If a server is at player capacity and you have to wait in a queue to log in, how would you feel if you knew that 100 players on that server are multiboxing and so are actually taking up 200 players slots on the server that could be filled with legitimate players?
Every multiboxer alt that uses up a player slot on the server is also another character that isn't grouping up for dungeons or grinding content.
Multiboxing goes against the core philosophy of the game.
Having said that it will always be a minority of players that do this and hopefully it doesn't become too widespread.
Kaeldorn said: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.
Why is that? Longer discussions usually tend to be more constructive in debate over those that are short one lines where meaning and context can often be lost. If this is true, it puzzles me.
Kaeldorn said: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.
It may be a problem as you explained further... Part of that problem is that in your example, the person took the meaning of RP and decided to subjectively adapt to levels that go beyond reason in my opinion.
That is why I think if they are going to have a specific rule-set server, they should first survey the things people would want in such a server according to like category, then calculate the order of importance by responses, build a template that encompasses the most common responses and then see how many would choose such a server. You could even put in a question that says "is this a deal breaker" (ie I won't play on that server because of this. If you do it right, you can get a fairly accurate projection as to what the interests are concerning a server. Most people will compromise on some aspects if there is a common theme of such. Those who can not, well... that is a choice. I honestly think VR is going to have to do this because of the MMO landscape today. There are a lot who share similar views, but... differ greatly in some implementations (this is obvious through the discussions here), so I think in order for this game to be long term successful, it should attend to some means to establish this.
To be honest though, and this is my personal opinion here, I think VR should develop Pantheon as a server/client product and license its use accordingly while they continue to develop professional content, packages and features to be sold to those who run servers (ful customization at the core engine level, ie being able to adjust combat engine mechanics and systems, etc...). What this does is allow people to essentially run their own private servers under any configuration and design they see fit giving players the complete freedom to search out communities of like mind which would achieve the largest satisfaction for all who play.
Think about it:
If you like more modern MMO design with question mark quests, fast travel, solo play, or raid focused, etc... you get it.
If you want old school, corpse runs, extreme exp penalty, forced first person, etc... you get it.
If you want hardcore PvP, perm death, etc... you get it.
If VR wants to run their own servers with some basic themes, they can as well, just like ARK and many other survival games do.
VR either does a box sale design, or licenses both the client and server for a specific amount (ie monthly fees to get the server package software to which you can host your own, or maybe rent through VR) and also a client use license where you pay a sub to use the client which allows you to connect to any licensed server out there.
This in my opinion is the future to MMO gaming as it serves the customers interest completely. Players can still find servers with major populations and they can run small servers with friends all configured and designed in a manner they agree with. It is a win/win across the board.
Trasak said:
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.
Thing is, how are you going to enforce this? Remember the trouble some companies got into by actively monitoring processes outside of the games authority? Some had to attach malware like programs to their client to be able to do this which is very bad for a company to do. Also, to circumvent this is extremely easy (automated even) with software (often as simple as OS confirguation) out there that blocks, spoofs, and hides the function of the software on the client machine. Keep in mind, the owner of the machine is king and no matter how clever the game developer is, the owner will have authority to overrule them.
This doesn't even take into consideration the vagueness of various software and hardware solutions that VR would have to discern. With virtual machines, and various software/hardware implementations, you are talking about dealing with a vast array of tech issues to try and monitor to decide what is what.
I respect VRs ability to make a game, but I can promise you they are not of the level of required resources (even those who specialize in such fight an uphill battle) to even deal with the vast area of security design that would be required to implement a solution that can catch this occurence. All they could really do is ban outright certain implementations (ie catch the tech illiterate who barely can turn on a machine), but this would be at a cost of losing legitimate players as well (some companies tried to ban Logitech keyboards in the past which had extensive macro programming tools, it didn't go over well) and being branded as a privacy infringement company.
VR has a tough road to haul if they are going to combat it.
Tanix said:Kaeldorn said: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.
Why is that? Longer discussions usually tend to be more constructive in debate over those that are short one lines where meaning and context can often be lost. If this is true, it puzzles me.
Well in that other thread about multiboxing, the thread was locked because the somewhat heated debate was going around in circles between community members who weren't going to give an inch. It was stated that besides wanting to avoid seeing folks rage at each other, this also made it more difficult for VR to collect valuable feedback from the forums because they had to read the same thing over and over again.
