Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
Intrepid can include any rule they want (within reason) in the ToS even if they have no way of enforcing. I mean think about it. Go read the ToS of any game and you will for sure find clauses that are there just to encourage people to stay away from certain activities.
Just to give you an example, this is literally the first clause in Blizzard's EULA:
You may establish an Account only if: (i) you are a “natural person” and an adult in your country.
Clearly this is still valid even though they can't prove someone is an adult because everyone can input anything they want.
It's really difficult for me to understand why someone wouldn't want Intrepid to include a stricter clause against multiboxing. It literally has no downsides, it takes about 1 minute to add and would reduce multiboxing by quite a bit since most of the players probably don't want to risk it.
Alright, gonna admit, I wrote my reply almost right after I woke up, it wasn't my best or most coherent argument.
The point that I was trying to make boils down to, when deciding between two options, taking the one that provides the most success is generally the better option. In my eyes, their current stance on multi-boxing provides that better option, compared to trying to enforce a rule of not owning multiple accounts.
I have already posted ideas on how to limit some/all benefits of things like this in regards to multi-boxing. Rehashing the same issues does nothing. Until Intrepid gives us more direct information on how these things will be dealt with, then all that can be done is to keep provided ideas to mitigate these issues. The game still has years of development to go, so even if they wanted to implement some of these ideas, it is entirely possible that it is not feasible to do so at the moment, so they can't give an answer one way or another.
If people dismiss these counterarguments out of hand, though, then it provides no real benefit to the discussion whatsoever. I have still not seen any arguments against multi-boxing that I have not been able to provide an answer for.
There are certainly some that lean much more heavily towards the pay-2-win side of the argument, I will fully admit. For example, the issue of bag space/storage is pretty much an issue that is either fully on one side of the argument or the other, there is very little room in the middle for any sort of compromise. If bag space is very limited, and a "normal" play session has you running to town every half an hour to empty your bags, then having multiple accounts could definitely be seen as pay-2-win, just like if they decided to sell bag size upgrades in the cash shop. But if it takes many hours in a "normal" play session to fill your bags, then it's not really going to be much of an advantage, if at all. A single mule mount is going to have around 10x the available capacity of a character inventory. I don't think many people would say a multi-boxer spending $150/month extra for the same amount of inventory that I can get for free in game is pay-2-win. Yes, the multi-boxer could use mule mounts on each of their characters, and have 10x again the space that I do. In which case, I'm gonna go get 2-3 friends, steamroll the multi-boxer group, and laugh as I just looted in 5 minutes what it would normally take me a day to farm.
My statement was directly in reference to Zetlin essentially calling multi-boxing and botting/RMT the same thing. Yes, multi-boxing can be used alongside botting/RMT, but they are not the same thing as each other.
As for why I feel a policy against botting and RMT are fine, but one against multi-boxing is not, is that botting and RMT do not have another viable policy, while multi-boxing does. Botting and RMT are both issues that are effectively pay-2-win with no mitigating factors.
Botting is, generally speaking, easy to detect the vast majority of the time. It is also something that is very difficult to have a false positive for - a human will never have the same precision that a bot does. Unless you are relying purely on automated systems to hand out punishments to detected bot behavior, which would be a horrible system that I would be against, the only way for a false positive to occur would be from extreme laziness of someone doing a manual investigation. No, not all botting is going to be detected, and some botting software might be good enough to fool even a manual investigation of a suspected botter by a GM.
RMT is trickier, because that really is both difficult to detect, as well as being difficult to enforce. But again, it is an issue that will very, very rarely have false positive punishments. It is an issue where it is hard to detect, but when it is detected, there would be a 99.9999% that you also have incontrovertible proof of it.
As said above, both of these also have no real way of their effects being mitigated. Botting, by its very definition, is you not playing the game. Any activities done in the game by a bot are not done by a player, so every single thing the bot does is an advantage for the person that owns the account. Compared to legitimate multi-boxing, where interaction by the player is required, a bot gains things with zero interaction by the player. Everything that the bot earns in the game is created from nothing, for the price of the sub fee. You are paying to "win" by getting resources for doing nothing.
The only way to "mitigate" this would be to make it so a bot gains no experience, cannot gather or craft anything, cannot complete quests, cannot use the auction house, etc. Since AoC has collision, they couldn't even be allowed to have a bot character exist in the world, since that could be abused to have a bot army body-block other characters. And hey, if Intrepid wanted to let a bot account keep paying its sub fee, while all of its characters are thrown into a dark abyss that can't interact with the rest of the world in any way, I say go for it, more money to the devs. But realistically, banning would be easier.
RMT, by its very definition, is basically pay-2-win. You are trading real money for something in the game that you are not earning yourself. I don't feel I need to go more in depth on this.
Also, as one last thought, because I don't believe I have said this before:
As things currently stand, if Intrepid makes no changes to the current systems whatsoever, multi-boxing, as well as simply owning multiple accounts, would end up being pay-2-win. Without putting systems in place to mitigate the effects of owning multiple accounts, let alone multi-boxing specifically, there will be many exploitable things in this game. In this situation, I would indeed be against multi-boxing and owning multiple accounts (even if I feel the latter is impractical to enforce).
Multi-boxing is NOT botting.
Maybe people who voted "no for multibox" will learn what specific terms actually mean.
There have been lawsuits brought against various companies for clauses included in their ToS, that have invalidated all or portions of those ToS. In this particular case, I even stated that likely only that particular portion of the ToS would be invalidated.
A significant portion of the time, ToS issues are not fought because it is extremely impractical to do so for the average person. You are not going to take a game developer to court, spending tens of thousands of dollars in court fees and lawyer fees, as well as months or years of time, over something like a $60 video game. While class action lawsuits are a thing, they have their own issues, and trying to find enough people who would legitimately make up a decent size class of people for a lawsuit would be a chore in and of itself. Many ToS are so convoluted that, even if you could potentially win a lawsuit for whatever issue you were ostensibly banned for, there is likely something in the ToS that you have broken, that could be used against you instead.
Yes, a company can add any clauses they want in a ToS, even if they have no way to enforce it. However, every single additional clause that is added also provides another potential for a lawsuit. The goal is to cover as many of their bases as is possible, while providing the least risk for litigating as possible. Most of the time, yes, simply adding a clause will deter people from an activity.
"Multi-boxing" as a term is not clearly defined. It is not a common term with easily known limits. Any clause in a ToS specifically against multi-boxing would require these definitions to be added. And that definition might need additional terms defined as well. Good luck trying to come up with a comprehensive definition for the term, that someone couldn't find a way around, and also didn't restrict "normal" players in some manner.
By allowing multi-boxing, they don't have to add it to the ToS in any way, specifically. They just need their more generic clauses against using third-party software to interact with the game. Multi-boxing doesn't have to be defined.
