Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Allowing or stopping multiboxing.

1246

Comments

  • SkuzSkuz Member UncommonPosts: 1,018

    I didn't answer because multi-boxing is going to depend on whether it makes sense to the game.

    With the original EverQuest the game required 2 players at the minimum to really get anything done at all, and so multi-boxing evolved from players who wanted to solo but could not because of the game design.

    With most mmo the "option" to solo is there because the game sets up content to have a solo, group or large-group (raids) focus, will EQN be designed so players can solo? I don't know, but I'm expecting to see some "tiering" of the game so that there will be options for soloing but that lots of content will require groups or even raids to do it.

    I also expect the option to be there for players to build content themselves, perhaps from solo quests up to dungeons though I don't expect to see a "raid-builder" anytime soon one-off "boss-battles" are probable. I expect that all such player-built content will be subjected to toolset limitations/parameters. So if there is a big desire for solo content, the players will be able to build it themselves.

    Now if you want to solo through group-dungeons by multi-boxing I think that's just showing yourself to be an anti-social player, despite all the whining & protestations that you "just want the challenge of soloing it by boxing" I think you are deliberately avoiding social contact with other players & that's pretty sad.

     

  • kueykuey Member UncommonPosts: 39
    Voted to allow it. Only ever seen the dark side of multi in pvp, but depending on the nature of EQN that may or may not be an issue.
  • SawlstoneSawlstone Member Posts: 301
    Originally posted by Waterlily
    Originally posted by Alders

    At the same time, to efficiently multi-box, you're required to use programs that should be illegal while playing.

    Namely ISBoxer / Innerspace, which almost all multiboxers use, in EQ, WoW, Rift, you name it, they use ISBoxer.

    Which is a hack tool.

    Made by Lavasoft...maker of Macroquest..hacking tools for Everquest.

    I am a retired multiboxer. I multiboxed in wow for years and and it got boring for me. The payment for extra accounts didnt justify the joy I was getting. I used Keyclone. Keyclone is a favorite for a lot of boxers because of how easy it is to set up. The is a charge for Keyclone, which allows you to purchase it. If it is software that I paid for and my computer can run it while am playing a game that I am paying for I don't see a problem. Ultimately it comes down to what type of gamer a person wants to be. I miss the feeling of connecting to my avatar/toon they way I used to. This is the reason I gave up Mboxing.

  • SavageHorizonSavageHorizon Member EpicPosts: 3,480
    Originally posted by Kiyoris
    Originally posted by Stromm
    Poll needed a "Who cares?" option.

    I think if your interest is EQNext, you should at least care a little. It had a major impact on Everquest and it is now impacting Rift and a few other games too.

    This always makes me smile, not in a good way but actually a pathetic smile aimed at people who want to dictate how others spend their money and play their mmo's.

    There is nothing wrong with multiboxing as long as their are no third party programs being used. I've multi boxed since early EQ and have don't in every mmo i've played except for Age Of Conan and GW2. Do you really think that SOE are going stop people buying to accounts which is really two box of the game, get real lol.

    I run two version of a mmo on my one pc while playing in windows mode, nothing wrong with that at all.

     

    And what major impact did it have on EQ, people still grouped. I used to put my healer on /follow while grouped or if the group didn't have a healer i would play both characters in my group, not for raiding but for small group content.

     

    Seems the people who complain are the people would can't afford to buy two copies of the game so why should anyone else have two accounts. I also do it for RP reasons and many other reason in the game.

    As long as EQN has a /follow i will be two-boxing or multi boxing for PVE.

     




  • asdarasdar Member UncommonPosts: 662

    I've never seen an impact so I'd definitely say allow.

    Of the games mentioned the only one I think might be pertinent to this discussion is DAoC and that's because to me that game was the one where multiboxing was almost necessary. I would say that I'd rather have a game that you didn't feel like you had to multibox.

    Other than that I'm in the who cares, but with more respect camp.

    Asdar

  • FlawSGIFlawSGI Member UncommonPosts: 1,379
    I voted not to allow it. I admit I don't know much about boxing and it doesn't interest me in the slightest what others do with it. I do know that my good friend boxed to sell accounts in WoW and that always turned me off a bit about doing it. So when the question got brought up, I thought about Roy and decided it wasn't a good thing. Seeing the videos of people doing it has only enforced my stance on it. 

    RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.

  • ChizzlChizzl Member Posts: 8

    Until MMO's require more brain power then a gopher can offer you will never stop multi-boxing.  It used to be they could box 2 or 3 now it's full groups and pretty soon these MMO's will be so dumbed down you will be able to fight an entire raid by yourself.

