Dulu said: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.
What power?! You've never quantified what this mystical advantage is. That they can log in two accounts and kill some overland mobs for a lower xp rate than a group? That they can get marginally better xp than they could solo'ing one account, that rate of xp even worse than two-boxing? They're never going to approach the benefits of grouping. They're never going to approach participation in end-game content like raiding. They're never going to get anything approaching the best loot, or the best trinkets, or the best spell tiers. What, exactly, is this HUGE advantage?
Feyshtey said:
2-3 boxing does not let me level faster than a group.
Do you level faster than solo? That is the comparison. The advantage a boxer gets is having multiple characters playing at once vs having 1 character playing at once. You can remove groups from the equation. Both individual players and boxers can play in groups.
It doesn't allow me to take named (with rare exception, maybe).
It doesn't allow me to complete quests better than a group.
This is dependent on the situation.
- If boxing is allowed, they will.
Agreed
- If boxing is not allowed, they will solo.
Not necessarily. Like your above statements on quests/named. This is not factual. Players who box will often solo...is a better way to word that. To say they only solo is just trying to pad your point of view without any backing. The way you stated it sounds like a definitive and that you are saying they won't ever group, only solo. We both know that isn't correct (I know you retconned it below).
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.
Then it shouldn't be worded above as a hard and fast rule. I think that is where some of the misunderstanding is. Please say what you mean originally. Don't make a statement and then state how it is incorrect and what you really meant. It makes it confusing and your point isn't getting accross as well as it could be. It is the same thing you did with the named/quest statement earlier. You made an absolute statement and then, in parenthesis after, you stated how the absolute statement wasn't absolute and there are exceptions. Don't make the absolute statement to begin with if it isn't definitively absolute. Just say what you mean originally so you aren't backtracking on yourself and your points will be better understood.
I think a lot of the disagreement in this discussion is because of how information is being presented.
I would love it if we could take personal feelings out of it and discuss the effects of boxing on the playerbase as a whole ? What effect it would have on a server specific ruleset. Pretty sure, in this case, that isn't going to work.
Really? Its not enough to acknowledge that a statement is not and should not be considered all inclusive. What's the rule then? See, I seem to have experienced in this very thread the phenomenon of clearly stating a very specific set of criteria, which people don't read or comprehend, and then come back with arguments that were fully and completely addressed in the long explanation. Now I'm being told that a bullet point (easily read) is not sufficient and I have to fully qualify everything in paragraphs that... people don't read or comprehend.
[edit]
And I have asked pointedly several times: What is the impact. Quantify it.
The answers so far have generally been, "It just has impacts and is a huge advantage.". Unless the impacts are things I've specifically and repeatedly given ways, means, methods of addressing that are ignored and the same arguments regurgitated.
Feyshtey said:Really? Its not enough to acknowledge that a statement is not and should not be considered all inclusive. What's the rule then? See, I seem to have experienced in this very thread the phenomenon of clearly stating a very specific set of criteria, which people don't read or comprehend, and then come back with arguments that were fully and completely addressed in the long explanation. Now I'm being told that a bullet point (easily read) is not sufficient and I have to fully qualify everything in paragraphs that... people don't read or comprehend.
Bullet points are great. Just make sure the bullet point wording gets the same point across that is in the explanation below. To give a bullet point that says one thing, and then explain later how that bullet point isn't entirely accurate makes the bullet point counter productive.
I'm pretty sure there would be better understanding here if information wasn't being presented in a way that a statement is made and then there is backtracking that puts stipulations on the original statement for clarity. Just put those stipulations on the original statement to begin with. It should lessen the amount of confusion.
philo said:Feyshtey said:Really? Its not enough to acknowledge that a statement is not and should not be considered all inclusive. What's the rule then? See, I seem to have experienced in this very thread the phenomenon of clearly stating a very specific set of criteria, which people don't read or comprehend, and then come back with arguments that were fully and completely addressed in the long explanation. Now I'm being told that a bullet point (easily read) is not sufficient and I have to fully qualify everything in paragraphs that... people don't read or comprehend.
