crafting with many alts will make crafting irrelevant in the end just like archeage)

    2) on voting periods the person with the most alts will be mayor

    3) multiple gathering alts (multiple energy to gathering all day this will sink the economy just like archeage again)

    4) multiple heal-buff alts following (like archeage and lineage it will make support classes to eclipse)

    Please dont make the game a complete disaster like archeage where everyone had craft alts, buff alts etc. That it destroyed the game in the end. Its a pitty. If u decide to allow it, be very strict and ban Mac Adresses instantly not like gamigo on archeage that promised to ban ppl and act instantly but in the end they did nothing.
  • PravchenskiPravchenski Member
    edited July 29
    Pravchenksi will say this just once, people are overly dramatic and obsessive with multiboxxing, there is no need for it to be complicated more than is already, let it happen and if it becomes problem for community then intreped gets rid of it, easy boom. This is not easy discussion no solution without one side or another disagreeing as you can tell, so like I said, whatever makes it works works for me as Pravchenski, give intreped some breathing room so they can focus on something other than multiboxxing for a change, perhaps they think on using the time that has been wasted on multiboxxing to address other concerns? maybe deal with spotting game bugs before game launches and other things of concern, besides AoC has time before release of alpha 2 and game release, I say there will be time to address multiboxxing but for now let's see what else we can do to help the game lauch successfully. Now I get tired of speaking to a rock, I go lie down now.

    -Pravchenski, collapsing from heat stroke and begins murmuring bard tales to a rock in a vast desert
    Pravchenski's Tavern and Brothel, Down your Booze like you down your Women, Bearded Dwarves in Drag!

    -Pravchenski, yelling this at some twigs in sand, in a desert.
  • Undead CanuckUndead Canuck Member, Braver of Worlds
    edited July 29
    Does nobody actually understand that Intrepid is against botting? They even specify in the poll that multiboxing is without automated/macro or keystroke mimicking software.

    So far, all the arguements against it are because of doing multiple things at the same time. Which you cannot do unless you use automation (or are an octopus). Or the fact that someone will have access to more than 1 Freehold (which you get access when you join a guild).
  • I agree will spooky skeleton, this drains effort and time, now I shall focus instead on building my tavern, maybe I offer free drinks for first people who enter when we open? @Undead Canuck you get free drink when I open for being logical in these strange times comrade.

    -Pravchenski, waving his noodle arms in the air while sand from the desert blows into his eyes
    Pravchenski's Tavern and Brothel, Down your Booze like you down your Women, Bearded Dwarves in Drag!

    -Pravchenski, yelling this at some twigs in sand, in a desert.
  • Undead CanuckUndead Canuck Member, Braver of Worlds
    I agree will spooky skeleton, this drains effort and time, now I shall focus instead on building my tavern, maybe I offer free drinks for first people who enter when we open? @Undead Canuck you get free drink when I open for being logical in these strange times comrade.

    -Pravchenski, waving his noodle arms in the air while sand from the desert blows into his eyes

    Cool. I get free drink from you, you get a free drink (a nice cool one so you can get rid of the desert grit) when I open my Tavern. Once we have more information (i.e. any information) we can exchange addresses.
  • well all I know is as a Pravchenski I may be stuck in this desert, but I will make a tavern, how it will thrive in a desert I do not know, maybe fancy magics or something who can tell, but it definetly will be a needed checkpoint for caravans and travelers this I will make sure, I also do not know how I can receive a drink from a rock or a voice in my head, but I will accept anyway.

    -Pravchenski, "drinking" sand from the mirage in the desert, hallucinating
    Pravchenski's Tavern and Brothel, Down your Booze like you down your Women, Bearded Dwarves in Drag!

    -Pravchenski, yelling this at some twigs in sand, in a desert.
  • hawiiftbllhawiiftbll Member, Braver of Worlds
    I would prefer that multi-boxing wasn't allowed but understand the time and resources required to prevent it could be an issue. Just finding an effective way to reduce any potential advantage to those who will have ability to spend more. I think Hakurai makes pretty good points in their video above.
  • multiboxxing is a mess, whatever happens I will do what I can to help intreped in any way I can, even if it be emotional support discount booze and bearded women at my tavern when it opens is all I can say.
    Pravchenski's Tavern and Brothel, Down your Booze like you down your Women, Bearded Dwarves in Drag!

