No you were so busy wanting to be insulting that I think you skipped my post entirely.
In EQ there were people who didn't want there to be camps. But there were camps. And camp stealers.
People didn't like when some other guild took down a boss, or took over a dungeon, that they wanted to take down or run. But those mechanics remained.
People didn't like kill stealers. Trainers. Ninja looters. But all those mechanics remained.
EQ was chock full of mechanics that were hugely annoying. Yet the community developed norms, and methods of justice, to address those things without need of Developer interference.
For example, once when I camped Hadden a camp stealer appeared. His intention was to gank Hadden, despite my having been there already nearly 5 hours and having declared my camp. So I had about 20 of my guildmates drop by to surround the camp stealer and discuss with him their displeasure at his intentions. Seeing that it would be hard to get the drop on 21 people, and seeing also he was about to make 21 enemies, he left. That's how players solve problems.
You, by contrast, are arguing for a "developer make the bad man stop solution." And that's fine, but it's not in the spirit of how we handled things back in the day. If that's the game you are looking for, most of those types of issues were addressed in EQ2 and WoW.
Wait? Are you seriously going to bring a bunch of friends to a guy legally playing the game multi-boxing as he is allowed and demand he open up to a group? So your solution is to bully people who are legally playing?
I understand the social implications of the Hadden camp, he was going to actually do an act that was against the EULA by spawn stealing. You aren't arguing that, you are saying that you are going to use a community to surround a guy who is legally playing the game according to the EULA as VR (in this instance of discussion) would find perfectly acceptable and then bully them into accepting others to his group?
LOL
You have your idea of right and wrong so far screwed up it is scary. Your solution is anti social. In fact, if you acted in such a manner, I would be on the forums showing your poor behavior trying to force others to play as you and your thug friends decided and you would be lucky if you and your friends were ever to find a group outside of your little circle.
You see, I think it is completely anti-social and ridiculous to try and enforce something that the game designers says is ok. You see, if I don't agree with the game designer, I don't play their damn game, but apparently you, no... you take it into your own hands to dictate your policy through social thuggery!
Here is what you don't get. I was a Test player in EQ, I was on the Test server up until the big wipe. The thing about the test server is we had a very strict social acceptance of given behaviors as opposed to that of the production servers.
For instance, EC trading for plat and the like was highly discouraged, shunned, not an accepted thing on the Test server. You see, we traded (bartered) our goods or in many cases would pass them down to those in need. So, the EC trade crowd was kind of a counter to the community we had there.
The way we handled it was to not deal with them. That is, we didn't trade, we didn't communicate, we didn't play with them. We let them know that we weren't interested in the EC trading crowd and told them to go back to the production servers if they wanted that form of play.
We did not however show up to their doorstep and antagonize them or bully them over a legitimate form of play. You see, Verant had no problems with people trading and it wasn't against the rules. So, it would be the height of stupidity to go up to them and try and force them in some way or another to appeal to our way of life on the server. As I said, we just didn't deal with them and that alone was enough to kill the activity for quite a while (until the wipe and many people left and stopped caring about the community anymore).
What you suggest is idiotic. It is pure BS agressor dumb arse tactics of bullying people to a stupid idealogy. That is, as I said... if VR accepts it and allows Boxing, the only way a community can fight such is to not include them in the society.... Here is the joke on that though... A boxer doesn't need the communities approval and there is nothing the community can do to change that for the boxer without breaking the EULA (ie harassing the player).
You get it now? The boxer doesn't need you. They can solo the game up at their leisure and you can whine, cry, throw tantrums and make menacing stares, but nobody will give a shit because it won't stop them from being able to solo the content.
Now compare that to the idea of an individual who must keep a solid reputation or they won't be able to get groups, won't be able to find ways to exp, to excel or obtain advancement in the game?
You see? You just don't flipping get it. The boxer doesn't need you or anyone in the game so no stupid social dictation you make will mean a damn thing. In fact, if someone so deems, not only will they be able to solo all the group content while flipping you the bird, but they will also be able to create raids of boxers to do the same thing. And if you don't know about EQ having someone raid boxing an entire raid solo, then you really don't know much about EQ.
So go ahead, believe what you want, but I think it is clear that you have been the one here arguing for mainstream features and defending concepts that are anti-social and anti-group. /boggle
No you were so busy wanting to be insulting that I think you skipped my post entirely.
In EQ there were people who didn't want there to be camps. But there were camps. And camp stealers.
People didn't like when some other guild took down a boss, or took over a dungeon, that they wanted to take down or run. But those mechanics remained.
People didn't like kill stealers. Trainers. Ninja looters. But all those mechanics remained.
EQ was chock full of mechanics that were hugely annoying. Yet the community developed norms, and methods of justice, to address those things without need of Developer interference.
For example, once when I camped Hadden a camp stealer appeared. His intention was to gank Hadden, despite my having been there already nearly 5 hours and having declared my camp. So I had about 20 of my guildmates drop by to surround the camp stealer and discuss with him their displeasure at his intentions. Seeing that it would be hard to get the drop on 21 people, and seeing also he was about to make 21 enemies, he left. That's how players solve problems.
