I have to agree with Liav , theres other things besides 3rd party programs to take into consieration .... G20 keyboards right off top of my head or naga mouse as examples.
I use both , I do not use the script ability in them but the potential is there.
As for the /follow comment , it was just off the top of my head . But if you are truely boxing (2 comps) , besides having to manually move the toons there is no downside to the suggestion.
Yes, I agree kinda of pita but theres no comparison between something that might enable scripting and a communication platform.
oneADseven said: I really wish people would stop suggesting that auto follow be removed to deter botters. That's like saying chat priveleges should be removed to deter harassment. Generally that is actually a pretty common penalty for harassment, but only after someone is guilty of harassment in the first place! If someone is found guilty of botting I would be perfectly fine with that player having their auto follow capabilities restricted, or hopefully worse. But don't penalize the entire population for the wrongs of a few. I have never even remotely considered the possibility of botting in any shape or form, but I should get penalized for those that do? Come on ... that isn't how you solve problems. That's taking a turd sandwich and turning it into a turd buffet.
Please elaborate on how the benefits of auto-follow outweigh the negatives? What's a delay of waiting for a few extra minutes for someone to get back to their computer from being AFK? It's one of the most slight convenience features but happens to be the one that enables so much potential for abuse, far more than the benefit it provides.
Auto follow is a pretty negligible component of botting.
Most botting software that I've looked at injects into the client itself. At that point, you can manufacture your own auto follow.
The most popular botting software in EQ has its own highly customizable form of auto follow that far surpasses the built-in auto follow command. The most popular botting software for World of Warcraft has the same thing.
Realistically, removing features from the game to deter botting doesn't work.
Sicario said:oneADseven said: I really wish people would stop suggesting that auto follow be removed to deter botters. That's like saying chat priveleges should be removed to deter harassment. Generally that is actually a pretty common penalty for harassment, but only after someone is guilty of harassment in the first place! If someone is found guilty of botting I would be perfectly fine with that player having their auto follow capabilities restricted, or hopefully worse. But don't penalize the entire population for the wrongs of a few. I have never even remotely considered the possibility of botting in any shape or form, but I should get penalized for those that do? Come on ... that isn't how you solve problems. That's taking a turd sandwich and turning it into a turd buffet.Please elaborate on how the benefits of auto-follow outweigh the negatives? What's a delay of waiting for a few extra minutes for someone to get back to their computer from being AFK? It's one of the most slight convenience features but happens to be the one that enables so much potential for abuse, far more than the benefit it provides.
^
What Liav said.
I have vivid memories of navigating through dungeons or raids where clear times were very important. Respawns, doors shutting, or other mechanics. To say that auto-follow is "one of the most slight convenience features" ... no that doesn't work for me. It's not just a few minutes one time. It's several minutes or longer replayed tens of thousands of times. Add that up and tell me it's a slight inconvenience. Also factor in how one person who gets left behind can cause a wipe that takes half an hour to recover from. So now you multiply 30 minutes times X amount of group or raid members, and multiply that several thousand times over as well.
Imagine if there was a way to fix a bug in the game, but it required a 3 minute delay everytime a gnome wanted to visit a warrior trainer. Gnome warrior trainer? Gee that sounds like such a slight convenience in the grand scheme of things because who plays a gnome warrior right?
That isn't how you fix a problem. If you want to minimize botting, you need a strong GM presence and an educated community that is willing to pitch in and help identify the potential trouble makers. Here is an example ... the city of Chicago was the murder capital of the United States. In an effort to combat this problem, the city banned the right to own a firearm. Guess how that is working out? Their murder rates continue to be some of the worst in our nation, with firearms being the most common lethal weapon. And it keeps getting worse ... 58% worse in 2016 than 2015.
Let's look at smoking as another example. Smoking was one of the leading causes of death in our country. Over time we began education programs to teach children how bad smoking is for their health, and mandated that all cigarette packages are labeled with various warnings about the risk of using tobacco. The smoker population has been consistently declining. The problem hasn't been eliminated entirely, but significant progress has been made. So much progress, in fact, that smoking was at an all time low in 2016. Meanwhile, the people who actually obey the gun laws in Chicago ... they're getting murdered and have no way to protect themself because it's illegal to own a gun.