Most of my concerns have already been mentioned by others, therefore I don't see the need to repeat all of them.
It may be a problem as you explained further... Part of that problem is that in your example, the person took the meaning of RP and decided to subjectively adapt to levels that go beyond reason in my opinion.
That is why I think if they are going to have a specific rule-set server, they should first survey the things people would want in such a server according to like category, then calculate the order of importance by responses, build a template that encompasses the most common responses and then see how many would choose such a server. You could even put in a question that says "is this a deal breaker" (ie I won't play on that server because of this. If you do it right, you can get a fairly accurate projection as to what the interests are concerning a server. Most people will compromise on some aspects if there is a common theme of such. Those who can not, well... that is a choice. I honestly think VR is going to have to do this because of the MMO landscape today. There are a lot who share similar views, but... differ greatly in some implementations (this is obvious through the discussions here), so I think in order for this game to be long term successful, it should attend to some means to establish this.
To be honest though, and this is my personal opinion here, I think VR should develop Pantheon as a server/client product and license its use accordingly while they continue to develop professional content, packages and features to be sold to those who run servers (ful customization at the core engine level, ie being able to adjust combat engine mechanics and systems, etc...). What this does is allow people to essentially run their own private servers under any configuration and design they see fit giving players the complete freedom to search out communities of like mind which would achieve the largest satisfaction for all who play.
Think about it:
If you like more modern MMO design with question mark quests, fast travel, solo play, or raid focused, etc... you get it.
If you want old school, corpse runs, extreme exp penalty, forced first person, etc... you get it.
If you want hardcore PvP, perm death, etc... you get it.
If VR wants to run their own servers with some basic themes, they can as well, just like ARK and many other survival games do.
VR either does a box sale design, or licenses both the client and server for a specific amount (ie monthly fees to get the server package software to which you can host your own, or maybe rent through VR) and also a client use license where you pay a sub to use the client which allows you to connect to any licensed server out there.
This in my opinion is the future to MMO gaming as it serves the customers interest completely. Players can still find servers with major populations and they can run small servers with friends all configured and designed in a manner they agree with. It is a win/win across the board.
I'd be for it, but I don't know how difficult it'd be for the developers to essentially make servers moddable to the public without possibly compromising security on their own servers because of all the additional information that's freely available as a result. It has worked well enough for games that were built from the ground up to allow community-run servers, or where the community reverse-engineered the majority of the game and wrote their own code. If you ask me though, reverse engineering shouldn't be necessary in the first place if community servers are part of the package the game is advertised with.
Tanix said: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.
Thanks for mansplainging something I know very well already and telling me I don't understand. You're a real hoot.
Keno Monster said:Tanix said: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.
Thanks for mansplainging something I know very well already and telling me I don't understand. You're a real hoot.
Thanks for turning an honest attempt at discussion into a sexist accusation and emotional complaint to achieve nothing but pointless commentary.
Grow up.
@Tanix
Oh I agree that it is very difficult to track it and there will always be a few people with the technological skills to circumvent almost any detection method.
I also hope that Multi-Boxing in any form will be considered as against the play nice rules as they may exist. Outside of savant level players one player trying to play two characters in the same party is not going to be able to do as good of a job playing those characters as two players of the same skill would be able to. There by you are hurting your party members by hiding the fact that you are playing both characters when invited into the group, if it is known before hand thats a different story. As was mentioned above I would also see one player taking up more than one players worth of maximum server occupancy is not playing nice as is one player consuming 6 players worth of content at the same time.
Players will eventually know who multi-boxes and will be able to avoid inviting them to groups and obvious cheaters will be caught and banned as VR is able to. I've seen it said before in other threads that there are server side analytic tools that can spot habitual cheaters fairly accurately and as they are the once creating the most damage they are often the most cost effective targets for banning. Lets face it a 6 team multi boxer that only plays 5 hours a week is not going to effect the economy much compared to one that players for 8-12 hours a day all week. The casual multi-boxer will be hard to spot and wont cause much damage but the pro multi-boxer will be easy to spot and squash, assuming that multi-boxing is considered cheating.
My main idea is using a unique hardware flag tied to the machine that is registered to only a single account similar to how Windows Authentication works. For ease of families sharing several different machines there may need to be an allowance to have up to 4 machines registered to a single account and up to a similar number of accounts as family members but they would all need to be tied to the same payment method.
