I guess I'm on the fence. I never played Everquest or Everquest2 or Vanguard, so I've never had much first hand experience with multi-boxers or multi-boxing. So excuse me if some of my thoughts seem ignorant.
Taken directly from the FAQ:
There will be plenty of / (slash) commands that players can assign to hot keys. Likewise, the GUI will be customizable. But players will not be able to make hotkeys that automate playing their character or chaining a long list of commands together."
This makes me believe that those external softwares and script chains that allow the playing of 82374983749827 characters at once will be disallowed. However, it seems like one person could probably still play two or maybe three characters at a time on different accounts. This I am okay with.
Three characters at a time is going to make some of the group content playable for a single person. Three characters at a time is probably still not going to be enough to do the more difficult or "up to date" content. This means that these multi boxers are still probably going to have to find real people for progression. I guess that's where my personal line is drawn: If a single player can solo group progression content due to multi-boxing, I am not okay with it.
If a single player can do basic farmy stuff or grindy stuff better, I am okay with that. I feel that this is different from botting because multi boxing still requires a sentient person there at the wheel. Real time will still be invested. If you're farming or grinding, you're not fighting difficult mobs. You're fighting much lower level mobs that still hit some statistically determined threshhold for efficiency (probably for making money or earning exp). If a mob is at a point that you can farm it, that means there's little or no danger in fighting it. In this case, multi boxing doesn't make farming that mob possible. It just makes it a bit easier and probably reduces downtime. I'm fine with someone supporting the game I love to make their grinding time go a little easier.
If a single player can solo what used to be group content, but is now out of date, I am okay with that. Sometimes it can be very hard to find people to play with to do older content. I'm blessed with a wonderful guild of helpful gamers that I've been able to turn to for the last few years, but not everyone has that same community to support them, or perhaps they're in a different time zone. If someone is starting the game a few years after launch, the first few months of their playing could very well be spent catching up. If multi boxing helps those new players (or even just alternate characters on a veteran's account) catch up, I see no issue.
It sounds like (again excuse any potential ignorance due to lack of experience with the topic) that most multi boxers aren't doing it to get ahead. It sounds like multi boxing at its core is pretty difficult and probably only realistic for two or three characters. It sounds like the real problem here is the software and scripts that make it so you can multi box TONS of characters. So I guess my take away is this: don't allow the software and scripts that allow for over-the-top multi-boxing. I think that's when it becomes the true problem.
99% of people I know who multi-boxed in EQ1 created a 2nd account so:
1. If nobody on in that zone, they could make solo grinding easier/safer by duo-ing. Sometimes the 2nd box was just a 'buffer' for efficiency. They would do this if waiting for friends to arrive, or other 'quiet' periods.
2. A 'Support' character was kept for Raid/Support Purposes. This would be a Cleric, Chanter, Necro etc that would Pre-Buff a Raid perhaps, or park it at the staging area in case of wipes. I never saw anyone actually two-boxing *during* a raid - tho there are some Wizzies I was *awfully* suspicious of! Oh, and all Ranja's i guess.
As I said in a earlier post - it should be fairly easy (well, not impossible) for Pantheon to inspect the meta-data from clients in any given zone to flag up 'suspicious' behaviour resulting from '6-box farming bots' or '40-bot raiding parties'..
As Bernstein and Woodward were told ....
.... 'follow the money'.
In the same way as any in-game activity, be it gold-selling, exploiting, duping etc,
If they are damaging the game - punish them. If not, don't.
I just find it sad how the opinion of this kind of thing has changed so drastically since 1999. In EQ, you weren't even able to tab out of the game. "You're in our world now" was the slogan, and immersion was in the forefront of its design.
Today, we are condoning and even championing playing multiple characters at once.
I think we've lost sight of something important and this is symptomatic of a bigger problem.
Dullahan said:I just find it sad how the opinion of this kind of thing has changed so drastically since 1999. In EQ, you weren't even able to tab out of the game. "You're in our world now" was the slogan, and immersion was in the forefront of its design.
Today, we are condoning and even championing playing multiple characters at once.
I think we've lost sight of something important and this is symptomatic of a bigger problem.
Good ole days : )
Pantheon Rise of the Multi-Box ( Sounds kinda like anti- social gameplay )
Dullahan said:I just find it sad how the opinion of this kind of thing has changed so drastically since 1999. In EQ, you weren't even able to tab out of the game. "You're in our world now" was the slogan, and immersion was in the forefront of its design.
