Poll + Bonus Dev Discussion - Multiboxing

1121315171825

Comments

  • T ElfT Elf Member, Braver of Worlds
    Just throwing this out, I'm fine with the current policy.
    eZC6mjP.gif
    Formerly T-Elf

  • AsagAsag Member
    I personaly belive that one physical human should own only one account (ID based like it is made by law in Korea). Multiple games running from one IP adress should be allowed, becouse there are thousands of internet cafe and LAN houses around the world.

    Possibility of multiple instances running from one PC? Sure, if you can not log in on the same server with multiple accounts from one PC.
    222f68aa4195eb681ab20d6ba1a8ad7c247496f1ac96fc155ad97f1e9603c0ca.gif
  • MabraMabra Member
    Double Edged sword. I can understand everyone wanting their household to play together. I also understand multi-boxing is one of the main tools of RMT's, Bots, Exploiters, and just in general whale play. There is no real way to combat it besides not allowing it all together. Which brings its own set of problem. If kept there will be those people who use alternate characters at the same time on different comps to gain an edge and exploit any way possible. This has ruined games for many before the developers got involved to stop it (if they got involved at all.) You will have to rely heavy on your GM's or mods to spot them and handle it accordingly. But this is all common knowledge to any old MMO player. Whoever yall decide to police the community best make sure they have some sharp eyes and awareness even past the detection system algorithm.
  • I feel like there's something comedic in creating a poll to do with multi-boxxing. If a multi-boxxer took the poll, wouldn't they be able to vote many, many times?
  • How about just .. No multi-boxxing, but also no automated banning of multi-boxxers?
    This allows people to play from the same connection/house with each other, and unless they repeatedly get reported for cheating (multi-boxxing is cheating :D) then they aren't banned. Once reported, someone flys over invis to keep an eye on them for a little bit and if they're caught/the logs reveal they are multi-boxxing, you just hit them with the ban hammer.
  • NeurathNeurath Member
    edited July 31
    It was never going to get to the point where we ban Multi-Boxing, because for every Solo Player in a Household, some of those Solo Players do Multi-Box, and for all those who have multiple players in a House, will always fear they would be targeted so they vote to allow one instance per machine.

    It is an interesting set of circumstances. Also the most inspected thread I've seen for a long time with over 12k views.

    Edit: So, for every Solo Vote for a Solo Player, it can be outmatched by 2 Votes from Partners, or by more votes if the Partners also have Children who play. The odds are stacked odds for this poll.
  • volshvolsh Member
    I've seen multi-boxers on Wow and although I'm not totally against them you have to question the fact that doesnt this give them a distinct advantage over challenges that the single account player may struggle against?
    Single players will have to initiate the good ol' fashioned "Let's find a group and overcome this challenge together!!" where a user with 6 chars all spanking the crap out of a dangerous mob easily doesnt really sound right to me.
  • 0xFF0xFF Member
    edited July 31
    volsh wrote: »
    I've seen multi-boxers on Wow and although I'm not totally against them you have to question the fact that doesnt this give them a distinct advantage over challenges that the single account player may struggle against?
    Single players will have to initiate the good ol' fashioned "Let's find a group and overcome this challenge together!!" where a user with 6 chars all spanking the crap out of a dangerous mob easily doesnt really sound right to me.

    For all WoW players: that was cheating, multiboxing doesn't also allow you to control all game instances at same time with emulated input. If you don't have to alt tab to another game instance = cheating, because you depend on 3rd party software. It wouldn't fly in most of other games, dunno why blizzard let it happen.
  • ZetlinZetlin Member
    How about just .. No multi-boxxing, but also no automated banning of multi-boxxers?
    This allows people to play from the same connection/house with each other, and unless they repeatedly get reported for cheating (multi-boxxing is cheating :D) then they aren't banned. Once reported, someone flys over invis to keep an eye on them for a little bit and if they're caught/the logs reveal they are multi-boxxing, you just hit them with the ban hammer.

    Having a hard rule about not doing it going forward and making it clear that is not the intended way to play is better rather than having a soft rule about types of multiboxing. It is better for the individual people that would rather not have to do it to stay competitive. It is also better for the community to understand what is appropriate behavior based on design intention. If Ashes was meant to be a multiboxed game it doesn't reflect it based on any metric I've seen to date and therefore I'm honestly shocked it's being considered legal to begin with despite difficulty of enforcement. It is inarguably pay to win and due to how this game fundamentally works it should not be allowed. If this was any other game multiboxing would not be as big of an issue but still should not ever be directly endorsed by a developer (directly or indirectly) through the rules themselves. It is beyond me why so many people would advocate for such an amazing concept having such a lapse of integrity so great I could drive a bus through it.

    The quote at the top of the post is really the only solution. So many people in this thread are fearful of some heavy-handed implementation that has yet to happen on top of maybe not understanding why it's an issue to begin with.

    To put things extremely simple for everyone:

    1) Multiboxers, even when they are working under the current limitations set out by Intrepid, can and absolutely will generate more hours of playtime towards their goals than actually exist in the day. That's a problem in a game that revolves so heavily around player interaction to accomplish anything in the game world.