Rather than having the account tied to a set computer hardware I could see it tied to a smart phone that will be issued a key any time you want to login that must be supplied. This way a user could move between different PCs at game cafes and the like without running into a hardware lock. The more I think about it the more I like having the smart phone as a second option to make the accounts unique. I would still prevent the same unique hardware identifier from connecting to the server more than once though.
Trasak said:
@Tanix
Oh I agree that it is very difficult to track it and there will always be a few people with the technological skills to circumvent almost any detection method.
I also hope that Multi-Boxing in any form will be considered as against the play nice rules as they may exist. Outside of savant level players one player trying to play two characters in the same party is not going to be able to do as good of a job playing those characters as two players of the same skill would be able to. There by you are hurting your party members by hiding the fact that you are playing both characters when invited into the group, if it is known before hand thats a different story. As was mentioned above I would also see one player taking up more than one players worth of maximum server occupancy is not playing nice as is one player consuming 6 players worth of content at the same time.
Players will eventually know who multi-boxes and will be able to avoid inviting them to groups and obvious cheaters will be caught and banned as VR is able to. I've seen it said before in other threads that there are server side analytic tools that can spot habitual cheaters fairly accurately and as they are the once creating the most damage they are often the most cost effective targets for banning. Lets face it a 6 team multi boxer that only plays 5 hours a week is not going to effect the economy much compared to one that players for 8-12 hours a day all week. The casual multi-boxer will be hard to spot and wont cause much damage but the pro multi-boxer will be easy to spot and squash, assuming that multi-boxing is considered cheating.
My main idea is using a unique hardware flag tied to the machine that is registered to only a single account similar to how Windows Authentication works. For ease of families sharing several different machines there may need to be an allowance to have up to 4 machines registered to a single account and up to a similar number of accounts as family members but they would all need to be tied to the same payment method.
Rather than having the account tied to a set computer hardware I could see it tied to a smart phone that will be issued a key any time you want to login that must be supplied. This way a user could move between different PCs at game cafes and the like without running into a hardware lock. The more I think about it the more I like having the smart phone as a second option to make the accounts unique. I would still prevent the same unique hardware identifier from connecting to the server more than once though.
Your ideas certainly have merit, and I agree they would go a long way to reducing (and this is alll we can ever really hope for) the occurrence of such.
I will say the more intrusive the system is, the more likely you will reduce the occurrence. The actual goal is not to eliminate it, this is pretty much impossible, but... rather to make it so difficult that it is not worth the effort for all but those who are entrepreneurs in the area (ie professional players such as plat/player services). You do that and then the player community and physical services of the game (ie GMs) can handle the rest easily.
As for the players being able to play another character at sufficient skill, I can say with actual experience, it is very easy. I setup multiple types of accounts over the years personally (not as a desire to play, but because I am a techie and love to see what I am capable of) and I was able to setup two (more if need) to such a level that the second account played at a higher efficiency than that of having two separate players. The reason was that in terms of having a box healer, I could time my heals perfectly with my skill execution. There was no required gauging of "when" or communication required to when a player should be healed that comes with playing a separate healer. I could maximize my use perfectly.
I would setup multiple macros for heals, spells, actions, etc... to certain keys on my keyboard (or even a mouse button) and then, when need, I could just hit the button to cause my other character to target, heal, move, etc... as I needed when I needed all from the first person knowledge of the person who needed it (it is why most boxers will play the tank and have the rest of the classes as boxers) which I think we can both argree is better than waiting for another to decide such.
Fact is, a well designed layout of boxing characters with proper hardware/software and I "know" (from experience) that I can often out perform many players today (not the exceptional players, but lets be honest, the average is what most people will be dealing with in the game).
Frankly if you know 6 classes well enough to be able to write the correct scripts to trigger the right tool for the job puts you far above the average player from my experience. I have had enough trouble getting players only playing one character not to kill themselves.
If you had to interact with locations on the screen and not just tab target and activate an ability on a bar then I would imagine that it would be much harder to script without actively sniffing the packets.
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.
Again, I have to disagree. In EQ2, boxing was quite easy, especially with well equipped characters that are not leveling, just boxing for loot. You really only needed to control the DPS and occasionally taunt on the tank. The other members of the group were just there to add automatic buffs and occasional heals. When using a reactive healing and warding heals, that was almost automatic.
