Poll + Bonus Dev Discussion - Multiboxing

1131416181925

Comments

  • So long as I'm not getting attacked by five identical characters hitting me with five identical abilities at the same time, essentially one-shotting me, I am happy.
  • JoelTGM wrote: »
    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.

    It's shady and benefits nobody else to run my roommate's character to the dungeon we're going to be doing tonight while she is stuck in traffic?
    It's shady and benefits nobody else to use extra accounts to have staff characters in your roleplay-centric tavern?
    It's shady and benefits nobody else to run a huge guild and have a squad of enforcers that make life misery for anyone that crosses you?

    Oh, right, that last one is shady, and it doesn't require multiboxing at all. I can only imagine someone trying to do that as a multiboxer rather than the much more efficient and effective method of having underlings.
  • I strongly disagree with multiboxing AND I have a great solution.

    First, here’s why I hate multiboxing:

    An MMORPG feels fake as hell when you have see behavior that indicates someone is playing two toons.

    The “bot” like feel of the movement.

    Worst of all, by allowing multiboxing it gives multi-clienters the perfect excuse. “I’m not multiclienting, I’m multiboxing bro!”

    There are plenty of ways to bypass safeguards AoC plans against multiclienting.

    The true evil of multiboxing is the CULTURE it breeds of it being “OK” to have multiclienting behavior/movement in game.

    So here’s the solution. It’s really simple.

    Instead of saying “no multiclienting, but yes multiboxing”, just make a rule that says “no multiclienting/multiboxing behavior”.

    This EMPOWERS in game players to be able to report those who people with a trail of alts autofollowing them. It forces a lot of people who would multiclient/multibox to watch their step.

    It discourages people from finding ways to gain an advantage in the economy via multiple alts.

    The ideal MMORPG is one where it feels like you are living a second life in a fantasy setting.

    AOC is incredibly close to obtaining this. Don’t let it be ruined by the tolerance of multiple toons from one person online at the same time.

    With the solution of simply creating a policy of “no multiclient/multibox behavior allowed”, people who live in the same house can play together. Since their movements won’t look fake cuz there are actually two people.
  • SolasSolas Member
    I do agree that Intrepid's current method in-place for multiboxing should be affective, and is fair. The main thing to always strongly monitor and prevent, is any farming/player action in game through botting, a serious issue that WoW classic has that is completely destroying the integrity of the game.
  • xHAZERxxHAZERx Member
    edited August 1
    Sooo... from what i learn for the game and i hear for the game before few day'se. I'm not all about banning multiboxing and i will tell you why, so in the game you will have option's to develop you'r char on PVE or PVP.
    SO your gear skill and passive's are on PVE oriented and i just give a suggestion, you PLAY BARD and all yous active passive enchantment skills are for helping and support. Why someone from guild or party of even family can't log this char and go make some minior quests or stuff. I'm not saying to make quest's on both chars, let say you need to kill mobs speak whit NPC's or more other stuff collect q items when you kill it etc...
    So you will take only some buffs and passive's from this char behind you, even its ok for me if this support char don't get exp. Same for NODE's---> NODE is open you join and go you'r box can't go, coz lets say box game witch is support atm is like NON ACTIVE ACCOUNT or it will be market as BOX. May be has tittle on it when is log in, the name and above "BOX" or "Non Active Player"
    And only whey to make it active is to relog or exit both games and then logg second account as first!!!
    Sorry for my bad English, and thank you all for having me, Best Regards to all team of Ashes of Creation cyaa!!! ;)

    Ps.... i wont have this problem but some will... https://ibb.co/hXNsFcR

  • mazhmazh Member
    edited August 1
    Think we can all agree real multiboxing with a single player using scripts, macros and cheats to control a raid of trolls is bad, very bad.
    So go after and ban people using those cheats.

    Baning every "type" of percieved multiboxing is unfair because most of the time its just a couple/family/friends/students on the same house playing the same game on different accounts and computers.