Same thing with them allowing multiple accounts to be owned by the same person. There is no need to specifically state "A user can own multiple accounts" because, by not having anything specifically disallowing it, it is implied that it is allowed.
Why choose an option that produces a certain effect, when you have another option that produces the same effect with less risk?
Go down the page a bit more:
v. Subject to the laws of your country of residence, minor children may utilize an Account established by their parent or legal guardian. In the event that you permit your minor child or legal ward (collectively, your “Child”) to use an Account on the Platform, you hereby agree to this Agreement on behalf of yourself and your Child, and you understand and agree that you will be responsible for all uses of the Account by your Child whether or not such uses were authorized by you.
This is also from the Blizzard EULA:
Blizzard reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time for any reason, or for no reason, with or without notice to you.
I can't think of a way for anyone to sue them if their account is closed "unfairly". Blizzard always has the right to do that even if no contract was breached.
Also my point with the first snippet from the Blizz EULA was that they have no way of knowing if the parents/guardians/whatever KNOW their kid made an account. In that case the parents didn't establish the account, the kid did. And that is not allowed according to the EULA. I'm sure there are other clauses too which cannot be enforced. CBA to read the whole thing.
They don't have to include the word "multiboxing" in the ToS if that seems somehow ambiguous. They can just state "Players may only run one game client at a time". IF Intrepid wanted to get rid of multiboxing, this would be the best way because of the scare factor IMHO. It's also very easy to implement (literally a few lines of text) compared to some sort of technical solution.
More than likely, if someone brought a legitimate claim to court for a violation of the ToS, this type of blanket statement could probably also be invalidated. But this is a type of generic, catch-all statement, which covers essentially all bases, while realistically providing little risk to them.
Also, in this case specifically, if you read the entire clause, this statement refers specifically to the EULA - not directly to your game account, or anything else. By terminating the EULA, they effectively perform a ban, since you would no longer be provided access to any of the Blizzard services. However, this potentially also leaves open situations where you could, for example, have your WoW account banned, but still be able to play any other game on the Blizzard platform. In other words, terminating the EULA would remove access to the entire Blizzard platform, but banning portions of your account don't necessarily have to terminate the general Blizzard EULA.
In most (all?) countries, you cannot legally enter a contract as a minor. This type of clause is mandatory. It is also a no-risk clause: If the parents deny allowing their child to create the account, the child could not legally create said account, thus both they and the company are not bound to any sort of contract. The company is therefore allowed to do whatever they please with the account, including banning it. There would be absolutely no grounds for the child (or their parents) to sue, and the lawsuit would get thrown out.
I'll use the same example I did in a response earlier. I have an account, and my girlfriend has an account. My girlfriend doesn't really care to play the game, and nominally just sits her character in town most of the time, while playing a mobile game on her phone. She checks the auction house if I ask, or comes and plays pocket healer for me occasionally. Her account is only online when mine is, and she never interacts with anyone else in the game because she doesn't care about it. Someone reports us, and a GM decides I am multi-boxing, because all of his metrics show that her character only interacted with mine, was never online separate from mine, etc.
Is this ban fair? I am not running more than one game client at a time, my girlfriend is running the other one.
Let's try a different situation. I have a family: myself, my wife, and 3 kids. We have 5 accounts total. My wife's account is registered under her name, but I register my own account and all 3 of my kids' accounts under my name, because they're all young. My kids are only allowed to play when I or my wife are playing.
Someone thinks we're suspicious and reports us. The GMs look at our accounts, see that my account and my kids' accounts are all under my name, and bans all 4 of those accounts because they believe I am running more than one client at a time. Did I break the rules?
If I took the company to court over these situations, would I be likely to win? 99% of the time, I'd say no. At least in the US, the legal system is pretty horrible in general. The company can almost assuredly hire more, better lawyers than I could (assuming I could find a lawyer to take the case at all). In many cases (such as with Blizzard), there's a Binding Arbitration clause, so I might not have excessively high fees to begin with for the court itself, but it's still going to be more than I probably paid for the game. Your average judge probably isn't going to be tech savvy in the slightest, and beyond that, they'll probably see I'm suing over a $60 game and a few months of a $15 subscription fee, and dismiss the suit just based on that. If they let the suit go through, they likely won't understand the difference between owning multiple accounts, multi-boxing, and potentially what even a "game client" is - let alone if the company starts trying to confuse the issue and brings up things like botting, "pay-2-win," etc. Maybe the company decides that I wasn't banned for having multiple accounts, but some other infraction of the ToS, or uses that general "reserves the right to terminate for any or no reason" clause, and the judge accepts it.
Just because I probably wouldn't win, doesn't mean that I wouldn't have a legitimate lawsuit. Lawsuits for significantly simpler issues lose all the time.
Now, assuming that I am not otherwise not breaking the ToS through the use of third-party software, would either of the above situations really be any different if I alone owned those accounts? I would not be automating any actions, I would not be broadcasting keystrokes so every character performed actions at the same time, and I would always be manually be play each character.
My point is and has been all this time, that forbidding it would make a majority of the multiboxing related problems go away with VERY little effort because of the scare factor. The rest can be dealt with manually by GMs and possibly some kind of flagging algorithm.
This is probably my last post on this topic since this is going nowhere
You may not end up replying to this, but I'm gonna put this here to help you and anyone else against multi-boxing out:
Opinions are all well and good, but at present, they realistically do nothing useful on their own. Based on the poll at the start of the thread, over 60% of voters agree with multi-boxing in some form. Intrepid itself is currently going to allow it.
Therefore, if you don't agree with multi-boxing, your job is to change Intrepid's mind on the matter.
Now, if enough people join the forums and vote such that a majority disagree with multi-boxing - and I would hazard a guess that it would need to be a fairly decent majority, not just 51% - then opinions might start to matter all by themselves.
Until that point, however, the only possible way to provide anything meaningful is to have people against multi-boxing give examples of why multi-boxing is bad. The people arguing for multi-boxing need to refute those arguments. If there is an argument against multi-boxing that no one can refute, then multi-boxing MUST be considered pay-2-win, and should therefore not be allowed. If there are arguments against multi-boxing that the developers don't end up mitigating in some way, then multi-boxing also is very likely to be considered pay-2-win - assuming it's not an argument that is caused generally by having multiple accounts.
As I've said before, I've yet to see an argument that I haven't been able to come up with an answer for, both for multi-boxing specifically, as well as those pertaining to multiple accounts.
Just to make my train of thought clear, this is my reasoning:
Logging in with multiple characters at the same time provides an advantage such as being in multiple places at the same time (spying a chat in another node, camping a market, camping a resource spawn or any of the other thousand things you can do) --> This is P2W in my book --> It should be forbidden in the ToS even if there is no way to enforce it to encourage players not to do it.
