Noaani wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » I said what's good for the game, not what's good for the income of the company. Yeah, but you never said why non-script, non-macro multi-boxing is bad for the game. In the absence of any reason for it to be bad, it must be assumed to be either neutral or good. Thus if we assume it to be neutral, the fact that it bring more money for Intrepid is a good thing with no downsides. This is why I asked you previously to state why you think non-script, non-macro multi-boxing is bad for the game. You've talked about why you think scripted multi-boxing is bad, and I agree, but these two are different issues. I mean, scripts running even without multi-boxing is bad. Don't even start with that nonsense, you damn well know why lol. I've already stated obvious breadcrumbs earlier about the acquirement of resources and currency past the plateau sinks. I'm assuming you know how to colour in the lines. You're just prolonging a pointless back and forth after I've stated nothing you will say to convince me other wise and it still stands. Just saying it as it is nothing personal. Breadcrumbs only work if people have an idea of what you want the end result to be. I have no idea at all as to how you think multi-boxing without scripts would be bad for Ashes, so breadcrumbs aren't going to lead me to understanding what you are talking about. Again though, multi-boxing with scripts is bad. You can see the posts above of people talking about that. That won't be in Ashes - not because of the multi-boxing, because of the scripts. lol jfc dude. you can click this to go to different pages. Scroll up and down and read the posts. It's located at the bottom of the page or top. choice is yours. Have fun I mean, I can read the posts all you want, but if all you have done is left breadcrumbs that lead to a place that I do not know, I am not going to find anything in all that reading. Again, breadcrumbs only work if everyone involved is on the same page. When people have wildly different experiences and/or understandings of a topic, explicit discussion is required.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » I said what's good for the game, not what's good for the income of the company. Yeah, but you never said why non-script, non-macro multi-boxing is bad for the game. In the absence of any reason for it to be bad, it must be assumed to be either neutral or good. Thus if we assume it to be neutral, the fact that it bring more money for Intrepid is a good thing with no downsides. This is why I asked you previously to state why you think non-script, non-macro multi-boxing is bad for the game. You've talked about why you think scripted multi-boxing is bad, and I agree, but these two are different issues. I mean, scripts running even without multi-boxing is bad. Don't even start with that nonsense, you damn well know why lol. I've already stated obvious breadcrumbs earlier about the acquirement of resources and currency past the plateau sinks. I'm assuming you know how to colour in the lines. You're just prolonging a pointless back and forth after I've stated nothing you will say to convince me other wise and it still stands. Just saying it as it is nothing personal. Breadcrumbs only work if people have an idea of what you want the end result to be. I have no idea at all as to how you think multi-boxing without scripts would be bad for Ashes, so breadcrumbs aren't going to lead me to understanding what you are talking about. Again though, multi-boxing with scripts is bad. You can see the posts above of people talking about that. That won't be in Ashes - not because of the multi-boxing, because of the scripts. lol jfc dude. you can click this to go to different pages. Scroll up and down and read the posts. It's located at the bottom of the page or top. choice is yours. Have fun
Noaani wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » I said what's good for the game, not what's good for the income of the company. Yeah, but you never said why non-script, non-macro multi-boxing is bad for the game. In the absence of any reason for it to be bad, it must be assumed to be either neutral or good. Thus if we assume it to be neutral, the fact that it bring more money for Intrepid is a good thing with no downsides. This is why I asked you previously to state why you think non-script, non-macro multi-boxing is bad for the game. You've talked about why you think scripted multi-boxing is bad, and I agree, but these two are different issues. I mean, scripts running even without multi-boxing is bad. Don't even start with that nonsense, you damn well know why lol. I've already stated obvious breadcrumbs earlier about the acquirement of resources and currency past the plateau sinks. I'm assuming you know how to colour in the lines. You're just prolonging a pointless back and forth after I've stated nothing you will say to convince me other wise and it still stands. Just saying it as it is nothing personal. Breadcrumbs only work if people have an idea of what you want the end result to be. I have no idea at all as to how you think multi-boxing without scripts would be bad for Ashes, so breadcrumbs aren't going to lead me to understanding what you are talking about. Again though, multi-boxing with scripts is bad. You can see the posts above of people talking about that. That won't be in Ashes - not because of the multi-boxing, because of the scripts.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » I said what's good for the game, not what's good for the income of the company. Yeah, but you never said why non-script, non-macro multi-boxing is bad for the game. In the absence of any reason for it to be bad, it must be assumed to be either neutral or good. Thus if we assume it to be neutral, the fact that it bring more money for Intrepid is a good thing with no downsides. This is why I asked you previously to state why you think non-script, non-macro multi-boxing is bad for the game. You've talked about why you think scripted multi-boxing is bad, and I agree, but these two are different issues. I mean, scripts running even without multi-boxing is bad. Don't even start with that nonsense, you damn well know why lol. I've already stated obvious breadcrumbs earlier about the acquirement of resources and currency past the plateau sinks. I'm assuming you know how to colour in the lines. You're just prolonging a pointless back and forth after I've stated nothing you will say to convince me other wise and it still stands. Just saying it as it is nothing personal.