Liav said:Auto follow is a pretty negligible component of botting.
Most botting software that I've looked at injects into the client itself. At that point, you can manufacture your own auto follow.
The most popular botting software in EQ has its own highly customizable form of auto follow that far surpasses the built-in auto follow command. The most popular botting software for World of Warcraft has the same thing.
Realistically, removing features from the game to deter botting doesn't work.
I definitely understand that auto-follow is a negligible compononent of botting. I am not advocating for its removal in regards to botting, I am advocating its removal in regards to multi-boxing. Botting is an entirely different topic.
Removing auto-follow, a feature that has minimal value-add to the game, would help heavily discourage multi-boxing, making it a much more difficult task to accomplish and would allow VR to maintain their soft position on its allowance in the game.
I have a difficult time seeing the benefits of auto-follow in contrast to its negatives, and I would gladly suffer the incredibly small, rare inconveniences caused by its absence knowing it's helping prevent multi-boxing.
Sicario said:I definitely understand that auto-follow is a negligible compononent of botting. I am not advocating for its removal in regards to botting, I am advocating its removal in regards to multi-boxing. Botting is an entirely different topic.
Removing auto-follow, a feature that has minimal value-add to the game, would help heavily discourage multi-boxing, making it a much more difficult task to accomplish and would allow VR to maintain their soft position on its allowance in the game.
I have a difficult time seeing the benefits of auto-follow in contrast to its negatives, and I would gladly suffer the incredibly small, rare inconveniences caused by its absence knowing it's helping prevent multi-boxing.
You cited potential for abuse, I assumed that meant botting. My bad.
Liav said:Sicario said:I definitely understand that auto-follow is a negligible compononent of botting. I am not advocating for its removal in regards to botting, I am advocating its removal in regards to multi-boxing. Botting is an entirely different topic.
Removing auto-follow, a feature that has minimal value-add to the game, would help heavily discourage multi-boxing, making it a much more difficult task to accomplish and would allow VR to maintain their soft position on its allowance in the game.
I have a difficult time seeing the benefits of auto-follow in contrast to its negatives, and I would gladly suffer the incredibly small, rare inconveniences caused by its absence knowing it's helping prevent multi-boxing.
You cited potential for abuse, I assumed that meant botting. My bad.
I could have been more clear, myself. I understand some people don't view multi-boxing as abuse, so, a little miscommunication there.
Sicario said:Liav said:Auto follow is a pretty negligible component of botting.
Most botting software that I've looked at injects into the client itself. At that point, you can manufacture your own auto follow.
The most popular botting software in EQ has its own highly customizable form of auto follow that far surpasses the built-in auto follow command. The most popular botting software for World of Warcraft has the same thing.
Realistically, removing features from the game to deter botting doesn't work.
I definitely understand that auto-follow is a negligible compononent of botting. I am not advocating for its removal in regards to botting, I am advocating its removal in regards to multi-boxing. Botting is an entirely different topic.
Removing auto-follow, a feature that has minimal value-add to the game, would help heavily discourage multi-boxing, making it a much more difficult task to accomplish and would allow VR to maintain their soft position on its allowance in the game.
I have a difficult time seeing the benefits of auto-follow in contrast to its negatives, and I would gladly suffer the incredibly small, rare inconveniences caused by its absence knowing it's helping prevent multi-boxing.
Except VR has already stated that they aren't taking a hard stance on preventing boxing. And for the reasons I mentioned earlier ... I'm sorry, but I don't view the removal of auto-follow as an incredibly small rare convenience. Pretty sure this ship has sailed ... I'm done commenting on this thread.
Xxar said:I have to agree with Liav , theres other things besides 3rd party programs to take into consieration .... G20 keyboards right off top of my head or naga mouse as examples.
I use both , I do not use the script ability in them but the potential is there.
As for the /follow comment , it was just off the top of my head . But if you are truely boxing (2 comps) , besides having to manually move the toons there is no downside to the suggestion.
Yes, I agree kinda of pita but theres no comparison between something that might enable scripting and a communication platform.
