Poll + Bonus Dev Discussion - Multiboxing

1246723

Comments

  • WMC51 wrote: »
    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.

    This is all you can do. There isn't a way to stop it so any rules against it only hurt the people who follow the rules.

    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.

    I think with the referral system this is kind of in place?
    Sadly, there's no way for Intrepid to know really if you are 1 person on two computers or 2 different people. The thing is, humanly speaking afaik without any 3rd party programs, you could run 2 computers at the same time maybe, but not more? Either way, unless you find Steven spying on you through the window, they can't know. And if they can somehow, I am sure they are going to geti nto trouble with security and privacy. Understandable.
    What if you ban multiboxing, but allow for package suscription with a discount per person living in the household? For example, let's say you want to play with your wife or wife and one of your children, you'd have a 28/month price tag for a sub and allow that account to be able to run twice on the same IP address (same house); 26 a month for 3 people, etc. Spotify has a system like this for those family plans or whatever and apparently it's ok, legally wise.
    You'd say "What if i wanna play outside of my house? Will I need a new subbed account?". No. But outside of the house's IP, you can log in only once at a time. In general this gives big flexibility of choice to players while at the same time not leaving Intrepid's goals behind.
    I'm also thinking as a South American that doesn't want to be tied to Latin American server community in the future but probably will be really hard to pay 15/mo for an NA account. I know this is quite specific, but if I know my (type) people, I am not the only one. It'd be cool if, to the system described above, you add a "slot count" for multiple connections to one packaged account. You could make it so for the packages, a unitary login info, and then a limit count to instances logged in at the same time. There's not much difference (in the positive sense, without any cheats and tricks) playing as 4 different friends, family of 4 on the same house, or 4 different people from 4 different countries. At least to me.
    Sorry if this didn't make much sense ^^ it's just an idea and you will know better at Intrepid if this is good or not. Happy birthday to me!
    Q7a6dqA.png
  • AmelAmel Member
    I think multiboxing should be allowed on the same computer WITHOUT the use of any macros/software.
  • AuronAuron Member, Founder
    Let's face it, there is no way to completely stop someone from multi-boxing. Current Intrepid stance is the most fair one. However, the game must be designed in a way where you cant just turn around use the second computer to double your advantage. For instance, if you mined a mithril vein and then family-summoned your alt which is in the same family as your main, turned around to your second PC (or alt-tabbed to the virtual machine) and mined the mithril again for double the profit. After that, you traded your main's mithril ores to your alt, logged off your alt so that there is no way of a PKer to steal them from you, so that you can run that mithril safely to the nearest node on your alt at 4 AM in the morning.

    We all know that people don't even need a second computer to make it look like they have more than one. Virtual machines is a thing and if multi-boxing will have huge advantages, everyone will try to do that.

    ScreenShot0100.jpg

    I have seen how disgustingly unfair multi-boxing can be. In ArcheAge it's quite hard to out-vote a hero who runs hundreds of alts and votes for themselves every month. People joined rifts with 10 accounts, auto followed their mains and did trade runs, put their alts on their ship's radar for solo trade run, which was actually a 20-men trade run but a solo one in reality...

    The best way would be to design the game in a way where alts won't matter (much).
    Auronsyg.png
  • I find this difficult to answer. I either agree with Intrepids stance, but without knowing how game mechanics work. I would take the safer route and not allow any multiboxing. I could always say that in my opinion game is not enjoyable when multiboxing but there are different kinds of people. I can allow multiboxing if there is no game breaking mechanics included with it but I'm afraid that there is high chance with voting system and other things.
  • KuruKuru Member
    AFK-activity: If there are any AFK-activities or semi-AFK activities (for ex. fishing in BDO), it should not be allowed imo.
    Mayor: Also, the whales could elect themselves or alter the voting.
  • TurzalukTurzaluk Member
    Multiboxing on one computer will encourage botting if you are allowed to play more than one account people will surely try to run a bot in the background or even use macros so all can follow the leader.
  • JezvinJezvin Member
    Do what Albion does, your not allowed to interact with multibox accounts. You get to keep them but a lot of the issues of people running around with trains of accounts will be reported. It's more work than just allowing it but it sets up a clear rule. People can be in towns crafting while out questing/grinding/gathering, but no making your own groups and killing/farming with them.
  • gilbzgilbz Member
    First I wanna say I really do appreciate intrepid taking the time to listen to the community's feedback though! That's the kind of stuff I really like seeing from a developer! From a development standpoint I don't know how easy it is to limit multiboxing without limiting multiple people playing in the same house, but I guess limiting it would be best?
  • draliusdralius Member
    If we are allowing the multiboxing i would like to make people enter a phone number or some sort of authentication(ID) like some asians games do.This way we are sure that we have real people playing the game and not some random dude farming content and braking the economy of the game on their own.
  • krojak wrote: »
    The current stance is the correct one.

