Down with Mercs? What about Multiboxing?

hMJem

I figured I'd ask some not-as common questions.

 

Do you want mercenaries gone or still in the game? Personally I was never fond of mercs, I liked it a lot better where it was just you the player, no mercs.

 

How do you feel about multi boxing? To be honest, I didnt mind multiboxing in games you had to purchase multiple games and subscriptions for, because they were emptying their wallets and in turn supporting the game. But with EQN free to play, multi-boxing sounds very possible. How do you feel about multi-boxing in Everquest Next? Should it be a bannable offense, or is multi-boxing going to be hard to pull off in a sandbox game?

waynejr2

multiboxing is good for the game as it can mean more income.  Some players might not deal with it very well.  But who cares about them?

wizardanim

I don't generally like mercenaries.  

For EQ1, they are useful - in-case someone left the game at an in-opportune time (for group content) you could finish what you were doing.  With that said, with a better population i'd always prefer to have a real person instead of a merc.

I generally like multi-boxing, but not for the purpose that most people think.  Not to create a solo-quest game.  I like having a few types of characters, to better help my friends and guild members.  Buffs, crafting, abilities.  Having an alt that might be able to buff your main character as your group of friends is about to embark on some sort of expedition is very useful.  For instance, I had boxed a shaman for buffs and slows at times when dealing with very difficult content in EQ.  That character was meant for nothing more.  

I would plant a variety of level 55 magicians on free accounts in very odd locations for later insta-CoH.  One exceptional illustration of this was to the plane of mischef entrance when ToV was the only path to it in early EQ.  No more death runs to explore PoM with my friends, just load up the mage-bot.

Zorlofe

No to mercs but yes to multi-boxing. My wife and I liked that I could multi-box so I could keep her toons up to the same level as mine so we could continue to quest together etc. when she was ready to play.

hMJem

Originally posted by Zorlofe
No to mercs but yes to multi-boxing. My wife and I liked that I could multi-box so I could keep her toons up to the same level as mine so we could continue to quest together etc. when she was ready to play.

I have to admit, that is one way I dont like multi-boxing used. It kind of matches up to me with people buying accounts and not even knowing how to use their character. I feel like one person should be responsible for their character so they know how to use them and aren't a liability in groups.

 

My preferred alternative to that is just to have a designated character to play with your wife and just play on a different one when she cant play

 

When I played WoW forever ago and it was rampant with boxers/botters, I thoroughly enjoyed ruining the route of a multiboxer/botter by killing them.. You can tell it ruins their route, lol. I dont know. Maybe I'm old school, I really dont mind it though when its games they pay for because it supports the game via them dishing out more money.

 

 

Jigawatts

No to mercs, no to multiboxing.

Personally, I wish that you were only allowed one character per server (kinda like the old Firiona Vie server). I want immersion, and contrary to the movie Multiplicity, I cant just task my clones to take care of other stuff in real life.

In essence, make it where you have to rely on other people to accomplish things in the world.

WW4BW

  Definite no to mercs.

  As for multiboxing. It could be made harder to do. But then you just have it exclusivly for an specific group that has 2 computers or 2 IPs instead and who can get their hands on a macro to control the other box, or for everyone with 2 accounts and a half decent computer. 

  Of course, the more action combat and non-tab (I forgot the word) targeting you have in a game. the harder it will be to get a macro to work.. And there are several other things you could do to make it less effective to bot or box, if not impossible.

  Question is, do we want the game to have counter botting as a design focus. Or do we want it designed for people to use and enjoy and then accept whatever botting and multiboxing is possible in that enviroment?

  Im fine with adding roadblocks to boxers and macroers as long as it doesnt put in annoying obstacles for those that play it normally..

Take /follow (think that was an EQ macro, although I remember DAoC macros better). Its nice to be able to keep the group moving, even if one member has to take a bio break or answer the door. It is one of the first things to go when when trying to counter botting though.

keenber

I used eq mercs and they were great and i multiboxed 3 accounts in the latter part of EQ and that allso was fun but in a f2p game hell no it will kill grouping as i found myself not wanting to group with all my bots and mercs.

BBPD766

Originally posted by Jigawatts

No to mercs, no to multiboxing.