Today, we are condoning and even championing playing multiple characters at once.
I think we've lost sight of something important and this is symptomatic of a bigger problem.
I do agree mostly - even in games like the old Baldur's Gate D&D ones I didn't really like controlling a whole party. I always found I didn't really feel invested in any one character when I was trying to run four.
*But* if you've got no sympathy at all for boxers, I'd suggest you've always played from the US where (or more importantly, when) you can always be sure of plenty of people online to group with.
I dual boxed, otherwise I'd have been bored out of my mind at various periods of my EQ career. Sitting LFG in certain zones sometimes took over an hour+ before you'd get a group. In the meantime, I could wheel and deal in ecommons on my second character making some nice plat on the side. Rarely would I run both boxes together.
I two boxed for however many years in EQ and most of my time in WoW. However, the second char was truly a "bot" in my eyes. If a guildmate or friend (most of the time another person too) could fill the slot then I'd drop the bot from the group and usually log it out completely so I didn't have to worry about its survival. My main reason for having the second account was so that if a healer or tank wasn't available my group didn't have to sit on its ass doing nothing. It was also my bazaar mule while I played.
While I'm clearly pro-multiboxing, if they design the game correctly it will be more than hitting a heal button on a different keyboard (or different game instance on the same computer) when an hp bar gets low. As people get geared and are at a static camp location it will take less and less effort especially for casters if movement isn't required (even more so depending on what kind of caster), but I have faith that the devs will make sure that it is a difficult enough game that multiboxing won't be too easy, yet feasible. Afterall they are giving us VIPs 2 copies ;)
disposalist said:*But* if you've got no sympathy at all for boxers, I'd suggest you've always played from the US where (or more importantly, when) you can always be sure of plenty of people online to group with.
Everquest use to show you how active a server was when you were picking a server, it helped finding a server with a population that plays when you do.
Obliquity said:Everquest use to show you how active a server was when you were picking a server, it helped finding a server with a population that plays when you do.
Unless people started moving away for the server you picked, or if your play schedule changed due some factors...
Vaildez said:I wish it was looked upon as exploiting but since with monthly subs/box costs I am sure Devs see it as just more potential revenue. How many other games or genres can you buy multiple games and play multiple characters in order to make the experience "easier"? I can't think of a single other example. I'd love to see the hard stance of 1 active character per live person even though I am sure that's a hard thing to enforce. I know P99 does a good job of enforncing mult-boxing.
I seem to remember a limit of two characters per server in Star Wars Galaxies back in the day...but that was limiting to everyone (I love my alts) including those who multi-box. Meant that you had to switch servers if you wanted any more alts..I'm a crafter, I like to craft all sorts of things. I'm not sure I object to multi-boxing unless its a gold or plat farmer..hogging an area. Seen that too. Guess like I said unless its some sort of botter (application running the group and not a real person) I am rather neutral on this subject. Multi-boxing means you pay for several accounts to do that..doesn't it?
Cana
CanadinaXegony said:Vaildez said:I wish it was looked upon as exploiting but since with monthly subs/box costs I am sure Devs see it as just more potential revenue. How many other games or genres can you buy multiple games and play multiple characters in order to make the experience "easier"? I can't think of a single other example. I'd love to see the hard stance of 1 active character per live person even though I am sure that's a hard thing to enforce. I know P99 does a good job of enforncing mult-boxing.
I seem to remember a limit of two characters per server in Star Wars Galaxies back in the day...but that was limiting to everyone (I love my alts) including those who multi-box. Meant that you had to switch servers if you wanted any more alts..I'm a crafter, I like to craft all sorts of things. I'm not sure I object to multi-boxing unless its a gold or plat farmer..hogging an area. Seen that too. Guess like I said unless its some sort of botter (application running the group and not a real person) I am rather neutral on this subject. Multi-boxing means you pay for several accounts to do that..doesn't it?
