Poll + Bonus Dev Discussion - Multiboxing

1151618202125

Comments

  • Neurath wrote: »
    I would say that most players left because of the Panda People in WoW. To say it was over a follow command in battlegrounds is ludicrous...We don't want a WoW Clone, Ashes is a different game to WoW. WoW isn't even PvX, WoW has designated servers and is faction based too.

    It is true 300,000 people could cover 30 Servers for IS, but, Hybrid Combat isn't even conducive to good Multi-Boxing. It wouldn't be fun to be on a server with 10,000 Concurrent players but its really 1,000 Players with 10 Toons each.

    The Multibox population is about 1-5% of the server. Again true multiboxer not bot that use multiple account. Learn the difference, knowledge is power, power is freedom.

    You will rarely see a 10boxer in AoC you will probably see per server like 5-10 players with 3-5toon this game require so much power. It would be unplayable. Even wow on retail is very difficult to Mbox more than 5, Classic is a different story you can run wowclassic on a gameboy.

    Learn the difference, education is power.
  • NeurathNeurath Member
    I do understand the terms. Yet, if a public declaration of 'COME AND MULTIBOX IN ASHES OF CREATION' occurs, then more people will multibox and multiboxers will find a new home. WoW is easy to Multi-Box in Retail and in Classic, in Retail the multiboxers pay their subscriptions with in-game Gold. I do not think we need such people. They don't pay real money, they pay with fake gold and WoW Tokens.

    That is the benchmark for how much WoW does not want to lose players. WoW would rather have fake gold and WoW tokens to keep players. We want no such subsidies in place, we want no such players in place and we want no automation in place.

    Botting, Multi-Boxing and Scripts are not wanted. Multi-Accounting without extensive macros, scripts and bots has been sanctioned by IS, but, IS will make the final decision.
  • Neurath wrote: »
    I do understand the terms. Yet, if a public declaration of 'COME AND MULTIBOX IN ASHES OF CREATION' occurs, then more people will multibox and multiboxers will find a new home. WoW is easy to Multi-Box in Retail and in Classic, in Retail the multiboxers pay their subscriptions with in-game Gold. I do not think we need such people. They don't pay real money, they pay with fake gold and WoW Tokens.

    That is the benchmark for how much WoW does not want to lose players. WoW would rather have fake gold and WoW tokens to keep players. We want no such subsidies in place, we want no such players in place and we want no automation in place.

    Botting, Multi-Boxing and Scripts are not wanted. Multi-Accounting without extensive macros, scripts and bots has been sanctioned by IS, but, IS will make the final decision.

    This is mostly a false statement like that the earth is flat or that vaccine will make your kid autistic...

    Multiboxing at the most basic level is simply having multiple characters, and pressing buttons or clicking in each game window to move or activate abilities as if you were actually two individual players. The trick is to be able to do this efficiently enough, and respond quickly enough, to take on the game's content that you would like to experience while multiboxing

    Removing multiboxer will not reduce botting, that's different, remember that botter point is to use a automated software to make ingame currency to sell it and they know that they will get ban at some point, but if they hit profitability they will not stop its a billion dollar business.

    Again learn the difference your fight is not with multiboxer is with botters.

    #PowerToThePeople
    #FreeMultiboxer
    #LearnTheDifference
    #EducateYourself
  • NeurathNeurath Member
    On the contrary, Multi-Accounting is required to Multi-Box and to bot. It isn't even an apt term in the slightest anyway because there is no Box Cost, thus, no Box...so one can Multi-Account but not really Multi-Box. There are people who pay for Multi-Accounts, I used to pay for my IRL Friend's account and my Cousin's Account. I was a Multi-Accounter but not a Multi-Boxer.

    I'm not against Multi-Accounting at all. I have issue with the WoW Multi-Boxers because they control from anywhere between 8 Characters and 24 Characters. The only advantage such an approach will manage in Ashes would be 8 to 24 Freeholds (Account Wide). Beyond that, controlling such amounts of characters would be impossible without ISBoxer, Scripts or Macros.