Bullet points are great. Just make sure the bullet point wording gets the same point accross that is in the explanation below. To give a bullet point that says one thing, and then explain later how that bullet point isn't entirely accurate makes the bullet point counter productive.
I'm pretty sure there would be better understanding here if information wasn't being presented in a way that a statement is made and then there is backtracking that puts stipulations on the original statement for clarity. Just put those stipulations on the original statement to begin with. It should lessen the amount of confusion.
I will from henceforth consult my lawyer before making public statements and or expressing my opinions. I will strive to ensure from this point forward that statements like "If boxing is not allowed, they will solo." be more accurately stated as "If boxing is not allowed, they will often solo.", even if there's a statement immediately following said statement that clearly states that it should not be taking as a black/white, universal truth. I deeply regret if my statements have triggered anyone or caused any consternation, and I will consult council on appropriate steps I might take to attend sensitivity training immediately.
Oh, and I deeply regret using the word statement so many times in a single statement.
This is going nowhere. I'm out.
Cmon man, There just seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in this thread. I was offering a tip on clarifying how information is being presented. No need for "consult my lawyer" statements. But yes, making a statement absolute vs conditional definitely changes the meaning. They are not the same...thus the misunderstanding.
philo said:Cmon man, There just seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in this thread. I was offering a tip on clarifying how information is being presented. No need for "consult my lawyer" statements. But yes, making a statement absolute vs conditional definitely changes the meaning. They are not the same...thus the misunderstanding.
The only confusion would be generated by people unable or unwilling to read a whole post.
Feyshtey said: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.
It is what it is, unless they add some form of restriction on obtaining loot from trivial mobs (which I'd support) unless the player mentors down and joins a group appropriate to the level of the mob(s). But the argument is that having 2 accounts running is a marked advantage over a single player, multiboxer able to camp double (or more) the mobs for potentially double the profits in the same time of a single box.
Not sure what time played has to do with multiboxing advantage. That same player that can play 12 hours straight could still be a multiboxer, worse yet a multiboxer locking up multiple camps for half a day or gathering twice the crafting resources or powerleveling his own characters.
This isn't about leveling. Even if it is a slower rate initially, future characters will go much much faster with powerleveling. They've already said soloing will be a thing (so why need multibox to begin with), VR doesn't seem like they want to introduce restrictions/scaling on buffs cast on lower level characters and I imagine they aren't going to lock mobs to the person who engages first. It's like paying extra to have your own xp & gold boost once you have a couple maxed characters.
Feyshtey said:Really? Its not enough to acknowledge that a statement is not and should not be considered all inclusive. What's the rule then? See, I seem to have experienced in this very thread the phenomenon of clearly stating a very specific set of criteria, which people don't read or comprehend, and then come back with arguments that were fully and completely addressed in the long explanation. Now I'm being told that a bullet point (easily read) is not sufficient and I have to fully qualify everything in paragraphs that... people don't read or comprehend.
[edit]
And I have asked pointedly several times: What is the impact. Quantify it.
The answers so far have generally been, "It just has impacts and is a huge advantage.". Unless the impacts are things I've specifically and repeatedly given ways, means, methods of addressing that are ignored and the same arguments regurgitated.
Boxers have access to more content, and more influence on the game world than traditional players.
If you can do something while boxing, that you can't do while solo - that's an advantage.
I just hope they give us server options to avoid playing with boxers. Feyshtey can go be happy playing on a boxing server and I can go be happy playing on a single box server. That's the obvious solution here to satisfy both sides.