    2) A policy of allowing multiboxing due to not having a foolproof way of addressing it is a poor argument. Not to mention other people do something wrong does not justify allowing others to do it. If I remember correctly they want to have an active GM within their community and that is a great use of that person's time to respond to possible instances of non-macro multiboxing.
  • hakihaki Member, Settler
    Most of people multibox to help their main char, example:

    1. Stall
    2. Doing caravans with autoforward (ingame option!) and going left-right.
    3. Master only 1 tree, example cooking

    Everything you do with your other accounts is to help main account, so what is the problem? People are paying for other accounts and am talking about not using any cheats! If i do caravan trade, fishing, making pots, everything usefull i will transfer to main account.

    Maybe some people dont like it because they dont have 2 pcs?
  • DraekannDraekann Member
    edited July 31
    Personally from my experience of playing archage i am not a fan of allowing multi-boxing from a second computer. In archage for example having that second account being able to be up or two is huge and not having another computer in order to accomplish that yourself definitely puts them ahead as well as allowing them to do things that you could not do without having that second character up.

    Imo as long as there is not botting or macroing or whatever it should either be stricter on multi-boxing and not allow any multi-boxing at all. So you can have multiple accounts but cannot be logged in to multiple at once. However, I see how this would be difficult to police.

    Or be less strict as being more strict than their current stance would be incredibly difficult to police. And allow a player to run two accounts per pc as to get the same benefits of someone who would run multiple computers or just straight up ignore the rules to begin with. Would limit it to two clients per pc however and strictly enforce no botting or macros or anything of the sort and would both have to be manually controlled.


    The current stance is one that from playing archage i am really not a fan of. As someone who could only run one character at a time. The people who would have multiple pcs and could run more than 1 character had a huge advantage(not in pvp) over people who only had 1 pc and could only run one character. Thus would prefer a stricter policy although it would be basically impossible to enforce. Or a less strict allowing a second client per pc as long as its manually controlled to even the playing field of someone who will run multiple computers or ignore the rules regardless.
  • JokucJokuc Member
    I would like to say don't allow it at all, but it's pretty much impossible to enforce so it may be better to go with your current idea.
    it's not like I want a hug or anything, b-baka!
  • VogVog Member
    I would agree with allowing it to be done on two separate computers, but I don't yet trust Intrepid's ability to detect the use of multiple virtual machines or other ways in which the system can be converted.

    If there is something like auto-follow, I could see myself buying another account and playing on 2 pc's, and have 1 character be just a mule and buffbot, this alone would add a pay-to-win element to the game.
  • AthensAthens Member
    edited July 31
    The wise move to have less of a clash with the fanbase is do not allow any multi-boxing at all. People will find a way to get around it and somehow multi-box with separate computers linked together. Why even give them a fighting chance? Why even deal with the potential of cheaters when you can not allow it one bit. There are many who make a living playing MMOs and selling in-game currency or other activities for real money. While I am all for people making a living, I disagree when it is at the expense of making the game suffer or unfair player advantage.
  • NeurathNeurath Member
    Athens wrote: »
    The wise move to have less of a clash with the fanbase is do not allow any multi-boxing at all. People will find a way to get around it and somehow multi-box with separate computers linked together. Why even give them a fighting chance? Why even deal with the potential of cheaters when you can not allow it one bit. There are many who make a living playing MMOs and selling in-game currency or other activities for real money. While I am all for people making a living, I disagree when it is at the expense of making the game suffer.

    I appreciate it when whole Cities have the time to provide feedback. Cheers, Athens!
  • 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.

    that makes it paradise for botters

  • shuugoshuugo Member
    I say Multiboxing should not be allowed. The reason why is that everything circles around this whole massive world and you cannot really teleport around. It would be P2W in the sense of a multiboxer being able to be at multiple locations at the same time and do different activities, something a normal player would not be able to do. Essentially what multiboxing does is that, you can do more stuff than a normal player can within the same hours of playtime.
  • MightyMighty Member
    I don't like the idea of allowing multi-boxing but I do want to be able to play with my son if he decides he wants to play and/or if I go to a LAN where may will be accessing the internet from the same IP or IP Range and I would hate to not be able to play in that situation because it is the only way to stop Multi-boxing fully so I think the current stance it the best compromise.
  • I am against Multiboxing because affects the whole game experience (farming points, professions, economy, market control, setting and immersion in the scenarios, etc.) and gives an obvious advantage in terms of access to content (capacity, speed, etc.) in exchange of real money.

    In no way (at least to me) can it be assumed the fact that a player can control more than 1 character from separate accounts and simultaneously is something harmless and does not affect the others.

    It is a change of great impact on the bases of the game and breaks with the minimum equity that should exist in terms of user interaction with the game.

    Of course, it is obvious that it is in the company's interest that it be something well received and that it be taken as a valid option since it represents more income.

