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 the repetative and easy combat that allows for most multi-boxxing.
VR seems to share this opinion, as in a previous, closed, multi-boxxing thread, It was stated that they wish to make the game so complicated to play that multiboxxing is just NOT going to be an option.
The question of whether multiboxxing hurts Pantheon or not is still important, however, simply because VR may not manage to make the game so intense that you cannot multi-box. Having a shaman follow you around and give you buffs is multiboxxing, and very easy to manage. Especially if experience and loot aren't limited by distance or contribution, so the boxxed shaman can buff you and sit off somewhere safe while you level two characters for the price of 1.6. This is a sad and possibly offensive idea, but I regretfully believe it to be true nonetheless.
IF Multiboxing grants a significant advantage over other players, AND it requires you to get things outside of your full membership and/or the game's system requirements, THEN the devs should consider not allowing it in Pantheon.
The problem:
I dislike traditional multiboxxing because it feels like pay-to-win. You pay money for more and better computers, you pay money for more subscriptions, and you fix in-game problems with your new boxxes. Fixxing in-game problems, such as not being able to get groups of real people, or completing content which you couldn't otherwise do (and getting the experience/loot all to yourself) are advantages. It doesn't matter if it's been done in every mmo by everyone, and it doesn't matter if you only use it for something small like a buff or a heal. Someone who bought the game and only has base system requirements could not multibox, and so could not accomplish the things you can. This means you have an advantage, and you got your advantage outside of your full Panbtheon membership, game box, and system requirements.
Unfair Advantages such as this are not looked positively upon in Pantheon. This is why Pay-to-Win shops, for example, are not allowed. Even if you feel they do not hurt anyone, and help the game creators get more money, they are banned nonetheless because they grant players with lots of money that are willing to spend definite advantages over those who only buy the game. I feel that traditional multiboxxing, being very similar to pay-to-win, should not be allowed as well. Gaining an unfair advantage in a round-about manner still results in an unfair-advantage.
The Solution:
What if multiboxxing was recognized by VR and put into the game? The system requirements would take multiboxxing into account, and a single full subscription would allow for building multiple characters and multiboxxing them. It would also be implied, perhaps on the game box, that you may be able to compete best by multiboxxing, just as it is common knowledge for all mmos that you will likely have an advantage by spending more time on the game.
The other solutions, such as ignoring the problem, or restricting everyone by putting in hefty and complicated rules to prevent (most) multiboxxing, are quite undesirable IMO.
I beleive my system for multiboxxing would be fair, and allow those who wish to multibox to do so without gaining an advantage from something outside of Pantheon. If you cannot stop it make it possible for everyone.
As for those who did not wish to multibox, they could atleast feel less of a requirement since VR after all will make the game so intense that most, if not all, multiboxxing wont be realistic anyways, the details of which we will learn in beta/alpha testing.
Does multiboxxing pose an issue, and should VR put it into their actual game?
Seems a shame you spent so much time typing this up, seems like you put some thought into it. But you idea goes comletely agains the tenets of the game. If people want to pay for 2 subs and run 2 characters though, that is their right to do unless there is a specific rule against more than 1 account per IP which i highly doubt.
Maximis said: What would stop someone from sharing his/her account with 7 friends? (assuming 8 char slots) I wonder what percentage of the gaming population boxes on an active server. Is this a 5% or 50% problem? I personally don't think it is a problem at all but some people are really worked up over this.
Ip adress rules. if you have two accounts at 1 ip adress then both can play as many characters as they want from that ip adress.
Regular rules would apply that you find in say, blizzard games. If you appeal to them with a very unique situation or dont play from two computers in two seperate locations, then they have no problem with you.
Occasionally youd get people who live in the same house playing at the same time, but thats been a problem for many games and shouldnt hurt everything too much, at least until a better solution is found.
Quintra said:Seems a shame you spent so much time typing this up, seems like you put some thought into it. But you idea goes comletely agains the tenets of the game. If people want to pay for 2 subs and run 2 characters though, that is their right to do unless there is a specific rule against more than 1 account per IP which i highly doubt.
Care to expound on your answer? how is buying more subs different from buying anything else? As I mentioned, traditional mutliboxxing, such as that with multiple subscriptions, is no different from pay-to-win since you are paying to grant yourself an advantage over other players who only have a single game subscription/game box/base system requirements. At the very least, it would need to be noted ON the game box that you should buy atleast two subscriptions in order to compete, if that were the case in a regular multiboxxing situation.
