philo said:Agreed, it would be an interesting social experiment.
That leads to the next thought that...if all of us who want to box are put on one server and it ends up ruining the community. Are we ok with smaller groups of boxers spread out throughout the playerbase degrading the community to a lesser extent simply because it is more diluted? It actually ends up effecting many more people that way.
Maybe the answer is yes? Its fine to degrade a lot of players experience a little bit rather than degrade a few players experience a lot? I could be ok with that...just trying to talk it out, seems like a catch 22.
I don't conceed that boxers degrade the experience of others unless its pervasive. In my experience, unless there's an artificial mechanism that groups boxers, it's not pervasive. It happens, you see it, sometimes it might even annoy you. But it doesnt significantly change your gameplay experience.
[edit]
Let me ammend that statement.
It does significantly impact your gameplay experience in the absence of a subscription model. When there's no cash influence on how many accounts every player can spin up, then everyone spins up multiple accounts and there's little more than boxers. With a sub model, a minority of players will have more than one account.
Feyshtey said:I don't conceed that boxers degrade the experience of others unless its pervasive. In my experience, unless there's an artificial mechanism that groups boxers, it's not pervasive. It happens, you see it, sometimes it might even annoy you. But it doesnt significantly change your gameplay experience.
But you just said you wouldn't play on a server that specifically allowed boxing because you asre looking for a more interactive community.
Feyshtey said: In that scenario I would probably choose the "normal" servers over the boxing servers, because I like the community of people that want to interact with others
The community of people who are interacting is one of the experiences that is degraded by boxing. That is the catch 22 I was talking about...it is impossible to have it both ways (boxers with a fully interactive community). Thus the reason why I said: I think I can be ok with degrading a lot of peoples experience a little bit of the time. Going the diluted route seems like it might be the better route than trying to put all the boxers on one server.
Feyshtey said:Let me ammend that statement.
It does significantly impact your gameplay experience in the absence of a subscription model. When there's no cash influence on how many accounts every player can spin up, then everyone spins up multiple accounts and there's little more than boxers. With a sub model, a minority of players will have more than one account.
Now that is a whole other conversation...though still related to boxing, where the pay to win side of it comes in as was mentioned earlier in this thread. If a game was actually free to play and outside currency wasn't involved then all players would still be on even footing and there wouldn't be the discussion about one player buying an in game advantage. Add in a subscription model and that changes.
philo said:But you just said you wouldn't play on a server that specifically allowed boxing because you asre looking for a more interactive community.
Not exactly. I said that if there were a single server that allowed boxing and all others denied it, I would likely not play on the boxing server because it would be a consolidated community of mainly, if not entirely, boxers. The reverse would not be true. If the norm were to allow boxing and there was a single server that denied it, I would not play on the one where it was denied. I like to box, mostly because I have very eratic playtimes and a lot of distractions that require me to drop what I'm doing to deal with the real world. It's not practical or fair for me to regularly group, so I box. That doesn't mean that I don't like the community of gamers who like to be social. If there's little other than boxers that social aspect is heavily degraded.
philo said:The community of people who are interacting is one of the experiences that is degraded by boxing. That is the catch 22 I was talking about...it is impossible to have it both ways (boxers with a fully interactive community). Thus the reason why I said: I think I can be ok with degrading a lot of peoples experience a little bit of the time. Going the diluted route seems like it might be the better route than trying to put all the boxers on one server.
I don't think you can prove that or even annecdotally imply it unless the population of the boxers exceeds a certain amount. When you force the boxers into a smaller box (so to speak) it becomes exponentially more evident. If I'm among the 10% of the servers population that boxes, I don't think I contribute to the degradation of experience of anyone, so I have no moral issue with it. If I'm among the 60%+ that boxes, the experience is going to suck for me as much as it is for the non-boxers, and I won't be playing that game for long.
Feyshtey said:I don't think you can prove that or even annecdotally imply it unless the population of the boxers exceeds a certain amount. When you force the boxers into a smaller box (so to speak) it becomes exponentially more evident. If I'm among the 10% of the servers population that boxes, I don't think I contribute to the degradation of experience of anyone, so I have no moral issue with it. If I'm among the 60%+ that boxes, the experience is going to suck for me as much as it is for the non-boxers, and I won't be playing that game for long.