Bascally, start the fight with a tank taunt, control the DPS, and the other characters are mostly on auto-pilot. This was all easily accomplished without any botting. There was even a program that allowed you to control a whole group on one screen. Once again, no bottling. You actually click the abilities yourself.
Of course, since Pantheon is allowing macros, with timers built in, you can do it even easier without botting.
Trasak said:
Frankly if you know 6 classes well enough to be able to write the correct scripts to trigger the right tool for the job puts you far above the average player from my experience. I have had enough trouble getting players only playing one character not to kill themselves.
If you had to interact with locations on the screen and not just tab target and activate an ability on a bar then I would imagine that it would be much harder to script without actively sniffing the packets.
Thing about the internet is you no longer need to "know" such. All you need to know is someone who does "know" how to do such and you merely copy their work. This is how hackers (ie people who spent enormous amounts of time learning systems, writing various scripts, etc...) of today are known as "script kiddies" because they honestly have no clue of the tools they use or the understanding past surface level use to what is being applied. The point is, I can easily setup a 6 man group for even the least skilled gamer and they will be able to run a full group with better results than a single player trying the same content. Place a competent gamer in the same seat and you get a master of play.
Well, keep in mind that the claim that without the /follow command, it would solve the issue is an ignorant one. There are programs (not going to mention them as I don't want to encourage their use, but they are well known) that can achieve the same result of the /follow command by simply training based on screen info (ie you target a name bracket on a player, a graphic, etc....) and it is the same as follow (ie the game uses the direction keys to keep that graphical element within proximity.
Point is, there is no escaping it. This form of automation WILL persist and be EASILY available, this is a fact and if you don't believe me, I can provide you via PM with numerous examples of software and hardware examples. Boxing 2, 6, 12, 24, 40 +, not an issue these days, it is ridiculously easy and no amount of "action" or "active" play will make a difference. Only way they can reduce it is by ACTIVELY programming elements to combat it, which they already said they will not be doing.
Boxing will be common and sway the progression of this game greatly. This is why some are so persitant in arguing against it, they know it gives them an advantage.
Tanix said:Keno Monster said:Tanix said: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.
Thanks for mansplainging something I know very well already and telling me I don't understand. You're a real hoot.
Thanks for turning an honest attempt at discussion into a sexist accusation and emotional complaint to achieve nothing but pointless commentary.
Grow up.
You have been rude, condsecending and insulting in a large number of posts recently. I think perhaps you should do some research on the game, and particularly their policies on botting and security. I have been a software developer for 15 years. I played EQ at launch in 1999. I do not require 500 words on botting vs boxing.
"This depends entirely on how large the portion of multiboxing players are compared to the rest. We obviously don't know that number.."
you are right we don't know, but i had a look on multiboxing from everquest on mmorpg, and it leaves me with an impression that we can expect many multiboxers
https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/432021/why-you-probably-shouldnt-play-eq-new-server
..Well in that other thread about multiboxing, the thread was locked because the somewhat heated debate..
this, don't get angry over opinions guys.
"....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."
when we pass time looking for solutions here and now, VR may be inspired by our healthy discussions and ultimately nobody has to accept being at a disadvantage,.
Boxing doesnt ruin anything. It's peoples attitude towards boxers that ignite them to box more and ignore solo players.
The game where boxing has SIGNIFICANTLY impacted ANYTHING is Everquest and the only reason this was possible was because of how easy it was to hack the game and create programs that assisted with the playing of multiple characters.
Everquest also has the SLOWEST combat system ive ever experienced. Which makes it that much easier to box multiple characters. I could 6 box (legitamately, using no outside programs) everquest... I struggle to effectively 2 box games like ff14, rift and wow. (By effective I mean actually playing both characters to there near potential and not just auto following).
Peoples opinion of boxing was ruined because of the game design in everquest.
And honestly, it doesnt matter what the reason is behind wanting to box. If I want to box because I dont want to group, who cares. It's my game. The reason I will be boxing on release is because after playing MMOs for 20 years, I've realized that most players are very bad. So by me boxing a tank and healer... I control 50% of the groups success and wont be wasting my time looking for decent players.
Also. There will not be a no boxing server. Instead of campaigning against boxing, campaign that the combat be so involved that boxing is not possible. Because no matter what Brad has said... thats not the case in any of these streams. I wont actually experience the game until alpha, which might change my mind... but honestly I'm confidant I could 2 box (war and clr) anything I've seen so far.