Also with my highly unoriginal solution, which they likely have already, buying more subs simply wont be necessary anyways. If multiboxxing should be allowed, then just allow it I say
I think everyone should be very careful how they proceede in this thread. The original thread was shut down for a reason. Its obviously a easily heated debate.
All that being said I think VR has been clear on their position. As stated in the FAQ:
Will multi-boxing be allowed in Pantheon?
Our reaction to multi-boxing is to try something first before we even entertain the idea of artificially restricting it: We want to make combat, especially mid and higher level combat, so tactically intense, with so much going on, so much to do, so much to counter, so many companions to keep alive, and the timing of many abilities crucial, that multi-boxing is, if not impossible, extremely difficult and likely far inferior to having an actual real person in your group.
They have also said they have no intention of specifically restricting it. So if someone can manage to multi-box despite VRs best effort, then they likely wont do anything unless it becomes a major issue, Doubtful though.
Amsai said:I think everyone should be very careful how they proceede in this thread. The original thread was shut down for a reason. Its obviously a easily heated debate.
All that being said I think VR has been clear on their position. As stated in the FAQ:
Will multi-boxing be allowed in Pantheon?
Our reaction to multi-boxing is to try something first before we even entertain the idea of artificially restricting it: We want to make combat, especially mid and higher level combat, so tactically intense, with so much going on, so much to do, so much to counter, so many companions to keep alive, and the timing of many abilities crucial, that multi-boxing is, if not impossible, extremely difficult and likely far inferior to having an actual real person in your group.
They have also said they have no intention of specifically restricting it. So if someone can manage to multi-box despite VRs best effort, then they likely wont do anything unless it becomes a major issue, Doubtful though.
Alas, VR is clear on some sort of position with most parts of the game, and yet we still post on threads.
I see your point though, we should be careful. Which is why i made this one about a solution to the thing people complain about. Making multiboxxing available to everyone with your typical subscription to remove all worries of pay-to-win, botting, etc.
All we who dont like multiboxxing will no longer be able to complain about whether its unfair, and only be able to complain about whether its fun, removing, I daresay, much heat from the topic.
This solution could be thrown in decently easily, and remove worry of people managing to multibox unfairly even though it is "extremely difficult"
I cannot recall if I weighned in to the discussion last time:
@BeaverBiscuit : I would urge you to look at the many excellent posts made by community contributors in previous threads. Many, if not all your points, were considered there from both sides and debated. It is highly likely that the (now closed) threads answer much of the thrust of your arguement.
Having said that:
1. Is Multiboxing a problem?
At best, multiboxers account for < 2-3% of users. In a game with a subscription (such as PTF is to be) this tends to be significantly lower ... perhaps as low as 0.25% of the playerbase. Thus in a playerbase of 100,000 accounts this is, say, 250-400 people. The incidence of multi-boxing is more common now since (i) more people have multiple-screens (ii) 'free' S/W exists to help set it up (iii) games are aimed at 'casual' play and thus do not punish very bad/inefficient play - such as from bots.
It, thus, only concerns a small % of the user-base.*
2. Should VR do something about it?
A. Multi-boxers have to pay for a 2nd Box
B. PTF is more challenging, so boxers will be less effective
C. PTF is more social, so 'boxing' will be relegated to times when no 'real' players available
D. Zone topolgy (vertical dungeons) will make botting increasingly problematic.
So ... 'NO, unless it becomes a major issue' is the best answer.
With the exception of 'Gold Farmers', whose activities can be tracked by outcome rather than their method (botting/multi-boxing), it is highly unlikely that multi-boxing will prove an issue of any significance. 90%+ of all multi-boxers will be players with 2nd accounts to hold banking mules, emergency rezzing/healer support and backup duo-partners in case their zone is empty and nobody is about!
*Stats are hard to come by, but those for non-F2P are sigificantly lower than those for newer F2P (even including WoW).
I do urge you to read the (now closed) earlier threads on this subject.
Please remember these are 'developement' forums, where the aim is to help provide feedback on issues to VR from both sides of any given tool/mechanic so that the team can consider these when they, themselves, have these discussions (to save them time and effort, as well as perhaps prioviding suggestions they may not have thought of)!
Evoras, spends too long looking for stats!
Please do not create new threads on topics that have been closed, the Multi-boxing discussion has been done to death, we have made our stance very clear multiple times and it will not change based on opinions, we will only consider changing mechanics, systems and features after they have been thoroughly tested in our game.
Please do not create any more threads on Multi-boxing, or any similar subjects or they will be removed and further action may follow.