Personally, I wish that you were only allowed one character per server (kinda like the old Firiona Vie server). I want immersion, and contrary to the movie Multiplicity, I cant just task my clones to take care of other stuff in real life.

In essence, make it where you have to rely on other people to accomplish things in the world.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion, however your reasoning confuses me. How does another person's decision to mutli-box affect your immersion? Maybe that's the type of immersion they want or like. If other people don't want to rely on others to accomplish things in the world, that should be their choice. How is it any different when compared to people who hire others "to take care of other stuff in real life?"

 

Zorlofe

Originally posted by hMJem

Originally posted by Zorlofe
No to mercs but yes to multi-boxing. My wife and I liked that I could multi-box so I could keep her toons up to the same level as mine so we could continue to quest together etc. when she was ready to play.

I have to admit, that is one way I dont like multi-boxing used. It kind of matches up to me with people buying accounts and not even knowing how to use their character. I feel like one person should be responsible for their character so they know how to use them and aren't a liability in groups.

 

My preferred alternative to that is just to have a designated character to play with your wife and just play on a different one when she cant play

 

When I played WoW forever ago and it was rampant with boxers/botters, I thoroughly enjoyed ruining the route of a multiboxer/botter by killing them.. You can tell it ruins their route, lol. I dont know. Maybe I'm old school, I really dont mind it though when its games they pay for because it supports the game via them dishing out more money.

 I can see your point and that's what we did most of the time anyway but there were times where she had a long work week and I would do that for her. She knew her toon well regardless though and nobody she played with in our guild or otherwise could ever tell the difference.

kjempff

If the alternative to Mercs is turning towards solo gameplay then I am all for Mercs. I would rather see hiring a missing role than multirole/roleless gameplay.

For multiboxing I dont think it will be an issue as EqNext will be a modern game with little need to box, and possibly also very hard aswell due to fast paced action gameplay. Infact boxing hasn't really been used much since eq, atleast not for missing character role support.

wizardanim

Originally posted by BBPD766

Originally posted by Jigawatts

No to mercs, no to multiboxing.

Personally, I wish that you were only allowed one character per server (kinda like the old Firiona Vie server). I want immersion, and contrary to the movie Multiplicity, I cant just task my clones to take care of other stuff in real life.

In essence, make it where you have to rely on other people to accomplish things in the world.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion, however your reasoning confuses me. How does another person's decision to mutli-box affect your immersion? Maybe that's the type of immersion they want or like. If other people don't want to rely on others to accomplish things in the world, that should be their choice. How is it any different when compared to people who hire others "to take care of other stuff in real life?"

 

This also raises a point when there are no other people willing to help you - in a group oriented game should there be an option for you to continue playing or should you just log off for the night?  I agree with BBPD766, immersion is subject to players interpretation.

I like the idea of mercenaries as a last resort.  All your friends log, it is late, you don't have work the next day ... go ahead pop a basic template healer so you can complete your mission.

Or, load up a different character of yours, if you'd prefer.

I boxed in EQ1 for exactly the above.  In an MMO reliance on other people is only as good as the other persons willingness to help and availability.  There are many times at which help is limited, or characters are at different stages of a progression and cant help.  I would expect that the worlds biggest sandbox contained options for people who wish to play with friends, or alone, and when the friends left with no other players available, they could continue - alone.   At least, both games thus far in this 'franchise' have promoted this option for players.

BBPD766

Originally posted by hMJem

Originally posted by Zorlofe
No to mercs but yes to multi-boxing. My wife and I liked that I could multi-box so I could keep her toons up to the same level as mine so we could continue to quest together etc. when she was ready to play.

I have to admit, that is one way I dont like multi-boxing used. I It kind of matches up to me with people buying accounts and not even knowing how to use their character. feel like one person should be responsible for their character so they know how to use them and aren't a liability in groups.

There's plenty of people out there that don't even multi-box who may not be ablt to use their character up to the level of play you had hoped they were. Attaching the idea that people don't know there character as being the direct  result of multi-boxing is silly. In fact, I would lean towards believing that a person who multi-boxes (Zorlofe, the husband) would not only know their character, but would be of more use to the group because they know the capabilities and limitations of other characters as well.