I think if a server has 10% population that boxes there is a big problem as that then equals at least 20% of the characters on the server.
I said that if there were a single server that allowed boxing and all others denied it, I would likely not play on the boxing server because it would be a consolidated community of mainly, if not entirely, boxers. The reverse would not be true. If the norm were to allow boxing and there was a single server that denied it, I would not play on the one where it was denied. I like to box, mostly because I have very eratic playtimes and a lot of distractions that require me to drop what I'm doing to deal with the real world. It's not practical or fair for me to regularly group, so I box. That doesn't mean that I don't like the community of gamers who like to be social. If there's little other than boxers that social aspect is heavily degraded.
You just repeated exactly what I said hah...but some reason you feel like you are disagreeing. If there is little other than boxers the social aspect is heavily degraded as you mentioned. If there are fewer boxers the social aspect is degraded much less.
I don't think you can prove that or even annecdotally imply it unless the population of the boxers exceeds a certain amount. When you force the boxers into a smaller box (so to speak) it becomes exponentially more evident. If I'm among the 10% of the servers population that boxes, I don't think I contribute to the degradation of experience of anyone, so I have no moral issue with it. If I'm among the 60%+ that boxes, the experience is going to suck for me as much as it is for the non-boxers, and I won't be playing that game for long.
Oh I see what you are saying...but I think it is so obvious. If one player is boxing instead of grouping with others the social aspect between that person and those others is lessened. Boxers definitely contribute to a less social community no matter how small. To argue otherwise is nonsensical...that being said...
Nothing is perfect. It seems like the better option is to dilute the amount of boxers by mixing them into the greater population as a whole instead of sticking them on one server (but I'm repeating myself for the third time now)
Feyshtey said:philo said:But you just said you wouldn't play on a server that specifically allowed boxing because you asre looking for a more interactive community.
Not exactly. I said that if there were a single server that allowed boxing and all others denied it, I would likely not play on the boxing server because it would be a consolidated community of mainly, if not entirely, boxers. The reverse would not be true. If the norm were to allow boxing and there was a single server that denied it, I would not play on the one where it was denied. I like to box, mostly because I have very eratic playtimes and a lot of distractions that require me to drop what I'm doing to deal with the real world. It's not practical or fair for me to regularly group, so I box. That doesn't mean that I don't like the community of gamers who like to be social. If there's little other than boxers that social aspect is heavily degraded.
philo said:The community of people who are interacting is one of the experiences that is degraded by boxing. That is the catch 22 I was talking about...it is impossible to have it both ways (boxers with a fully interactive community). Thus the reason why I said: I think I can be ok with degrading a lot of peoples experience a little bit of the time. Going the diluted route seems like it might be the better route than trying to put all the boxers on one server.
I don't think you can prove that or even annecdotally imply it unless the population of the boxers exceeds a certain amount. When you force the boxers into a smaller box (so to speak) it becomes exponentially more evident. If I'm among the 10% of the servers population that boxes, I don't think I contribute to the degradation of experience of anyone, so I have no moral issue with it. If I'm among the 60%+ that boxes, the experience is going to suck for me as much as it is for the non-boxers, and I won't be playing that game for long.
So what you're saying, is you want to be part of the 10% that can PAY for a huge advantage in game?
You would NOT play on a server where everyone is on an equal footing, (All boxers), because you want the ADVANTAGE that you PAID for?
Tell me again how this isn't completely toxic and antithetical to what an MMO is supposed to be?
While I do not think it should be a permenant server. My all time favorite server type was in EQ 1 with the Discord server. If I remember correctly it was around the time or just before Gates of Discord released. Outside of a few botched raids (screw you fear) was definately one of my most cherished memories from EQ1. I dont know if they will ever do a rotating server mode but if something like that came back yearly to break any monotony, it would be amazing.
Dulu said:So what you're saying, is you want to be part of the 10% that can PAY for a huge advantage in game?
You would NOT play on a server where everyone is on an equal footing, (All boxers), because you want the ADVANTAGE that you PAID for?
Tell me again how this isn't completely toxic and antithetical to what an MMO is supposed to be?