Noaani wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » I said what's good for the game, not what's good for the income of the company. Yeah, but you never said why non-script, non-macro multi-boxing is bad for the game. In the absence of any reason for it to be bad, it must be assumed to be either neutral or good. Thus if we assume it to be neutral, the fact that it bring more money for Intrepid is a good thing with no downsides. This is why I asked you previously to state why you think non-script, non-macro multi-boxing is bad for the game. You've talked about why you think scripted multi-boxing is bad, and I agree, but these two are different issues. I mean, scripts running even without multi-boxing is bad.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » I said what's good for the game, not what's good for the income of the company.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Noaani you can bring a d20 with you and make it an adventure? who knows what kind fate the d20 may bestow upon you
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » I still cant believe the studio made this huge promise about anti-botting and what not then go around and say they'll allow multi boxing... blew my mind when they announced it. I guess multi-boxing guarantees more active subscriptions.
Noaani wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Noaani you can bring a d20 with you and make it an adventure? who knows what kind fate the d20 may bestow upon you I mean, I don't know what I'm looking for, so it would already be something of an adventure. That said, the fact that you are so unwilling to either quote or reiterate tells me you are trying to send me off on a pointless errand.
Noaani wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Depraved wrote: » intrepid just needs to make dualb oxing inefficient during combat, thats it dont implement an auto follow function and make buffs durations really short, for example PvP makes it inefficient. oh no ive done pvp with boxes in l2 and ppl with no boxes have no chance. but its different because buffs in l2 last for 20 mins. dances and songs last for 2 but the game has in game macros so u press one button and u can cast all ur buffs while ur fighting, same with multiple heals. u can also alt tab and revive urself if u die. its so unfair. also, when you kill someone, you have to kill their box who isnt flagged, and now you are pk, otherwise they will res and kill you. even more unfair, but its effective. How mobile was PvP in L2 able to be? In Archeage, if I could find a way to keep someone in place they had no chance against me when I had two characters running. As soon as combat started to move, however, it became much, much harder. At that point, I was usually better off dropping out of the game on one account and killing them on the other.
Depraved wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Depraved wrote: » intrepid just needs to make dualb oxing inefficient during combat, thats it dont implement an auto follow function and make buffs durations really short, for example PvP makes it inefficient. oh no ive done pvp with boxes in l2 and ppl with no boxes have no chance. but its different because buffs in l2 last for 20 mins. dances and songs last for 2 but the game has in game macros so u press one button and u can cast all ur buffs while ur fighting, same with multiple heals. u can also alt tab and revive urself if u die. its so unfair. also, when you kill someone, you have to kill their box who isnt flagged, and now you are pk, otherwise they will res and kill you. even more unfair, but its effective.
Noaani wrote: » Depraved wrote: » intrepid just needs to make dualb oxing inefficient during combat, thats it dont implement an auto follow function and make buffs durations really short, for example PvP makes it inefficient.
Depraved wrote: » intrepid just needs to make dualb oxing inefficient during combat, thats it dont implement an auto follow function and make buffs durations really short, for example
Dryadez wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ7xB42joxA oh here i found vids of the 15 man multiboxer dk on my server. The type of thing we can expect to see in a open pvp game. Let me find the balance druid guy... watch him wipe 40 mans with mass syncronized aoe. Then tell me how that's fair. Explain to me how it isn't pay to win.