Unless boxers don't want to play on a server meant for them because that takes the fun out of their paying to win? :p
Like i said before i woud like the game to be challenging enough to where playing a single character is hard, let alone 2-3, becuase lets be honest we want the game to be challenging and if you can box 2-3 characters than imo it missed it marked, but if they keep it to where it was with the mobs one hitting the wizards and everything, or even if they slightly tone it down to where they get 2 shotted instead, it would still be enough to really make it almost impossible to box, to an extent, and therefore make boxing 2-3 not advisable or extremely diffcult and only the best of the best of boxers could pull it off, which therefore i would be fine with it. becuase there wouldn't be very many of them. and also with those mobs not even being a named mob more than lightly they still wouldn't be able to kill named mobs becuase they would have their hands full with just th normal ones, which would be even better. so therefore basically eliminating most of the advantages the boxers would have over people that aren't boxing.
Riahuf22 said:Like i said before i woud like the game to be challenging enough to where playing a single character is hard, let alone 2-3, becuase lets be honest we want the game to be challenging and if you can box 2-3 characters than imo it missed it marked, but if they keep it to where it was with the mobs one hitting the wizards and everything, or even if they slightly tone it down to where they get 2 shotted instead, it would still be enough to really make it almost impossible to box, to an extent, and therefore make boxing 2-3 not advisable or extremely diffcult and only the best of the best of boxers could pull it off, which therefore i would be fine with it. becuase there wouldn't be very many of them.
Cant argue with you here Riahuf. I'd rather the game have me so thoroughly engaged keeping one guy alive that keeping more alive is realistically impossible. But that starts setting the game difficulty from challenging and requiring cooperative play to outright brutal and demoralizing, depending on how its done. There's a balance in there somewhere, between brutal mobs that hit like trucks, to button mashing, to strategic and fast reaction gameplay.
But all that is general game design desires, not really alternative server desires.
Feyshtey said:Riahuf22 said:Like i said before i woud like the game to be challenging enough to where playing a single character is hard, let alone 2-3, becuase lets be honest we want the game to be challenging and if you can box 2-3 characters than imo it missed it marked, but if they keep it to where it was with the mobs one hitting the wizards and everything, or even if they slightly tone it down to where they get 2 shotted instead, it would still be enough to really make it almost impossible to box, to an extent, and therefore make boxing 2-3 not advisable or extremely diffcult and only the best of the best of boxers could pull it off, which therefore i would be fine with it. becuase there wouldn't be very many of them.
Cant argue with you here Riahuf. I'd rather the game have me so thoroughly engaged keeping one guy alive that keeping more alive is realistically impossible. But that starts setting the game difficulty from challenging and requiring cooperative play to outright brutal and demoralizing, depending on how its done. There's a balance in there somewhere, between brutal mobs that hit like trucks, to button mashing, to strategic and fast reaction gameplay.
But all that is general game design desires, not really alternative server desires.
Understandable, and im sure things will be adjusted, but i still want it to be challenging, i want to honestly think about what it is that im doing, other than be like yeah pull those 5 mobs and we'll destroy them with no CC, which im sure VR is going to do, becuase want it to where if people are boxing it is becuase they are simply just that good of a gamer than becuase the game is too easy. And i understand it wasn't a alternative server desire, and honestly when it comes to a type of server that seperates the 2 i don't really care, and it would be too hard to keep them all away anyway, imo wasted man hours policing up, unless if they are botting, but that a whole different topic altogether.
Difficulty is comparable though. If the difficulty is to hard players will just find lower lvl/easier mobs whether they are solo or boxed or grouped.
Unless it got to the point where the lowest lvl mobs to kill for exp were still to difficult solo...but we know that won't be the case. VR has stated that soloing...for exp... will be possible It is impossible to create a game that you can't box :
we want the game to be challenging and if you can box 2-3 characters than imo it missed it marked
That ^ is only good in theory. They have said soloing will be possible so of course boxing will be possible as well.
philo said:Difficulty is comparable though. If the difficulty is to hard players will just find lower lvl/easier mobs whether they are solo or boxed or grouped.