    -Pravchenski, yelling this at some twigs in sand, in a desert.
  • diamahtdiamaht Member, Settler, Founder
    You can multibox in EVE and it's not an issue. I do it when mission running, its actually pretty fun.

    Also if it will cause people at the same home to get banned for no reason then no don't ban it. Find another way to combat bots.
  • I too am worried about the side effects of owning multiple accounts, especially since it's so cheap to open more then 1 account. Maybe we get a discussion next time about owning more than 1 account?

    BUT

    this discussion is about 1 person playing the game from more then one account on 2 separate computers in their house.

    So like, I play on my main computer my main character and my alt is on my laptop off to the side.
    You could use it for family TP, for alt banks, for an extra freehold, maybe spying or being in the world in 2 different places? idk. I'm sure there are other options.

    At the end of the day actually being able to do this seems fine. Maybe I want to level my buddy while I wait for my gathering resource to respawn or something NON nefarious. I can see it. This should be allowed.

    HOWEVER,
    Intrepid should (and has ) promised to handle people doing this to break / cheat the game.
    we don't want people taking advantage of this system to the max (botting) and if they do, intrepid is gonna ban them. Again, I am ok with this. This should be allowed.
  • akabearakabear Member, Pioneer
    I have never been interested in being number one financially, level, or gear in game.
    Primary objective is being able to play and then enjoy.

    I multiboxed in the past in L2 because the game mechanics were not conducive to solo play. To play that game you needed a buffer / healer or you could only pve for 5-10 min, then would need to sit for 10-15 regenerating, rinse and repeat. Not a fun experience but I did do that when it was in beta and the first year as knew no different. But later learned there was a way around this.

    Having a multibox mean that there was no longer 20-60min shouting for a party and I could get into game play immediately and when ever. Also meant being more sociable as once started a party with own buffer, I could invite other players and we could all start as soon as I was in game. Rather that waiting for the availability of that key class that was a party maker / breaker. It made the game on a whole far more social and enjoyable, which is what the game should be in the first place.

    Now, if the mechanics of this game are such that one can play solo, or in a small group with any combination reasonably successfully, I would never go down the route of multiboxing again.

    But if I couldn't get in game and immediately play when and how I wanted, then I would in an instant so I could play and enjoy my time, nothing more. And from one machine.

    Similarly if I did multi-box again, then I would have other family members occasionally use the other laptop and we would play together, but when they didn't play I would probably use their account as a utility character such as buffer (again if the mechanics required such) and use from one desktop instead.

    I play at random times and being outside the US where if statistics on other games show, 40-45% of the player base will likely be, then there will be a dissipated player pool at the times I play.


  • akabearakabear Member, Pioneer
    I did like one suggestion of a hireling as an alternative filler to a buffer / healer in someone else`s post but then again that is similar to a pet with attributes.

    But never make the alternatives as good as a player or a game downgrades to a solo game
  • MetzeMetze Member
    I agree with this
  • As long as Intrepid is confident they can annihilate bots I have no issue with multi-boxing
  • DarakrisDarakris Member
    edited July 30
    Hi all.
    I am strongly against multiboxing, since this would bring advantages to players who carry out such practices, such as greater ease of grinding the appearance of resources, bosses, or removing the state of corruption themselves, killing themselves using the other accounts without risk of losing items, or many others type of adventages.

    However, it is true that the current stance of Intrepid may be the most correct since going more further, would be much more complicated. Thus, complicating that family and friends play together.

    Something that I think could serve as an addition to the current stance of Intrepid would be that they add a limit of simultaneous connections to Ashes of Creation from the same IP (others computers on the same network). Limiting the connections to 3 simultaneous, or something like that.

    Another option that could work, but would be very difficult to apply, would be that AoC only allow 1 simultaneous connection from the same IP, and that if more people wish to play from the same IP, they should send a request from both accounts to support, making a validation of KYC. To validate that they are different people, reminding to them the ToS and make a soft link between accounts. Thus, allowing accounts with this soft link play together from the same IP from anywhere they connect. But also limiting this softlink to 5 accounts or something like that. Honestly I am in a similar situation, since I will be playing together with my wife, and in my opinion I would not mind conducting a KYC validation since I see it as my responsibility towards AoC to help decrease and complicate the realization of said activities to people who try to do such activities. Similarly, it would not be against any type of validation that you require to help you to this purpose.

    I think that we as players should be responsible and supportive towards AoC helping it to give us a better game.
Sign In or Register to comment.