    You appear to be requesting Multi-Boxing, when in fact you are an advocate for Multi-Accounting. I understand you want to game the systems, but, I have no concerns over Multi-Accounting. My issues are with simultaneous actions from one key stroke. Botting requires no input except to start the process. Simultaneous actions can be achieved from multiple computers and from virtual computers.

    Thankful, IS has the current stance of no multi-accounting except from different machines. That would be with no automation, no scripts and no macros. Thus, no simultaneous inputs. Hopefully with no Auto Follow function too. I've seen too many want to be 'gamers' try to muddle the terms of 'Multi-Accounting' 'Multi-Boxing' and 'Botting'. Rest assured the three terms are individualised and IS has stated the current stance.

    You can multi-account from different machines, you just can't multi-account from one machine.
  • Neurath wrote: »
    On the contrary, Multi-Accounting is required to Multi-Box and to bot....
    ....
    I'm not against Multi-Accounting at all....

    I'm sorry but your logic is severely flawed. I am against all forms of anything to do with bots and automation. They have no place in any MMORPG which is why all MMORPGs today don't allow them. To even mention them in any capacity to compare with any other play style is simply not intelligent. If you're not against bots then you should be!
  • The same concerns(or possibility) people have for multiboxer are the actual thing that happens when a streamer like asmongold or sodapopping comes in the game, griffing, force farming/camping resources, force pvp/bodyguard services. The fight ppl have against multibox is misleading, they should be fighting main streamer instead of multiboxer.
  • darthusdarthus Member
    Multiboxing refers to playing as multiple separate characters concurrently in an MMORPG. This can either be achieved by using multiple separate machines to run the game or by running multiple separate instances of the game. Multiboxing might be considered a form of cheating.[1] Multiboxing is considered to be difficult to do well without practice, as it involves adapting to problems in real-time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-boxing For extra info check here.

    Mutliboxing involves ONLY ONE player controls multiple characters on different accounts. No matter if a 3rd party software or macros get involved and no matter if it is from the same machine or not.

    Prepared wrote: »
    Multiboxing is simply another way to play the MMORPG.

    First of all, most of the debates you make here are simply no true. Obviously you support multiboxing heavily and try to manipulate the crowd with false statements.

    Multiboxing isn't just a simple another way to play the game, and definitely it is not a common way like doing raiding, crafting, gathering, etc.
    A simple FACT justify this; Every single game design out there, it doesn't directly support multiboxing straight away. All game concepts are designed based on a simple fact; One player = One character. Many systems can be abused by unique strategies... and multiboxing is one of them.
    Also, as i said before in my post and many other before me, in practice for mutliboxing to be effective it will require a 3rd party software. Not in all cases.. but in MOST cases. Something that any game out there doesn't have a build-in. It is similar to addons, with difference that addons are completely free to use and not behind a pay wall.

    Multiboxing is hiding behind a pay wall to use it.. so it is considered a P2W element. If you agree or not with this doesn't matter. It is a simple fact.
    Prepared wrote: »
    By analyzing why players don't like multiboxers you will find that players don't like competition. In essence players believe that by allowing multiboxers without restrictions in terms of number of clients per machine or keyboard/mouse broadcasting players believe they will lose in the game world against a multiboxer either in PvE (Player versus Environment) or PvP (Player versus Player). Most people that play an MMORPG are either by themselves or in a small group. When a multiboxer has a full group or more the smaller group of players tends to be defeated in terms of PvP. In PvE quests or game world objectives are reduced through more competition for resources.

    False statement again.
    We want fair competition that doesn't involved any extra pay wall to be better that your competitors. See Arena Tournaments WoW - MIDI WoW - Starcraft and all E-sports. That is a real competition. World First for raids isn't a real competition because of course it evolves around multiboxing for gathering resources etc. This is why World First Raid e-sports will never happen. Gathering more materials by controlling more than one character, which requires you to pay extra money to be able to do it, is a competition under P2W.
    Prepared wrote: »
    In every forum discussion concerning multiboxers you find many false and misleading statements made against the play style. As mentioned it comes down to competition. People don't want to lose. Everyone wants to win and by reducing the competition people believe they can win more easily. How many times have you seen posts complaining about large raiding guilds or PvP guilds that dominate a server? You find a similar approach to them as you find against multiboxers in that players don't like them because of competition. In terms of multiboxing it's different because people believe they can get that form of competition out of the game. So many complain using false statements against the multiboxing play style.

