Poll + Bonus Dev Discussion - Multiboxing

mikrophon

I think Intrepid's current stance on multiboxing is fair, the only time I have ever really felt upset at multiboxers or like my game session was ruined is when there are 5 or more characters running on top of each other clearly using software to mimic keystrokes. I'm not sure how much more restrictive you can get before it starts hurting the majority of consumers that follow the rules.

BloodNog

caedwyn wrote: »

@LieutenantToast i can't thank you enough for making a poll, but Are we sure people cant multi-vote ? 😅

Good idea. I'm about to multibox the forums.

ThatBardGuy

I chose the more restrictions option only because I like the idea of not having an auto run feature or auto-attacking.

Wololo

Iam ok with multiboxing from different computers because it takes time investment for the upkeep of a character and i can't see many situations where unless you are a octupus with alot of arms; could have any big impact on PvP or competitive raiding.

Drakehiro

Long Hair Don't Care

rodzor

Will this effect me if we go with the option to not allow it on multiple computers?

My situation is that I own a house with 5 elite gamers, we will all be playing AoC from the same IP address, how will you detect the difference between someone multiboxing and someone having multiple players in the same IP space?

Heartbeat

I agree with intrepid's stance, as long as it's on separate computers there should be no problem, 1 client per computer if you're lucky enough to do that, i know people in AA that did this. It's a weird subject for me to agree with because it almost seems like a double-edged sword, some people might say that if that's allowed on multiple computers, why cant they run 2+ clients per 1 computer to even the odds for those not lucky enough to have multiple computers.

It's almost an unfair advantage either way, but ultimately I would agree on the stance as long as no macro/bot software is involved, said player would just have to manually play both accounts which is the only way I would ever agree with multiboxing.

Hansrutger

Bonus Dev Discussion - Multiboxing
What are your thoughts on allowing multiboxing, and why? If multiboxing is allowed, are there restrictions that you would prefer to be in place? How do you prevent false positives on enforcement for families and friends who play from the same home?

I think I actually want to try a game where multiboxing is only allowed on the conditions you guys have stated. I come from World of Warcraft and I can say that many of my friends heavily considered (and some did) multiboxing only due to earning more gold (in-game currency) to support themselves in PvE or PvP content with consumables and such.

The idea of multiboxing as challenging yourself is fine in my opinion, I've done it myself on a private WoW server where I did dungeons alone and tried navigating through mechanics, but the issue becomes when you start using it where it affects other players (economy, world PvP, etc). It becomes boring for other players who do not have this advantage.

Short in short, I like the idea that AoC has regarding multiboxing and you should stick with it and see if it affects the game positively, as we have seen the opposite so far from other games that did allow it.

digitalwind

My opinion is that Multiboxing IS NOT a Pay to Win feature. --now hear me out.

....okay, MB is TECHNICALLY p2w, but you know.....someone buying a 2nd subscription but is only able to play 1 account at a time or both on 2 different system without any automation software...doesn't really count as Intrepid SELLING TO WIN.

It is an important distinction to make that while yes MB is debatedly P2W, it is not here because Intrepid is not offering a feature they are Selling. People can buy a 2nd subscription sure, and then run two freeholds and reap the crafting benefits, but Intrepid Studious isn't selling it. It would be easy to have the same benefit for $50 in the shop, but that's not what's happened and what Intrepid wants. Instead people have found a creative solution which is simply to throw cash at the game and lets face it, AOC is not targeting the penniless High School teen crowd.

As long as efforts are made to keep players from being combat capable on multiple accounts at the same time, through
1. One .exe open at a time
2. automation software banned.

I don't see any problem with this. Banning MB however, comes with a mountain of issues

And besides, even if they ban multiboxing people can just use a VPN..

virilikus

As long as there is a rule preventing same inputs communicating to multiple accounts at the same time, I don't see an issue with multiboxing. If someone wants to take the time to be their own entire family paying for multiple accounts to manually grow each account separately for some sort of gain, that's fine.

