Keno Monster said:Goliant said:Tanix said:Not likely. Boxing isn't done because people can't find groups, it is done to "get ahead"..
having read through the other threads, many legitimate reasons are stated for wanting to multibox, that i can understand:
not having time to find a group
being online when others aren't
would have logged off, if not for second account
not wanting to deal with losing a keyrole in a group
or just outright only want to play alone
etc.these are all good reasons and there are many more,
we are all "the good guys" box or nobox.
but i hope visionary realms acknowledges that the community is split on this subject and tries to understand why i and others would want to play on a server without multiboxers.
ingame economy being a personal reasonFrankly, in a game with a monthly sub fee for each account, paying VR for 2 accounts is all the valid reason anyone needs, imo(another reason I'd like the price to be more than $15/mo). I say this while agreeing that boxing has negative impacts on community and server health and agreeing that a solo ruleset server would be a good thing.
By that logic, VR should pander to the masses and have RMT. The numbers show that this model while it eventually fails is a HUGE profit earner. This is why many game companies (and movie companies) still churn out complete garbage to the masses. It doesn't matter if the game is a long term success, the amount it makes in its "gimmicks" more than pays for the game.
So, the question is... should they sell out (it pays WAY better), or... should they stick to the concepts of what makes a solid game system?
Personally I would like to know. That way I can eat the loss on support and stop bothering to follow the game if they are going to place monetary gimmicks as the key focus of their games design. Been there, done that, not interested.
Mordecai said: They’re not going to be as productive as a full group.
True, but that is apples to oranges. You don't compare a solo player boxing a full group with a full group, rather you compare a solo player boxing a full group with that of a solo player. So who is more productive?
Do you understand how it cheats the system? That the solo player must go out, seek a group, socialize, be of skilled manner to stay grouped, etc... while the boxer only needs to load up some software and is essentially a super powered soloer?
Mordecai said:All the scared folk of “possible economic impacts” are borrowing trouble for another day.
I don't understand, please explain.
I would rather there be a server that allows multi-boxing and the default is disallowed. All forms of botting (and that is really what multi-boxing is if only on short strings of commands) hurt the game. This could be done by having an account generate a key based on the mac address that account will be playing from which is registerd to the account. When you log in it checks for which mac address you are on and if it matches one of your keys. No more than one account can be loged in on the same network hardware at the same time. I am sure there are ways to kill off input from third party software and add it to the ULA as a banable offense.
I would actually even prefer a server where you could only have one base character per account that way each choice of class and crafting profession really matters (this is another SWG feature that noone else has.
I think your forums might be buggy or one of my extension in chrome is causing an issue.
Anyways, multiboxing is a thing and it should not affect the economy too much. The majority of folks will not multi-box I would think. If you spend the extra resources in real life to multibox, it should yield you more anyways.
oneADseven said:Trasak said:I would rather there be a server that allows multi-boxing and the default is disallowed.
I feel the same way. Make it the prison server.
100% I can't agree more. Multiboxing should be allowed but not be the norm on every server. It doesn't have to be the "prison server" but it shouldn't be 1 specific server where it isn't allowed. There should be one specific server where it is allowed.
Being on a level playing field is one of the major draws of the game. People are fed up with cash shops and pay to win or pay for perks.
Like others have mentioned, buying extra accounts in order to multibox is only arguably different than buying any other in game perks through a cash shop. You are paying extra and benefiting in game because of it.
philo said:
.. it shouldn't be 1 specific server where it isn't allowed. There should be one specific server where it is allowed.
Being on a level playing field is one of the major draws of the game..
my impression is that visionary realms are trying to make a game where boxers and nonboxers co-exist happily side by side, and i wish them good luck and fortune.
what we can hope for is that they see the gain having even just one server, where all people are equal.
then i know what server to choose, and everyone knows where to play.
and on that note, don't dig trenches, multiboxing isn't botting
keep it civil and if you don't understand why people want to box, or play on a box-free server - then search for "boxing" and read all the comments. there are many reasons for both
People are getting carried away at this point. Boxing is botting now? All you need to do is load up software and issue a few commands to play multiple characters? Come on guys, that's nonsense. They've covered their policy on automation many times. If you aren't making the input yourself on the client you're playing, that's a banable offense.
philo said:Like others have mentioned, buying extra accounts in order to multibox is only arguably different than buying any other in game perks through a cash shop. You are paying extra and benefiting in game because of it.
This is an absurd stretch. You still have to play the character.