    False statement again.
    People don't afraid to lose in even terms and that terms means pay the same amount of money to play the game within the game mechanics without abusing the system.
    If for you a win means someone who has a deeper pocket (P2W) that is fine. But i am sure you will know by now that most players hate P2W elements.
    Even this very game, make it crystal and clear that won't be any P2W elements, at least in the shop.
    Prepared wrote: »
    By reducing competition all the gaming company is doing is losing business. It's not making the game any better or making the player base any happier. The players will continue to play with their method of play style without as much competition available. There are many examples of gaming companies that took the stance of reducing play styles such as multiboxing and failed. Wildstar took that stance and went offline two years ago. Archeage took that stance and continued to merge servers from release until current time and so few players that it's barely even running these days. Other examples that didn't take that stance can be shown to improve the player base numbers. For example FFXIV has no restrictions on the multiboxing play style and it has never merged servers. Many times since release has expanded server capacity and number of servers. It has been so successful there has been character creation restrictions on many servers for too many players. GW2 which was touted as another WoW killer had restrictions on the multiboxing play style. Without a /follow command they already had a major restriction in place where multiboxers wouldn't want to play with that difficulty. Then they additionally added that each client had to have their own key press. The CEO of the gaming company of GW2 stated it was their intention to have more players in their game than any other MMORPG available. That failed simply because there weren't as many ways to play as the number 1 MMORPG in terms of players playing. By having fewer ways to play an MMORPG, you find you have fewer players in the game. Multiboxing is simply another way to play just like a live streamer with many followers is another way to play. A guild leader with a raiding guild is another way to play. A raid leader that controls raids of players to do world PvP is another way to play.

    False statement again:
    You trying to make a point in this paragraph that games which didn't support multiboxing, failed for that very reason. This is very misleading point.

    Wildstar didn't shut down because they didn't let mutliboxing. Wildstar shut down because was a WoW clone and didn't have anything special or unique to offer. Also, apart from housing system, the game didn't offer a rich and pleasant meta game. The reasons that WildStar failed, has nothing to do with multiboxing.

    Archeage is a Korean game. Only this simple fact makes a veteran MMO suspicious. Most veteran MMO players know the mentality of Korean / Asian games when it comes to P2W. Archeage not only has heavy P2W elements, but also has a heavy grind gameplay. And in desperate move to attract the western audiance to the game, they re-launched it as Archeage Unchained. So, Archeage didn't fail because of limited multiboxing, but because of heavy grind and heavy P2W.

    WoW biggest playerbase comes from Asia. Asians have in their game culture to be farmers and to be enjoy P2W. You will see it in most Asians games out there. Even so, the success of WoW doesn't come from allowing multiboxing. It comes from its amazing longevity through the years and the fun gameplay. Allowing mutliboxing is just an extra revenue for them.

    FFXIV is a Japanese game, do i need to say more ? Also i won't repeat myself here, it shares the same points as WoW.

    So, at least when you debate for something, is advised to give constructive strong points, instead of misleading information based that the people who read your posts are completely clueless on the subject.

    As pointed many times before, Mutliboxing gives extra revenue for the company, but it hurts the majority of playerbase who doesn't multiboxing (I am talking for Europeans / Americans, i know Asians will embrace multiboxing in most cases).

    The Bottom Line
    Multiboxing is P2W in a distinctive way, because most players won't realise it straight away. It doesn't matter if you using 3rd party software or not, the fact remains: It requires extra money to use it.

    This is the only point i agree with Prepared - If the company wants to be greedy and make more revenue, allowing multiboxing is one way to do it.

    But the longevity of the game and how fun is to play, has nothing to do with multiboxing. The game can do very well and be at it's best without using mutliboxing at all.