    But at the same time if they specifically allow multiboxing on their rules, it becomes a grey area and an encouragement for cheaters. Even if they ban macros and bots.
  • ShauNShauN Member
    To me sending input to more than one client on the same machine is a form of p2w, Having to use multiple machines for multiple clients is fine until someone starts to use something like a laptop + pc with software to send input to multiple devices but I guess that would be hard for some people to accomplish and it would at least lower the amount of multiboxing. When it comes to VMs I think it's safe to say that it should be allowed for Linux users even with the cost of potential multiboxing.
  • JoelTGMJoelTGM Member
    Fildydarie wrote: »

    It's shady and benefits nobody else to run my roommate's character to the dungeon we're going to be doing tonight while she is stuck in traffic?
    It's shady and benefits nobody else to use extra accounts to have staff characters in your roleplay-centric tavern?
    It's shady and benefits nobody else to run a huge guild and have a squad of enforcers that make life misery for anyone that crosses you?

    Oh, right, that last one is shady, and it doesn't require multiboxing at all. I can only imagine someone trying to do that as a multiboxer rather than the much more efficient and effective method of having underlings.

    I don't know why you're listing other examples of wrong doing, but the last one isn't shady. It is part of the game to attack someone for no reason if you feel like it. Anyway back to multiboxing, where a person is taking advantage of technology to overpower his character. Imagine if you could buy a cheat that made it so pressing the attack button would do the damage of ten other characters, or more if you pay for it. I don't want that in my game.
  • Another reason to not allow multiboxxing, is that as intrepid has said. Loot goes to whoever does the most damage to a monster, with a little bonus to whoever tags the monster first. In theory a multiboxxer could easily greif LEGIT solo players out of a grind spot by nuking monsters the legit player is trying to kill. Which would of course be, PAY TO WIN.
    Secound, should the LEGIT solo player want to fight back against the CHEAT multiboxer, he has to suffer a much higher corruption penalty if he wants to try and kill the CHEATING multiboxer, while the multiboxer will only suffer the corruption penalty of one kill. How is that even remotely fair Intrepid? You need to think about these things before making a system which favours CHEATING multiboxers.
    You have the time NOW to make the right decision for the wellbeing of the game, Steve promised no PAY TO WIN, so why is he even asking this question, ofcourse multiboxing of all sorts should be bannable offense.
  • FildydarieFildydarie Member
    edited August 1
    JoelTGM wrote: »
    Fildydarie wrote: »

    It's shady and benefits nobody else to run my roommate's character to the dungeon we're going to be doing tonight while she is stuck in traffic?
    It's shady and benefits nobody else to use extra accounts to have staff characters in your roleplay-centric tavern?
    It's shady and benefits nobody else to run a huge guild and have a squad of enforcers that make life misery for anyone that crosses you?

    Oh, right, that last one is shady, and it doesn't require multiboxing at all. I can only imagine someone trying to do that as a multiboxer rather than the much more efficient and effective method of having underlings.

    I don't know why you're listing other examples of wrong doing, but the last one isn't shady. It is part of the game to attack someone for no reason if you feel like it. Anyway back to multiboxing, where a person is taking advantage of technology to overpower his character. Imagine if you could buy a cheat that made it so pressing the attack button would do the damage of ten other characters, or more if you pay for it. I don't want that in my game.

    Just because the rules permit a behavior doesn't mean it isn't shady.
    Ashes of Creation is billed as a social game. Anything that is anti-social in nature is therefore a "shady" activity when measured against the spirit of the game. Crime syndicates are anti-social by nature. Running a tavern is pro-social. I don't see how you can think that the latter is shady and the former is laudable. Can you please explain how pro-social elements are "shady" in the context of a social game? And you're not allowed to fall back on "because it is against the rules" because the validity of that proposed rule is what is being debated here.

    You also seem confused on what multiboxing is. There is no technology involved, well, no different than what every player has. It is running multiple accounts at once, and manually inputting commands into each of them. No bots, no scripting, no automation of any kind, just a really high APM.

    Edit: posting before caffeine is bad.
  • Even those that aren't controlling multiple characters simultaneously, one thing that I've seen that always irked me was someone running 2 clients (or just 2 computers side by side each running their own client) who played one character and kept their second one parked at an auction house all day to try and control markets doing things like buying up anything posted low and then reselling high or holding them before reselling to try and create artificial scarcity to justify higher prices in the market. I view a simple use case such as that as being pay to win because you're just paying an extra $15/mo to be able to progress yourself both in multiple ways virtually simultaneously that gives you an advantage over someone with only 1 account.
  • I don't agree with allowing Multi-boxing at all. It currently ravages World of Warcraft's economic balance. There isn't really a way to Multi-box without copying commands or automating it to some degree. The party size currently being 8 can help curve it to some degree, but completing group content by yourself is just too powerful to balance in any MMO. By allowing Multi-boxing it may also be sending the indirect message that cheating is encouraged.

