Multi-boxing - Suggested Solutions

Let me just say, I agree with Intrepid's decision somewhat and I DO see their point of view, that said I don't like multi-boxing and it clearly gives those that use it an advantage in many areas, especially in the economy of the game.
But, many on this forum fail to give them any suggestions to fix this problem and just point out; "It's pay-to-win!".

SO, here is my solution, and if you have a suggestion for them, post it below!
I suggest:

Publicly Discourage Multi-boxing - Simply, publicly denounce it and make it against TOS, and only ban people if they get reported and you find undeniable evidence.
This way Intrepid will avoid looking incompetent for any unforeseen events that might occur down the line, and they don't waste resources trying to combat this hydra of a problem.

Imagine a troll, resource-mafia-guild or high profile streamer breaking the system with multi-boxing, leaving Intrepid unable to do anything about it without looking like the bad guy, because they publicly gave the "all clear!" and now have to step in and stop them.
Don't rob yourselves of this tool.

You do great work, and it's great to know you recognised peoples concerns, good job Intrepid!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Wandering Mist

I have a question to everyone who believes multi-boxing is pay2win:

If we take out all automation (botting, scripting, etc), what is the difference between 1 person playing 2 characters, and 2 people playing 1 character each?

Are you really trying to tell me that a multi-boxer is going to be more effective in combat than 2 people each playing their own individual characters?

Naxxaz

Wandering Mist wrote: »

I have a question to everyone who believes multi-boxing is pay2win:

If we take out all automation (botting, scripting, etc), what is the difference between 1 person playing 2 characters, and 2 people playing 1 character each?

Are you really trying to tell me that a multi-boxer is going to be more effective in combat than 2 people each playing their own individual characters?

I don't think it's combat at all for most people.
It's the idea that you can own multiple freeholds which normally is one-per-account, be in a family with yourself for the teleport feature, have more votes during elections and other such things.

WMC51

Ohh elections. I didnt think about that. So if a town I want happend to be scientific I can just spend $10,000 a month to have enough votes to make myself mayor.

What a great value

phdmonster

WMC51 wrote: »

Ohh elections. I didnt think about that. So if a town I want happend to be scientific I can just spend $10,000 a month to have enough votes to make myself mayor.

What a great value

Man, i bet those Phoenix Initiative guys will be quite jelous when you steal that mayor title from under their nose

MrScrewtape

Hardest part with enforcing Multibox limitations is that it is almost impossible to prove.

It is not hard at all to make Intrepid servers believe that my multiple clients are not only different IPs but that effectively in different parts of the world. VPNs are the easiest way to do this, but things like Shadow Game make it so I could have two gaming VMs from totally different regions logged in at the same time and I'm accessing those VMs through my TV! https://shadow.tech/usen

The amount of technology available to stop the basic usage of multiboxing puts the effort vs reward way out of balance.

Now if you crack down on script/macro usage, which can be tracked with log/pattern analysis, then you take away a significant amount of the value people get from multiboxing.

But there will never be a way to stop true whales from coming in and spinning up 10 VMs (or VPN spoofing and couple other slick software) and running 10 clients at the same time. But if you make it so that the person has to manually interact with all 10 clients, that really diminishes the value they get from paying 10x the cost.

Yes some people will be able to get some advantage from basic multiboxing, but the amount of effort to track down and stop it just doesn't justify the cost. I would much rather they focus on stopping Bots/Gold Sellers/Fixing bugs/making new content/balancing classes/etc... They can't be perfect at everyhing and put 110% resources into every idea.

Wandering Mist

Naxxaz wrote: »

Wandering Mist wrote: »

I have a question to everyone who believes multi-boxing is pay2win:

If we take out all automation (botting, scripting, etc), what is the difference between 1 person playing 2 characters, and 2 people playing 1 character each?

Are you really trying to tell me that a multi-boxer is going to be more effective in combat than 2 people each playing their own individual characters?

I don't think it's combat at all for most people.
It's the idea that you can own multiple freeholds which normally is one-per-account, be in a family with yourself for the teleport feature, have more votes during elections and other such things.

You can technically do the same with 2 people each playing a single character, but it's rare for people to funnel everything onto their friend's character and not their own.

WMC51

I would always use my wife's druid to heal me when she didnt want to play. Ungrouped so I got all the XP.

JSully

I agree with Naxxaz here. I do not see combat being a multiboxing issue if it were to be implemented in this way. Combat would be much harder using 1 person w/2 accounts vs 2 people with 2 accounts. That being said, I do not like the idea of multiboxing due to the limitations of space in the game. ZOI's will not be infinitely sized, and if a player/group of players were determined to have multiple accounts in one particular ZOI, then I foresee issues with the economy in those areas (lack of houses selling/trading, lack of space for freeholds, possibly resource bottlenecking if the multiboxers are farming heavily). I believe a cool idea would be to implement a "ghost" of your player which can still interact with players at your freehold? (I've heard some players want a tavern, etc). I have no idea if that is possible. However, I don't see any real need for multiboxing in any game beside for greedy intentions like extra gold, time efficiency, and possibly even teleports via the family system.

TLDR; I second the TOS idea, consider ZOI space, resource availability, and housing availability and how 1 player with X accounts may influence those regions of the game.

Naxxaz

WMC51 wrote: »

Ohh elections. I didnt think about that. So if a town I want happend to be scientific I can just spend $10,000 a month to have enough votes to make myself mayor.

What a great value

Okay, bad example, i'll admit. xD
But it should be recognised that it IS part of the package deal you get, should you have 10+ accounts. There are people out there that would pay 200$ just for having 5-10% of the votes in a small node, i wish i was joking.

screwtape wrote: »

Hardest part with enforcing Multibox limitations is that it is almost impossible to prove.

Now if you crack down on script/macro usage, which can be tracked with log/pattern analysis, then you take away a significant amount of the value people get from multiboxing.

... They can't be perfect at everyhing and put 110% resources into every idea.

And they should not spend any effort combating them at all, but there is a HUGE difference between openly accepting something and not fighting it. They are actively disarming themselves should a problem occur as things stand right now, and I think that is a huge mistake.

Songcaller

I don't think about most issues, but, I do think I'd be annoyed if I'm in a queue for a Server and its found that multiple accounts are logged on all day blocking access for individual players...Would be a hard pill to swallow but would make me change servers faster.

Huzz

Just because you can't automate a system that prevents multi-boxing does not mean you should simply allow it.

You need a reporting system so if someone is found to be voting for themselves or building their own metropolis with multiple neighboring freeholds you can report them, and if it's true it likely won't be that hard to observe/prove for a GM, as the only way to efficiently run multiple accounts is to run multiple characters at the same time. I don't think people really care that much if you are slow grinding two characters on two accounts you may unlock access to 2 votes and freeholds but its gonna take you 100+ days to hit max level on two characters and the grind to become a proficient artisan to this person with this level of dedication willing to pay over $30 a month I say let them have two freeholds and spend double the time trying to level they earned it. not just with the extra money but literal double effort and we want to prevent PAY to win not WORK to win

Child Item