  • darthusdarthus Member
    Multiboxing at the most basic level is simply having multiple characters, and pressing buttons or clicking in each game window to move or activate abilities as if you were actually two individual players. The trick is to be able to do this efficiently enough, and respond quickly enough, to take on the game's content that you would like to experience while multiboxing

    This is the theoretical explanation. The real / practical explanation is the following:

    To be able to control multiple characters, you need to have different accounts. You can't login in to 2 different characters at the same time from the same account.
    Also one player is very difficult, nearly physical impossible to control more than one character effectively enough without a 3rd party software when it comes to active multiboxing.

    Passive Multiboxing is different, when you parked buffers somewhere to buff your main character.
    Removing multiboxer will not reduce botting, that's different, remember that botter point is to use a automated software to make ingame currency to sell it and they know that they will get ban at some point, but if they hit profitability they will not stop its a billion dollar business..

    The debate isn't about multiboxing vs botting, although they are very close and very similar in practice. It is about the P2W element that multiboxing adds.
    Again learn the difference your fight is not with multiboxer is with botters.

    Again... it has nothing to do with botters. It has to do with the simple fact;

    Multiboxing requres more than one account to be able use it. Which translates into more money used by single player who controls those accounts.

    Try not misleading the crowd please.




  • Undead CanuckUndead Canuck Member, Braver of Worlds
    edited August 3
    What about when I play my partner's account for a while when they have something to do? They cannot play at that time, but we need to finish something in game. Since I am not paying for the account, I am only paying for 1 account (no P2W in your opinion). But I am multiboxing since I am controlling 2 separate computers without automation.
  • What about when I play my partner's account for a while when they have something to do? They cannot play at that time, but we need to finish something in game. Since I am not paying for the account, I am only paying for 1 account (no P2W in your opinion). But I am multiboxing since I am controlling 2 separate computers without automation.

    That is account sharing, this is a discussion about multi-boxing, make a new thread for that.


  • the1authoritythe1authority Member, Founder
    I never had a good experience with people multiboxing tbh
  • Undead CanuckUndead Canuck Member, Braver of Worlds
    What about when I play my partner's account for a while when they have something to do? They cannot play at that time, but we need to finish something in game. Since I am not paying for the account, I am only paying for 1 account (no P2W in your opinion). But I am multiboxing since I am controlling 2 separate computers without automation.

    That is account sharing, this is a discussion about multi-boxing, make a new thread for that.


    Multiboxing requres more than one account to be able use it. Which translates into more money used by single player who controls those accounts.

    They came up with a specific scenario, so did I Just pointing out that you can argue anything. Just put it in the right parameters.
    They said more than 1 account is more money used by 1 person. I came up with a scenario that more than 1 account was not more money used by 1 person.
  • papabear2009papabear2009 Member
    edited August 3

    I see

  • darthusdarthus Member
    edited August 3
    What about when I play my partner's account for a while when they have something to do? They cannot play at that time, but we need to finish something in game. Since I am not paying for the account, I am only paying for 1 account (no P2W in your opinion). But I am multiboxing since I am controlling 2 separate computers without automation.

    You can play their accounts separately. For example, if you want to complete a quest for 2 characters, you should spend double the amount of time to do so. This is how a game designed to be.
    The simple fact is: Requires 1 human being to play one account... 2 human beings to play 2 accounts .. 3 human beings to play 3 accounts and so on.

    Using that cheap excuse that your supposed partner can't play for sometime and so you can play his / her account simultaneously with yours, it looks like a married man, who say to his wife that he is late because he was busy with his work... while in truth he was with his affair.

    Again.. another technique to abuse various systems inside a community.

    Mutliboxing is a disease, it is a tool used by people who want to compete against the real competitors but not in fair terms.

    It is like a warrior try to duel another warrior but he loses all the time, and then he brings more people to beat that same warrior. Simply because he can't win a 1 v 1 fight.

  • Hakurai wrote: »
    I think that if you try and restrict it anymore than the current stance, you risk causing issues for family play, for people who sign up with multiple family members in the same house.