    Krojak always agrees with Intrepid on everything
  • Main worry is people with extra computers and money can use their resources to legitimately multi-box but that same person can funnel resources into their main account. I feel like that would have issues with certain economic aspects, real estate, etc.

    As long people in the same house/same IP address can play the game together with no issues and solo players with extra hardware can't super funnel resources to disrupt the in game economy then I feel like Multi-boxing is okay.
  • EnforcerEnforcer Member
    Kuru wrote: »
    AFK-activity: If there are any AFK-activities or semi-AFK activities (for ex. fishing in BDO), it should not be allowed imo.
    Mayor: Also, the whales could elect themselves or alter the voting.

    Actually, aside from virtual machines being used to destroy the game's resource market, how would multiboxing not destroy the democratic elections of some towns/nodes/cities? The only ones that seem to be okay with multiboxing are the ones who would use it unfairly, tbh.
  • I'm fine as long as no macros are used. If they're paying the sub fee for another account, it's the same as getting your little brother to slave away for you and give you all his stuff. 0 difference. They still have to put in the effort on the other account if they can't use macros, and they still have to pay the sub fee, helping the game develop further. Personally I don't care if they use one or multiple machines, don't care one way or the other.
  • HymnosiHymnosi Member
    Requiring multiple computers is even more pay to win.
  • RalizekRalizek Member, Braver of Worlds
    Multi-boxing Should be allowed, there are two people in my house for example who would be playing. Many people who DONT live with mommy and daddy, have roommates who might want to get into the game. It would be unfair to lock an IP to one account and hurt the game in the long run.
  • kengarkengar Member
    imo multiboxing should be completely banned but if anything then at least multiboxing with softwares and macros should be banned.
  • HakuraiHakurai Member
    edited July 28
    deleted - posted above
  • JustDrazJustDraz Member
    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.

    Well said. I can't wait to play this game and I am looking forward to playing with my wife.
  • BarakasBarakas Member
    As an active dual-boxer in almost every MMO I have ever played (going back to EQ) I think I am ready to embrace a no multi-boxing environment for AOC. I'll spare the reasoning behind this decision as I'm sure most wouldn't care.

    With that said, you asked for ways how this could be prevented since there will be legit people playing behind the same IP. Do not put in a /follow command or any way for one player to autofollow another player. Without this it makes it a lot harder to have a boxed party since macros are also not allowed.

    Barakas
  • AeriusAerius Member
    edited July 28
    Chiming in to confirm my agreement with Intrepid's stance and Steven's statements. My concerns have again been relieved on yet another subject. Things are looking up for Ashes.

    The primary concern with multiboxing is players having multiple characters receiving cloned input and moving in sync with the primary character that the player is actually controlling. Using the well-known WoW example, there is a terrible plague of multiboxers destroying groups in PvP and inflicting significant injury on the economy because they essentially have multiplied power and control through cheating and real life money investment. They control one character, but third-party automation tools emulate the input and feed it into other characters, whether those be on separate virtual machine or not. Blizzard, shortsightedly, made the terrible mistake of allowing this form of botting.

    Some people claim that Blizzard permits this misbehaviour because they financially benefit from it, but they honestly do not. The small amount of extra sub fee that they receive from allowing this is more than countered by the reduced sub count from others players, caused by a massive reduction in enjoyment in the game and confidence in it. The impact on immersion and game/developer reputation is very visible, and the direct player impact from multiboxer malice is self-evident.

    With automated/cloned input banned, this issue that other MMOs suffer from will not be an issue for Ashes. If a player wants to swap between computers and control one character at a time, this is reasonably acceptable. They may gain some small benefit, but it requires extra effort and can be a hassle. It is automation and botting that I have concern with.

    Thank you, Steven, for not permitting this.

    P.S. - Enforcement should not take the method of infrequent ban-waves. When a player is caught through reports or systems detecting synced action/movement, punishment and prevention should occur immediately after the investigation confirms the abuse. Otherwise, the botters will reap enough in-game reward for it to be worth it to continue botting on new accounts after being caught in a delayed ban-wave. Swift action will deter recurrence.
  • akitsugiakitsugi Member, Explorer
    Inherently I would have no problem with it. But let me ask you this: What if this poll was already rigged by one person with many accounts?

