Sup, new here. Just backed the game at the last minute. I have to admit you guys did a good job at pulling someone like me in. I stopped backing /founding games because of the harsh let downs. But ya, you got me.
My question pertains to multiboxing. I'm wondering about the dev's stance on it. Will it be legal? Will isboxer be allowed? I searched "multibox" and "multiboxing" and nothing popped up. Coming from the EQ /EQ2 community, I think these are very important topics that need to be debated and talked about. I was one of those guys enjoys boxing a team back on EQ and EQ2. Lot's of folks have raised eyebrows and a deep disgust for players who can handle more than one character. I find multiboxing to be a hobby and will play this game regardless of being able to box or not.
This is my first post here, so if you're a ragged old man please refrain from caning me to death.
Doesn't mutliboxing require a 3rd party software program to bind all keys on each client being played? If so, then I think that multiboxing to gain an advantage over another player using a single client is not in the best interests of most players.
If you are planning to manually Alt-Tab between each client and access each one individually then sure, knock yerself out.
Hey Dragonite, welcome man. Check out the recent reddit AMA with Brad. Here's his response to a similar question:
"My reaction to multi boxing is to try something first before I even entertain the idea of artificially restricting it: I want to make combat, especially mid and higher level combat, so tactically intense, with so much going on, so much to do, so much to counter, so many companions to keep alive, and the timing of many abilities crucial, that multi-boxing is, if not impossible, extremely difficult and likely far inferior to having an actual real person in your group."
There have been a lot of threads about multiboxing :)
Kilsin said:This subject never ends well and it has been brought up so many times with an official response given each time, discussing this when the answer is already set only leads to arguments.
Typing "Boxing" into the search bar produces these 3 results:
http://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/1952/dual-boxing-the-touchy-subject (Closed)
http://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/2315/no-boxing-allowed (Closed)
http://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/1822/multi-boxing/ (Open) (This one has a lot of disscusion in it) :)
Our Official Stance:Boxing will be allowed, but the way our characters and abilities are set up it will make it very hard. We will not tolerate cheats, gold farmers or botting programs but having multiple accounts to dual box is perfectly fine.
Syntro said:Hey Dragonite, welcome man. Check out the recent reddit AMA with Brad. Here's his response to a similar question:
"My reaction to multi boxing is to try something first before I even entertain the idea of artificially restricting it: I want to make combat, especially mid and higher level combat, so tactically intense, with so much going on, so much to do, so much to counter, so many companions to keep alive, and the timing of many abilities crucial, that multi-boxing is, if not impossible, extremely difficult and likely far inferior to having an actual real person in your group."
Hey! That was my question Brad answered :)
I asked it because I am for non-cheating multi-boxing, and I was disheartend to see how many people here on the forums considered "boxing" and "botting" the same thing. I've never multi-boxed, but I know many people who did in EQ for numerous, on-the-level reasons (no healer availabile, the challenge of it, social awkwardness, etc.). And most people who boxed only did it in casual situations, such as grouping with friends. It would have been near impossible to box during raids -- except maybe to act as a spare rezzer or buffer on a wipe.
And I'm 100 percent for what Brad said in his answer: It should be inferior to having an actual person in your group, but it should be allowed if you want to have the option.
Oldtimer said:Doesn't mutliboxing require a 3rd party software program to bind all keys on each client being played? If so, then I think that multiboxing to gain an advantage over another player using a single client is not in the best interests of most players.
If you are planning to manually Alt-Tab between each client and access each one individually then sure, knock yerself out.
Multiboxing means the same person running multiple characters on multiple accounts simultaneously. That is not synonymous with botting, which means using 3rd party aps to automate the actions characters. There are plenty of people able to keep 2-3 accounts rolling together very well in some games without botting. In other games its really tough to do.
My brother introduced me to EQ long ago, he ended up quitting and let me play his druid, then a good friend quit and let me play her bard. Warrior / druid / bard turned out to be a very good combo. I ran my 3 toons manually, and I don't have a problem with others doing that. On the other hand 1 person running 2, 6, or 72 characters with 3rd party software is replacing skill with money, and that's P2W, regardless if they are at the keyboard to respond to a 'human check' or not, that's P2W. I'm really hoping PRotF doesn't go that route.
Dragonite said:Sup, new here. Just backed the game at the last minute. I have to admit you guys did a good job at pulling someone like me in. I stopped backing /founding games because of the harsh let downs. But ya, you got me.
My question pertains to multiboxing. I'm wondering about the dev's stance on it. Will it be legal? Will isboxer be allowed? I searched "multibox" and "multiboxing" and nothing popped up. Coming from the EQ /EQ2 community, I think these are very important topics that need to be debated and talked about. I was one of those guys enjoys boxing a team back on EQ and EQ2. Lot's of folks have raised eyebrows and a deep disgust for players who can handle more than one character. I find multiboxing to be a hobby and will play this game regardless of being able to box or not.
This is my first post here, so if you're a ragged old man please refrain from caning me to death.