Multiboxing i'm ok with. This is something VR cannot prevent either. One could even discuss that it is being promoted, considering you get 2 game copies with most of the pledges.
Why can this not be prevented? Because you will either kill the ability for RL families to play together by only allowing 1 account login per ip, or if you do it based on mac address. ill just load up a virtual machine and spoof a different virtual one.
From a personal point of view, the only reason i would be boxing is because the content i want to play does not offer enough people to achieve this (think of a quest spawn that might require clearing a lot of trash with only the quest spawn being the benefit). I'll always prefer to group with other players but at times can / will be forced to look for other means. In EQ1 i was playing on an american server, being a european player this was an issue because when i got home from school / work, most players would be either in bed or going to work.
I do not think this will impact the economy as much as other players actually playing as i will just be bridging a gap at that point. Ofcourse when my characters would have achieved everything i want from the solo / group content is when it becomes a different story. Either i will stop playing or start farming for items i myself cannot get and thus want to buy from others who can get it. In a way this will also stimulate economy.
So for that i would conclude that if things aren't as easy to get all across the board, the economy won't be hit much if at all and (if used right / described above) it will only enable people to play for longer.
Is multiboxing an advantage in terms of gathering in-game wealth? Yes, most likely it will be.
BUT, I don't think that advantage will inflate overall server economy so much that non-boxers will have that much of a noticable hard time compared to if boxing was banned. I think this way because the additional sub fee required to box will by itself make the boxing community a relatively small minority. I won't be boxing even though I care quite a lot about video games and even though I see nothing wrong with boxing, the reason is that economically I can't justify paying two sub fees.
So all in all the size of the portion of the total community using multiboxing is in direct relation to how much it will increase prices. I highly doubt that portion will be very large at all.
BTW, that mockup of a box-party with the MMX portraits looks really cool, somehow I'm mourning my inability to play this imaginary game haha
shasta said: I don’t understand why so many people of anti multiboxing. I did it in EQ. I had my main and my second account was my shaman. When I couldn’t find a group I would solo. I liked the challenge of being able to do it alone regardless if I had a second account. It doesn’t effect the economy. I never sold or traded anything. The issue I do hate are botters. That is where the line should be drawn. Not because I am playing two accounts.
I have to disagree here. In EQ2, there was a guy who boxed a team and monitored all the named mobs in the zone. He would hit each one and get all the master drops then sell them all at below market prices. The vast number of masters he was able to put on the broker definitely affected the economy.
Beefcake said:I have to disagree here. In EQ2, there was a guy who boxed a team and monitored all the named mobs in the zone. He would hit each one and get all the master drops then sell them all at below market prices. The vast number of masters he was able to put on the broker definitely affected the economy.
I know what you are talking about, but i can tell you this was not a multibox. Everquest 2 was fairly hard to box, especially if doing this with more than 2 accounts.
Allowing multi-boxing in a game that is built around having a strong community, player interdependence, and shared experiences ... that's like offering to sell hotdogs in a Michelin Star restaurant. Seeing them on the menu, or on the table of a fellow diner, would be off-putting and unappetizing. I have seen the words "core audience" tossed around quite a bit with this game. As described on the "What is Pantheon" page, "Pantheon focuses on challenging content and social aspects of gameplay, encouraging groups and guilds, forging new relationships, and earning a reputation in the community." While I would prefer that the "authentic experience" for this game, on standard servers, would disallow multi-boxing ... I would settle with an alternate ruleset server. Players are the fuel of MMO magic -- I don't want my server running on E15 ethanol. #communitymatters
Keno Monster said:People are getting carried away at this point. Boxing is botting now? All you need to do is load up software and issue a few commands to play multiple characters? Come on guys, that's nonsense. They've covered their policy on automation many times. If you aren't making the input yourself on the client you're playing, that's a banable offense.
You misunderstand. The "old school" way of boxing is simply having two completely separate machines and switching back and forth. Over time, various software/hardware allowed you to simplify this. Things like switches for your devices (allowed you to share keboards/monitors for two machines where you could swap with a button switch (or using multiple monitors with one keyboard). Eventually there were things that allowed you to do this with simple software (software that could send your keystrokes to a different machine via the network). Add in things like virtual machine technology and the ability of keyboards to macro various functions, key map to different means, as well as setup other devices to handle separate inputs and you have the means to box mulitple characters with as simple as hitting a single button to send a command to another character to target and heal a specific character without ever having to switch or focus on that character.