And in my opinion multiboxing = having multiple characters logged in at the same time. Doesn't matter if you only control one character at a time. You can keep an eye on all of your screens with very little effort to see if a rare resource has spawned for example.
Those examples were given by extrapolating the silly logic that other people try to use against multi-boxing. I do not consider them to be pay-2-win. However, logic must be bidirectional - if someone can use a piece of logic as an argument against something, and someone else can use that same piece of logic as an argument back against the first person, both arguments must necessarily be taken as valid.
If someone uses a silly, simple argument of paying for an extra sub as being pay-2-win, without giving specific examples, then I can use the same silly, simple argument of paying extra for a better internet connection as being pay-2-win.
It's not about "if something is allowed, everything should be allowed." It's about using peoples' faulty logic back against them.
See, this is what people need, some tricky arguments. Being in multiple places at once is probably one of the bigger "advantages" that multi-boxing can bring. Some of these I feel are more general advantages from having multiple accounts, than multi-boxing specifically, though.
Spying on another nodes' chat: If you're acting as a spy you're almost necessarily doing it on behalf of a group that you are in. Since voice chat is such a prevalent thing now, you are almost certainly going to be in contact with that group. Depending on what you're trying to organize, this could easily be accomplished simply with an alt, rather than multi-boxing. But I assume you're meaning this as you get the benefit of both doing whatever on your main character, and being able to spy at the same time.
I would argue that the advantage gained from the spying is not an advantage for you, specifically, but for your group as a whole. Doesn't mean it's not an advantage, but it's not something that multi-boxing on its own brings to the table. Just because you happen to have multiple accounts doesn't mean that YOU have to be the one to do the spying, just that it is potentially easier for you to do.
I would also argue that spying on the general chat of another node is of virtually no use, and really doesn't provide much benefit. If you're going to spy, you're probably going to be spying on something more specific, like a guild. Based on my time playing EVE Online, spying on a guild with a character that is inactive 99% of the time doesn't really work. People know that spying will be a thing, and can play a major role in guild dynamics. Any guild that is going to seriously participate in endgame content is going to be wary of spies, and always-online-but-always-inactive characters are going to be very suspicious. Also, like above, voice chat is a big thing nowadays. I would say the vast majority of anything worth spying on will be discussed in Discord or the like, and not in-game.
So, an advantage? Possibly, but realistically speaking, probably very limited. You'd be more likely to get an advantage from being invited to another guilds' Discord with an alt, and spying there, than most anything you could get directly in-game.
Camping a market: Possibly an advantage, but definitely would depend on what you were doing with your main character. Camping a market effectively tends to take a fair bit of attention. If you're dungeoning with your main, and only checking the market between pulls or something, it's going to be quick checks for things.
Keeping a secondary character in town like this is something I might just barely consider multi-boxing. Any advantages are also going to somewhat be determined by what the economy ends up like in the game, especially since auction houses are, for the most part, completely separated from one another. Being able to camp a particular auction house might be beneficial, but since they are all separate, whatever you're looking for may never show up on the one you're camping.
You might be able to get an advantage from being able to check multiple auction houses at the same time, to see where the cheapest items are. However, even if you bought items in remote locations using multiple characters, you'd still have to move at least one character to each of these places to transport the goods elsewhere. You'd get a bit more real-time market information, but this is pretty much nothing that can't be accomplished with only a minimal loss of effectiveness simply by having alts on the same account at various auction house locations.
I will admit this one is more difficult to give a direct rebuttal against, simply because we don't know anything about how the economy will look like. If there is almost always a surplus of resources at each auction house, then there will be almost no advantages. Buying something now with an alt, and having to go pick it up with your main, versus buying something slightly later with your main directly. If there is a dearth of materials in some areas, or for whatever reason a particular item is significantly more expensive in certain areas, then you might have an advantage, but again, it might be just as easy to buy something with an alt on a single account.
Camping a resource spawn: Similar to above, this would depend a lot on the mechanics of rare resources. Can they only be harvested a certain number of times? Do they only stay spawned in the world for a certain duration? Do they only spawn randomly, or at specific times? Do they only have specific locations they can spawn at? Based on what I see on the wiki for Resources, I'm not entirely sure that camping would even really be effective in the first place, and would rely heavily on luck. Like the market argument above, hard to give a direct rebuttal without knowing more about the systems.
The one big thing I could see being a balance against this, is that if you're camping a spawn with an alt, you generally won't be paying attention to it too much. This would make you a prime target for a PvPer that wants an easy meal. AFKing out in the field in a game with open PvP tends to not always be the best idea. I know that I would be highly tempted to poke someone that appeared to be AFK near a known rare resource spawn point.
"Any of the other thousand things you can do:" As said above, being in multiple places potentially has a number of advantages. How much, exactly, depends on the particular reason for being in multiple places at the same time. Many of those situations can be accomplished with alts, and aren't necessarily advantages specific to multi-boxing, except perhaps saving a small bit of time. Some advantages could potentially be exploitable. Others might be no more beneficial than, say, a normal family playing together in the same house.
Going to give a serious hypothetical question for this: Imagine that you spend 100% of your effort playing a single account. If you were multi-boxing 2 accounts, and you had to expend exactly 200% the effort to play those two accounts, would that still be pay-2-win in your mind?
Not sure what you were getting at the the first two sentences here. Whether you control one character at a time or not, having multiple characters logged in at the same time is multi-boxing. Controlling more than one at the exact same time would simply be against Intrepid's stated rules.
As for keeping an eye on all your screens, it might not take much effort to glance at them, but actively doing anything can often require more work. Sure, a rare resource could spawn in front of your alt. But if you're dungeoning on your main, and you happen to be the tank? Are you going to just stop to harvest the resource? What if you just started the pull and you don't have agro? Things might not happen all the time, at the exact moment something good happens with your alt, but this is kind of straying into the territory of the sillier "any advantage at all, no matter how small, is pay-2-win" arguments.
It is more difficult to control multiple characters across multiple computers, than on a single machine. It is also slightly easier for people to try and break the rules for things like key broadcasting when all of the clients are on a single machine.
Making it so that a computer can only run a single instance of a game client is not terribly difficult for the developer to do. A player trying to actively get around this restriction is slightly more difficult to do, but assuming they are able to, it is also possible to build in checks for things like hardware configuration, so you can easily see if someone is breaking this rule.
It is a mitigating factor to try and remove some of the inherent advantages that multi-boxing can bring.
Using virtual machines is a pretty easy way to work around such limitations nowadays. It doesn't make much sense... If we consider multi-boxing from the same machine an issue, then why not block it altogether at the account level? Why the hassle of trying to create a potentially exploitable system? To reward people with spare computers and give them an extra edge?
VMs can sometimes work, and sometimes not. They've definitely gotten better over the years, but running a graphic-intensive game on a VM is not always viable. Especially when you're running that game outside the VM at the same time. Graphics cards don't always like that.