It really isn't hard to see data repeated the exact same way for certain lengths of time, even when a G# keyboard is used, plus we have invisible GM functions to investigate reports and can watch these actions without being detected by anyone on the server, it comes down to teamwork between VR and the community and I am confident that we will be able to stay on top of these bots and gold farmers if we work together, this is also what I will be creating the Guides program and other programs for, to help us manage issues like this in-game. :)
oneADseven said:Except VR has already stated that they aren't taking a hard stance on preventing boxing. And for the reasons I mentioned earlier ... I'm sorry, but I don't view the removal of auto-follow as an incredibly small rare convenience. Pretty sure this ship has sailed ... I'm done commenting on this thread.
The reasons you mentioned earlier were particularly unconvincing, a dungeon design with mechanics that requires auto-follow is just a bad dungeon design. The removal of auto-follow would truly be one of the most minor inconveniences we could impose, and would be absolutely effective in discouraging multi-boxing.
Sicario said:oneADseven said:Except VR has already stated that they aren't taking a hard stance on preventing boxing. And for the reasons I mentioned earlier ... I'm sorry, but I don't view the removal of auto-follow as an incredibly small rare convenience. Pretty sure this ship has sailed ... I'm done commenting on this thread.
The reasons you mentioned earlier were particularly unconvincing, a dungeon design with mechanics that requires auto-follow is just a bad dungeon design. The removal of auto-follow would truly be one of the most minor inconveniences we could impose, and would be absolutely effective in discouraging multi-boxing.
I really wanted to stop commenting on this thread because of the incessant selective hearing (vision in this case) that has been going on, but's it's just too hard to resist.
Per the FAQ:
"Our reaction to multi-boxing is to try something first before we even entertain the idea of artificially restricting it"
I'm not sure why peope insist on beating this poor and perpetually dead horse. It's been clarified several times that they will be taking a hard stance on botting, not multi boxing. With that being said, why should the entire player base of this game have to suffer ANY inconvenience to discourage multi-boxing? You think it's minor, I disagree. I have been doing this MMO thing for over 15 years and I can tell you right now that having an auto-follow function can be very important when you're dealing with certain kinds of content.
You said my reasons earlier were particularly unconvincing ... so I'll take another crack at this.
When a group or raid is in a difficult dungeon that requires you to be on the move so as to avoid respawns or pathers, having an auto-follow function is IMPERATIVE. If someone needs to go AFK for a period of time, should the entire group or raid be forced to wait on them? What if they are doing some sort of timed event? The whole point of having an auto-follow function is to provide a CONVENIENCE to the player that needs to go AFK, as well as the group/raid that the AFK person would be affecting. Why do you think the auto-follow function was created in the first place? It's because of how amazingly inconvenient it can be when someone needs to go AFK, and the potential repercussions that said AFK person can have on their party.
I'd like to requote a portion of what you quoted me on ...
"Except VR has already stated that they aren't taking a hard stance on preventing boxing."
Did you even read that? You quoted me on it and then proceeded to rehash the same pu pu platter on how the removal of auto follow "would be absolutely effective in discouraging multi-boxing." People make a big deal on how the auto-follow function needs to be improved in virtually every MMO that I have ever played. Stories of people getting stuck, or how it would just randomly stop working ... etc. That's what I would consider a minor inconvenience. Suggesting that removing it altogether would be nothing more than a minor inconvenience ... yeah, okay. Good luck with that. Tell all of the people who are hell-bent on wanting the feature to be improved that you're just going to remove it altogether. Let me know how that works out.
My experience with multi boxing was purely subjective.
While playing, and being proficient enough in my char in middle levels a learning event occured. 1. I realized therer were only certain things I could solo/do alone.(some tradeskills) 2. With all the quests available and my knowledge of relative monster power, I realized there were other- "medium" things that could be accomplished with one or 2 more people. 3. Full out grind or maybe certain especially hard projects or quests, but if a good camping/dungeon/grind was happening that was great.
These three things were choices I needed to make because not everyone was on at the same time and if I wanted to accomplish something in game I would look out for these three possibilities.