Botting is having a character completely autonomous, able to decide and do as it is programmed on its own to do (it acts and functions without instruction similar to a player). In between the two extremes (comeplte separate machines and full automation), resides the basic boxer who uses various automation scripts and configurations to ease the management of their multiple boxes. A person who knows what they are doing (which is made much easier now software tools) can control numerous characters without ever having to switch screens or the like. They can direct their memebers to do various tasks while basically playing their main character, only giving out instructions via key strokes or in-game chat commands that instruct a member to act when the controller says so.
So, no... boxing is not botting, BUT many scripting features that ultimately establish botting will be used to make it much easier and being able to tell between the two will be extremely difficult for VR.
decarsul said:Beefcake said:I have to disagree here. In EQ2, there was a guy who boxed a team and monitored all the named mobs in the zone. He would hit each one and get all the master drops then sell them all at below market prices. The vast number of masters he was able to put on the broker definitely affected the economy.
I know what you are talking about, but i can tell you this was not a multibox. Everquest 2 was fairly hard to box, especially if doing this with more than 2 accounts.
Actually, multiboxing in EQ 2 was extremely easy. My friend did it all the time. I honestly don't see how any system will make boxing harder. I have yet to see a game I could not easily setup a boxing configuration for. "Build a better mouse trap, they build a better mouse"
Spluffen said:Is multiboxing an advantage in terms of gathering in-game wealth? Yes, most likely it will be.
BUT, I don't think that advantage will inflate overall server economy so much that non-boxers will have that much of a noticable hard time compared to if boxing was banned. I think this way because the additional sub fee required to box will by itself make the boxing community a relatively small minority. I won't be boxing even though I care quite a lot about video games and even though I see nothing wrong with boxing, the reason is that economically I can't justify paying two sub fees.
So all in all the size of the portion of the total community using multiboxing is in direct relation to how much it will increase prices. I highly doubt that portion will be very large at all.
BTW, that mockup of a box-party with the MMX portraits looks really cool, somehow I'm mourning my inability to play this imaginary game haha
It does by basic design concept though. A single player can then earn money at a groups pace and also be able to take on group based mobs. This very ability completely imbalances the game to favor boxers and because it does, more people will box to gain this advantage. There will be those who do not, and they will be left behind in the player markets, unable to funciton efficently. Also, keep in mind that Plat sellers will be using boxing to generate as much income as possible. The goal of any plat seller is to inflate the market to where "normal" game play is ineffective to gain an item and the player then must seek outside game means to afford it.
shasta said: I don’t understand why so many people of anti multiboxing. I did it in EQ. I had my main and my second account was my shaman. When I couldn’t find a group I would solo. I liked the challenge of being able to do it alone regardless if I had a second account. It doesn’t effect the economy. I never sold or traded anything. The issue I do hate are botters. That is where the line should be drawn. Not because I am playing two accounts.
Absolutely agree. Boxing is fine as the player has to be sitting at the computer actively playing. Botting is a completely different. That's a no go to botting.
Tanix said:This very ability completely imbalances the game to favor boxers and because it does, more people will box to gain this advantage.
Definitely agree and stated as much in the post you're replying to.
Tanix said:There will be those who do not, and they will be left behind in the player markets, unable to funciton efficently.
This depends entirely on how large the portion of multiboxing players are compared to the rest. We obviously don't know that number as it doesn't exist yet. I'd wager it'd be relatively small as it has been in previous subscription MMOs but you could indeed be right and somehow a large portion of the playerbase are willing to double their subscription fee every month. Anyway we can't know this yet but for the sake of the in-game economy I hope you're wrong and if you turn out to be right I hope the multiboxing policy sees a revision.
I think we may be dealing with a difference in definition here
Type 1:
Botting (Which everyone hates): Is a character in game that is operated 95%+ by scripts intended to do a set of actions to generate either loot or short cut time consuming character development processes.
Type 2:
Multiple Accounts on one “box”: There are a large variety of ways to achieve running multiple active logins from the same workstation. The on one “box” concept focuses on the user being able to send inputs to all logged in accounts at the same time through a variety of means. The game client would either need to be able to natively accept scripted inputs or the game client would need to be hacked to allow it for the Multiple Accounts on one “box” concept to work.
I believe many of us feel that the Multiple Accounts on one “box” play style is very detrimental to the game economy and community as it massively improves play efficiency and team optimization that a full group of individuals can never hope to match though a professional team can come close.