I could be wrong, but as far as I know, they haven't made it clear if using VMs would or wouldn't be against their rules.
As to why not block things at the account level, I'm assuming you haven't read much of the last few pages of the thread.
Trying to stop people from owning/running multiple accounts at all is comparatively more difficult to enforce, and has more drawbacks to normal single-account-owning players. You realistically either need to do some fairly invasive measures to tie accounts to personal information - which would definitely turn away a significant portion of potential players, and possibly exclude some people who are still interested but couldn't provide said information - or you would have to be quite unfair to a large number of the playerbase through things like limiting accounts per IP.
Yes, allowing people to use multiple accounts and/or multi-box could potentially be exploitable. That is what this thread is for, to detail things that could be potential exploits and figure out if they can be remedied. The goal is so that even if multi-boxing continues to be allowed through the launch of the game, any advantages it can provide are minimal at worst. Requiring the use of additional computers removes some of the advantages of having multiple accounts, with essentially no downside to Intrepid.
Not every multi-boxes for "an edge," some simply find it a fun and challenging experience, even if it doesn't give them any benefit.
Multi-boxing requires the use of multiple accounts, though. I don't know of any game that lets you log in on the same account in multiple locations at the same time, whether on a single computer or not. To multi-box, you necessarily have to have multiple accounts, so there is no way to "block multi-boxing for a specific account."
I'm allowed to go to the super market, but I'm not allowed to rob a bank. Both are something a human can do, so shouldn't both then be either allowed or forbidden? Not everything is bidirectional. Or have I misunderstood something? :> Also logical implication is a thing. "If p then q" doesn't always mean that "if q then p".
Having a beefy computer (ie. going to the super market) is generally allowed everywhere, but multiboxing (ie. robbing the bank) is frowned upon by lots of people as can be seen from this thread alone.
All of those silly examples use one of the most basic forms of logic, syllogism:
Premise 1: Any advantage is pay-2-win.
Premise 2: Multi-boxing gives an advantage.
Conclusion: Multi-boxing is pay-2-win.
I use the exact same form of logic:
Premise 1: Any advantage is pay-2-win.
Premise 2: Owning a better computer gives an advantage.
Conclusion: Owning a better computer is pay-2-win.
This logic itself necessarily has to be bidirectional. If you use a piece of logic to make an argument, someone else has to be able to use the same piece of logic to rebut your argument.
That doesn't mean the argument itself has to be bidirectional, just the logic behind it.
When you try and use something that is extremely simplistic to make an argument, though, it becomes extremely simplistic to rebut that argument. Your argument may be correct from a technical standpoint, but that doesn't make it a good argument.
Again, it's not about "if something is allowed/forbidden, everything should be allowed/forbidden." It's about using peoples' faulty logic back against them.
This is entirely true. But it has no relevance to pretty much anything in this discussion. This would basically be someone using the following argument:
If multi-boxing gives an advantage, then it is pay-2-win. If something is pay-2-win, then it must be multi-boxing.
I'm pretty sure no one has tried to say that.
Comparing going to the supermarket versus robbing a bank, to owning a beefy computer versus multi-boxing is an apples-to-oranges comparison. They are two completely different things. The logic is already flawed, because robbing a bank starts out as a disallowed practice, while multi-boxing is starting as an allowed practice. However, let's follow this bit of logic, even though I find it flawed:
You premise that multi-boxing - and therefore robbing a bank - is frowned upon by lots of people. Using the only objective data we have - the poll at the beginning of the thread - more than twice as many people support multi-boxing as those that don't. So, while a good portion of people might be against it, that means a significantly higher portion are for it.
The only reason robbing a bank is "not allowed" is because laws state it is illegal. If 2/3 of the people voting are for something, at least for most things in the US, a law can be changed. Thus, using these numbers, the law making robbing a bank illegal could be changed. If 2/3 of voters decide that robbing a bank is fine, and change the law, then guess what: robbing a bank wouldn't be illegal anymore.
Now, there are two ending scenarios to this.
The first, is that enough people decide that, y'know, maybe robbing banks isn't such a great idea after all. Enough people say that robbing banks is a bad idea, and the law gets changed back to making it illegal.
The second is that someone proposes an argument that robbing banks is a really, really bad idea. i.e. if all the banks get robbed, everyone loses trust in the currency, the value of the currency dies, no one can afford to buy anything to eat, and everyone starves to death. If no one can argue against this in a satisfactory manner, then the lawmakers should go "yeah, that's not a good idea, let's not change the law."
Changing that back to the topic of multi-boxing:
The first ending has enough people coming here and expressing their dislike of multi-boxing, to the point that they are a majority. Intrepid sees this, decides that it's a large enough majority of players against this issue, and changes their stance to not allow multi-boxing.
The second ending has someone giving an argument against multi-boxing that no one can refute. Intrepid sees this argument, and also cannot come up with a viable solution for it. Since this would incontrovertibly label multi-boxing as pay-2-win, then they should change their stance and not allow it.
Yes, multi-boxing does provide an advantage. The scale of said advantage does vary with game mechanics. However, a better computer, a better internet connection, and more play time are also similarly advantageous. I strongly support AoC's opposition to OVERT pay2win elements in the game, but I also don't think the idea that EVERYONE will have a 100% level playing field based on all characteristics is feasible either.
Premise 1: Any advantage that can be achieved by spending more money than others is pay 2 win assuming Intrepid could REALISTICALLY do something about it
Premise 2: Logging in with multiple accounts provides an advantage AND Intrepid could forbid it which is not unreasonable
Conclusion: Logging in with multiple accounts is P2W
/sigh
What you quoted was not me saying anything about any of your examples. It was me saying what the silly logic is that many people try to use in this thread.
As for your specific example in this post, I have already argued my point that your premise 2 actually IS unreasonable from a practical point of view. You obviously don't agree with me, that's fine, we can disagree with each other. But I have found ways to rebut that argument - that point of discussion now falls to Intrepid.
Premise 1: So... i earn 100k a year, and you earn 60k a year so it is p2w?
Premise 2: Thank god we have this "amazing" poll, we got +1%, 50% yeeeah babyyyyy!
You dont want p2w? Lets see how that is gonna work:
1. Limit server ping to 200.
2. Limit fps to 60.
3. Limit 1 account per person.
4. Limit 1 account per household.
5. Disable trade between players.
6. Besides anticheat, game should have RAT, so they can see and control your whole pc.
7. Limit gaining experience for 2 hours, maybe 30min per day.
8. Limit speed because someone have faster mount.
etc
or even better idea, i think you gonna like this one:
7,8 etc no limit!! but if there is 10 000 players on server and 9 999 players are lvl 2, they cant do anything if that one guy lvl 1 doesnt lvl up.
I mean....what are you talking about? I really want to see some of games you played which allows multibox and link to your posts on these game forums.