Then there was a time when the friends list got larger when many people were on at times I was on (timezones) and there was no lack of groups or doing things for invididuals in the group or all individuals in the group. Then this is where the thing happened, some of these friends then started to open new accounts and other characters. Then they were not available- even though we were on a really good exp/quest period in time- because they were busy leveling their alts- rolling on items for their alts.
and then- when the medium or 1 or 2 extra people things needed to be considered again- those that multiboxxed were busy grouping with their alts. Selfishly, I would imagine myself asking them "are you not as hindered as I? seeing as we are all equal and only one account?" But because they were boxing they were not as needy as I, for they could accomplish with their Box's what I would need to seek out others to help me with, to do.
Those obscure or medium camps that I sought out that were a mini-grind but with a wierd or nifty drop (wand of imperceptibility, for example) that could be done by 2 but not by one alone without some difficulty to fill time untill others got on, suddenly was not an option " I already have it, I went with the team(tm) and got it the other day." so the choices left were 1 and 3, and 3 was only there if others were on and when others were on then the boxxer would be free and the alts put away.
Of course I managed, I figured other things out, made my own grind or saved all the drops and spent time using them up in a crafting session in the early Am when no one was around, but it was another bend in the learning curve from having just come out of a long curve.
But that's just me.
Botting on the other hand I never experiences, except to have seen- someone in an area suddenly runing around and around in a perfect circle very fast! I saw this a number of times. I was able to target them, hail them, even send a tell and round-aand-round they woud go for another 2 min or so, and then.... disappear. that must have been botting or a macro or somehting.
@oneADseven
I respect the right to your opinion, and feel you're being unnecessarily abrasive. I'm articulating my position the best I can and trying to be respectful while doing so. I understand VR's current position on this topic, but that position doesn't necessitate that all feedback regarding that decision should cease. This is exactly what the development forums are for, giving feedback that we feel would be beneficial for the dev team to consider.
We're just going to disagree on the value of auto-follow, and that's fine. The points you're raising, in my perspective, are just reflective of bad dungeon design and/or minor inconvenience points. AKFs are bound to happen, but if you're in a position where it's happening so frequently that auto-follow is becoming a necessity or you're going to be gone so long that auto-follow is a consideration, then it's probably time to log off and be respectful for your group. Even if it's an incovenience in the super rare moments that could be a possibility, the benefits just don't outweigh the cons. As I said, this is a point that we may just not agree on, and that's okay. It won't stop me from giving feedback that I feel is important for the dev team to consider, and I'm not the only one holding this position.
Sicario said:@oneADseven
I respect the right to your opinion, and feel you're being unnecessarily abrasive. I'm articulating my position the best I can and trying to be respectful while doing so. I understand VR's current position on this topic, but that position doesn't necessitate that all feedback regarding that decision should cease. This is exactly what the development forums are for, giving feedback that we feel would be beneficial for the dev team to consider.
We're just going to disagree on the value of auto-follow, and that's fine. The points you're raising, in my perspective, are just reflective of bad dungeon design and/or minor inconvenience points. AKFs are bound to happen, but if you're in a position where it's happening so frequently that auto-follow is becoming a necessity or you're going to be gone so long that auto-follow is a consideration, then it's probably time to log off and be respectful for your group. Even if it's an incovenience in the super rare moments that could be a possibility, the benefits just don't outweigh the cons. As I said, this is a point that we may just not agree on, and that's okay. It won't stop me from giving feedback that I feel is important for the dev team to consider, and I'm not the only one holding this position.
I apologize if you felt that I was being overly abrasive, but it's frustrating when I illustrate a point, get quoted on it, and the response completely ignores everything I said. I was articulating my position on why I felt the mechanic was important to keep in the game based on my own personal experiences and you made light of it by saying that my reasons were particularly unconvincing. I wasn't trying to convince you to feel the same way I do. What is or is not a minor inconvenience is completely subjective, but the word minor is not. (Nor is most slight, incredibly small, or rare, all terms you have used to spell out exactly how you feel on the matter.) That's deemphasizing someone elses position and when it's contrary to yours, some might find that disrespectful. I agree to disagree with you and anybody else who holds that position. Take care.