    The only way to detect multi-boxing is by combining IP detection with manually checking how they play and assign loot. A Multi-boxer will almost always play the same characters together and they will never split except for maybe one to sell stuff. They will also assign loot to the utmost perfection with no actual in game chat.

    The biggest reason I oppose it is because it is just better to play with multi-boxing than to not. It gives advantages to people who do over a solo player. These advantages are not fair in nature though as opposed to other advantages you can get in game. There is a problem though because sometimes multiple people playing in the same room can give the illusion of multi-boxing.

    It depends how accurate you guys are at detecting it as opposed to people just playing together. I just don't want instances where people get free defenses on caravans and such because a multi-boxer was involved.
    1UL8RIb.gif

    Join my Guild
    https://discord.gg/FH9fdp
    Isle of Decimation
    U.S. East
  • Tam HawkinsTam Hawkins Member
    edited August 1
    I'm definitly not against multiple people in one houshold playing AoC, but that is not multiboxing (not in my eyes at least).
    And while I do not think they can really prevent it, there is a massive differenct between saying "we allow it" and ""officialy it is not allowed and should we find out you do it it will have consequences. but we will not restrict Ips or prevent multiple people in one houshold playing the game".

    Multiboxing leaves me with multiple concerns:

    The family system that allows teleportation - with multiple accounts the player could use characters of his other accounts to teleport around -> leading to a 15$ per month fast travel. Expensive buth definitly do able and 100% pay to win.

    open world PvP protection. Beeing in a group will deteer other people from attacking you in the open world so someone with multiple characters in a group will have an advantage against someone who still needs to meet up with his friends or for whatever reason enters the wilderness on his own.

    Buffs and other boni. Even if you do not sinultaneusly use every character you multibox on you automaticaly have a higher variety of buffs than other players.
    In addition whenver your main class migth not be a good fit to fight a mob or another player you can switch out to one of your stand by characters.

    If there is any way to manage multiple characters going the same way without breaking tos or beeing slower than a single character player. This involves multi character mounts, follow commands, simple pushing WASD for two characters at once,.....
    a) caravan system: a mule has the capacity of 10 players and a caravan has the capacity of 10 mules (100 players) but the moment you multibox you have two or more characters. this leads to a multiboxer having the capacity of 2/100 of a caravan or 20/100 of a caravan with mules. No one, including me, knows yet how important or necessary the caravan system is but everything points in the direction of it beeing something that is extremely necessary. dumping down the need for caravans by half (5 round trips instead of ten instea of one with a caravan) is nothing short of again pay to win.
    b)Harvesting resources especially veins. In the last livestream it was said that there will be large ressource veins that a single player cannot exhaust. That means if a one character player finds a vein of a material he deems valuable can then proceed to harvest one character/mule worth of resources and needs to return back to a node where he can deposit the materials, then he needs to travel back to the vein hopping that not to many players have found it by now. A multiboxer can harvest multiple times the amount of mats before needing to return.


    I'm pretty sure that one could find even more reasons why multiboxing is pay to win, but every single point above alone is already a good reason to give the question a "no it is not ok" answer.


    *EDIT:
    Other things I have just read/thought of that speak against multiboxing and add to it beeing pay to win:
    -Node development (grows with player activity, more players, even multiboxed ones = more growth)
    -Voting for major
    -freeholds that are restricted to one per account
    -exchanging materials between your gatherer, refiner and crafter (IS said that they want this to be a social interaction between players filling these rolls)
  • I'm definitly not against multiple people in one houshold playing AoC, but that is not multiboxing (not in my eyes at least).

    Was saying that determining the difference between them might be a problem. Not that they are the same thing. I'm personally for multiple people playing together in the same room.
    1UL8RIb.gif

    Join my Guild
    https://discord.gg/FH9fdp
    Isle of Decimation
    U.S. East
  • Heads up that multiboxers will also be able to grab a bigger size of the "pie" when it comes to gathering the nodes/veins of ore that randomly spawns in the world.
  • Yuyukoyay wrote: »
    I'm definitly not against multiple people in one houshold playing AoC, but that is not multiboxing (not in my eyes at least).

    Was saying that determining the difference between them might be a problem. Not that they are the same thing. I'm personally for multiple people playing together in the same room.