I have stated plenty of ways a multiboxer has an advantage over a solo account. My points are based in facts. You give ideas, scenarios, opinions, examples and say "what if" but when the facts are looked at your comparisons are not equal. They do not wash away the advantage would still have. How about we address the actual FACTS and drop the charade?
FACT 1)
Multiboxing is 1 person controlling multiple accounts at the same time, on one or many computers, whether by superhuman abilities, genetic mutation that gave you 8 arms and 40 fingers or having hardware and software to help you control all of them at the same time.
Botting is a program that is designed to control a character in game completely independent of, or with minimal input from, a humans interaction to preform a set goal.
FACT 2)
Pay To Win IS paying real money to the company providing the content to gain an in game advantage over other people.
Buying extra equipment, better internet or getting anything from a third party source is NOT pay to win. Yes you can still gain an advantage but that is not controlled by the content provider and only the most obtuse would try to consider that a pay to win advantage.
In my original post (pg 21 half way down) I listed 7 examples of how mutliboxing has a very distinct advantage over the person running the solo account. You gave ways to counter some of it but the fact of the matter is advantages for the multiboxer are still there. Depending on Intrepid Studious decisions more, or less, advantages will be given to the multiboxer but the advantage will always be there if multiboxing is allowed.
After that list I gave a few ways AoC is favored specifically to multiboxing such as node xp contribution, elections, teleportation and freeholds/housing. You gave examples of how the effects of multiboxing could be limited but they would not be completely cancelled out and that would only affect the people that are playing as intended.
In this you attempt to say that depending on what Intrepid Studios does with game mechanics it would limit multiboxing advantages but the interesting fact here is you openly admit that multiboxing is an advantage. You try to down play multiboxing by saying they could put limiting factors on it. Still, the advantages remain.
You also said "Given some of the examples that I have posted, I believe it is entirely possible to heavily limit the vast majority of benefits multi-boxing could give, particularly those that could be deemed more of the pay-2-win variety."
Exactly which benefits are you talking about? Exactly what qualifies as pay to win? Exactly how many things have to qualify as pay to win in order for it to be not allowed?
The third paragraph is more of the same but you said "There is no real effective method to stop people from having multiple accounts, particularly not without being unfair to and upsetting the entire playerbase". Upsetting the "entire" player base? I don't think so. Judging by this thread I would say the numbers are definitely in favor to not have multiboxing. As far as having multiple accounts goes, I think if someone did that and the accounts would never have characters on the same realms and no way to transfer characters or goods in or out of those realms then I don't see a problem with that. I'm betting if this stance was taken the majority of people arguing for multiple accounts would give up that idea seeing as how all the advantages were removed.
Your last paragraph, specifically "People need to stop focusing on a simple "multi-boxing is P2W!" argument, and focus more on how specific advantages can/should be limited by the developers."
Why? Everyone knows, whether they want to admit it or not, that the facts are multiboxing gives advantages that you can't get from any source other than the game provider. Also Steven said Ashes of Creation will NOT be a pay to win game. This is one of the things that has drawn players such as myself to this game, the idea of a level playing field. So is this game going to be a multiboxing pay to win model that gives advantages to those that pay more, or will it not. These two concepts are intertwined and you can't talk about the one without considering the other.
In your reply to Xolec (pg 22, 9th post) you said,
"From my perspective, all three of these stem from the same issue, in that many of the examples people give for advantages for multi-boxing, are not specific to multi-boxing itself, but are in reality advantages for having multiple accounts in general. The aspect of multi-boxing itself doesn't really add much on top of simply having multiple accounts. Owning multiple accounts, in and of itself, is not something that can realistically be curtailed."
The expression on my face after reading that was probably the same expression I would have if I saw a winged cow flying across the sky. It looked a lot like WTF?!
"the examples people give for advantages for multi-boxing, are not specific to multi-boxing itself, but are in reality advantages for having multiple accounts in general."
That is straight garbage right there. Individual accounts that can not interact with each other would provide zero advantages. You're saying people would have multiple accounts of the same game but never on the same realm? Never have the characters on at the same time? Never send items from one account to the other or run them together? I guess this situation is possible and I'm sure any second now I will see that flying cow. Lets be real about this. If people are getting a second account there's a reason and it isn't so they can play different characters on different realms and never have them interact. What possible reason could there be for your example?
Also you made this statement "The aspect of multi-boxing itself doesn't really add much on top of simply having multiple accounts."
Yeah and I have a goldfish that farts fire. Multiboxing when not against the rules and you can do what you want is EXTREMELY effective. Why do you think so many people want to get away from it? Go back and read this entire thread and pay attention to all the people that are talking about how in some games you had to have multiple accounts if you wanted to stay competitive. If you or anyone else thinks multiboxing isn't effective then you didn't know what you were doing.
Serious question, have you EVER multiboxed with your own equipment for any length of time?
You said "Yes, there are advantages to multi-boxing - I have never stated otherwise - but I have provided numerous examples of how these advantages could be mitigated. Many of these examples (or, at the least, similar ideas) will need to be put in place by Intrepid to mitigate having multiple accounts."
Correct. The advantages could be mitigated not eliminated.
With their current stance of allowing the practice itself, but disallowing automation and key broadcasting, they have a clear-cut criteria for banning people that break the rules. Checking for something like key broadcasting would be something that could be easily done in an objective manner (relying on hard input data gathered by the server), meaning bans for such things could be done without many false positives.
So why not make multiboxing against ToS in the first place? You'd have a "clear-cut criteria for banning people breaking the rules." If multiboxing is against the ToS then only the cheaters will pursue it. No great loss to the community at that point. So again, why even allow it in the first place? Also you can get hardware that mimics keystrokes and is undetectable.
Something else you posted "If you want another slightly-silly but still valid example of this: I use a Logitech G600 mouse and a G13 gamepad. Both of these require the use of the Logitech Gaming Software to function. This software has the ability to assign multiple actions to buttons. Since this could potentially provide an advantage, and is a third-party software, should anyone using the software get banned? If someone assigns multiple actions to a button, then sure, they're breaking a part of the ToS. How about if they DON'T assign multiple actions to buttons? Technically, they're still breaking the ToS by using third-party software to interact with the game."
First off this is misleading since EVERYONE has to use certain third party equipment to run the game. The advantage you are talking about is having extra buttons for commands. This isn't the same as having the ability to be in two places at the same time. Plus all you're talking about is if you had to push shift on the keyboard to switch keys over to different commands and since keybindings will most likely be in the game everyone will have that ability. Extra abilities on a shift command is not the same as running extra accounts. No, they shouldn't be banned because without multiple accounts they can't multibox and if multiboxing is against the ToS then Intrepid Studios provided a level playing field that no one can capitalize on. Funny, that's the opposite principle pay to win thrives on.