Edit. Programs like isboxer (and similar ones) only work when combat is simple. You can is box EQ because combat is absurdly simple. On the other end you can isbox wow because the rotations for dps are simple, even tho the combat is more complex.
Like I said before, create a complex combat system and you eliminate the ability for most players to box.
Keno Monster said:Tanix said:Keno Monster said:Tanix said: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.
Thanks for mansplainging something I know very well already and telling me I don't understand. You're a real hoot.
Thanks for turning an honest attempt at discussion into a sexist accusation and emotional complaint to achieve nothing but pointless commentary.
Grow up.
You continue to berate, insult and condescend in almost every thread in which you participate, while telling others to "grow up"? There more than mild irony in play here.
Prove your case as it should easy for you to make this case by properly quoting my past responses and then making an argument.
I am going to call you out on this, you being devious in your response.
So far, you have responded with numerous accusations, but never have you quoted and attended to a given response with any form of logical response.
Even in this very response, you are making me the accuser when I was the one called a "mansplainer", a sexist comment, but apparently I am the one belittling?
How about you put up or shut up, I will not be intimidated by charlatans.
Tanix said:Keno Monster said:Tanix said:Keno Monster said:Tanix said: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.
Thanks for mansplainging something I know very well already and telling me I don't understand. You're a real hoot.
Thanks for turning an honest attempt at discussion into a sexist accusation and emotional complaint to achieve nothing but pointless commentary.
Grow up.
You continue to berate, insult and condescend in almost every thread in which you participate, while telling others to "grow up"? There more than mild irony in play here.
Prove your case as it should easy for you to make this case by properly quoting my past responses and then making an argument.
I am going to call you out on this, you being devious in your response.
So far, you have responded with numerous accusations, but never have you quoted and attended to a given response with any form of logical response.
Even in this very response, you are making me the accuser when I was the one called a "mansplainer", a sexist comment, but apparently I am the one belittling?
How about you put up or shut up, I will not be intimidated by charlatans.
Well I was going to, but I don't need to anymore.
Porygon said:And honestly, it doesnt matter what the reason is behind wanting to box.
you are right.
Porygon said:Instead of campaigning against boxing, campaign that the combat be so involved that boxing is not possible. .. but honestly I'm confidant I could 2 box (war and clr) anything I've seen so far.
i think a healthy game need both combat that is easy, and content that is engaging and difficult.
and i think there a many people who dont care how other people play, at all. which is good.
i can easily imagine .. lets say 15 standard servers, and one server with an addendum of 3 lines of text: no multiboxing, no /stick, no /follow
room for everyone
Porygon said:Boxing doesnt ruin anything. It's peoples attitude towards boxers that ignite them to box more and ignore solo players.
The game where boxing has SIGNIFICANTLY impacted ANYTHING is Everquest and the only reason this was possible was because of how easy it was to hack the game and create programs that assisted with the playing of multiple characters.
Everquest also has the SLOWEST combat system ive ever experienced. Which makes it that much easier to box multiple characters. I could 6 box (legitamately, using no outside programs) everquest... I struggle to effectively 2 box games like ff14, rift and wow. (By effective I mean actually playing both characters to there near potential and not just auto following).
Peoples opinion of boxing was ruined because of the game design in everquest.
And honestly, it doesnt matter what the reason is behind wanting to box. If I want to box because I dont want to group, who cares. It's my game. The reason I will be boxing on release is because after playing MMOs for 20 years, I've realized that most players are very bad. So by me boxing a tank and healer... I control 50% of the groups success and wont be wasting my time looking for decent players.
Also. There will not be a no boxing server. Instead of campaigning against boxing, campaign that the combat be so involved that boxing is not possible. Because no matter what Brad has said... thats not the case in any of these streams. I wont actually experience the game until alpha, which might change my mind... but honestly I'm confidant I could 2 box (war and clr) anything I've seen so far.
Edit. Programs like isboxer (and similar ones) only work when combat is simple. You can is box EQ because combat is absurdly simple. On the other end you can isbox wow because the rotations for dps are simple, even tho the combat is more complex.
Like I said before, create a complex combat system and you eliminate the ability for most players to box.
Spot on. VR has also stated they will have sophisticated, modern security and anti-whatever measures in place to detect behavior that violates the terms of service. If people think VR won't be able to detect 3 toons running around making the same inputs at the exact same time, they are mistaken.