Cana
yes 2 toon per account per server (unless you unlocked jedi pre publish 9 :D in that case you unlocked a jedi toon and had 3) i had 2 accounts to up my number of toons to 5, but never boxed.
strictly boxing refers to playng 2 or more accounts at the same time, generally it means playing them together. SWGs had some boxing since the practice is based on the number of accounts and not the number of toons per account.
i apologize if you knew about boxing already, and i misinterpreted your comment. as a side note, i do hope we have enough toons per account to get each class among the 2 accounts - plau 1 each for expansion classes. :)
Obliquity said:disposalist said:*But* if you've got no sympathy at all for boxers, I'd suggest you've always played from the US where (or more importantly, when) you can always be sure of plenty of people online to group with.
Everquest use to show you how active a server was when you were picking a server, it helped finding a server with a population that plays when you do.
And the US servers were always busier than EU ones. Something to do with them having 10 times the population in the same zone.
And there are very rarely Asia-Pacific servers (for anything but Asia-Pacific games) so those guys always spend a lot of time lonely.
And server populations change over time and, unless they are regularly merged you can end up lonely.
Now, as a Dark Souls fanatic I have to say that I disagree with characters being simple enough for you to play several at once in the first place. Constantly changing enemies and environments could certainly stop repetative and easy combat.
However I dont feel my opinion is the answer anyone here needs, the question we must ask is should Pantheon allow multiboxing.
The Devs have made it clear they dont like anything "pay to win", or that otherwise lets you get things outside of the game, like hacks, that significantly benefit your game. Paying 5 bucks for an xp pot, mod, or piece of gear, bad. They let you do things outside of your single subscription to gain an advantage over other honest full members of the game. Paying to make your armor look like an American flag or getting a better keyboard, good. It doesnt effect balance within the game in any noticable manner.
So get this:
If Multiboxing gives you a noticable advantage over players, And it requires you to get things outside of your full membership and/or the game's system requirements, Then the devs should not allow it in Pantheon.
Most of us can agree botting and hacking are outside of the full membership and system requirements of the game, while giving advantages, so lets talk about some of what the multiboxers with more "refined tastes" are saying:
Now to look at these justifications for multiboxing.
So, we have established that multiboxxing gives an advantage, even if its in a more roundabout manner.
Does Multiboxxing require getting things outside of your game? That depends entirely on the Pantheon Devs.
What we are all thinking about, with the multiple computers and multiple subscriptions, does indeed require things outside of your standard full game membership. If Tim buys a single copy of Pantheon with a subscription, and has only a computer that meets the basest system requirements found on the back of the box, chances are he can't multibox like that. By this definition, multiboxing is most certainly pay to win and Pantheon should most certainly consider not allowing it.
But what if Pantheon wanted multiboxxing; but did not want to even chance allowing a feature that broke their no pay to win strategy?
What if the system requirements on the back of the box took multiboxxing into account, what if the Pantheon team made it clear to players that they might not get the full game experience without having multiple characters at the same time? What if the actual game itself had a multibox feature in the character creation menu? I'm not saying these are good ideas, I am just saying there are possibilities for all of you multi-box supporters to get what you want WITHOUT risking an unfair advantage for yourself and others who do what you do. Multiboxxing does, afterall, fix several issues found in many mmos, and can provide extra fun to many.
If Multiboxing gives you a noticable advantage over players, And it requires you to get things outside of your full membership and/or the game's system requirements, Then the devs should not allow it in Pantheon.
Thank you everyone, for your time. Sorry for the ridiculously long post =p
So one thing that I haven't seen any mention of, and I'd just like it brought to the table, is roleplay.
Now, as a guild leader and an event manager for a large rolelaying community, I'm usually the one "DMing" the in-game roleplaying events. In the past, this has meant emoting for non-existant NPCs and encouraging imagination to make believe that these characters actually exist and are actually doing what I'm saying they're doing.
The other option when I am DMing events is that I'm not playing my main character, and instead am playing on an alternate character who is acting as some sort of "plot NPC".
The concept of multi-boxing presents the opportunity to have my cake and eat it, too, so to speak. I can play my main character, while also controlling the "villain NPC" or whatever it is that needs to be represented.
I'm actually incredibly excited about the fact that Pantheon will allow boxing for this reason alone. Being able to have my main character online as well as my plot NPC is going to mean so much. Not only will people not be able to figure out who's playing the NPC (since they won't be able to go "Oh look, Tem always logs out right before Bad Guy Joe logs in. Well duh she's playing him.), but I'll be able to create a way more immersive environment for my guild and other event-goers.