 

In that specific scenario Zorlofe mentioned, his wife is the one that is playing the character after it was multi-boxed. But we don't even know how much her character was multi-boxed. One level, a couple levels, 20 levels? But even if it was 20 levels, you have no idea how long she played to get familiarized with her character and made up for the lack of being around for those levels before joining your group. There's a number of reasons people may not know their character that aren't multi-boxed. You even said it yourself, people buying an account. The common denominator is the investment of the player into their character at the time they join your group and not simply because they were multi-boxed.

 

If your feeling is that she didn't know her character, isn't this a simple fix anyways? Just don't group with her; just like you would with anyone else that didn't know their character. The fact that the character was multi-boxed is moot. The fault lies upon the fact that  a person (for whatever reason) isn't familiar with their character, not necessarily because a character was multi-boxed.

 

My preferred alternative to that is just to have a designated character to play with your wife and just play on a different one when she cant play.

And perhaps their preferred way is to multi-box and her taking the time with her husband to duo together and familiarize herself with her character. I see nothing wrong with that.

When I played WoW forever ago and it was rampant with boxers/botters, I thoroughly enjoyed ruining the route of a multiboxer/botter by killing them.. You can tell it ruins their route, lol. I dont know. Maybe I'm old school, I really dont mind it though when its games they pay for because it supports the game via them dishing out more money.

 

 

 

Justsomenoob

If this is a more sandboxy, one character can do everything kind of deal...mercs and multiboxing might not really be relevant.

TheJoda

No to both!!!! I hate boxers.

exwin

Mercs. Just say no. 

2 boxers, doesn't bother me. That would mean that the mobs are to hard to solo and require classes playing together, and to me, that is a plus.

hMJem

Originally posted by exwin

Mercs. Just say no. 

2 boxers, doesn't bother me. That would mean that the mobs are to hard to solo and require classes playing together, and to me, that is a plus.

People multi-boxed in WoW all the time, it wasnt because it was required though as WoW you didnt need grouping to level.  It's more effecient loot wise.

 

Different game and genre obviously, but Diablo 3 (I dont play it, but from what I've been told by those who do) is that you're gimping yourself heavily if you dont multi-box. As a loot driven game, 4x the characters doing the exact same thing, improves your chances for loot. And while Everquest Next likely wont be a loot driven game being a sandbox, Everquest usually doesnt use Bind on Equip (Or never has, correct me if I'm wrong, didn't play EQ2) which can mean having an advantage.

 

If there are "camps" in EQNext, can't you be running the proper macros to hold a whole camp by yourself? I guess that is where the possibility of zones with PvP enabled come in as you could just kill them, but isnt it entirely possible to leave macros running over night and would never be able to communicate with them as theyre asleep just farming a camp?

 

Again I know EQNext is gonna be a lot different than EQ1/EQ2, but if there are camps that people farm that have a nice item you'd want whether its a crafting material or actual item, it'd be annoying if they had a 4 person multiboxing macro set up overnight where they never give up the camp and your only option is to try to train them into their death as they wont be communicating (Unless the zone has PvP enabled which is an entirely different topic on its own)

Mardukk

There is no way they are going to make the combat in this game so slow that you can multi box.  Can you imagine multi boxing in GW2 or TSW?

 

Hopefully there will be camps and mobs that drop specific loot.  Universal loot table suck and are boring.  Just throw on the GW2  tagging system and anyone that hits the mob gets the rare loot that mob drops.  Easy way to make rare mobs still possible but you can have many people camp it and get rewarded.

tank017

Originally posted by hMJem

I figured I'd ask some not-as common questions.

 

Do you want mercenaries gone or still in the game? Personally I was never fond of mercs, I liked it a lot better where it was just you the player, no mercs.

 

How do you feel about multi boxing? To be honest, I didnt mind multiboxing in games you had to purchase multiple games and subscriptions for, because they were emptying their wallets and in turn supporting the game. But with EQN free to play, multi-boxing sounds very possible. How do you feel about multi-boxing in Everquest Next? Should it be a bannable offense, or is multi-boxing going to be hard to pull off in a sandbox game?

Im not a fan of either really.They promote solo play,which defeats the purpose of an MMO imo..

 

Only way I'd be ok with Mercs is if the MMO has a low pop due to whatever reason and groups are hard to come by.Ultimately impeding your character progression.

 

never liked multi boxing at all.If it makes SOE more money though,I highly doubt they will ban it.If it doesnt hold me at a significant disadvantage however,I wont care much either way.