    I also understand users who have the income to dedicate to this type of practice and want to do it since they find it an advantage over the basic option of controlling a single character in a single account, but this is precisely what has them to make understand that it is not something harmless, it is clearly an "advantage" in exchange for a greater investment of money.

    After all, it is an MMORPG where you can choose between playing solitaire and accepting the limitations that this implies, or making use of the MMO aspect to access content that alone becomes impossible or very challenging, both options exist for all, within the game and without investing extra money.
    2fdR01O.jpg
  • I don't believe that Multiboxing is a great idea. It would allow Min-Max to the potential of breaking/creating Meta or discovery of exploitation within systems, which I fear would be within PvP followed by PvE being threatened.

    Yet it would be funny to deploy a theoretical tactical nuke on various bosses within PvE. Using classes and skills in synergy to speedrun dungeon bosses. Just saying.
  • WatarioWatario Member
    edited July 31
    I just watched the live stream and thought i would give a short thought on my position. I voted to say the current position they hold is fine but i would also be happy with no multi boxing whatsoever. Ive found historically in WoW (my main background in mmos) that multi boxers were rare and really only a problem when it came to things with ques, like battlegrounds where a single person was taking up many slots on a team while also playing their characters very inefficiently (which is extremely unfair to their teammates) or in world pvp where they would do stuff like hit an enemy player with 8 instant casts simultaneously and just instagib them.

    I really don't mind people multi boxing so long as there is zero automation (1 keystroke = 1 action, not 1 action per char or client a single action). If you can play two or three or 25 characters at full skill by hackermanning like a 8 pc set up, i don't even know what to say i guess you are a god. However most multi boxes though are aggressively bad at the game, to the point that its not even really worth considering the incredibly rare event of a talented multi boxer player. I can't speak for other MMO's than wow as i just don't have any significant experience with them so i don't know how bad of an issue this has been in other games.

    If allowing same IP but different computer multi boxing is the pragmatic easiest situation to deal with that's fine with me. If for some reason multi boxing becomes a real problem in the future i would like a change in policy but to me it's just a very niche issue that's not worth investing a huge amount of resources into fixing if there is basically almost any other thing you could be more efficiently be spending dev/engineering time on.
  • JuvensJuvens Member
    Imagine being able to surround your main with multiple non-combatant characters. Forcing corruption on you should you fight back...
  • No reason to try to stop people from doing it in my opinion. I believe the overall effect of multiboxing on economy of the game is overall, positive. It rewards the people who want to put more time into and effort into the game and I believe that's how it should be.
  • No reason to try to stop people from doing it in my opinion. I believe the overall effect of multiboxing on economy of the game is overall, positive. It rewards the people who want to put more time into and effort into the game and I believe that's how it should be.

    I think that put more time and effort is something that do not define multiboxers.

    Put more money for less time and effort suits perfect.
    2fdR01O.jpg
  • OrcLuckOrcLuck Member, Braver of Worlds
    edited July 31
    I don't think there is a sure fire way to get rid of multiboxing without harming people who game as a family.

    My Brothers, and Mom we all played world of warcraft together, I can't think of a funner family achievement we had then watching my brother succeed as a raider, and become part of a successful guild. He learned so many good things from WoW and we all bonded playing, even if we were casuals.

    You can't print an amount of money that I would accept over having had that experience. That was peak gaming.

    Watching my mom whom wasn't a gamer, start crafting and making her own friends, that was special.

    I can't ever accept a solution that would stop multiple people in a household or IP from playing together, I just can't.
  • If multiboxing is not related to the need of increase the number of active accounts, make more income, or give advantage at the cost of more real money, just let all the accounts manage all te alts created at the same time, at least in a mimic way.

    No?


    2fdR01O.jpg
  • Xenok5Xenok5 Member
    Multiboxing is something it's been happening in every existing MMO, that doesn't mean it's something good, so the most voted option in the pull is the one that makes more sense out of every other option they've given us, it shouldn't be allowed to have more than one game opened at the same time, thank you for doing this!
    B3MECqK.gif
  • If someone really want's to buy multiple computers and multiple accounts and actually sit there and control all their characters THEMSELVES, who am I to stand in their way. At that point anything they gain is earned in my humble opinion. I imagine multiboxers are already a small fraction of gamers and this policy choice will most likely make that fraction even smaller.
  • papabear2009papabear2009 Member
    edited August 1
    Poindexter wrote: »
    If someone really want's to buy multiple computers and multiple accounts and actually sit there and control all their characters THEMSELVES, who am I to stand in their way. At that point anything they gain is earned in my humble opinion. I imagine multiboxers are already a small fraction of gamers and this policy choice will most likely make that fraction even smaller.

    So if someone spent a lot of time and effort to make an undetectable bot would you be okay with that too?
  • JoelTGMJoelTGM Member
    I don't even understand why there is discussion. Multiboxing is so obviously shady and benefits noone except the person doing it. Why so much sympathy here towards multiboxing? I guess you all got so used to seeing it in your games by now. Shame. Whatever.
Sign In or Register to comment.