Another comparison you made "Many peripherals use software like this. Should anyone using Logitech, Razer, or any other peripheral that REQUIRES these types of software be banned out of hand, simply because they have the potential to be abused? How about anyone that uses Discord or other voice chat while playing the game? They are using third-party software which can provide a direct benefit in the game."
NONE, and I repeat NONE, of the examples you have given make a difference in multiboxing concerning the third party equipment. The keyboard, mouse and discord will NOT allow you to run a multibox set up. Run it easier? Maybe, but it wont run multiboxing in anyway. Keybinding will no doubt be in the game which means you can have your shift ability. Also Voice chat in game is said to happening but we are yet to see its final iteration. Either way voice chat can be had for free.
A slightly more complicated example that I personally will have to deal with, and eventually I might try and get an answer from Steven for: Logitech mice are notorious for developing a double-click issue over time, due to the microswitches being... not the best in the world. For years, I have used an AutoHotkey script to deal with the issue, when the rest of the mouse works perfectly fine. The ONLY thing this script does is detect how fast clicks occur, and if two clicks are detected that are within certain limits (i.e. they are inhumanly fast), the script will only allow a single click event to be sent. This is most definitely a piece of third-party software that I will likely have to use sometime during the time I am actively playing AoC. And AutoHotkey can definitely be used to do many things that would absolutely break the ToS. Should I get banned for using this script, when it does nothing except rectify a hardware issue?
If it's against the ToS then yes. Using faulty equipment as a crutch to be able to use something that you shouldn't isn't a valid reason.
And then this "Beyond this, my next best answer would probably be that not everyone that multi-boxes does it for any potential advantages in the they. They do it for the challenge it can provide. For example, maybe you like to solo things in MMOs. In most MMOs, though, soloing content like dungeons isn't often feasible with a single character. By multi-boxing, you can effectively solo some dungeons. It won't be as efficient as running those dungeons with other players, and it will usually be significantly more difficult trying to do it while multi-boxing - particularly if you are following Intrepid's rules, controlling each character separately and not using any type of key broadcasting. Sure, you might be able to get all the loot yourself this way, not having to roll for it with other people, but your also likely running the content 2 or 3 times slower - if not more - than a group of normal players. And even within a situation like this, it would be possible for Intrepid to mitigate this "advantage" even further, by lower the amount of loot dropped for known multi-boxers."
In short, that's a complete load of crap. "For the challenge it can provide" um sure... You want a challenge? Play against other people on a level playing field. They can't do this very well so they look for advantages plain and simple.
As far as "running the content 2 or 3 times slower - if not more - than a group of normal players."
All anyone has to do is google multiboxing dungeon speed run and watch video after video to see how false this statement is.
If people are multiboxing and doing it so that Intrepid Studios doesn't know they are related accounts then they get the full benefit of xp and loot. There will always be people that cheat but by making somethings against ToS right from the start you eliminate a ton more potential cheaters just because they don't want to gamble losing their account.
pg 22, post 22 Not linking it because this is stupid long already.
Simply putt Aeri, your entire premise of of negating xp, mat gathering is based on if the multiboxer is even letting anyone know he is multiboxing. People that want that advantage to level up just as fast as a single player or to be able to gather mats off an item that does multiple drops just has to circumvent Intrepid Studios policies.
Regarding storage, you - "Storage Space: This could potentially be an issue" and " If it takes 3-4 hours to fill your bags, but normal questing or whatnot tends to get you back into a town every hour, then there's no real effective benefit."
Nope. Not potentially. It is an issue and if drops are really that hard to get people will lose interest. Also a farmer, such as I have done countless times, will stay in the field for ridiculous amount of time and come back ONLY when full.
And again "Due to some items dropping on death, this could potentially end up as a negative in some ways due to below."
Think so? I don't. As a boxxer I would transfer my mats and extras to a character that wont participate in fights so they don't get corruption. No corruption = no drops. One of my guys got corruption? Fine I"ll use one of my fighters to kill him, wipe the corruption, pick up the drops, re-gear and go back to what I was doing. Problem solved.
Your other part to this was "Either way, since you can't mail items to other characters, you'd still have to have the character in the dungeon actively come back to town to retrieve any items, or have the character in town trek out to the dungeon to deliver them.
Or I could use the teleport ability. You know, that thing that single players couldn't do.
Then you said this "According to your own example, you 1v5'd a group in WoW. I assume that was 5 separate players, but even if it was a multi-boxer, WoW's rules towards multiboxing are pretty lax. Yet you were still able to kill multiple other players of the same level by yourself. That basically defeats your argument. Someone running around with a pocket healer in PvP could be troublesome, yes. But it would still be significantly less effective than if it was two normal players, if one was a healer."
Yes 1v5. Yes they were individual players. It doesn't defeat my argument because those fights are extremely rare and I love to pvp. Far better than your above average player. But also stated in my example was what if I was the one running around with 5 copies of me? What chance would you stand? Absolutely none. That was a point I made that you omitted.
Pg 22, post 28
This got the cow face again "Legally speaking, "intentionally owning multiple active accounts simultaneously" is much more difficult. And this is something where the enforcement actually IS an issue. If there is something that is expressly forbidden by the rules, you need to be able to enforce said rules. If you cannot enforce those rules, then the contract (in this case the ToS) is invalid. Or more likely in this particular case, that specific portion of the contract would be invalid"
Invalid? Um, no. Not invalid at all. It just means someone is getting away with breaking the rules. Them being able to break the rules doesn't invalidate it in the least. When that person is eventually caught the rules can be enforced and the punishment carried out. Where did you ever get the idea if a rule can not be enforced it is invalid?
I really love this one "Let's run a scenario: I'm playing game X. X doesn't allow you to own multiple accounts. I get my girlfriend to buy an account. My girlfriend, however, isn't really interested in the game; 95% of the time, she sits at the computer ignoring the game, playing mobile games on her phone. But if I need her to check the auction house, or if I need her to come play pocket healer for a bit, she'll come do it. Some other player finds our behavior "suspicious" and reports us. A GM looks at our accounts, sees her account is only online when mine is, never interacts with anyone else, etc. and decides that we're only a single person, and bans both accounts." and "Is this fair? Is this, realistically, any different than me owning both accounts myself? I argue the answer to both questions is no."
Yes it would be fair to ban both accounts. No one buys a game to NOT play it 95% of the time, also you got her to buy it. At that point she is just your proxy to running the machine and doing what you need done. She is basically a human version of a bot program. She isn't actively playing the game independent of you. She is only playing because you don't have the skill to use both accounts without her or she is just a work around used to circumvent the rules. Either way I would ban that set up in a second.
This was directed to someone else but still, "Given all my prior examples, and since you haven't given a single specific, I argue that the rules already stated by Intrepid remove the vast majority of the negative aspects related to multi-boxing, and any positive advantages multi-boxers might have can be mitigated or removed entirely."