You're going to have to go a long way to convince me that a boxer has almost any notable advantage, let alone a "huge" advantage over people who don't box. A boxer has the one easily varifiable advantage of being productive as soon as they log in rather than putting a group together or finding one to join. In the more extreme examples where a person is able to box a full group and monopolize a spawn they might get some loot drops. But I'm a proponent of combat systems that make this impossible, or at the very least really really unlikely to be profitable. Boxers will not gain xp at the same rate as non-boxers who are in a group of competent individuals working well together no matter how competent that boxer is or how lenient the combat system is. They will not have the same advantages of a network of allies upon which they can rely for things they simply cannot box in even the most forgiving games. The one real "advantage" is that they rely less on other people. And I do think this is a double-edged sword. I think I've made that apparent.
The reality is there are people (like me) who have life situations that do not allow for a commitement of contiguous time in a group. It's not fair for me to get into a group and either ask everyone there to go on hold for 20 minutes while I take care of something, or drag my dead weight while I do. I don't want a game to accomodate those people by making solo'ing a viable alternative with easy leveling, easy loots, easy rewards. But I don't think it's out of the realm of feesibilty to allow those people an alternate path if they choose to pay for a second sub. Again, I'd prefer a combat mechanic that makes 3, 4 or 5 boxing a realistic impossibility. But I don't think its a tragedy if a second sub (limited by demanding combat mechanics) to be allowed.
DCProphet said:While I do not think it should be a permenant server. My all time favorite server type was in EQ 1 with the Discord server. If I remember correctly it was around the time or just before Gates of Discord released. Outside of a few botched raids (screw you fear) was definately one of my most cherished memories from EQ1. I dont know if they will ever do a rotating server mode but if something like that came back yearly to break any monotony, it would be amazing.
That's permanent death right? We briefly discussed that on the previous page. Feel free to read it and add your input :D
Feyshtey said:Dulu said:So what you're saying, is you want to be part of the 10% that can PAY for a huge advantage in game?
You would NOT play on a server where everyone is on an equal footing, (All boxers), because you want the ADVANTAGE that you PAID for?
Tell me again how this isn't completely toxic and antithetical to what an MMO is supposed to be?
You're going to have to go a long way to convince me that a boxer has almost any notable advantage, let alone a "huge" advantage over people who don't box. A boxer has the one easily varifiable advantage of being productive as soon as they log in rather than putting a group together or finding one to join. In the more extreme examples where a person is able to box a full group and monopolize a spawn they might get some loot drops. But I'm a proponent of combat systems that make this impossible, or at the very least really really unlikely to be profitable. Boxers will not gain xp at the same rate as non-boxers who are in a group of competent individuals working well together no matter how competent that boxer is or how lenient the combat system is. They will not have the same advantages of a network of allies upon which they can rely for things they simply cannot box in even the most forgiving games. The one real "advantage" is that they rely less on other people. And I do think this is a double-edged sword. I think I've made that apparent.
The reality is there are people (like me) who have life situations that do not allow for a commitement of contiguous time in a group. It's not fair for me to get into a group and either ask everyone there to go on hold for 20 minutes while I take care of something, or drag my dead weight while I do. I don't want a game to accomodate those people by making solo'ing a viable alternative with easy leveling, easy loots, easy rewards. But I don't think it's out of the realm of feesibilty to allow those people an alternate path if they choose to pay for a second sub. Again, I'd prefer a combat mechanic that makes 3, 4 or 5 boxing a realistic impossibility. But I don't think its a tragedy if a second sub (limited by demanding combat mechanics) to be allowed.
So how about paying real life cash for an NPC to follow you around and kill mobs for you? Or how about a cash shop that make you 2-3x as strong?
No matter how you try to justify it - it's by definition PAY to WIN. You are paying cash for an advantage. You are able to do content that solo players aren't able to do.
It wasn't exactly permadeath. While yes if you died you would respawn at the initial char creation spot with nothing on you but starting items. You were allowed to keep everything inside of your bank. If i remember correctly the points you got for pvp were based on the person you killed and you lost half of you current points per death.
Dulu said:So how about paying real life cash for an NPC to follow you around and kill mobs for you? Or how about a cash shop that make you 2-3x as strong?
No matter how you try to justify it - it's by definition PAY to WIN. You are paying cash for an advantage. You are able to do content that solo players aren't able to do.