Unless it got to the point where the lowest lvl mobs to kill for exp were still to difficult solo...but we know that won't be the case. VR has stated that soloing...for exp... will be possible It is impossible to create a game that you can't box :
we want the game to be challenging and if you can box 2-3 characters than imo it missed it marked
That ^ is only good in theory. They have said soloing will be possible so of course boxing will be possible as well.
Even if they put in measure to make it impossible, like one account per IP, or one account running per pc, it's still easily enough circumvented. Takes minimal IT knowledge to get around those kinds of things, and it would take constant active vigilence by GM's to put a stop to it. That's a costly proposition from VR's perspective, netting.. what?
philo said:Difficulty is comparable though. If the difficulty is to hard players will just find lower lvl/easier mobs whether they are solo or boxed or grouped.
Unless it got to the point where the lowest lvl mobs to kill for exp were still to difficult solo...but we know that won't be the case. VR has stated that soloing...for exp... will be possible It is impossible to create a game that you can't box :
we want the game to be challenging and if you can box 2-3 characters than imo it missed it marked
That ^ is only good in theory. They have said soloing will be possible so of course boxing will be possible as well.
They said soloing in certain areas will be possible, not just in dungeons, which is where normally boxers boxxed becuase of loot and coin, if they are boxing in a solo area and get low coin, and not much in ways of loot than let them have it, it won't really effect the people dungeon crawling, or questing. Plus lets say you kill a grped mob and it gives a total of 600 exp but you got 6 people in your grp 600/6=100 so the solo mobs should give a total of like 50 for lack of difficulty and being able to solo but if you boxing 3 50/3= basically 17. therefore no biggie imo.
Riahuf22 said:philo said:Difficulty is comparable though. If the difficulty is to hard players will just find lower lvl/easier mobs whether they are solo or boxed or grouped.
Unless it got to the point where the lowest lvl mobs to kill for exp were still to difficult solo...but we know that won't be the case. VR has stated that soloing...for exp... will be possible It is impossible to create a game that you can't box :
we want the game to be challenging and if you can box 2-3 characters than imo it missed it marked
That ^ is only good in theory. They have said soloing will be possible so of course boxing will be possible as well.
They said soloing in certain areas will be possible, not just in dungeons, which is where normally boxers boxxed becuase of loot and coin, if they are boxing in a solo area and get low coin, and not much in ways of loot than let them have it, it won't really effect the people dungeon crawling, or questing.
whoa...now you are trying to make a distinction between open world and dungeon boxing? That seems pretty wishy washy. The reasoning that has been discussed here...things like social impact or payed advantage... don't differentiate based on location.
I suspect you meant to say just not in dungeons - reversing those 2 words completely reverses the meaning.
Since I joined these forums I have been a leading proponant of this group-focused game not being too hard on soloers, and maintaining a fair balance. In fact to push this and a few other opinions is a large reason why I pledged (also to support the game, of course, and get alpha test access.) But I have never encouraged or wanted soloing to be possible at-level in a dungeon - only in "lower value" outside world areas. And I don't think from what they have said that it will be possible at-level.
No one has ever been able to stop multi-boxing and most don't even try, and say it is fine under their TOS as long as each character is manually played not botted.
philo said:Riahuf22 said:philo said:Difficulty is comparable though. If the difficulty is to hard players will just find lower lvl/easier mobs whether they are solo or boxed or grouped.
Unless it got to the point where the lowest lvl mobs to kill for exp were still to difficult solo...but we know that won't be the case. VR has stated that soloing...for exp... will be possible It is impossible to create a game that you can't box :
we want the game to be challenging and if you can box 2-3 characters than imo it missed it marked
That ^ is only good in theory. They have said soloing will be possible so of course boxing will be possible as well.
They said soloing in certain areas will be possible, not just in dungeons, which is where normally boxers boxxed becuase of loot and coin, if they are boxing in a solo area and get low coin, and not much in ways of loot than let them have it, it won't really effect the people dungeon crawling, or questing.
whoa...now you are trying to make a distinction between open world and dungeon boxing? That seems pretty wishy washy. The reasoning that has been discussed here...things like social impact or payed advantage... don't differentiate based on location.