    How would you vet their accounts to make sure it isn't the same person using each account, if for example I am paying for both my own, my wifes, and my daughters accounts and we all want to play the game together, our IP and payment methods would be the same on all acounts and we'd all have the same last names.

    Any restrictions that went above the current stance would involve Intrepid being forced to block more than one connection from our IP? or block my payment method from opening multiple accounts? If you'd only restrict making multiple accounts based on the name used to register the account, it would be easy to make fake accounts.

    If you used further restrictive methods, it'd punish people playing from the same household.

    So IMO, Intrepids solution is the best.

    Edit: To add, Macro blocking is basically all you need to do to stop the most harmful form of multiboxing - it prevents people from running around with 5 characters oneshotting people which creates an unfair advantage.

    With a lack of macros and same-pc gameplay, the most someone could achieve is to just gather/craft/trade/monitor auction houses while the other account is used to play, or one account is used to spy. And to that end, no amount of restrictions will stop a determined player from multiboxing in that way, pushing heavier and heavier restrictions to prevent that would cause more harm than good, IMO.

    Edit again: After spending more time thinking on the subject, I summarized my thoughts in this video:

    I came here to add my thoughts. I think you nailed it, so I'll see myself out. Thanks! :P
  • Multiboxing is Pay to Win and toxic for gaming communities. Thanks for taking it seriously.
    yX0AECs.png
  • EradalEradal Member
    Players are allowed to own multiple accounts, but may not launch multiple game clients from the same computer. Players may not use any software to automate character actions or mimic keystrokes.

    I voted that I don't agree based on the AMA, but I for some reason missed this. My mistake! I agree with Intrepid's stance on Multiboxing.
    I was born in the Pyrian royal family of Eradal.

    Book_Collection.PNG

    https://Twitch.tv/Eradal
    https://Twitter.com/Aoc_Eradal

  • ExosuitExosuit Member
    JoJoDeath wrote: »
    What reasons are there even to allow multiboxing in the first place? If it is a necessary thing(like how people argue alting is in ArcheAge), I feel like the game should be rebalanced such that it shouldn't be needed. If it is just to provide more benefits to a player, I would consider it Pay-2-Win, and thus should be banned.

    Hey everyone this is actually a correct statement on the issue. If multiboxing gives you an edge up in either farming materials to make money etc...it would be considered a pay to win option and would be unfair to the rest of the community that doesnt wish to spend money to have an equal advantage. While i used to be for it I am now against it.
  • OmegaOmega Member
    To me, all it comes down to is the realistic advantage one would gain from being able to log and control multiple characters at the same time. I can make educated guesses, but Intrepid knows their game systems best and should, in my opinion, act in favour of the most generalized fairness.

    I think 1 account per person should be up for consideration if the advantage gained by playing 2 or more accounts is deemed too great. Have restrictions put in place by connecting accounts to phone numbers.

    That way, multiple accounts per household should be no issue. Even multiple clients per device doesnt need to be an issue, if usage of extra programs can be prevented. If people choose to divide their attention over multiple clients or devices that is their choice.

    Accounts bound to phone numbers means there will be very few people with multiple accounts. For individuals that have no access to a phone, something clever can be designed. Perhaps a family system on the website so a parents account/phone number could host the accounts of children.

    Ultimately, in real life you cant control multiple instances of yourself, so 1 game account per person (with 8-12 character slots) should more than suffice for 95% of the player base.
  • I believe the percentage of people who multibox is extremely low compared to the overall population. I believe the steps Intrepid is taking will do a lot. I would also assume there will be a reporting system in the game. If someone is getting griefed by a muli-boxer and is camping them, they can report the individual on the spot which would narrow the searching for the GMs in order to take quicker action.

    Yes, some might say this is wishful thinking, but I also don't believe in going overboard for the extreme minority either. All this will probably fall somewhere in the middle which I believe is an acceptable place to be.
  • Smart design can remove the need for macroing. I think of games that have you click every 2 seconds for 2 hours to refine a resource for example. I should not have to spend my precious time playing to do that. But automation can ruin a game for the community and even the player themselves, sometimes.