  • JustsomenoobJustsomenoob Member UncommonPosts: 880
    I don't want to say "It is illegal to multibox!" but I think the game shouldn't make it particularly desirable to do.
  • DejoblueDejoblue Member UncommonPosts: 307

    It does not matter what we think there is no way to enforce an anti multibox policy without limiting IPs to one account and that is not going to happen.

    We can see several toons with similar names auto following one character but there is no way we can prove that it is being played by one person. Maybe they are a family and auto following the leader etc. etc.

    The revenue generated is also not going to buy any sympathy from any game publisher either.

  • SlyLoKSlyLoK Member RarePosts: 2,698
    I remember in DAoC players would park their buff bots in a keep in perfect safety and go out.. Now that gave them a huge advantage over other players that did not have a buff bot that were out solo in the frontier / BGs. After I stopped playing I read that they eventually added a max distance on buffs before they would drop but it took them forever and forever to do that...
  • baphametbaphamet Member RarePosts: 3,311


    Originally posted by Alders
    At the same time, to efficiently multi-box, you're required to use programs that should be illegal while playing.  This is the aspect that should be looked at and curtailed.  Let the multi-boxers do their thing, if they can do it without the use of automated programs.

    agreed and i do believe that is the stance SOE has taken. if third party macro programs are allowed, then i do have a problem with that.

    but other than that, if people want to run multiple characters, that is their choice.

    that's the way i see it at least.

  • baphametbaphamet Member RarePosts: 3,311


    Originally posted by dejoblue
    It does not matter what we think there is no way to enforce an anti multibox policy without limiting IPs to one account and that is not going to happen.We can see several toons with similar names auto following one character but there is no way we can prove that it is being played by one person. Maybe they are a family and auto following the leader etc. etc.The revenue generated is also not going to buy any sympathy from any game publisher either.

    they could allow only one version of the game to be ran on your computer at one time and ban anyone that uses illegal third party software.

    just the fact that it wouldn't be allowed would deter a lot of people from doing it.

    i just don't think they will go that route, SOE has always supported multi-boxing.

  • hayes303hayes303 Member UncommonPosts: 431

    Multi-boxing was in EQ waaaay before it went f2p, it was just more expensive. 

    I don't see any problem with multi-boxing, and if SOE does make a attempt to stop it, someone will find a way around it.

  • KezzadrixKezzadrix Member Posts: 90

    The only problem I have with multi-boxing is when it's in open world games.  I played on the latest round of progression servers for EverQuest and too often areas that were designed for many players were instead taken up by a few boxers.  Entire dungeons were being held for days (they seemingly never logged off) by 4 players boxing full groups of 6 instead of  24 players.  This is an issue when space is already limited. 

    In games like WoW where there's lots of instances.. who cares.

  • MrkuikenMrkuiken Member UncommonPosts: 33

    Multi boxing is fine by me.

    The reason multi boxing started (my opinion) was the difference between a high end raiding guild and just regular guilds/people playing EQ. (And yeah the loot is always yours, huge advantage)

    If new content came out it was way better to multibox your guildies because they had way better Armor/hp/mana/gear/stats then regular players looking for groups (the difference was huge). And in most cases I even played the 5 characters I used to multibox better then 5 regular players.

    Also you Multi boxed because you wanted your guildies to get exp/keys/quest/aa when they could not be on (they just on to Raid).

    I always had the luxury of multi boxing top geared Characters since I have been in top 5 server wide guild for 8 years.

    Also when you used to multi boxing and you go back to playing just 1 character at a time, you get bored very fast. (not talking about Raids).

    However multi boxing guildies is not allowed in EQ(because you don't own those accounts). but a lot top guilds started to do this they just accepted it and did nothing against it.

    So the reason i multi box is because its actually fun to play multi characters. or when i want a item bad and don't want others to roll on it. and if guildies need exp/items/AA or what ever.

    In any other case i will just invite whoever is looking for a group, since that is still the Main reason why EQ was so great, the Community.

     

     

    sorry for my bad English lol.

     

  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,292
    There was multi-boxing in EQ since day 1 (most likely since the CB). Many of us would run multiple accounts during the off hours, and then focus on just one during peak hours (when groups were full). It was often that multi-boxers would forum the core of the group, until such time as more players showed up. Having that extra healer or tank available whenever you wanted them was very convienent, and helped to build the cooperative social atmosphere that made EQ great.
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910


    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Not a fan of the "ban" part of the second option, but I would like to see gameplay thats not conducive for multiboxing.

    How would you make game play not conducive to multi boxing without making it non conducive to grouping or players in general?

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • SlavakkSlavakk Member Posts: 36

    Us :  Hey SoE can we multi box EQN???

    SoE - Absolutely NOT!!! There is no way in hell we are going to take more money from you our customer!!!

     

    Somehow I don't think the above will ever happen......