Get offa mah lawn! (kidding) Welcome Dragonite. Personally don't see a problem with it unless its a third party program and noone at the keyboard. If its someone that can afford several accounts well that just adds to the game coffers in the long run. Guess it depends how its done. :)
Cana
He there Dragonite,
Here's my 2eurocents: I used to 3-box in Vanguard. Had some fun times harvesting with three characters, but...
by far the best memories I have are when I was NOT multiboxing. Raiding in APW for instance, although looking back we were not particularly good at it. I have fond memories nevertheless: relying on others, cursing them at times, but thanking them later. And them thanking me for that feign death that saved the raid, or a charm on a mob at exactly the right moment. My 'account#03' would never send me an 'awesome, well done!!!' tell.
The thing is, multiboxing is -in my view- more or less putting your wits against the game engine (can you do it?) and the EULAs (are you allowed to do it?). That is certainly a challenge, but it has little to do with MMO gaming I think.
In any case my goal for Pantheon is: no multiboxing for me. So if you see me multiboxing at any time, get me killed and I'll thank you for it. :)
Wicky
If the combat system is such that multi-boxing is not only possible, but effective, this game will have failed to deliver an engaging combat experience.
Sicario said:If the combat system is such that multi-boxing is not only possible, but effective, this game will have failed to deliver an engaging combat experience.
I'm curious, would you care to explain exactly how the game will have failed simply becuase some can operate more than 1 account at a time. No, i'm not talking about using 3rd party apps, just good ol' fashined alt tabbing on 2 or 3 monitors.
Aarpoch said:Sicario said:If the combat system is such that multi-boxing is not only possible, but effective, this game will have failed to deliver an engaging combat experience.
I'm curious, would you care to explain exactly how the game will have failed simply becuase some can operate more than 1 account at a time. No, i'm not talking about using 3rd party apps, just good ol' fashined alt tabbing on 2 or 3 monitors.
Doesnt sound that confusing, he is saying that if the game is possible to play multiple characters at one time during combat than the combat must not be that engaging.
Also he didnt say the game failed, he said they failed to deliever an engaging combat experience.
Aarpoch said:Sicario said:If the combat system is such that multi-boxing is not only possible, but effective, this game will have failed to deliver an engaging combat experience.
I'm curious, would you care to explain exactly how the game will have failed simply becuase some can operate more than 1 account at a time. No, i'm not talking about using 3rd party apps, just good ol' fashined alt tabbing on 2 or 3 monitors.
Absolutely, I'd love to explain.
Being able to multi-box would actually be a direct reflection of VR being unable to deliver on at least two of their tenets: 1) A commitment to a style of play that focuses on immersive combat, and engaging group mechanics, and 2) A requirement that classes have identities. No single player should be able to do everything on their own.
Regarding the first tenet I listed, such a combat experience involves multiple layers of engagement that require dedicated focus on the player's part. Such a system will involve a spectrum of brief and extended combat ability synergy windows (synergies between not only one character, but the entire group), proactive and reactionary combat abililities (activation of interrupts, defensive abilities, mezzes, etc), and positioning requirements. Tactically, the need for every character to be able to participate in these levels of engagement will be a requirement for the challenging content VR wishes to create for Pantheon.
For the second tenet I listed, mastery of a class is a sub-aspect of the concept of class identity. Class identity exists on two tiers: the explicit identity of the class' role in the game world (i.e., e.g. a defensive Warrior excelling at physical damage mitigation), and the implicit identity that is awarded for the player of that class upon its mastery (something that comes with dedication and time-investment into that class). Ideally, every class will have a high skill-ceiling (with varying levels of skill-floors). As such, the idea that someone could effectively play my class while multi-boxing would, frankly, be insulting and undermine the feeling of players in general mastering the nuances of a particular class.
So, these two ideas in combination should result in a combat system that is exceptionally prohibitive when it comes to multi-boxing.
Fortunately, Brad seems to be of the same mindset. From his AMA:
My reaction to multi boxing is to try something first before I even entertain the idea of artificially restricting it: I want to make combat, especially mid and higher level combat, so tactically intense, with so much going on, so much to do, so much to counter, so many companions to keep alive, and the timing of many abilities crucial, that multi-boxing is, if not impossible, extremely difficult and likely far inferior to having an actual real person in your group.
Which I fully support, since this is ultimately designed to be a group game focused on real-player interaction and socialization.
Solid post Sicario! I couldn't have said it better myself. You've captured my exact sentiment and reflected VR's/Brad's vision with great references to tenets and AMA quotes. +1 dude(ette).