    It's all about smart game design. Steer clear of repetition for no good reason and you're golden. I'll be the first to admit that I won't hesitate to write a script to click that button for me 200,000 times to refine the resources that I just spend 15 hours harvesting, for example. I'd rather spend my time doing more important and fun things like pvp.

    As for Multi-boxing i'm 1000% in favor of it. I typically will have multiple accounts if the game is worth it. Restricting it to separate pc's isn't really necessary. Most people don't have the firepower to run multiple instances of a top-notch hit on their pc anyway. I prefer to run the game on multiple screens (same pc).

    The two questions don't really go hand-in-hand. You can't "macro" on one screen and play on the other without a "bot", you would utilize multiple pc's to do this, so the questions are actually in conflict with each other but are in the same poll.

    I believe that MB should be allowed on the same pc, but scripting/macroing should be heavily scrutinized.

    To be fair, I wrote a bot for AC1 many, many years ago that was a buff-bot. You could go up to it and send it a message to find out guild activities, get a set of buffs, and other things. But we're talking in a day and age where external tools weren't available, no wiki, no discord (we had roger wilco or kali). So what I'm getting at is that I'm very familiar with proper use of scripts/macroing/bots versus destructive forms, auto-mining, auto-leveling, etc. In my example, I pushed the limits by buffing, but that, again, was a tedious process in AC1 and you had to train a specific set of skills to be able to do it and our guys were killers, not buffers. It did definitely cross that line of usefulness vs. excessive and unfair advantage, however.
  • RiutomoRiutomo Member

    Using Archeage Unchained as an example, Multi boxing will slowly kill your game.
  • HateFieldHateField Member
    edited August 3
    As a bit of backstory my gateway drug into mmos has been Lineage II. Thus my concern with multiboxing is that Ashes of Creation will end up having the same problems when it comes to multiboxing. Let me explain:
    - support classes were pretty much never played because everyone had an alt account who kept buffing every 20 minutes (5 minutes for the big boy buff).
    - lines between botters and real players became blurry with assist/target/follow macros and having the macro key permanently pressed. Basicly you could have a whole party on auto pilot with just 1 driver.
    - lastly even without being "active" you can use your dual box for economic gameplay propping up your main character by setting up shops or gathering in separate zones. Even worse is the perspective of multibox farmers and their impact on the in game economy as a gateway for real money transactions.

    In my opinion allowing multiboxing has the potential of creating problems and no matter how you cut it, in the end, having multiple accounts logged in from a player perspective makes sense only if it gives you some advantage over someone with just one account.

    Another point is that you will end up designing stuff with multiboxing in mind which may be a detriment to the overall experience.

    I'm sure there will be someone arguing that he wants multiple accounts just for multiple characters but, if so, log off and log back into your other account. No need to have 2 accounts running at the same time.

    Also the whole family argument. As long as everyone plays the game for itself I don't see why anyone should worry.

    It's up to you where you end up drawing the line but, from a pure gameplay perspective, multiboxing is unfair. If you think the economic incentive of having two subscription from one player is worth the diminished experience to those who don't partake that's your prerogative. I'm not going so far as saying it will ruin the game. It will just be an unnecessary chip on it's shoulder.

    Thanks for your time!
  • VaynnVaynn Member
    Whatever position they end up taking it all comes down to enforcement of the rules. One character per machine has been implemented on other games and has been easily circumvented through the use of VMs. Unless they have a solid method for detecting/prohibiting VMs, I think this will be heavily abused to circumvent the currently stated rules. While I don't expect them to fully disclose their process for detecting these types of workarounds it would be good to see them acknowledge it and that they will have something in place to enforce come launch.
  • darthusdarthus Member
    I agree with Intrepid's decision to allow multiboxing from separate computers without automated/macro or keystroke mimicking software.

    This is the first option on the poll and also with highest votes.

    Although it counters many multiboxing activities that could run from the same PC, it still isn't not good enough if some of the core mechanics of the game, don't change.

    One very good example is the voting system for Mayor.

    AoC-Vote.jpg

    This screenshot is taken from the Dev's Pre-Alpha 4K GM Gameplay @ May 31, 2020 @ 45:30 of the video.