WW4BW

Originally posted by hMJem

Originally posted by exwin

Mercs. Just say no. 

2 boxers, doesn't bother me. That would mean that the mobs are to hard to solo and require classes playing together, and to me, that is a plus.

People multi-boxed in WoW all the time, it wasnt because it was required though as WoW you didnt need grouping to level.  It's more effecient loot wise.

 Often the main reason I multiboxed in DAoC was to carry more loot before returning to sell the vendor trash. Still most of the time I did it to have a buff bot.

Everquest usually doesnt use Bind on Equip (Or never has, correct me if I'm wrong, didn't play EQ2) which can mean having an advantage.

 EQ had No-Drop items, same as  BoP. But Im not sure how frequently items had that flag. Cant remember if EQ had a BoE equivalent flag. DAoC had its artefacts that were no drop. But nothing like what WoW and later games have. EQ2 had a soul bind mechanic where you could chose to bind items so you could keep them even if you died, but could no longer trade them to other players..

 

 

evilastro

Mercs? Hmm, I guess it depends on how active the population is. Its a double edged sword. In EQ1 and EQ2 I used mercs while levelling to fill in spots of groups when we couldn't get a full group. But it also leads to endgame farming, the mercs just trivialised plat farming in EQ2. Although certain classes already had a monopoly on that, so I guess it just evened out the playfield.  

I guess my preferred choice would be to make them available for levelling content, but make challenging encounters have conditions which make mercenaries useless (dread or something, which causes mercenaries to flee particularly tough encounters).

 

Prepared

Originally posted by waynejr2
multiboxing is good for the game as it can mean more income.  Some players might not deal with it very well.  But who cares about them?

 

No one really pays attention to the guy that posts about his/her experience while being ganked in PvP (Player versus Player) while fighting against 5 players.  It doesn't make sense to pay attention to a player that complains to have been ganked in PvP while fighting against more players because of the nature of the game.

However when a player posts about his/her experience while being ganked in PvP while fighting against one player that is controlling more than one character, people tend to pay attention to it.  Even though to the design of the game, there is no difference because of the number of player slots taken by players.

In both cases, the number of player slots taken by players is equal but because the player got unlucky in combat and met with odds against them and the player got beat, it becomes a cause in motion to make a change.

Multiboxing is as fair or unfair as is the design of the open virtual world of MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games).

 

Dullahan

Heck no to mercs.

I'm sure people will multibox to some degree, but if the combat is next gen it won't be practical.  To me, the ability to effectively multibox like the old EQ days would be a bad sign for combat and game mechanics.

Amjoco

Originally posted by Zorlofe

Originally posted by hMJem

Originally posted by Zorlofe
No to mercs but yes to multi-boxing. My wife and I liked that I could multi-box so I could keep her toons up to the same level as mine so we could continue to quest together etc. when she was ready to play.

I have to admit, that is one way I dont like multi-boxing used. It kind of matches up to me with people buying accounts and not even knowing how to use their character. I feel like one person should be responsible for their character so they know how to use them and aren't a liability in groups.

 

My preferred alternative to that is just to have a designated character to play with your wife and just play on a different one when she cant play

 

When I played WoW forever ago and it was rampant with boxers/botters, I thoroughly enjoyed ruining the route of a multiboxer/botter by killing them.. You can tell it ruins their route, lol. I dont know. Maybe I'm old school, I really dont mind it though when its games they pay for because it supports the game via them dishing out more money.

 I can see your point and that's what we did most of the time anyway but there were times where she had a long work week and I would do that for her. She knew her toon well regardless though and nobody she played with in our guild or otherwise could ever tell the difference.

I agree with you sir. If you are paying for both subscriptions and she has no problem with it, so be it!  

If you can get rested xp, or in other games have you companions gathering for you while AFK,  or sell items at a private vendor, I see nothing wrong with you helping a friend.  

jdlamson75

Too many EQ-heads wanting this game to be EQ3.  I hope it's nothing like the first or second game.  If I wanted something similar, I'd just play EQ or EQ2.

tokini

i have no experience with mutliboxing, if you are payng for the accounts whats the problem?

 

even if its 'F2P', as long as no rules are being broken, no griefing, no bug exploits, hacking etc., i dont see an issue