There are things within the ULA and the game client that can be done to hamper and prevent the Multiple Accounts on one “box” including things like client tamper checks, limited accepted user inputs, rejection of virtual machines being able to connect to the server, human input checks and many other things. Even the most simple of things like disabling Auto follow after x number of seconds will make Multiple Accounts on one “box” very difficult as character movement is one of the hardest things to automate.
Type 3:
One user operating multiple boxes: Having one use operate multiple machines at once with no added automation is going to be virtually impossible to detect. The only tools that might prevent one user operating multiple boxes will also kill off Lan parties (does this date me?) and families playing together as well as playing at a game store.
As long as the one user is not using any automation tools then operating multiple accounts is not really a problem as the loss of efficiency by needing to switch between controls offsets some of the gains of not needing to wait for a group. The financial commitment of having a full group of PCs and the active accounts to run on them will also be substantial enough that very rarely will someone use it. I would still prefer for there not to be any form of auto follow (other than maybe having a wagon that the rest of the group can get on for over land travel) as that is the primary tool needed to have one user operate multiple boxes.
In general I think our hope as players is that the game is interactive enough that it is virtually impossible for one player to effectively operate two characters at once (with or without scripting assistance) much less 5-8 characters.
Just want to chime in and say my piece. Will try to keep it short because the mods don't seem to like lengthy debates on this subject.
Celandor said:I think P99 is a good example of an environment where boxing still occurs to a limited extent but isn't allowed. Does it ruin the game in moderation? No.
My big complaint with boxing servers is not that someone else has an advantage over me, it's that prevalent boxing is detrimental to building a strong player community where people routinely group.
If offered, I too would elect to play on a no-boxing server. If there's going to be an RP preferred server with more enforcement of character naming, I also hope that's (one of) the no-boxing server(s).
I'm in the same boat. Though I foresee some issues with many types of special rules servers and the desire to mix and match specific rules to create new special rules servers.
For instance, in another thread I saw someone mentioning they DID want to multibox on an RP server because it would allow them to take on the role of a 'dungeon master' and control both minor and major characters for their story at the same time, while also not giving away that the same person was behind them all. The flip side to this is that multiboxing players can force their will on others playing a single character, provided those others are cooperative and not acting like their character is untouchable. Consider a multi boxer using multiple characters to restrain a character from an enemy guild, or using multiple characters to influence a vote to get one of their own boxed characters into a position of power.
So what are we going to need then.. RP servers, FFA PvP, alignment-based faction PvP, RP FFA PvP, RP faction PvP, RP no-boxing servers, FFA PvP no boxing servers, RP faction PvP no boxing servers.. the list goes on as combinations increase exponentially the more options you add.
I'd rather they just prohibit multiboxing altogether because in my opinion the downsides greatly outweigh the upsides, and I'm saying that as someone who played EQ1 as a European on US-based servers, regularly playing during off-hours. I simply accepted having to find things to do by myself (like crafting, farming some lower level content or helping out newcomers in low level zones) and having to wait for a long time to get a group together as part of the experience. I truly don't understand why it's such a big deal that you can't always spend your game time as efficiently as possible.
Unfortunately, I expect there to be no restrictions to multi-boxing at all because VR doesn't perceive it as a problem. So I'll just have to hope I can stay away from multi-boxers and limit their ability to infuence the game for me. In terms of the economy though, I'll just have to accept that I'm at a disadvantage.
Spluffen said:This depends entirely on how large the portion of multiboxing players are compared to the rest. We obviously don't know that number as it doesn't exist yet. I'd wager it'd be relatively small as it has been in previous subscription MMOs but you could indeed be right and somehow a large portion of the playerbase are willing to double their subscription fee every month. Anyway we can't know this yet but for the sake of the in-game economy I hope you're wrong and if you turn out to be right I hope the multiboxing policy sees a revision.
My position isn’t just a guess, rather it is based on anecdotal experience since going back a very long time. We don't "know" for sure how Pantheon will result based on this, but... in the past such has become the standard in many games. In fact, one thing I noticed over the last couple of decades of MMOs is that there has a been a natural progression of occurrence that has increased with these technologies, especially as they have become "easier" for the laymen to use.
\As I mentioned, what was once a very costly/difficult thing to setup, is now as easy as downloading a software program that will do all the work for you in setting up multi-boxing. So accessibility has become much more common for these tools and as I said, in my experience I have seen many more boxers these days than I did in early EQ because of it. So based on that experience, I can only assume it will be far more common than a passing occurrence and there by have a noticeable effect on the game.