When you can actually quantify what that advantage is you might be able to convince me.
I can still play alone, but slower.
I can still get loot, but not as good as a group.
I can still complete some tasks, but not ones that require the sociatal alliances.
The limits exist. The demands of the game's core principles still apply. Where is the gameaplay breaking?
Feyshtey said:Dulu said:So how about paying real life cash for an NPC to follow you around and kill mobs for you? Or how about a cash shop that make you 2-3x as strong?
No matter how you try to justify it - it's by definition PAY to WIN. You are paying cash for an advantage. You are able to do content that solo players aren't able to do.
When you can actually quantify what that advantage is you might be able to convince me.
I can still play alone, but slower.
I can still get loot, but not as good as a group.
I can still complete some tasks, but not ones that require the sociatal alliances.
The limits exist. The demands of the game's core principles still apply. Where is the gameaplay breaking?
Do I really need to explain the advantage of boxing?
Well, let's see. Why do all of the gold/kronos farmers do it? Because it provides huge advantages.
Exactly the ones you're brushing off. Us non-boxers (normies), are constrained by who's available. If I look at my guild chat, and no tanks are online, well.. Guess I need to hit general chat or /who, maybe try to bribe someone to come out and help. But you? You can just box your Dire Lord with your Shaman, and clear the content easily.
How about killing that ultra rare pegasus that I stumbled upon? I need to call a friend quickly.. I can't kill it alone, I need someone to help. But you can! You have your box of 5 gnome mages and a cleric. You can just run on over and kill the pegasus for the cloak and log off. You thought you needed it for your 5th mage, but he already had it, so you delete it.
What if I get my wish and we have a PvP server? Wow. That's going to make a LOT of people rage quit right there. Boxing in pvp? Sigh.
Boxing removes the need to socialize. I know its an inconvenience for you - but it's what makes games like this enjoyable to me. Actually having to play with PEOPLE. It's challenging, but rewarding. Don't remove the challenge for the sake of convencience.
Dulu said:Do I really need to explain the advantage of boxing?
Well, let's see. Why do all of the gold/kronos farmers do it? Because it provides huge advantages.
Exactly the ones you're brushing off. Us non-boxers (normies), are constrained by who's available. If I look at my guild chat, and no tanks are online, well.. Guess I need to hit general chat or /who, maybe try to bribe someone to come out and help. But you? You can just box your Dire Lord with your Shaman, and clear the content easily.
How about killing that ultra rare pegasus that I stumbled upon? I need to call a friend quickly.. I can't kill it alone, I need someone to help. But you can! You have your box of 5 gnome mages and a cleric. You can just run on over and kill the pegasus for the cloak and log off. You thought you needed it for your 5th mage, but he already had it, so you delete it.
What if I get my wish and we have a PvP server? Wow. That's going to make a LOT of people rage quit right there. Boxing in pvp? Sigh.
Boxing removes the need to socialize. I know its an inconvenience for you - but it's what makes games like this enjoyable to me. Actually having to play with PEOPLE. It's challenging, but rewarding. Don't remove the challenge for the sake of convencience.
You mean the boxers running full groups to rape content? I addressed that. I do not think combat mechanics should make that feesible.
My direlord/shaman group can... kill some trash mobs at the dungeon zone in. Maybe. And maybe deal with a very significantly unusual overland named that's near-trivial. I cannot hold a camp at a pivotal camp that has a class-defining drop. This is what I'd prefer to see in game mechanics, not necessarily what has historically existed. But there it is.
My 5 man team taking down the Pegasus... I don't know how many times I need to repeat that I don't like combat mechanics that make this a realistic possibilty. I'd much prefer demanding combat that would make a 5-box team embarrased by a named even many levels below them. I'd request that you please stop diving to this extreme to justify your position when I actually agree with you on this point.
PvP servers: Dont care, quite frankly. I don't like PVP servers, I have no intention of ever playing on a PVP server, and you can advocate whatever you want for what we know will be a fringe element of Pantheon if it's an element at all.
Boxing does not remove the need to socialize when it's tempered by combat mechanics that limit its effectiveness. You're falling into the same trap as those who suggest that people who solo for minimal effectiveness (which will be in Pantheon) do not socialize. They do. They participate in chat. They participate in the economy. And they do not ALWAYS solo. They sometimes solo if their immediate circumstances allow nothing else.