Kilsin said:It really isn't hard to see data repeated the exact same way for certain lengths of time, even when a G# keyboard is used, plus we have invisible GM functions to investigate reports and can watch these actions without being detected by anyone on the server, it comes down to teamwork between VR and the community and I am confident that we will be able to stay on top of these bots and gold farmers if we work together, this is also what I will be creating the Guides program and other programs for, to help us manage issues like this in-game. :)
Oh, I am so down to become a Vampire Hunter when not playing my own toons.
oneADseven said:Sicario said:@oneADseven
I respect the right to your opinion, and feel you're being unnecessarily abrasive. I'm articulating my position the best I can and trying to be respectful while doing so. I understand VR's current position on this topic, but that position doesn't necessitate that all feedback regarding that decision should cease. This is exactly what the development forums are for, giving feedback that we feel would be beneficial for the dev team to consider.
We're just going to disagree on the value of auto-follow, and that's fine. The points you're raising, in my perspective, are just reflective of bad dungeon design and/or minor inconvenience points. AKFs are bound to happen, but if you're in a position where it's happening so frequently that auto-follow is becoming a necessity or you're going to be gone so long that auto-follow is a consideration, then it's probably time to log off and be respectful for your group. Even if it's an incovenience in the super rare moments that could be a possibility, the benefits just don't outweigh the cons. As I said, this is a point that we may just not agree on, and that's okay. It won't stop me from giving feedback that I feel is important for the dev team to consider, and I'm not the only one holding this position.
I apologize if you felt that I was being overly abrasive, but it's frustrating when I illustrate a point, get quoted on it, and the response completely ignores everything I said. I was articulating my position on why I felt the mechanic was important to keep in the game based on my own personal experiences and you made light of it by saying that my reasons were particularly unconvincing. I wasn't trying to convince you to feel the same way I do. What is or is not a minor inconvenience is completely subjective, but the word minor is not. (Nor is most slight, incredibly small, or rare, all terms you have used to spell out exactly how you feel on the matter.) That's deemphasizing someone elses position and when it's contrary to yours, some might find that disrespectful. I agree to disagree with you and anybody else who holds that position. Take care.
I recognize that you're serious about your perspective, and it's not my intention to make you feel that I'm making light of your opinion. As I said, I respect your opinion and am thankful that we have the opportunity to share our positions, even if we don't ultimately agree. That's the value of forums like this, where we can give our feedback and share our voices, since at the core of it we both want a successful game with a rewarding experience for those who play it.
Interesting discussion. I've gone back and forth in my head a few times while reading through this thread this morning. I generally have two accounts in games like this. I don't really level two characters at once, or even fight with two characters at the same time. I'll usually level a character from one account, and then I'll level a character from another account. In games like EverQuest where certain classes can offer useful buffs or utility, I'll take advantage of this. I'll level a druid first so I will always have ports and buffs for my other account. Then maybe I'll level an enchanter on the other account so the druid always has clarity. I have seen the posts here pointing out that while I may not be using a third-party program to control both characters at once, I'm still gaining an advantage. I'm still able to do some things that a single player on a single character would not be able to do. I really can't argue with the veracity of that. I also can't honestly say that I'd be likely to ask or advertise for one person's help on something I can accomplish with just my two characters. I can say, though, that I always prefer to be in a full group of single-character players when possible.
For me, having two characters online isn't a way for me to avoid socializing. In fact, I'll often log in a character on another account specifically to help someone out with a port or a buff. Someone else said this a page or two ago, but for EverQuest, I'd usually just be playing one character and have the other in the tunnel so I can go through the spam when I have a minute and try to make deals. I also like to have the extra character slots. I like to have at least one character of every class and then a bunch of mules. So, that's how I use two accounts. If it's permitted in PRF (looks like it will be), I'll continue to do that.