They showed it on the video they were fighting outside of that one dungeona dn mobs didn't even come close to hitting as hard or have the health to the ones inside the dungeon, plus i believe they even mentioned that they said there would be solo locations, so yeah instead of being wishy washy i actually watched a stream saying so.
EQ2 briefly adopted a forced grouping concept - landscape mobs became as difficult as dungeon mobs in many situations and soloing became highly limited and difficult.
Came close to killing the game - I have rarely seen such a rapid reversal of a decision with such broad impact.
VR has made it crystal clear they will not make that mistake although they have made it equally clear that they will not allow soloing to be trivially easy anywhere outside of a dungeon.
Riahuf22 said:
philo said:Difficulty is comparable though. If the difficulty is to hard players will just find lower lvl/easier mobs whether they are solo or boxed or grouped.
Unless it got to the point where the lowest lvl mobs to kill for exp were still to difficult solo...but we know that won't be the case. VR has stated that soloing...for exp... will be possible It is impossible to create a game that you can't box :
we want the game to be challenging and if you can box 2-3 characters than imo it missed it marked
That ^ is only good in theory. They have said soloing will be possible so of course boxing will be possible as well.
They showed it on the video they were fighting outside of that one dungeona dn mobs didn't even come close to hitting as hard or have the health to the ones inside the dungeon, plus i believe they even mentioned that they said there would be solo locations, so yeah instead of being wishy washy i actually watched a stream saying so.
Please see the above quoted post about difficulty. Players will still be able to box and gain an advantage over someone who is solo.
Whether mobs hit harder in a dungeon or not has nothing to do with the boxing discussion. I'll re-state. The points about social impact and payed advantage are the same regardless of how difficult the mobs are or where they are located.
Edit: I just read the first sentence of the original post...Haha. I guess it is unavoidable.
philo said:Riahuf22 said:
philo said:Difficulty is comparable though. If the difficulty is to hard players will just find lower lvl/easier mobs whether they are solo or boxed or grouped.
Unless it got to the point where the lowest lvl mobs to kill for exp were still to difficult solo...but we know that won't be the case. VR has stated that soloing...for exp... will be possible It is impossible to create a game that you can't box :
we want the game to be challenging and if you can box 2-3 characters than imo it missed it marked
That ^ is only good in theory. They have said soloing will be possible so of course boxing will be possible as well.
They showed it on the video they were fighting outside of that one dungeona dn mobs didn't even come close to hitting as hard or have the health to the ones inside the dungeon, plus i believe they even mentioned that they said there would be solo locations, so yeah instead of being wishy washy i actually watched a stream saying so.
Please see the above quoted post about difficulty. Players will still be able to box and gain an advantage over someone who is solo.
Whether mobs hit harder in a dungeon or not has nothing to do with the boxing discussion. I'll re-state. The points about social impact and payed advantage are the same regardless of how difficult the mobs are or where they are located.
Edit: I just read the first sentence of the original post...Haha. I guess it is unavoidable.
The fact is that if they game if cifficult and basically prevents boxing than it is doing exactly what you want, for there to be no boxers, which should be the goal of the game, there is no need to prevent boxing if the game it self basically punish the ones that try to do it, which is basically my point. so therefore we are technically wanting the same thing just achieved in another way.
Riahuf22 said:The fact is that if they game if cifficult and basically prevents boxing than it is doing exactly what you want, for there to be no boxers, which should be the goal of the game, there is no need to prevent boxing if the game it self basically punish the ones that try to do it, which is basically my point. so therefore we are technically wanting the same thing just achieved in another way.
This is ignoring the fact that once they do reach high/max level they have far greater advantage in terms of gains in tradeskills, named camps(make up to twice as much in-game $$$), and in terms of future leveling endeavours by powerleveling themselves.