    Now, as you can see on the screenshot (don't worry the external link is completely safe), there is 30mins for the voting system to conclude. I presume on those 30mins, every character who votes needs to be online.
    So, a rich boy, or tech maniac with 5-10 even more PCs running around his room, or a bit-coiner, or a classic multiboxer from other games, can easily take advantage of the voting system, bypassing the Interpid's current policy in multiboxing.

    And i quote again :
    I agree with Intrepid's decision to allow multiboxing from separate computers without automated/macro or keystroke mimicking software.

    For the voting system, the multiboxer logs in from different PCs, he doesn't use any macros or any 3rd party software, because he won't do any active multiboxing. He is doing passive multiboxing by bringing his characters online and press the vote button. Wait for the time limit to run out, Boom !! he is Major.

    Imagine now that he has a guild of 10 people who also mutliboxing. If every multiboxer owns 10 accounts.. that guild of 10 people can have a character strength of 100.

    And in case of the voting system, they don't violate any terms of Interpid's multiboxing.

    Because of the complexity to identify multiboxing vs family accounts (multi-accounts) and whether the family accounts are legit or intentional to gating into multiboxing, the studios (i am talking in general here) should altered some of their game designs to prevent the reasoning of multiboxing.

    A good example of such concepts, is the Military Node, where it will require a "Last Man Stands" scenario for the elected Mayor. Basically a tournament of duels.
    Similar situation for the Temple Node, where the character with most Faith can be elected automatic.
    For the Economic Node, which in my opinion is one of the most important, could be the player with most successive caravan runs. Instead of the player with most gold, which can be transferred between multi characters to the main.

    So, all in all, introducing new game mechanics to the game and step away from game designs like voting or mass grinding or anything similar to these, can prevent the use of multiboxing in many major aspects of the game.
  • Undead CanuckUndead Canuck Member, Braver of Worlds
    You don't need to be a multiboxer in any of those scenarios. Just log into each of your alts in turn and vote / fight / gather gold / get faith.
    Then contact your friends, family, guild to do the same. With all those people, no multiboxing.
  • SepiDNSepiDN Member
    You don't need to be a multiboxer in any of those scenarios. Just log into each of your alts in turn and vote / fight / gather gold / get faith.
    Then contact your friends, family, guild to do the same. With all those people, no multiboxing.

    Im assuming it's 1 vote per account. Otherwise the whole voting system is kinda pointless.
  • MIBMIB Member
    I don't have a problem with multiboxing as Intrepid described or multiple accounts. However, I think there should be some limit on the the number of accounts that can be on the same server. I understand wanting family to join up which is fine but I'd be suspicious of someone with ten accounts all on the same server and owning most of the housing and freeholds in a particular area. Perhaps 4 accounts max on the same server although I don't know what would be a correct number. I'd base it off the average number of people in a single household that would game together. You'd have to have a lot of money to have so many accounts but whales do exist.
  • You don't need to be a multiboxer in any of those scenarios. Just log into each of your alts in turn and vote / fight / gather gold / get faith.
    Then contact your friends, family, guild to do the same. With all those people, no multiboxing.

    If each toon can cast a vote then a multiboxer will have a big advantage, because normal players will have a toon cap per accounts but multiboxing will circumvent that cap.

    Then you say to contact friends, family, guild to make alts to do the same. Perfect that is one of the points why we don't like multiboxing, they are avoiding the hurdles of mandatory social interactions required in a MMORPGs.
  • DecylDecyl Member
    Personally I see it as form of P2W, yes it also requires extra effort to bear fruit, but still gives advantage over people who could put that extra effort, but can't or aren't willing to shell extra for more subscriptions and hardware (eg. each account can have max one Freehold therefore multiboxers can feed main Acc from couple Freeholds). As Steven mentioned it's difficult to implement systems preventing multiboxing as it would affect people playing under the same roof as well, so unless someone will come up with bulletproof solution, Intrepid's decision to allow multiboxing from separate computers without automated/macro or keystroke mimicking software, looks like the best option for now.
Sign In or Register to comment.