    Absolutely, I often played with friends in the same room and getting kicked from a game because we had the same IP was absolutely idiotic.
    And I surely will not hold IS accountable if they say they won't allow multiboxing and then some people still do it.
    But you cannot say we have no pay to win and then turn around and allow multiple accounts for 15$ per month per account.
  • cosmicthundercosmicthunder Member, Braver of Worlds
    edited August 1
    I've never multiboxed, except one time in DAoC but I didn't do it much.

    The only thing I don't like about multiboxing is seeing a group of characters where one is being controlled and the others are autofollowing the primary character. They are easy to spot because the follower characters usually have nonsensical names, which is even more annoying. Aside from that, multiboxing using separate physical computers is okay as long as NO third party software, KVM switches, virtualization hardware/software, or advanced scripts/macros are in use. Otherwise it allows one player play solo and do group content without ever needing to cooperate with others and form social bonds.

    That's what an MMOG is supposed to be about anyway. If I wanted to play solo 100% of the time then I have an ocean of other game titles for that experience.
  • zklzkl Member
    Hi,

    I would like multiboxing to be "part of the game". If there's going to be macroing and such, I would like the client to do these things to be created by Intrepid.

    This would allow Intrepid to set a "time limit" on multiboxing. Maybe something like 15 hours a week.

    There should also be a notion of "main player".

    And only the main account should be allowed to purchase player housing and participate in node politics.

    Either way, I am FOR multiboxing, but I feel that some restraints would work best for all.

  • NeurathNeurath Member
    Expansive Macroing and scripts aren't allowed though, where'd you get the idea there's going to be macroing and such?

    Even if we can multibox from multiple PCs, nothing could be automated in any way...I'm confused by your post.
  • JoelTGM wrote: »
    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.

    Most are against multiboxing but see that prohibiting it and enforcing it will mostly hurt players that do not multibox.
    What I am really angry about are the people that just see one side of the equation or are too chicken to admit the downside.
    I have not seen anyone of those who posted here and are categorically against multiboxing admitting that they accept their stance will prevent many people from playing legally or at all when multiboxing is prohibited and enforced.
  • zklzkl Member
    Multiboxing has the potential to make the game unfair if misused, but it also has the potential to make it fair for some players. Some of us may not have the same amount of time to spend in an MMO, or may have complicated work schedules that make it hard to find a group to play with.

    Lets say I have 1.5 hours to play every night, and most content requires me to have a group, there is no group finders, I could end up spending 1.5 hours in general chat waiting to find a group.

    This is not a great playing experience.

    Being able to come at the game creatively in terms of how I play, and coordinating multiple characters leading to a more intense gameplay experience might be what I need.

    @Neurath It was in the poll options.

  • YuyukoyayYuyukoyay Member
    edited August 1
    The problems come from the people no lifing the game and multi-boxing at the same time. I don't see it as a positive in any circumstance. It's just cheating to me.
    1UL8RIb.gif

    Join my Guild
    https://discord.gg/FH9fdp
    Isle of Decimation
    U.S. East
  • NeurathNeurath Member
    Call me old fashioned but I've taken the poll options in terms of amount of votes cast, and, so far the 'allow multiboxing from separate Computers without automation, macros or scripts' is in the lead.

    I do not think it would be wise to allow Scripts, Expansive Macros and Automation, even for Single Accounts.
  • I kind of think that multiple accounts is making it easier for botters etc. to flourish, if you go the opposit direktion and allow one accounts per, lets say, social security number you would cut them down before they grow roots in the game. If they would forge one it is a serious offense, and also easy to perma ban. Probably not worth it...
    A bit tough, but it may just be needed these days!
  • Rantallion wrote: »
    I kind of think that multiple accounts is making it easier for botters etc. to flourish, if you go the opposit direktion and allow one accounts per, lets say, social security number you would cut them down before they grow roots in the game. If they would forge one it is a serious offense, and also easy to perma ban. Probably not worth it...
    A bit tough, but it may just be needed these days!

    Social Security number is (as far as I know) an USA thing and would make it impossible for people of other countries to play the game. You would need one methode for every single country if you wanted to go that way.

    I do not think they should actually prevent it. Simply saying that they are against it and doing it will have consequenzes should the person be caugth is all that is necessary and all one can realistically expect.