Tehbantha

I am pretty firmly in the corner of multiboxing being a counter productive behavior in MMORPGs. I'd be more curious to hear the positive ways in which a multiboxer impacts the community on the server, because aside from the financial gain of an extra $15 a month per account, I only see this benefiting the person multi-boxing in ways that effectively becomes pay to win. Defining "winning" in an MMO like AoC is difficult, because the bar is different for everyone. A multiboxer will almost always multibox to further their desire to "win" in whatever way they decide is how you win. By farming materials, farming various forms of in game content to reap multiple rewards and effectively sharing the loot with one of the characters to further that characters' progression.

It feels bad to allow it at all for this very reason. Multiboxer's arent doing it to enrich the community, they are doing it to enrich themselves. And if they can afford an extra computer and an extra account, it is pay to win. As plainly as it gets.

Withywindel

I figure we start with Intrepid's current stance. There's only so much this kind of thing can be enforceable and cheaters will find ways to cheat. It's important to make it still against the rules so that if they are caught, it's still against the rules and can be punished. And the way accounts works in AoC every character will have to be progressed without shortcuts like autolevel or being able to trade with yourself. AoC by design will already not be an easy thing to multibox and from what I hear multiboxing isn't exactly easy in the first place.

So I say Intrepid does what they're team thinks is right and then testing will reveal the loopholes that need closing, if possible. Most people don't multibox, so we can't create stringent rules designed for a small group with big penalties for a huge group of players. Families and roommates should be able to play with each other without accidentally flagging a GM's radar and GMs will already have tons to do.

LubDub

Multiboxing offers an avenue for people to exploit the game. I think many people argue not a large portion of the population do it and it's fine the way it is. However, these people will always take it to the extreme. The gray area on macros and multiboxing are gonna push people to do these things to the extreme. It will flood the economy with resources, and these players will outgear others simply because they have more computers or because they are running on multiple virtual machines. This will offer an unfair advantage to those people who are only playing on one account. I played Archeage for a long time and if you weren't multiboxing/playing on multiple alts then you just couldn't be competitive. I think it would be nice if the player's own inputs on one character hold a lot of weight, as compared to being diminished by macros/multi boxing. My view is, you're paying more money for multiple game copies, this is inherently pay to win, it's not the most obvious, but there is nothing that isn't pay to win about this. The only real way to prevent this would be to ban macros out right and make activities input heavy, or making accounts that requiring certain identifying information (we talked about SSN #'s in the chat). If this isn't possible, I would love to brainstorm more ideas.

FutureSev

I believe that as long as the person has to manually play the second character that is on another account that is paid for on a secondary computer, it shouldn't matter.

Slothdread

Allowing multiboxing and thinking how to manage it might not be worth it. Because very very few people will use it and for the majority of people that don't use it might perceive it as a way to get ahead of others because they can afford it money-wise (P2W) I mean, all it will do is anger people and push some of them away from the game.

We need to think about the pros vs cons of why we would want it in the game, numbers don't lie.

Shredstin

Any game that I have ever play that has allowed multi boxing has had its economy completely ruined. Please don’t allow this.

shafter

It's hard to fight it.
People will find ways to exploit the s** out of it? Yes. But you can't punish other people that live together/use the same internet and want to play together.
Imo it's a matter of knowing how players are exploiting it and balance that, otherwise I don't see a good solution that wouldn't interfere with "honest" players. Let's see what the future holds.

digitalwind

digitalwind wrote: »

My opinion is that Multiboxing IS NOT a Pay to Win feature. --now hear me out.

....okay, MB is TECHNICALLY p2w, but you know.....someone buying a 2nd subscription but is only able to play 1 account at a time or both on 2 different system without any automation software...doesn't really count as Intrepid SELLING TO WIN.

It is an important distinction to make that while yes MB is debatedly P2W, it is not here because Intrepid is not offering a feature they are Selling. People can buy a 2nd subscription sure, and then run two freeholds and reap the crafting benefits, but Intrepid Studious isn't selling it. It would be easy to have the same benefit for $50 in the shop, but that's not what's happened and what Intrepid wants. Instead people have found a creative solution which happens to be to throw cash at the game for more accounts but lets face it, AOC is not targeting the penniless High School teen crowd anyways. You gonna cry because someone else has $15 more than you every month?

As long as efforts are made to keep players from being combat capable on multiple accounts at the same time, through
1. One .exe open at a time
2. automation software banned.

I don't see any problem with this. Banning MB however, comes with a mountain of issues

And besides, even if they ban multiboxing people can just use a VPN..