I think we agree in principle then Fey, I think we're just drawing the line at different places.
You are against "full groups" clearing content designed for groups. So, 4-6 boxing = bad, right? And I think everyone on earth agrees the 25+ boxing we've seen on the EQ TLP's is ridiculously bad, right?
I'm just drawing the line a bit earlier and saying 2-3 boxing is ALSO bad.
What is it about 4-6 boxing that makes the gameplay toxic/undesirable to you? Well, that's exactly how I feel about 2-3 boxing. You know, I've met a lot of cool people asking for small group help with a NPC. Having to interact with players on a small scale is part of the social experience. People shouldn't be able to pay cash to trivialize small groups.
Yes, I agree on the first half of your post. I disagree that 2-3 boxing is inherently bad. And I don't think you've really demonstrated how it is so.
2-3 boxing does not let me level faster than a group.
It doesn't allow me to take named (with rare exception, maybe).
It doesn't allow me to complete quests better than a group.
The social aspect is really all that's left. And here's the truth about people who box :
- If boxing is allowed, they will.
- If boxing is not allowed, they will solo.
I'm not saying thats a hard and fast rule, but I would argue it's true more often than not. Whether its because they don't like to group, don't have time to group, have a situation/condition/personality that does not lend itself to grouping... it's really pretty irrelevent. It is what it is. So prohibiting boxing doesnt actually solve the majority of the social aspect you expect for it to solve.
And still, that's aside from the point that just because someone boxes (or solo's) it doesn't mean that they arent socializing at all. I already talked about that.
I Like Dulu's ideas.
I would kind of like to see a EQ Firiona vie ruleset with some tweeks.
Trivial Loot Code. I think it encourages/forces horizontal leveling as I dont want to get too high so that the neat quest item becomes trivialized.
No Drop/Lore items. I think its a hinderance to hoarders but not such a deterrent against people selling loot rights (which I don't see the sense in, personally, if moving on and adventuring is the game)
RP Preffered
Guild Wars Mechanic within a PvE environment, although this may be hard to code correctly as many hinderences and rules will need to be established once a "war" is declared. Possibly too complex.
Automatic PvP Arenas in a PvE environment. Just by walking on/in the arena you are flagged for PvP- but accepting /duel is still needed.
Hybrid penalties. Most hybrids could solo better than solid classes thereby having the advantage to level faster if no one was around to group with.
Good&Evil grouping penalties. Similar to Dulu's ideas, if Skar and gnome were to group, there might be a small exp penalty.
One character on server, only. Yes it forces a commitment, and a need for others, but also forces being good at the class. solidifies reputation.
Feyshtey said:Yes, I agree on the first half of your post. I disagree that 2-3 boxing is inherently bad. And I don't think you've really demonstrated how it is so.
2-3 boxing does not let me level faster than a group.
It doesn't allow me to take named (with rare exception, maybe).
It doesn't allow me to complete quests better than a group.The social aspect is really all that's left. And here's the truth about people who box :
- If boxing is allowed, they will.
- If boxing is not allowed, they will solo.I'm not saying thats a hard and fast rule, but I would argue it's true more often than not. Whether its because they don't like to group, don't have time to group, have a situation/condition/personality that does not lend itself to grouping... it's really pretty irrelevent. It is what it is. So prohibiting boxing doesnt actually solve the majority of the social aspect you expect for it to solve.
And still, that's aside from the point that just because someone boxes (or solo's) it doesn't mean that they arent socializing at all. I already talked about that.
My issue with boxing isn't about leveling (aside from boxers being able to do double the tradeskilling/gathering that a single person would be able to) so much as it is a concern of being leveled. Once maxed out (or even just in higher levels) a lot of times these boxing players split up and hold down two seperate camps farming items, or leave one character in a city to snipe the AH/control market(s) while doing whatever farming with the other. Also things like rare mobs that spawn in many places in a zone (Quillmane) or mobs for quests like Ancient Cyclops for Jboots (rare spawn that can be in two different zones). Also: once leveled you can use one account to powerlevel future characters on the other.