    Anything actually preventing multiboxing would either be extremely complicated (for the players), extremely intrusive (like having to give up social security numbers or allowing some insight into your pc) or extremely restrictive (stoping different people from the same houshold from playing the game).
  • BarbablancoBarbablanco Member
    edited August 2
    I'm torn on this subject because even with the current restrictions in the multi boxing policy i think it can be unfair. Overall, I think allowing multi-boxing is a fundamentally a pay to win feature, but with an expensive barrier to entry. I would like to see to high restrictions in place. Especially if multiplexers become rampant, or begin to dominate some of these exclusive systems. In general I'm not opposed to having multiple accounts, but allowing concurrent play could confer real in game benefits which could be considered a pay to win feature. Players are using RMT, by purchasing extra accounts and computers, are paying for in game benefits. It would be expensive, but possible to pay to win.The real benefits from multi boxing, are extra bag space, extra buffs, and de facto ownership of multiple freeholds. If there is a "follow" feature, like there is in wow, players could have there extra accounts follow one as they complete quests, which could give credit to party members and multiply experience and rewards of quest turn ins. Indirectly this could effect node development or the outcome of Religious node mayoral process. Socially you could buy extra votes in democratic elections or intimidate of nearby players trying to contest a zone. Not to mention Intrepid's commitment to the actually to police/ban cheaters who violate these restriction's, by using scripts or macros to mimic keystrokes. Every game is populated by cheaters, all companies espouse their commitment to banning those accounts. In practice, it's never enough. Restricting players to one accounts would make enforcement more black and white.

    Still, if those benefits are earned on each account, separately, without violating the currently stated restrictions then i think the benefit should be considered earned. Assuming cheating is enforced well permissible multi-boxing it's not exactly pay to win, it's pay to no life the game. No lifers will always have the advantage because they are wiling to put in more effort than most other players. If multi boxers get attacked, it would be very hard to control multiple characters simultaneous. Leaving them exposed to death and loss of raw materials, not to mention the hassle of repositioning multiple characters. Also requiring multiple computers makes this type of play a huge financial barrier for most players.

  • zklzkl Member
    Completing my suggestion from earlier. Assuming that you go ahead with a plan to allow Multiboxing as long as players are doing it through the game client with restrictions in place, I would also recommend the following:

    - A client side system to capture input metadata as well as metadata correlating current player input with nearby client inputs
    - A server side reporting system to parse this metadata as well as other game server data to flag potential multi-boxing happening outside the allowed mechanism
    - A game master toolset that allows game master to "test for multiboxing" on a specific player
    - In game processes to penalize players who do unauthorized multiboxing.

    This is all possible. We may not be able to tell who is multiboxing from their IPs alone ( especially since there could be multiple connections or VPNs involved ). Rather we should determine if multiboxing is happening based on the unique ways these characters are controlled.

    @Intrepid : Hire me, I'll build it.
  • WriksWriks Member
    I think the poll is skewed.
    Seeing the amount of comment saying " will i be able to play with my family ? " "will i be able to play in LAN ? ". This clearly shows that those people don't understand the situation.
    Multiboxing is the same person using multiple account. It's impossible that you wouln't be able to play with your family !
    I think people though that was the case and voted for multiboxing and that's why the pole is skewed.
  • consultantconsultant Member
    edited August 1
    In my personal experience multiboxing is just to ovoer powered. In pvp one Multiboxer lets say 4 accounts pretty much means that other side is going to win the game no matter what.

    I do not understand really why lets say a guild cannot make 4 man group go pvp and be just as devasting as a multiboxer. Guessing has to do with being hit for a full bar of health at exactly the same time with no time to react. So multiboxing means one shoting. Same thing could happen with four people playing together but there is lag and it is hard to land attacks at exact time with real people.

    Here is a question? Can you have multi boxing without one shoting?? Now professional teams which represent a small percentage of popualtion coordinate abilities so they hit very close to same time and are devasting. But with multiboxing it happens at exactly the same time which is a huge advantage or in a nutshell one shotting people. Think most video game companies allow this for financial reasons.

    Do see how a game desinger would allow one shoting in PvP and call it balanced.
  • It seems like on every other page there are one or two people who post "I want to be able to play with my family, friends, etc in my household, so that is why I want multi-boxing to be allowed" AoC did a poor job explaining what multi-boxing is and it is getting annoying having to explain it to each person who posts something like that.

Sign In or Register to comment.