You, by contrast, are arguing for a "developer make the bad man stop solution." And that's fine, but it's not in the spirit of how we handled things back in the day. If that's the game you are looking for, most of those types of issues were addressed in EQ2 and WoW.
Eventually those complaints brought us to the cash shop.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
The boxer doesn't need you. They can solo the game up at their leisure and you can whine, cry, throw tantrums and make menacing stares, but nobody will give a shit because it won't stop them from being able to solo the content.
You seem to relish in putting words in my mouth, quarreling with those words, and then writing manifestos. Indeed, at least half of everything that has been written in these forums (since your arrival to them) are your silly tirades to everything that anyone says here.
My overall point was that social pressure can discourage players who annoy other players. I gave an example, which you decided was a one-size-fits-all solution to every possible problem, and of course interpreted in the worst possible way. But that is your habit, I see.
If a boxer can solo Pantheon, than the game is going to be stupid easy and not worthy of my interest. In fact, based on your fears of the entire sky falling because of speculation that some people might 2 box, it sounds little better than a browser game. But I expect that your hysterical diatribes aside, the game will be just find with or without boxers.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
The boxer doesn't need you. They can solo the game up at their leisure and you can whine, cry, throw tantrums and make menacing stares, but nobody will give a shit because it won't stop them from being able to solo the content.
You seem to relish in putting words in my mouth, quarreling with those words, and then writing manifestos. Indeed, at least half of everything that has been written in these forums (since your arrival to them) are your silly tirades to everything that anyone says here.
My overall point was that social pressure can discourage players who annoy other players. I gave an example, which you decided was a one-size-fits-all solution to every possible problem, and of course interpreted in the worst possible way. But that is your habit, I see.
If a boxer can solo Pantheon, than the game is going to be stupid easy and not worthy of my interest. In fact, based on your fears of the entire sky falling because of speculation that some people might 2 box, it sounds little better than a browser game. But I expect that your hysterical diatribes aside, the game will be just find with or without boxers.
Ah, yes... I am the odd ball out, apparently I am some fringe element who is arguing aspects that nobody agrees with.. but alas... what is that? Look at my profile, the bulk of the posts and when they were made, then look at the number of agrees and other approving notes. Does that look like I am some rambling idiot who is going on about crap nobody wants to hear? Or.. maybe I am making some points that a lot can identify with? Nah, lets take your post count, your agrees and we can see right well that you are the real winner here in approval! /boggle
Your point was that you could use anti-social approaches to bully results. I pointed out that you were wrong to think you can socially be an aggressor against a behavior that VR could possibly find acceptable. If you do attempt to socially push such in the manner you explained, then your solution is ant-social, aggressive and counter to the games play, hence my comment about you and your friends being blacklisted.
As I pointed out, if VR decides to accept Boxing as fair play, you won't see me throwing thuggish tantrums to try and force something opposite that they accept. That would be idiotic as only a complete moron plays a game that allows a given behavior and is stupid enough to think they are justified in forcing the opposite. A sane person refuses to play a game that has behavior or game mechanics they disapprove of.
A boxer can solo any game provided and as I have explained multiple times. You pick a game and I will have the tools setup to run whatever you say I can't do. So your "condition" that if someone can box it, the game won't be worth a shit is some BS excuse to try and justify the behavior. The fact is, there is not a game that exists that I can not multi-box and likely better than a group of players. Oh, I am sure you will have a bunch of stupid conditions as "You can only do this, but not that, but you can't do that, or this... " to claim that I didn't meet your "requirements", but as I said before, you can't stop me and no company can stop me if I choose to. Which is the entire point. Either you are for full boxing/botting, etc... or you are against it because there is no way to allow it and then condition it. Only a technical laymen even thinks that is possible.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Dual boxing is a player using 2 computers, each of which has an account and a character. Then, in game the player can group them and control both characters (if he or she has the dexterity).
Botting is using a computer program to cause characters to function automatically, including some types of play where the player himself is not there.
I am fairly certain I have spoken only about dual boxing, since it was my understanding that was the original topic.
But I have thought all along it was odd that anyone would feel so strongly about dual boxing.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
In reading these last two pages I keep wondering does anyone really not understand the difference between multiboxing and botting?
You guys keep using the first term incorrectly when you really mean the second
Yes, but in this technological age, there is no way to keep them separate, so allowing one is essentially allowing the other. So arguing over terms is completely meaningless in this discussion.
Dual boxing is a player using 2 computers, each of which has an account and a character. Then, in game the player can group them and control both characters (if he or she has the dexterity).
Botting is using a computer program to cause characters to function automatically, including some types of play where the player himself is not there.
I am fairly certain I have spoken only about dual boxing, since it was my understanding that was the original topic.
But I have thought all along it was odd that anyone would feel so strongly about dual boxing.
You can not stop one and allow the other, they are too closely related in the programs and tools that people use to do them.