Keno Monster said:Tanix said:Keno Monster said:Tanix said:Keno Monster said:Tanix said: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.
Thanks for mansplainging something I know very well already and telling me I don't understand. You're a real hoot.
Thanks for turning an honest attempt at discussion into a sexist accusation and emotional complaint to achieve nothing but pointless commentary.
Grow up.
You continue to berate, insult and condescend in almost every thread in which you participate, while telling others to "grow up"? There more than mild irony in play here.
Prove your case as it should easy for you to make this case by properly quoting my past responses and then making an argument.
I am going to call you out on this, you being devious in your response.
So far, you have responded with numerous accusations, but never have you quoted and attended to a given response with any form of logical response.
Even in this very response, you are making me the accuser when I was the one called a "mansplainer", a sexist comment, but apparently I am the one belittling?
How about you put up or shut up, I will not be intimidated by charlatans.
Well I was going to, but I don't need to anymore.
Yeah, I thought so. Typical of a detractor to object and then fail to establish their case.
Run along!
Goliant said:and i think there a many people who dont care how other people play, at all. which is good.
i can easily imagine .. lets say 15 standard servers, and one server with an addendum of 3 lines of text: no multiboxing, no /stick, no /follow
room for everyone
Except it wont happen like that. If you put no box code on a server, people will flock to it because of their incorrect opinions on boxing based off a broken game. This will lead to massive queues and most like a server split or transfer at some point which only serves to hinder everyone.
Tbh, boxing will be minimal in pantheon. I would be surprised if you encounter more than 1 boxer a day if even. The vast majority of the player base are not going to be boxing.
Also. If people are going to argue. Just stop quoting posts that are 9 miles long. Makes it so hard to view the forums on my phone lol.
Porygon said:Boxing doesnt ruin anything. It's peoples attitude towards boxers that ignite them to box more and ignore solo players.
The game where boxing has SIGNIFICANTLY impacted ANYTHING is Everquest and the only reason this was possible was because of how easy it was to hack the game and create programs that assisted with the playing of multiple characters.
Everquest also has the SLOWEST combat system ive ever experienced. Which makes it that much easier to box multiple characters. I could 6 box (legitamately, using no outside programs) everquest... I struggle to effectively 2 box games like ff14, rift and wow. (By effective I mean actually playing both characters to there near potential and not just auto following).
Peoples opinion of boxing was ruined because of the game design in everquest.
And honestly, it doesnt matter what the reason is behind wanting to box. If I want to box because I dont want to group, who cares. It's my game. The reason I will be boxing on release is because after playing MMOs for 20 years, I've realized that most players are very bad. So by me boxing a tank and healer... I control 50% of the groups success and wont be wasting my time looking for decent players.
Also. There will not be a no boxing server. Instead of campaigning against boxing, campaign that the combat be so involved that boxing is not possible. Because no matter what Brad has said... thats not the case in any of these streams. I wont actually experience the game until alpha, which might change my mind... but honestly I'm confidant I could 2 box (war and clr) anything I've seen so far.
Edit. Programs like isboxer (and similar ones) only work when combat is simple. You can is box EQ because combat is absurdly simple. On the other end you can isbox wow because the rotations for dps are simple, even tho the combat is more complex.
Like I said before, create a complex combat system and you eliminate the ability for most players to box.
As you've already stated, in part thanks to the huge downtime we've seen for casters during streams thus far, it looks like it's going to be easy to multibox. The VR team is adopting similar designs to EQ, probably because they want a slower paced game that allows for more social interaction during gameplay as opposed to APM intensive action or ability rotations. You can't have both. They're trying to create challenge by forcing players to adapt/react to the environment at crucial moments and that's nothing a multiboxer can't handle using macros and such.
Complexity of the combat system doesn't necessarily make it difficult to control multiple characters at once. It just means you need to create more macros for more situations. Multiboxing doesn't get too difficult unless you drastically increase the pacing, where the fighting gets so frantic that a multiboxer will lose overview of the situation. And fast paced combat like that is most decidedly something a lot of people here don't seem to be interested in at all. Campaigning to make the combat 'more involved' is therefore the worse option.
Kaeldorn said:Porygon said:Boxing doesnt ruin anything. It's peoples attitude towards boxers that ignite them to box more and ignore solo players.