Depraved wrote: » damn, enigmatic is turning into noaani, and the real noaani is making sense. the forum is weird today lol
Depraved wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Depraved wrote: » intrepid just needs to make dualb oxing inefficient during combat, thats it dont implement an auto follow function and make buffs durations really short, for example PvP makes it inefficient. oh no ive done pvp with boxes in l2 and ppl with no boxes have no chance. but its different because buffs in l2 last for 20 mins. dances and songs last for 2 but the game has in game macros so u press one button and u can cast all ur buffs while ur fighting, same with multiple heals. u can also alt tab and revive urself if u die. its so unfair. also, when you kill someone, you have to kill their box who isnt flagged, and now you are pk, otherwise they will res and kill you. even more unfair, but its effective. How mobile was PvP in L2 able to be? In Archeage, if I could find a way to keep someone in place they had no chance against me when I had two characters running. As soon as combat started to move, however, it became much, much harder. At that point, I was usually better off dropping out of the game on one account and killing them on the other. u can autofollow in l2. so u can have 100 boxes walking behind u no matter where u go lol (same in ragnarok online) also a bit of an exageration since i never met any1 who opened that many accounts. so intrepid shouldnt add an auto follow functionality. also buffs should be short and not all of them should have the same duration
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Depraved wrote: » damn, enigmatic is turning into noaani, and the real noaani is making sense. the forum is weird today lol Not at all. People spiraling and wasting their own time looking for an answer they couldn't piece together when it was laid out in front of them. Something I'm sure you've witnessed. Psychological patterns are interesting... humans can be less indulging with such obvious flaws especially with the short durations of the conversations span.
Noaani wrote: » I mean, let's be real clear here, this is your first post about it in this thread Enigmatic Sage wrote: » I still cant believe the studio made this huge promise about anti-botting and what not then go around and say they'll allow multi boxing... blew my mind when they announced it. I guess multi-boxing guarantees more active subscriptions. Already you are getting multi-boxing and botting (scripts/macros) conflated. You are talking about them as if they are the same thing - which they are not. This is why you can't claim to have laid out breadcrumbs. You are talking about two different and distinct things as if they are one. I have no idea which one your breadcrumbs lead to, so have no idea what I should be looking for.
Noaani wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Depraved wrote: » damn, enigmatic is turning into noaani, and the real noaani is making sense. the forum is weird today lol Not at all. People spiraling and wasting their own time looking for an answer they couldn't piece together when it was laid out in front of them. Something I'm sure you've witnessed. Psychological patterns are interesting... humans can be less indulging with such obvious flaws especially with the short durations of the conversations span. I still haven't seen it from you. To quote myself; Noaani wrote: » I mean, let's be real clear here, this is your first post about it in this thread Enigmatic Sage wrote: » I still cant believe the studio made this huge promise about anti-botting and what not then go around and say they'll allow multi boxing... blew my mind when they announced it. I guess multi-boxing guarantees more active subscriptions. Already you are getting multi-boxing and botting (scripts/macros) conflated. You are talking about them as if they are the same thing - which they are not. This is why you can't claim to have laid out breadcrumbs. You are talking about two different and distinct things as if they are one. I have no idea which one your breadcrumbs lead to, so have no idea what I should be looking for.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Depraved wrote: » damn, enigmatic is turning into noaani, and the real noaani is making sense. the forum is weird today lol Not at all. People spiraling and wasting their own time looking for an answer they couldn't piece together when it was laid out in front of them. Something I'm sure you've witnessed. Psychological patterns are interesting... humans can be less indulging with such obvious flaws especially with the short durations of the conversations span. I still haven't seen it from you. To quote myself; Noaani wrote: » I mean, let's be real clear here, this is your first post about it in this thread Enigmatic Sage wrote: » I still cant believe the studio made this huge promise about anti-botting and what not then go around and say they'll allow multi boxing... blew my mind when they announced it. I guess multi-boxing guarantees more active subscriptions. Already you are getting multi-boxing and botting (scripts/macros) conflated. You are talking about them as if they are the same thing - which they are not. This is why you can't claim to have laid out breadcrumbs. You are talking about two different and distinct things as if they are one. I have no idea which one your breadcrumbs lead to, so have no idea what I should be looking for. Maybe you just havn't looked hard enough
Noaani wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Depraved wrote: » damn, enigmatic is turning into noaani, and the real noaani is making sense. the forum is weird today lol Not at all. People spiraling and wasting their own time looking for an answer they couldn't piece together when it was laid out in front of them. Something I'm sure you've witnessed. Psychological patterns are interesting... humans can be less indulging with such obvious flaws especially with the short durations of the conversations span. I still haven't seen it from you. To quote myself; Noaani wrote: » I mean, let's be real clear here, this is your first post about it in this thread Enigmatic Sage wrote: » I still cant believe the studio made this huge promise about anti-botting and what not then go around and say they'll allow multi boxing... blew my mind when they announced it. I guess multi-boxing guarantees more active subscriptions. Already you are getting multi-boxing and botting (scripts/macros) conflated. You are talking about them as if they are the same thing - which they are not. This is why you can't claim to have laid out breadcrumbs. You are talking about two different and distinct things as if they are one. I have no idea which one your breadcrumbs lead to, so have no idea what I should be looking for. Maybe you just havn't looked hard enough It doesn't matter how hard I look, I can't see things that are not there. You've put more time in to trying to get me to find them than it would have taken you to just quote yourself. As such, I have to assume you know you have said nothing at all as to how non-script, non-macro multi-boxing is bad for a game like Ashes. In fact, your refusal to even state what those reasons could be tells me that you know they aren't actually valid, and won't stand up to basic scrutiny. I know you well enough to know that if you thought you had a valid argument, you would have reiterated it by now.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Noaani we'll use our imaginations for this one. Hypothetically, if you clone yourself and work at the same job, making the same wage filling two positions over the same duration as you and the clone, what rate would be acquiring income? twice as much as equal parts until you start funneling. Translate that through quest rewards and everything else you can essentially do as a multiplication value depending on how many clones you can operate. It exponentially increases over the same duration.