    I am not pro multiboxing either, but I also don't think it's worth the resources spend on trying to prevent it in terms of blocking people. We know it's not really effective.

    Lastly, it can be attempted to prevent multiboxing from a design position; that you get little to no benefit from multiboxing. Make free items given my Intrepid for events and stuff not tradeable. My stance for alts is the same, everything should be account based, including dailies and the sort, so if you allow more more character slot purchases it doesn't become another p2w scenario.

    However, Unlike alts - there are no strong ways to prevent much of multiboxing even from a design perspective.
  • SikkeSikke Member
    I don't even care if you feel the need to have 2 computers to grind 2 AOC characters

    if it's on 1 computer 90% of players could do it but that's 4 steps beyond that and too much of a dedication to ruin someone's account for
    ObHAXye.png
  • 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.

    That. I would love to ban multiboxing, But I do not see any way to do this without casting too wide a net that would catch 0.1% true multiboxer (if even) and 99.9% normal players. It is not worth the cost and will not really catch anyone truly determined to do this anyway.
  • 0rio0rio Member
    Now that Intrepid has clarified it's position, I'm more willing to accept it. As someone who has a partner who will be playing with them, I can get behind it - however, I still voted that we need more restrictions. Specifically, I believe that there should be 1 unique person behind each account. Tying that to subscription payment details is not acceptable - as my partner and I will be sharing the same payment details. Freeshards for another MMO I play monitor for duplicate IPs and make contact in game to verify that users are unique. I'm not saying that's the answer here, just that it's an option.
  • GilgameshGilgamesh Member, Braver of Worlds
    edited July 30
    Players will use multi-boxing to get more freeholds then is intended. How will you combat this issue?
  • DrukalnnDrukalnn Member
    WMC51 wrote: »
    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.

    This is all you can do. There isn't a way to stop it so any rules against it only hurt the people who follow the rules.

    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.

    I mean with the referral system, you could technically? Can you buy game time with that?
  • EscaEsca Member
    I don't like the idea of multi-boxing at all. But the current stance seems highly reasonable and if intrepid is serious about cracking down on it when it's reported from the fan base that someone is using it for an advantage then i'm ok with the current stance. I just DO NOT WANT TO SEE THIS: https://bp2.blogger.com/_QJ3m4gGj7dg/SFCK1QKDxLI/AAAAAAAAAYs/Qoo1gM1lMhc/s1600/WoWScrnShot_061108_113939.jpg
  • PliniusPlinius Member
    Hello team.

    Well my opinion on this matter.

    For the specific case of Ashes I do think that multiboxing, in it's own way, would be pay to win. Why is that you ask?

    Well for starters PVE it should be fine, (even tho I still don't like it), gathering spots could be a problem with one guy camping several important areas and even keeping an eye on bosses or even caravan pathways. A scout, but X5, X10.
    Also mass tagging world bosses, rare spawns and grind areas.

    But my problem comes down to PVP...

    What will stop a person to have it's personal army to attack caravans, bounties? I bet people will find ways within the game with specific classes to get enough accounts that will let you one shot a player by simply using one skill x5, X10.

    What about a seige? Will a player be able to control a whole platoon of players that, I don't know, spam heals/buffs? Or destroy a certain key structure to gain advantage by simply having 1 person handle 3-5 characters.

    If I had the time/space/money to multibox in MMORPGs I would. It's passive income from your gatherer accounts while you play your main account, it improves your chance on winning PVP encounters of bigger and smaller scales (or nuke solo players) and let's you have multiple "spies" of caravan routes that will help them attack without delay, preventing normal players to make money/transfer their goods with some sort of fairness.

    I don't like the idea of multiboxing, I don't feel it will be of any positive impact to the game besides extra money from them.

    So please, if you do let them multiboxing, arrange a system that lets you keep track of these people and don't let them abuse their power in PVP, because once your PVP becomes boring, annoying and unfair, the game will die, because a MMORPG that is only PVE, the competition is gone, and so is the game.

    Yours truly,
  • HodadorHodador Member
    I don't see how multiboxing could be a problem if people aren't even allowed to have multiple clients open on a single computer. People would have to buy multiple computers and playing them at the same time. Even if they do, how could that even be enforced? You can't IP ban that because multiple people in a single household could each have their own account/computer. I'm not worried at all on this topic.
  • Can someone explain to me if they were to disallow multiboxing, how would they even let multiple people from the same household play at the same time? I can understand people want multiboxing gone entirely, but I don't know how you could even do that without negatively impacting people that wanna play from the same household. Please do let me know if you do know how to do this though.
Sign In or Register to comment.