The game where boxing has SIGNIFICANTLY impacted ANYTHING is Everquest and the only reason this was possible was because of how easy it was to hack the game and create programs that assisted with the playing of multiple characters.
Everquest also has the SLOWEST combat system ive ever experienced. Which makes it that much easier to box multiple characters. I could 6 box (legitamately, using no outside programs) everquest... I struggle to effectively 2 box games like ff14, rift and wow. (By effective I mean actually playing both characters to there near potential and not just auto following).
Peoples opinion of boxing was ruined because of the game design in everquest.
And honestly, it doesnt matter what the reason is behind wanting to box. If I want to box because I dont want to group, who cares. It's my game. The reason I will be boxing on release is because after playing MMOs for 20 years, I've realized that most players are very bad. So by me boxing a tank and healer... I control 50% of the groups success and wont be wasting my time looking for decent players.
Also. There will not be a no boxing server. Instead of campaigning against boxing, campaign that the combat be so involved that boxing is not possible. Because no matter what Brad has said... thats not the case in any of these streams. I wont actually experience the game until alpha, which might change my mind... but honestly I'm confidant I could 2 box (war and clr) anything I've seen so far.
Edit. Programs like isboxer (and similar ones) only work when combat is simple. You can is box EQ because combat is absurdly simple. On the other end you can isbox wow because the rotations for dps are simple, even tho the combat is more complex.
Like I said before, create a complex combat system and you eliminate the ability for most players to box.
As you've already stated, in part thanks to the huge downtime we've seen for casters during streams thus far, it looks like it's going to be easy to multibox. The VR team is adopting similar designs to EQ, probably because they want a slower paced game that allows for more social interaction during gameplay as opposed to APM intensive action or ability rotations. You can't have both. They're trying to create challenge by forcing players to adapt/react to the environment at crucial moments and that's nothing a multiboxer can't handle using macros and such.
Complexity of the combat system doesn't necessarily make it difficult to control multiple characters at once. It just means you need to create more macros for more situations. Multiboxing doesn't get too difficult unless you drastically increase the pacing, where the fighting gets so frantic that a multiboxer will lose overview of the situation. And fast paced combat like that is most decidedly something a lot of people here don't seem to be interested in at all. Campaigning to make the combat 'more involved' is therefore the worse option.
We do already see a large number of skill/spell descriptions with very short durations and a number of synergistic status effects(wet/concussed/etc). There will be an increased APM and increased active required attention with abilities for both offensive and defensive targets. I think we can be fairly certain that boxers will be less efficient in Pantheon than they were in EQ(which won't be hard), and in EQ they were already significantly less efficient when played manually, which will be the only way they're allowed in this game as well.
Kaeldorn said:As you've already stated, in part thanks to the huge downtime we've seen for casters during streams thus far, it looks like it's going to be easy to multibox. The VR team is adopting similar designs to EQ, probably because they want a slower paced game that allows for more social interaction during gameplay as opposed to APM intensive action or ability rotations. You can't have both. They're trying to create challenge by forcing players to adapt/react to the environment at crucial moments and that's nothing a multiboxer can't handle using macros and such.
Complexity of the combat system doesn't necessarily make it difficult to control multiple characters at once. It just means you need to create more macros for more situations. Multiboxing doesn't get too difficult unless you drastically increase the pacing, where the fighting gets so frantic that a multiboxer will lose overview of the situation. And fast paced combat like that is most decidedly something a lot of people here don't seem to be interested in at all. Campaigning to make the combat 'more involved' is therefore the worse option.
Yeah ... about that. There was this other game, very similar to EQ. It's called FFXI. It's combat was even slower than EQ's but guess what issue they didn't have? Multi-boxing. VR could absolutely have the best of both worlds but they need to branch out and consider some of the proven formulas that worked for FFXI. I have written a few novels on this subject but whenever "change" comes up, some people start acting like it's heresy. Even though very specific changes to the combat system seem to be desired (taking combat and it's multi-boxing implications from one end of the spectrum to the other) -- the idea of actually implementing features/mechanics that accomplish that goal? Those are contrived. Yes ... they are! They are designed to solve an issue without compromising a slow-paced system that has meaningful downtime, advanced preparation, and emphasis on teamwork and strategy. Tons of emergent gameplay opportunities are a free bonus on the side. Color me jaded.