UnknownSoldier

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing rules similar to Eve Online in regards to multiboxing. Let people multibox on the same PC, but restrict any tools, scripts, and macros that allow controlling multiple clients through single inputs. So basically the same thing Intrepid wants to do, except allowing it all on the same computer.

The main reason I'd like to see multiboxing allowed on the same PC is because forcing different PCs caters to people who have the hardware to either actually own multiple PCs/laptops, or have PCs with the specs to run multiple clients in virtual boxes. Archeage Unchained recently implemented that same rule, and the same thing happened; people with the money to do so could multibox, while those who could potentially multibox on the same PC under normal circumstances, couldn't.

But yea, otherwise definitely restrict any capability of controlling multiple clients through single inputs.

Zahn

I don't see why you would want multiboxing of any kind. In all of the mmo's I've played it has given people an unfair advantage over those not having it. Marked and access to such being the greater one.
Also preventing multiboxing will encourage people to work together and thats what you really want from a good mmo.

Dropp

I think you should do as much as possible to stop cheating, but i also think me and my wife should be able to play the game together without buying a second house lol. With that being said if multi-boxing completely ruins the game then i guess i would rather take turns playing then not play at all. I do doubt though that multi-boxing would completely ruin the game.

ashone

from the details that have come out, i suspect that multiboxing will not be an easy chore. if each account is paid for, does not affect me in any way.So yeah, I support intrepids decision.

Bcrypter

Current Intrepid stance - 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.

Is the best way.
Gonna be almost impossible to block all multiboxing but if they use the time that gonna put on try to block multiboxing on block software to automate character actions or mimic keystrokes gonna be the best way, and gonna get better results.

WMC51 wrote: »

Hell, I say make second accounts cheaper so I can let my wife and kids play. 15 for first, 10 for second, 5 for each additional.

but never do this!, this just gonna improve and implement multiboxing as something to do.

Niuniek

I think you should be allowed to have multiple accounts as i know that me personally i want a warlock playthrough strictly with strangers for the experience of meeting new friends and making new bonds but id like to also start a second account with a templar character that id play with friends and get involved with our guild we will make. And if restrictions like having only one character for one ip apply this would be a uncomfortable porblem.

mcstackerson

I want to see if this actually becomes an issue before voting. It feels like we have a bunch of people from classic where multiboxing is very easy to do, fear-mongering over something that might not be as big an issue because of ashes mechanics.

This also seems like something that is easy for them to pivot on and stop allowing. Maybe put out a warning that if you multibox, it might be something that isn't allowed in the future so do it at your own risk.

Turzaluk

Agreed - 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.
One client per computer.

unknownwon

If there's a better way to prevent any multiboxing at all I'd have to hear it. The current stance would get rid of multiboxing in my opinion since it would require one person controlling multiple computers manually. Outside of using your hands for one computer and your feet for another I don't see how else it would be possible, and I doubt anybody will go through the effort to do this.

Overall I would say I'm against multiboxing. The current stance is the only way I've heard of that's realistic, and it would essentially eliminate multiboxing.

Gattsu

the fact this even has a forum post does not inspire confidence

So were busy trying to defend/condone about a mechanic which is designed to primarily cheat/ give advantage? didn't I once hear that the DEV's of this game were MMO vets and they are even asking if it should be allowed..... if they are truely MMO vets then they know 1: why multiboxing exists 2: why it should not be allowed PERIOD

azurl

Multiboxing brings bad memories from Archeage... with landgrabbing crap. people with alot of money can get an infinite of accounts and run them in virtual machines and grab as much land as they want, leaving legit players in the dust. albeit this is way more expensive in ashes than archeage due to 1 freehold per account, and there being no way other than having tons of referrals to play for free, but again, for people with deep pockets this isn't a show stopper.

multiboxing should not be allowed in my opinion. and as Kira TV on youtube said, fairly easy to spot from a developer's point of view.

MaceBTW

Archeage: Unchained allowed you to use a 2nd account on a seperate pc to multibox without macros or software linking the two, but this still severely impacted land availability and the economy, as a player could spend real money to gain double the opportunity in game, I would make the argument that this is pay to win, or at the very least, pay to advantage