I have given plenty of specifics and factual insights that you readily dismiss with uneven comparisons that amount to nothing. You also attempt to explain everything away by acting like a multiboxer is going to play the game as a single player would. They wont. That's why they are multiboxing. The steps Intrepid Studios is taking, so far, does diminish the advantages a legitimate multiboxer would receive but it does not, can not or ever will level the playing field for a single player vs a multiboxer.
This is ridiculously long at this point, or even several points back. What I am getting at is,
Fact, multiboxing gives that player more advantages over a single player by paying more money to the game provider. That is the very definition of PAY TO WIN. It is up to Intrepid Studios to level the playing field for the services they provide. You can slice it up any way you want and look at it while you're high as a kite through rose colored glasses while drinking down a large glass of denial but in the end a fact is a fact. It is not something that can be changed just because you don't like it, you feel differently than others or because you can come up with apples to oranges comparisons to attempt to dissuade yourself or others from seeing the facts of the matter. The only way to make it fair for all is to have no multiboxing. Whether they can or can't enforce the rules, or even how to, is another discussion. If you are going to make rebuttals, examples, statements or anything else, stick to the facts the rest is just an attempt at smoke and mirrors.
I don't know what you are getting at here.
Multi-boxing and botting are two completely separate subjects. Just because you multi-box doesn't mean you are botting. Just because you are botting does not mean you are multi-boxing.
Multi-boxing can be accomplished entirely without any form of assistance in regards to hardware or software.
This "fact" is flawed.
The problem with you trying to boil the definition of pay-2-win down this far, is that you start running into the issues of being practical. It is the same argument as not allowing people to have multiple accounts in the first place.
This definition also fails to take into account any expenditure of effort. When you buy something that is normally considered pay-2-win, it is considered such because it gives you an advantage with no additional effort required.
If I am following the guidelines set by Intrepid, and thus am not using third-party tools to control both characters at once, what is the effective, practical difference between one person having multiple computers and multiple accounts, and a family having multiple computers and multiple accounts? If it requires 200% of the effort to run two accounts as I do running one account, do I actually have any advantages? I could make the argument that anytime anyone is playing the game in close proximity to another person, that would just as pay-2-win as multi-boxing, as you consider it - in fact, those people would have MORE of an advantage, because they could take two wholly separate actions at the exact same time, and they would be able to focus the entirety of their attention on their single characters.
I see absolutely no reason that multi-boxing using Intrepid's rules - multiple computers, and no automation/key broadcasting - should be considered any different than a family playing together. That is why I have said, time and time again, that many of the "advantages" people bring up in regards to multi-boxing are not specific to multi-boxing itself, but rather problems with having multiple accounts - something that is not realistically practical to stop.
All 7 of your examples I provided rebuttals for. Looking back on the answers I gave, I will admit that the perhaps fell short of perfect answers. However, as above, I will argue that a family playing together has all the same if not more "advantages" for every situation you gave, but has far less potential to be limited the way a multi-boxer could be by Intrepid.
Yes, multi-boxing will give advantages, but the vast, vast majority of these are a direct result of game design, and can thus be mitigated by designing systems to limit and/or mitigate these advantages. Pretty much all the rest are perception issues, many of which are only advantages when explicitly looking at multi-boxing in a vaccum.
For example, one common issue people present is being able to do multiple things at once, such as having one character running a dungeon while another checks the auction house. In a vacuum, yes, this is an advantage. The reality? We have guilds and voice chat. I don't know how many times I've been doing something in a game, and asked a guildy to check something for me on the auction house. Should guilds be banned, because they let people ask for this? Should no one be able to ever be on voice chat - or have any communication at all - with other people while playing a game?
So yes, multi-boxing can give "advantages". But are these "advantages" actually pay-2-win? Does it give you anything that requires zero additional effort, and also cannot be limited in some way by the system? For the former, I have provided my arguments that most of these are not pay-2-win. For the latter, I have so far seen arguments presented that will not have to be determined at a later time, once we have a better picture of the actual mechanics of the game.
Judging by the results of the poll, which is the only objective information we have on this, you are 100% incorrect. More than twice as many people feel multi-boxing should be allowed as those that don't.
I have already stated multiple times in this thread why trying to stop people from having multiple accounts, period, is impractical. I have only known a couple games in the past that have tried to do this, and it always failed miserably.
I said people need to stop focusing on simple arguments like that, because if they provide no specifics, it is purely an opinion, and is not helpful in the slightest. If they provide specifics and I or others are able to argue against them, then at least they have given a justification for their reasoning as to why it is pay-2-win.
I contest that many of the advantages multi-boxing provides can also be acquired from friends, guilds, family members, voice chat, etc. The remaining advatages can be wholly or partially mitigated by the developers through in-game systems, or are wholly or partially mitigated by the extra effort required on the part of the multi-boxer to run multiple characters. Given this, I do not find multi-boxing to be pay-2-win, assuming that these limiting systems are put into place.
Just because you have multiple accounts doesn't mean that you have to multi-box them. It also doesn't mean that they can never interact with each other.
Alt characters on separate accounts can be used as mules for storing things. There are usually many ways items can be muled to another account besides a direct trade. Shared housing storage, guild banks, mailing items between characters (granted this one won't be a thing in AoC), trading to a friend who then trades to your alt.
Many of the issues that people argue against multi-boxing are like the one above. I have never said all of the issues are.
Yes, I used to multi-box in many games. EQ2, Rift, WoW, and quite a few others. You know what all of these games have in common? Their systems are designed in ways that can be taken hugely exploited by multi-boxing. They also have almost no systems in place to limit this exploitation.
I have said more than once that multi-boxing in AoC could very easily fall on the pay-2-win side of things. And if it does, then I would be against it being a thing when the game launches. However, it is also something that could be accounted for in the game design, such that it wasn't pay-2-win. In that case, I see no reason at all that it shouldn't be allowed.
Checking for multi-boxing when someone is not using third-party software to automate actions, to broadcast keys, or the like is not easy. There are often no real ways to objectively tell if someone is multi-boxing in many common-use situations for multi-boxing. They appear exactly the same as if there is simply two people playing the game from the same location.
Mimicing keystrokes with hardware would not be undetectable, it would show up just the same or nearly so as mimicing them with software - that is what it means to mimic them. As to whether Intrepid would consider that against the rules, I don't know. I remember back in the day, a WoW multi-boxer build an entire hardware boxing setup using wooden dowels and such, to show that it wasn't any different than software boxing, but I don't remember the outcome of that.
This comes back to the issue of "why not simply allow people to not have multiple accounts?" Impracticality of enforcement. It removes situations of bans due to false-positive detection. And while heavily impractical from the consumer side, it removes the potential of lawsuits from such.
I said this was a silly example, because I was providing an argument against someone else using a silly argument."