it's evident over the years how many games have allowed it to secure lost subscriptions
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » I'm really not in the mood to write a damn thesis breaking it down when the reasons are so presently obvious of why multiboxing is stupid.
Noaani wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Noaani we'll use our imaginations for this one. Hypothetically, if you clone yourself and work at the same job, making the same wage filling two positions over the same duration as you and the clone, what rate would be acquiring income? twice as much as equal parts until you start funneling. Translate that through quest rewards and everything else you can essentially do as a multiplication value depending on how many clones you can operate. It exponentially increases over the same duration. The other thing that increases exponentially with more clones is the cost. If you have 10 clones of yourself, that means you need 10 more beds and bedrooms for them, 10 more meals three times a day, 10 more wardrobes full of cloths, 10 more cars, 10 more of literally everything. Moving things back to an MMORPG, if the game is balanced around the notion that a character running content gains gold needed to progress their character, then two characters running content gain gold needed to progress both characters. When you actually break it all down, the only actual advantage a player gets from multi-boxing while questing and such is that they can level two characters in about 145% of the time it takes someone to level one. That is the sum total of the gain of this line of thinking you have here - if you want to argue how horrid that point is, have at it. it's evident over the years how many games have allowed it to secure lost subscriptions No game has ever successfully prevented it. It isn't that games allow it, it is that they realize they literally have no way to detect it, and thus no way to stop it. I literally guarantee that you have come across people multi-boxing in games and you just assumed it was two people playing the game together. That is how multi-boxing looks to players, and it is how it looks to developers. Again, the reason I didn't play Runescape back in the day wasn't because Jagex prevented multi-boxing, it was because at the time I was unaware of how easy it was to get around. Others knew how easy it was, but I didn't. I wasn't even trying to multi-box, their stance at the time just outright prevented me even playing the game. If you can't see how actually bad that is for a game - literally preventing people in the same house playing a game together - then I'm not sure what else to say. Even then, even with that draconian measure intended to prevent multi-boxing, it still failed. It hurt the game, and didn't ever actually do the thing that was intended. This is why no one has a stance against it at all. Enigmatic Sage wrote: » I'm really not in the mood to write a damn thesis breaking it down when the reasons are so presently obvious of why multiboxing is stupid. Ok, so, ignoring the merits of it existing or not existing, how do you stop it without actually negatively impacting the game? No joke, if you come up with a viable way to make this happen, you'd be able to make hundreds of millions, perhaps even (no joke) billions of dollars from it. It is a problem that has stumped literally everyone for decades, and no one has a solution. Thus, if we ignore merits for and against, without an actual method to prevent it, we have literally no other option. I think it is utterly rediculous that we don't all have flying cars by now. We were promised them decades ago, and yet I can't buy one if I tried. I can jump up and down and complain about this all I like, but that isn't actually going to solve the issues that are the cause of why we don't have flying cars. Likewise, you can jump up and down all you like about multi-boxing, but without a solution to the issue that makes multi-boxing a fact of online gaming, all you can do is jump up and down screaming to yourself. My honest suggestion (to literally everyone, literally all the time) is to do the best with the things you can control, and just accept the things you can't.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Intrepid isn't paying me 6 figures a year to figure their shit out for them lol.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » I'm pretty close to the point of saying fuck Mmorpgs because of player base mentality that keeps the genre in the same loop.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Sometimes the carrage gets put before the horse. I can see them going back on some those household rulesets for devices, accounts, identifications of hardware and isp.