Iksar said:My issue with boxing isn't about leveling (aside from boxers being able to do double the tradeskilling/gathering that a single person would be able to) so much as it is a concern of being leveled. Once maxed out (or even just in higher levels) a lot of times these boxing players split up and hold down two seperate camps farming items, or leave one character in a city to snipe the AH/control market(s) while doing whatever farming with the other. Also things like rare mobs that spawn in many places in a zone (Quillmane) or mobs for quests like Ancient Cyclops for Jboots (rare spawn that can be in two different zones). Also: once leveled you can use one account to powerlevel future characters on the other.
I've addressed the issues around monopolizing content and tackling named. Repeatedly. I am a proponent of combat systems that make having more than 2, maybe 3 boxing a realistic impossibility. I don't know if I've explicitely stated it, but I'm also of the opinion that 2-3 characters should not be able to hold a camp in a dungeon that provides xp, let alone be able to tackled named. And that holds true for 3 players, making 3 accounts under 1 player even less possible.
Splitting up and holding multiple camps is wholly negated by everything I said in the first paragraph here. Non-issue, if designed the way I would prefer to see it.
AH : My solution is don't have an AH. I've been entirely consistent on my negative opinion of AH's and this reinforces that notion. If a boxer can have a 2nd character in the AH "sniping", then a gold farmer or secondary market vermin is just as capable of doing so on their one and only account. AH allows abuse of the economy, IMO, and should be removed before boxing enters into the equation.
Powerleveling : Do you think that mechanisms should be put into place that prevent a guild from powerleveling a member's new alt? If no, why? If yes, why? Either way, how does that differ or not from a boxer doing the same on a much smaller scale (1 character PL'd by 1-2 other accounts)?
Feyshtey said:I've addressed the issues around monopolizing content and tackling named. Repeatedly. I am a proponent of combat systems that make having more than 2, maybe 3 boxing a realistic impossibility. I don't know if I've explicitely stated it, but I'm also of the opinion that 2-3 characters should not be able to hold a camp in a dungeon that provides xp, let alone be able to tackled named. And that holds true for 3 players, making 3 accounts under 1 player even less possible.
Splitting up and holding multiple camps is wholly negated by everything I said in the first paragraph here. Non-issue, if designed the way I would prefer to see it.
AH : My solution is don't have an AH. I've been entirely consistent on my negative opinion of AH's and this reinforces that notion. If a boxer can have a 2nd character in the AH "sniping", then a gold farmer or secondary market vermin is just as capable of doing so on their one and only account. AH allows abuse of the economy, IMO, and should be removed before boxing enters into the equation.
Powerleveling : Do you think that mechanisms should be put into place that prevent a guild from powerleveling a member's new alt? If no, why? If yes, why? Either way, how does that differ or not from a boxer doing the same on a much smaller scale (1 character PL'd by 1-2 other accounts)?
I'm not talking about two level 50s tackling level 40+ named camps, but anything below will likely be do-able by even a single maxed character so the dual boxer can hold two camps at the same time. It isn't terribly difficult to hold a single room of spawns down. I doubt the combat will be so brutal that mobs 10+ levels below are a huge threat.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that AH is terrible for any in-game economy. Unfortunately (if I remember right) they are planning on having them.
The difference is the power of a single player. Multiboxing and powerleveling yourself is a very noteable advantage (P2W) that someone playing a single account does not have. If you want to take up someone elses time and/or spend your plat on getting PLd that's whatever, but being able to do it youself whenever you want is big.
Iksar said:
I'm not talking about two level 50s tackling level 40+ named camps, but anything below will likely be do-able by even a single maxed character so the dual boxer can hold two camps at the same time. It isn't terribly difficult to hold a single room of spawns down. I doubt the combat will be so brutal that mobs 10+ levels below are a huge threat.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that AH is terrible for any in-game economy. Unfortunately (if I remember right) they are planning on having them.
The difference is the power of a single player. Multiboxing and powerleveling yourself is a very noteable advantage (P2W) that someone playing a single account does not have. If you want to take up someone elses time and/or spend your plat on getting PLd that's whatever, but being able to do it youself whenever you want is big.
So you're ok with high levels monopolizing trivial content. Just not with a boxer monopolizing more than 1? Seems like the root issue there isn't anything about the boxer, and is instead more about why a high level gains anything of value from trivial content.