If the team decides to allow multi boxing, please make it as undesirable as possible in a REAL group scenario.
Multi boxing defeats the purpose of a social game and relying on others to complete content. I think if you want to do it on your own thats great, everyone should be able to make decisions for themselves but if too many people decide multi boxing is preferable to actually grouping you're no longer creating a social game and you're undoing your own hard work keeping players together.
Gamerchick said:If the team decides to allow multi boxing, please make it as undesirable as possible in a REAL group scenario.
Multi boxing defeats the purpose of a social game and relying on others to complete content. I think if you want to do it on your own thats great, everyone should be able to make decisions for themselves but if too many people decide multi boxing is preferable to actually grouping you're no longer creating a social game and you're undoing your own hard work keeping players together.
For me this all comes down to difficulty. If a husband/wife duo both play the game but the husband has more playtime ... I don't see a problem with the husband boxing the wife's account to keep her up to speed with him when she isn't available to play. There are plenty of ways a boxed account can be useful beyond a single player getting all of the benefit. The one thing I was never really a big fan of was when a contested would spawn and 3-4 people who could 5-6 box all logged in at exactly the same time and defeated a contested raid mob within 10 minutes of it spawning. These mobs would only spawn once a week and drop some of the best loot in the game. I don't think a guild should be able to monopolize end-game content with a raid more than half full of boxed accounts. The way to eliminate this problem is to provide challenging content. I really don't want to see content that can be beaten by a half-boxed raid. A couple boxed accounts is fine ... maybe a boxed chanter and a healer or something like that. But multiple groups? That's just too much IMO. The shorter the global cooldown is, the less effective boxers are.
I'm one of those freaks who paid for 20 accounts on EQ progression server(s), made 15 mages with some support and solo'd my way into the planes, taking out planes minibosses, phinny, hard dungeon camps, etc. etc. Got a lot of hate for it too. Technically it was all legal and allowed, but was it worth it? .. meh.. nah.. I could have had just as much fun with far less stress playing one toon and doing things the normal way. In hindsight, I wouldn't have done it again on the official servers.
Now, what I will say was fun and WAS worth it is when I played on an EQ Emu server that allowed not only multi boxing, but MacroQuest as well. Long Story Short; I ran 24 accounts, with a fully diversified raid force. The challenge to each raid boss was figuring out how to make each of your toons behave based on what was happening. It became a game of programming the perfect scripts; each boss requiring different macro(s) / set of instructions / inputs for each of your characters.. I would sit for hours dreaming up scripts that would finally allow me to beat boss_x.. It was like multiboxing on crack, and was some of the best (solo play) fun I've ever had in any game ever.
So no, I'm not against multiboxing. I can take it or leave it personally. And if I see others doing it, I wish them luck like any other people I happen across and carry on my own way. It isn't without its drawbacks, and they have to work for their progression just the same as anyone else and at a steeper monthly subscription.
Dullahan said:I just find it sad how the opinion of this kind of thing has changed so drastically since 1999. In EQ, you weren't even able to tab out of the game. "You're in our world now" was the slogan, and immersion was in the forefront of its design.
Today, we are condoning and even championing playing multiple characters at once.
I think we've lost sight of something important and this is symptomatic of a bigger problem.
Characters are just used and abused nowadays as means to an end.. a tool; NOT a roleplaying experience.
As I've said before in previous threads on this topic:
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.
You can read more of my thoughts on that here.
Regardless, it will be a better experience for everyone if multi-boxing is discouraged, if not outright prohibited.
There should be a server for multiboxers and a server that prohibits multiboxing. its really the only way to make people happy. Both styles or valid, but multibox does destroy the need to socialize, I have seen it happen. It is easy to stop as well. P99 does a great job at this, i imagine phinny does a decent job as well but i dont know.
I don't like boxing. With boxing people do not need to invest as much effort into creating a functional group, there is an easy way out. That leads to less groups and more soloing.
At the same time i do not think that boxing will have a huge impact if it is not trivially easy to pull off. People will chose the way of least resistance. If for example this game would be free to play and would run multiple times on the same computers without a problem then i would see problems arising. That's the reason why p1999 has this policy against boxing i think.
With a subscription based model a boxer would have to invest real life money in order to box. That alone will limit the number of people willing to do it. So i am not overly concerned... but i still don't like boxing, for several reasons.