Personally, I've never experienced the desire to box. It's way too counterintuitive for me - playing an MMO and creating groups of yourself? It's the exact opposite of an MMO's core design intention. Massive Single Player Online (MSO)? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Lghtngfan said:Syntro said:Hey Dragonite, welcome man. Check out the recent reddit AMA with Brad. Here's his response to a similar question:
"My reaction to multi boxing is to try something first before I even entertain the idea of artificially restricting it: I want to make combat, especially mid and higher level combat, so tactically intense, with so much going on, so much to do, so much to counter, so many companions to keep alive, and the timing of many abilities crucial, that multi-boxing is, if not impossible, extremely difficult and likely far inferior to having an actual real person in your group."Hey! That was my question Brad answered :)
I asked it because I am for non-cheating multi-boxing, and I was disheartend to see how many people here on the forums considered "boxing" and "botting" the same thing. I've never multi-boxed, but I know many people who did in EQ for numerous, on-the-level reasons (no healer availabile, the challenge of it, social awkwardness, etc.). And most people who boxed only did it in casual situations, such as grouping with friends. It would have been near impossible to box during raids -- except maybe to act as a spare rezzer or buffer on a wipe.
And I'm 100 percent for what Brad said in his answer: It should be inferior to having an actual person in your group, but it should be allowed if you want to have the option.
I dont understand this argument. If this is the only reason for boxing than why not advocate for some sort of rented pet/recruit option that anyone could partake in?
Sicario said:If the combat system is such that multi-boxing is not only possible, but effective, this game will have failed to deliver an engaging combat experience.
...
...and 2) A requirement that classes have identities. No single player should be able to do everything on their own.
Regarding the first tenet I listed, such a combat experience involves multiple layers of engagement that require dedicated focus on the player's part. Such a system will involve a spectrum of brief and extended combat ability synergy windows (synergies between not only one character, but the entire group), proactive and reactionary combat abililities (activation of interrupts, defensive abilities, mezzes, etc), and positioning requirements. Tactically, the need for every character to be able to participate in these levels of engagement will be a requirement for the challenging content VR wishes to create for Pantheon.
In regards to your number 2... that's not what was meant by "no single player should be able to...". What was meant was no single player class should be able to do everything necessary to handle group combat on a single character. You can't be a tank, healer and dps all at the same time. Where these capabilities are necessary it will require multiple characters. Let's not read into things what we want isn't there.
Going back to the ability to multibox indicating a failure of design based on certain tenants I disagree completely. You cannot correlate the ability of a person to perform beyond your expectations as an indication of the failure of a game to have prevented them from doing so. Unless the VR team adds specific features designed to specifically prevent multi-boxing (which I hope they don't) or excludes features that would make it possible (which I also hope they don't) then they should focus on the quality of the game and combat for engaging group play and not waste cycles eliminating a extremely small percentage of the market from playing the way they wish to.
Towards the later part of EQ's hayday it became more and more difficult for guilds to complete content due to a lack of players and many many guilds had to resort to filling some of their numbers with mutli-boxed characters. No one complained then because they wanted to complete content and it wasn't their fault that the game had less subscribers and required class slots were not being filled. That said Pantheon will likely not have the same requirements as EQ when it comes to raiding (72 players!) but I can certainly forsee a time when having the ability to box a healer will come in handy and I hope that this is not something specifically excluded. As long as it's not adversely affecting other players I think players should be able to play the way they want to play and not be limited by others perceptions of what they should or should not be able to do, within the guidelines and rules setup by the games ToS.
Dullahan said:I hope they remove auto-follow so we can more easily see who is using 3rd party software to box.
This kind of thing is why games fail, such as balancing for PvP essentially breaking PvE. SWG combat revamp anyone?
More specifically removing auto-follow just to find botters... well... there are plenty of games out there that don't have /follow but have plenty of botters. All that would be accomplished by removing follow is impacting the gameplay of legit gamers who use it in order to prevent illegitimate gameplay. Botters don't need /follow to bot.
Santiago said:Sicario said:If the combat system is such that multi-boxing is not only possible, but effective, this game will have failed to deliver an engaging combat experience.
...
...and 2) A requirement that classes have identities. No single player should be able to do everything on their own.
Regarding the first tenet I listed, such a combat experience involves multiple layers of engagement that require dedicated focus on the player's part. Such a system will involve a spectrum of brief and extended combat ability synergy windows (synergies between not only one character, but the entire group), proactive and reactionary combat abililities (activation of interrupts, defensive abilities, mezzes, etc), and positioning requirements. Tactically, the need for every character to be able to participate in these levels of engagement will be a requirement for the challenging content VR wishes to create for Pantheon.
In regards to your number 2... that's not what was meant by "no single player should be able to...". What was meant was no single player class should be able to do everything necessary to handle group combat on a single character. You can't be a tank, healer and dps all at the same time. Where these capabilities are necessary it will require multiple characters. Let's not read into things what we want isn't there.
I never took it to mean that, which is why I articulated the difference between the explicit and implicit concepts of class identity. I was demonstrating the concept of implicit class identity in my argument.
As Dullahan mentioned above, I think excluding an auto-follow feature is a great idea in addition to creating a well-developed and engaging combat system. It provides only small utility while being a primary tool of multi-boxers and also, more importantly, power-levelers and related services. I also vote to leave it out.
Thank you, Rachael :)
Please use the search function prior to creating a topic as most times you will find that someone has already started discussing an idea or question you may have had, in this instance, multiple times and for that reason I will now close the thread.