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Not a fan of the "ban" part of the second option, but I would like to see gameplay thats not conducive for multiboxing.


    How would you make game play not conducive to multi boxing without making it non conducive to grouping or players in general?

     

    Make combat itself more fast paced.  Likely a form of action combat.  Fairly easy solution.  No drawback other than people that "don't like to always need to be moving or aiming."  I'm sure theres a reasonable middle ground that would make it impractical.


  • TheHavokTheHavok Member UncommonPosts: 2,423
    I voted yes. I have no issues with multi-boxing nor would I ever want to discourage the multi-boxing community or prevent them from enjoying themselves.
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910


    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Originally posted by lizardbones   Originally posted by Dullahan Not a fan of the "ban" part of the second option, but I would like to see gameplay thats not conducive for multiboxing.
    How would you make game play not conducive to multi boxing without making it non conducive to grouping or players in general?  
    Make combat itself more fast paced.  Likely a form of action combat.  Fairly easy solution.  No drawback other than people that "don't like to always need to be moving or aiming."  I'm sure theres a reasonable middle ground that would make it impractical.


    If the main character can have a target, and the following characters can target assist, then it wouldn't really matter what kind of combat was going on. This would mean switching to some sort of aim based combat without targets, which minimizes healers and CC. It would be a substantial departure from what people expect.

    Keep in mind, these are people who are either running machines capable of running several copies of the game client, or who are running several machines and are paying for two or more accounts at the same time. A little bit of additional complexity added by the game isn't going to bother them. Multi boxing would have to be broken for people to not do it.

    Also, multi boxing isn't substantially different from five people playing. Anything that changes what a multi boxer does is going to change what everyone else is doing too. From a developer's perspective, the question is whether or not any changes to game play to impact the number of people multi boxing is worth the effort. I would bet there are so few people multi boxing, and their impact is so minimal that it isn't even worth considering when making game play decisions.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • whisperwyndwhisperwynd Member UncommonPosts: 1,668

     I'm not against it. If that's how they enjoy the game, so be it.

    Also, it seems the avg of EQN threads are basically negative premises of 'If feature 'X' is in EQN then I won't play, or it'll ruin the game/EQ name.' etc. etc.

    People rail too much against things on speculation and assumptions and less on actual knowledge and experience (of the game coming out).

  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Originally posted by hayes303

    Multi-boxing was in EQ waaaay before it went f2p, it was just more expensive. 

    I don't see any problem with multi-boxing, and if SOE does make a attempt to stop it, someone will find a way around it.

    Not only was multi-boxing in EQ2 way before it went F2P it was also effectively free.  Multi-boxers would sell looting rights to items for in game money, or would run instances and other stuff for in game money.  They would then exchange in game money for the codes on Station Cash Cards (game time cards) and use these to pay the subscriptions on all six accounts.

    SOE did not care much because the subscription was paid for in case by someone, just not always by the player.

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Dullahan

    Originally posted by lizardbones  

    Originally posted by Dullahan Not a fan of the "ban" part of the second option, but I would like to see gameplay thats not conducive for multiboxing.
    How would you make game play not conducive to multi boxing without making it non conducive to grouping or players in general?  
    Make combat itself more fast paced.  Likely a form of action combat.  Fairly easy solution.  No drawback other than people that "don't like to always need to be moving or aiming."  I'm sure theres a reasonable middle ground that would make it impractical.

    If the main character can have a target, and the following characters can target assist, then it wouldn't really matter what kind of combat was going on. This would mean switching to some sort of aim based combat without targets, which minimizes healers and CC. It would be a substantial departure from what people expect.

    Keep in mind, these are people who are either running machines capable of running several copies of the game client, or who are running several machines and are paying for two or more accounts at the same time. A little bit of additional complexity added by the game isn't going to bother them. Multi boxing would have to be broken for people to not do it.

    Also, multi boxing isn't substantially different from five people playing. Anything that changes what a multi boxer does is going to change what everyone else is doing too. From a developer's perspective, the question is whether or not any changes to game play to impact the number of people multi boxing is worth the effort. I would bet there are so few people multi boxing, and their impact is so minimal that it isn't even worth considering when making game play decisions.

     

    Regardless of the details, if the game was more fast paced, ie. players both do damage faster and take damage faster, the amount of switching back and forth alone would seriously complicate boxing.  If a cleric for instance had to constantly heal or buff players with smaller faster casting spells to keep them healed or from taking a lot of damage, that would single-handedly screw boxing without third party software.


  • dave6660dave6660 Member UncommonPosts: 2,699

    To everybody who thinks it shouldn't be allowed...

    How exactly do you propose to stop it?

    With F2P becoming more popular, it's only removed another roadblock.

    “There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.”
    -- Herman Melville

Sign In or Register to comment.