Well, you could say that it's an even more enormous advantage for a player that can play 12 hours straight over someone who only has 45minutes a night to play. Should we prevent the former playing more than 45 minutes? Maybe have their xp rate be thottled more and more over time? There's the notion of "fair", and then there's stupid. Being able to box and gain xp at a slower rate (which I've stated) than a person with a single account that consistently groups, isn't an "advantage" at all, let alone a huge one.
Feyshtey said:Iksar said:
I'm not talking about two level 50s tackling level 40+ named camps, but anything below will likely be do-able by even a single maxed character so the dual boxer can hold two camps at the same time. It isn't terribly difficult to hold a single room of spawns down. I doubt the combat will be so brutal that mobs 10+ levels below are a huge threat.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that AH is terrible for any in-game economy. Unfortunately (if I remember right) they are planning on having them.
The difference is the power of a single player. Multiboxing and powerleveling yourself is a very noteable advantage (P2W) that someone playing a single account does not have. If you want to take up someone elses time and/or spend your plat on getting PLd that's whatever, but being able to do it youself whenever you want is big.
So you're ok with high levels monopolizing trivial content. Just not with a boxer monopolizing more than 1? Seems like the root issue there isn't anything about the boxer, and is instead more about why a high level gains anything of value from trivial content.
Well, you could say that it's an even more enormous advantage for a player that can play 12 hours straight over someone who only has 45minutes a night to play. Should we prevent the former playing more than 45 minutes? Maybe have their xp rate be thottled more and more over time? There's the notion of "fair", and then there's stupid. Being able to box and gain xp at a slower rate (which I've stated) than a person with a single account that consistently groups, isn't an "advantage" at all, let alone a huge one.
No. A person playing 1 characters 12 hours a day is an advantage built into the game.
Your issue seems to be that you can't play 12 hours a day, so you want to BUY an advantage that gives you that much power.
Which is compounded further when you have people playing 12 hours a day AND multi boxing.
Iksar said:Feyshtey said:I've addressed the issues around monopolizing content and tackling named. Repeatedly. I am a proponent of combat systems that make having more than 2, maybe 3 boxing a realistic impossibility. I don't know if I've explicitely stated it, but I'm also of the opinion that 2-3 characters should not be able to hold a camp in a dungeon that provides xp, let alone be able to tackled named. And that holds true for 3 players, making 3 accounts under 1 player even less possible.
Splitting up and holding multiple camps is wholly negated by everything I said in the first paragraph here. Non-issue, if designed the way I would prefer to see it.
AH : My solution is don't have an AH. I've been entirely consistent on my negative opinion of AH's and this reinforces that notion. If a boxer can have a 2nd character in the AH "sniping", then a gold farmer or secondary market vermin is just as capable of doing so on their one and only account. AH allows abuse of the economy, IMO, and should be removed before boxing enters into the equation.
Powerleveling : Do you think that mechanisms should be put into place that prevent a guild from powerleveling a member's new alt? If no, why? If yes, why? Either way, how does that differ or not from a boxer doing the same on a much smaller scale (1 character PL'd by 1-2 other accounts)?
I'm not talking about two level 50s tackling level 40+ named camps, but anything below will likely be do-able by even a single maxed character so the dual boxer can hold two camps at the same time. It isn't terribly difficult to hold a single room of spawns down. I doubt the combat will be so brutal that mobs 10+ levels below are a huge threat.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that AH is terrible for any in-game economy. Unfortunately (if I remember right) they are planning on having them.
The difference is the power of a single player. Multiboxing and powerleveling yourself is a very noteable advantage (P2W) that someone playing a single account does not have. If you want to take up someone elses time and/or spend your plat on getting PLd that's whatever, but being able to do it youself whenever you want is big.
Make the AH's Regional and not Server wide, and honestly, i think a dungeon 10 levels lower than us shoud still cause a huge threat to us, especially the named mobs so prevent people from solo camping them, especially with the mechanics they seem to be putting into them, i believe this might actually be the case, I'm not against people trying to box, but i think the game should be hard enough to feel like even controlling one character is challenging enough, and maybe making you feel like 2-3 boxing is either not advised or extremely complicated.