I think there are some valid concerns written here, though. I do want a game where I need to rely on other players for as many things as possible. I'm also hoping for PRF to bring back a world where a player's reputation matters, and where having a bad reputation can seriously hinder your ability to advance your character. I remember in EverQuest, the truly terrible players would have a very hard time getting groups. Some of them played druids (which I think were the easiest class to solo with at that time) and were able to squeak up to 50. Others who were just asses would play any soloing class or get lucky and find a group of players with similar personalities. I can see allowing multiple accounts as another way for some players to get around this PC faction system, but I guess it's not really anything new and was going on even in the early days of EverQuest.
I'm rambling a bit now, so I'll conclude. I do think there is a big difference between bot armies and a player with a few characters logged into the game. I definitely don't want to see the PRF equivalent of TLP mage armies. If that means I need to sacrifice my ability to play two accounts at once, so be it. It seems (from what some of you have said about botting here) that bot armies are quite a different issue than just playing two characters (without a third-party program) at the same time, though.
Kilsin said:We have given our official answer and until you folks get in-game and try it for yourself, no one will have any clue as to what we have in place for this or how hard it will be to actually box pantheon characters/classes, so the best bet would be to save it for testing and then provide constructive feedback on systems and mechanics like this, when you folks actually know what is going on and can experience it first hand, not through past memories in other games, some of which are 10-20 years ago as it does not help anyone.
If you folks are going to continue discussing opinions, please at least respect each other and move on if you don't like what others have to say, also don't state opinions as facts as that helps no one.
Hmmm I get what you are saying but the question of whether or not multiboxxing is bad is important too. If the game fails to keep you constantly moving with your character, then even having a shaman that you bring in to give you some buffs is multiboxxing, the same with a cleric that tosses an occasional heal. Even in dark souls these extra boxxed characters would be possible to keep alive and running (at least at times) if they were available, and dark souls is considered one of the hardest and intensive (popular) post SNES games you can possibly play. So you might make Pantheon just THAT intensive and make sure experience/loot is restricted at a distance so people dont have their boxxed buffers and experience sponges sitting down in a safe place and still getting xp, but it'd be pretty difficult IMO.
As I've mentioned in a previous post on this topic, any multiboxxing that happens outside of system requirements/ the regular pantheon game box/the game subscription grants an unfair advantage, just like a hack/bot/pay to win shop/etc. does, and may warrant special restriction.
Considered making a new thread titled "So how many characters do you plan to box on launch?" But i figured that it would probably just get deleted with the current state of things, so I'll ask here, with the current stance of boxing 100% ok, how many characters do you guys plan to run? I think I'll start with 2, and maybe work up to 4 if I think I can handle it.
I probably wont have a dedicated boxing account at launch. (My extra account from pledge rewards will go to my wife.) But first, if the game is good and I feel that I will be playing for a while, and second if I find that I am often on my own for whatever reasons I'll probably spin up a second personal account as a buffer/healer. I don't particularly like to have more than that, and I'm too cheap to pay for more if I did.
Rallyd said:Considered making a new thread titled "So how many characters do you plan to box on launch?" But i figured that it would probably just get deleted with the current state of things, so I'll ask here, with the current stance of boxing 100% ok, how many characters do you guys plan to run? I think I'll start with 2, and maybe work up to 4 if I think I can handle it.
If It's possible I'll probably be required to have atleast a shaman following me around for buffs in order to compete...I won't like it though
I enjoy boxing in some games, some games it won't work. I boxed three in EQ before mercs and three after mercs. I enjoy group content with groups but if my friends weren't online then I hated the slow pace of trying to solo with a Paladin. Having a few support classes to help out is nice and lets me play the game when I normally wouldn't. If a chance to group came up then I'd join that group, something I wouldn't have done if only solo play was allowed because I woudln't be online anyway.
As for the discussion about auto-follow. I think there needs to be auto-follow in the game for the reasons already listed in this thread. The biggest is to allow people to AFK while in a group or raid. Take that out and it becomes even harder to group/raid. Yes, it's an inconvience for boxing, but not impossible. I wouldn't use auto-follow in a lot of the fight spots because of the risk of running the wrong way. It was primarily used for long travel but auto-run can solve that with a few minor adjustments.
I get that some people don't like multi-boxing, but I can't understand the desire to limit someone else's gaming experience becuase of your preferences. If you don't like boxing don't box, but don't try to force someone else to your viewpoint.