Regardless, for your second paragraph, that is patently untrue. I have plenty of mice and keyboards that run off the generic Windows drivers, and require no third-party software support. If a company wanted to get technical, they could ban for this. Back when I played Aion for a while, there was a time where, after a patch, the Logitech software did not work in any capacity for the game. Regardless of whether I had a specific game profile set, or was on the default profile, the game would accept no input if it came from a Logitech device using their gaming software. This was fixed a short time later, so it could have just been some wonky bug, but it's not like these types of software don't have specific interactions with the system, so they could be judged as against the ToS.
So every 6-8 months, when the microswitches in one mouse button starts to die, I should be expected to pay $70 to buy a new mouse, so that I don't have to choose between breaking a technicality in a ToS, and doing every other single thing that my computer allows me to do properly?
Oh hey, guess what? Have you ever used the Logitech Gaming Software, or the Razer software, or anything like that? You're breaking that technicality, too, then.
Well, since "for the challenge" is slightly subjective, I can only use personal anecdotes:
In EQ2, I would multi-box dungeons to see if I could do them by myself. I was also part of normal guilds, and ran those very same dungeons with guild members, and had a much easier time doing so. But it was fun and challenging to work out mechanics myself.
In Rift, I would see if I could complete dungeons using a full group of the same class. Generally, this was quite a challenge, because I normally wouldn't the group as a tank, or there were mechanics that needed something besides having all of the characters use the same skills.
In WoW, I only dual-boxed, typically as a tank and a healer. Unless someone in my guild wanted to take one of those slots, I'd play both roles in dungeons, which was often quite a challenge.
Oh, and in the cases of EQ2 and WoW, when I boxed with other actual players, I only rolled on loot once.
Also, never said that you couldn't do things faster than normal. But much of the time, you won't.
I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of those speedruns also utilize software for key broadcasting.
Again, it's a matter of effort. If the multi-boxer isn't breaking the rules, and is putting in equivalent amounts of effort, then there is no advantage. If they are circumventing the policies, that is breaking the rules and should lead to a ban, no?
It's not a matter if drops are that "hard" to get, it's a matter of available storage. If you typically stay out in the field for significantly less time than it takes to fill your inventory to capacity, having more characters nets you little if any benefit in this regard - you aren't getting any effective "extra" storage by having more characters.
If you're out farming to capacity before you head back in, then it's also a matter of time. If you can fill up multiple characters' worth of inventory in the same amount of time, then sure, there is a benefit. I have already given arguments on how to build systems to stop this. If you go out to farm with two characters, and it takes you twice as long to fill both of those inventories as it did for you to fill a single one, then you gain a benefit of less travel time back and forth, and that's it. Small benefit, sure. Is that enough for it to be pay-2-win?
Being corrupted only makes it so that you can drop gear and equipment. ANY death causes you to drop a portion of raw materials and certificates.
Now, to me, I would much get a friend or three and go attack a group of multi-boxed farmers, than a group of "normal" players. Much easier to kill, assuming they're following the rules.
Depending on what the item was, this may or may not work. You can't use the family summon when carrying certain things.
You'd still then have to move either the alt or the main back to town manually and summon the other, or move both back manually.
Okay, so you're saying, if you could already kill 5 of me, and then there was a situation where there was 5 of you, what chance would I stand? Obviously none.
My point was, those 5 players' skills were obviously inferior to your skill, if you could 1v5 them. If it was 5 separate players, then that goes even more to the point that multi-boxing would give you little advantage in terms of skill.
Do you believe that if you were multi-boxing 5 copies of your character, that you would always (or even regularly) defeat a group of 5 players of equal skill level? Particularly if you had to manually control all 5 of those multi-boxed characters separately, with no use of third-party software? I argue no, not in most cases. You might get lucky and be able to focus-fire the other team better and win out in the end. But there is no way that you could honestly tell me you would be 5x as effective while multi-boxing.
I've already provided examples of this elsewhere. In many cases, it would be incredibly difficult to prove someone owned multiple accounts. Outside of situations where all of the accounts were verifiably being controlled together (i.e. key broadcasting), without tying accounts to extremely personal information, you couldn't prove that it wasn't just my girlfriend/wife/sister/friend owning the account.
I've also stated the likelihood of anything realistically fighting against a clause like this in the ToS is very small. But there's no point in making something in a contract potentially much riskier, when you have an option that will give the same effect with virtually no additional risk. Namely, they only need their standard clauses against third-party software use to cover 99.99% of cases. Adding a clause against having multiple accounts would open them up to potential lawsuits, but would probably only cover and extra .005% of cases that the other clause didn't. That would not be a smart trade.
Oh, so how often would she actually have to play the game, hm? 50%? 75%? 100%? What's your /played time in WoW? How much of that has been spent AFK? Is that the threshold?
She owns the account. She's the one that plays the account. I have never touched the account. Why does it matter that if she doesn't want to play it much, it deserves banning?
What about if it's my kids' account, and I only let him play for 2 hours a day, only when I'm online, and all he does is follow my character around, or sit in town? What if he goes and farms materials for me, because he enjoys farming, but doesn't care to do anything else - is he a "human bot program" that should be banned?
This sounds like nitpicking just for the sake of it.
For every argument I have made, while they have not always been the best, I feel they are perfectly valid points to make within the scope of what we currently know. Until either the game gets closer to launch, and we get more specifics on mechanics, or Intrepid comes out and details specific systems, it is not possible to make absolutely complete, perfect arguments for or against some things. The best I can do is speculate, and give ideas on what they could do to limit things.
Except for a few completely silly arguments, I have not "readily dismissed" any issues. I have argued against them. And I have stated more than once, that without anything further being done at this point - or even depending on how much actually is done by Intrepid - multi-boxing would be pay-2-win. However, there are also enough things that can be done to pull it out of being pay-2-win, in my opinion.
The only fact we have is Steven's words on what he considers pay-2-win:
Multi-boxing is not an object bought in a cash shop that affects the game; it is an act that someone has to do. You can't just label it as pay-2-win in and of itself, if every advantage that it could bring can be canceled out. If it doesn't bring advantages, then by your own definition, it isn't pay-2-win.
In other words, if Intrepid can manage to deal with all of the possible advantages that it brings prior to launch, then multi-boxing would not be pay-2-win.
Now, after the long ass time that took to write up, I am going to enjoy the new patch of FFXIV, so I likely won't be posting much on here.
I'm just digging into the details of the game, but is there an auto follow? That feature makes multiboxing much easier, but is also convenient if you need to go afk for a quick second while travelling in a group.
Usually serious multi boxers will not be alt tabbing through their characters they will want to use software like ISBoxer.
If you don't want people to use software like this then multi boxing is already a no go, If it is something you do not mind then it's down to how much of an advantage you would accept one player to have in PVP and PVE content.