Ok, lets consider it. Are you going to ban using a macro/scripting keyboard and mouse? Keep in mind this is pretty much every gaming mouse and keyboard these days. So how are you going to tell the difference between a guy using a macro on their keyboard (through a firmware establish, no software used) and that of a guy honestly using two computers and accounts? How are you going to tell between a Virtual PC instance that I have running which looks, smells, and acts like a completely different PC running in its own memory environment than that of an actual PC? How are you going to tell when I am scripting versus hitting keys manually? How are you going to tell?
Look, I have education in software engineering and network engineering and I can't see a way to be sure to tell what a user is doing without completely taking over their machine (not going to be allowed by any self respecting user). So again, tell me how you are going to stop people? You going to click your heels together and magically tell or maybe you were going to rely on the good nature of people to be honest and not do such?
In EQ there were people who didn't want there to be camps. But there were camps. And camp stealers.
People didn't like when some other guild took down a boss, or took over a dungeon, that they wanted to take down or run. But those mechanics remained.
People didn't like kill stealers. Trainers. Ninja looters. But all those mechanics remained.
EQ was chock full of mechanics that were hugely annoying. Yet the community developed norms, and methods of justice, to address those things without need of Developer interference.
For example, once when I camped Hadden a camp stealer appeared. His intention was to gank Hadden, despite my having been there already nearly 5 hours and having declared my camp. So I had about 20 of my guildmates drop by to surround the camp stealer and discuss with him their displeasure at his intentions. Seeing that it would be hard to get the drop on 21 people, and seeing also he was about to make 21 enemies, he left. That's how players solve problems.
This is true; although, I don't feel they're annoying mechanics, I think they're gameplay (human nature) mechanics that are always going to result in a static world versus an instanced, and, I hope the community policing is handled at the player level in Pantheon also as you discussed.
I want the positive/negative player reputation to make a meaningful return.
I like the FBSS example: As a normal player i go into Lower Guk and check if the boss is camped. It always was. Always. There is zero difference between a group with a waiting list, or a boxer. Both camp the boss. And there is always someone down there camping. If the boxer would not exist at all, the boss would have been camped 24/7 as well. Also a boxer might leave after his tank and maybe one melee toon has the belt. Groups used to camp for WAY longer because people would switch to their alts after their main got the belt.
In short: Boss was camped 24/7, with or without boxing.
Also people here still assume a boxer ALWAYS plays a full group. This is simply wrong. The boxers that do that are very rare. You might see more in trivial games, BUT PANTHEON DOES NOT AIM TO BE TRIVIAL.
Most boxers play a healer as second toon. Or a buffer. And both "multiboxed toons" are more likly a BOON to the community then anything else. Most of the time Multiboxers just play whatever is missing in the community. Sure they have a bigger gain from it, due to always having that option. But they also PLAY that option.
I remember COUNTLESS times in EQ when a raid would have been canceled due to clerics logging off. We then started to pass along login data and council members started to "box" said clerics so we could go on raiding. Same was true for groups. A whole group could be screwed if an enchanter was missing, or a tank, or a healer... one player able to box those as a backup saved groups countless times.
Stop pretenting boxing is always done to solo. That is not the case. You only notice that because you desperatly want to see that and point fingers at them. Check out the number of times a boxed toon is a boon to the community and compare that to the times a boxer is bad for the community.
Judging from statements the Pantheon team made they are very aware of exactly this issue. And allow boxing exactly because of this. They want to make Pantheon hard enough so playing multiple toons is nothing people want to to the whole time, but still offering the possibility to save a group by logging in a boxed toon. And no matter how hard you try to hate on boxing: Id much rather go on with my group and a boxed healer, then having to call it a night because we can not find a replacement.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
All accounts have an effect on the economy. Whether it is one person behind it or many; anything can be done either way -- and will.
While the players may see the person behind the screen, when you're creating an economy and preparing it for a new release or whatever, you only see account and characters. The potential for overuse with various systems -- again not caring who is getting the gold, but the fact the gold is being generated -- and tools and money sinks you provide (among other things) help inflation.
What 18 accounts can do, can be done by 18 accounts. It doesn't matter who has them or what they do -- the potential and effects are the same.
That said, when you speak of competitive games and multi-boxing software, things change a bit. No longer talking too much about the economy, we're talking about the fun your individual players are having versus one who is controlling 18 characters at once. This becomes a concern with actual economics -- the prosperity of your game and business -- in that the negative effects from the perception could cause ripples. When the dollar is starting to be hurt by reputation -- even if the same could happen with a PvP guild of 18 different accounts (probably not to the same degree as I doubt they all could attack at the same time on one target within .10 seconds), the perception of what is happening is a negative factor.
Both of these circumstance involve capitalism in some way. Within game, people are bound to become rich and even potentially control the economy even if they're just using one account or many; if the game lets 10 or so characters per server, and you have the time to level all of them and raid old dungeons or raids or whatnot, then your free time has a distinct advantage over someone who only plays a single main. The same can be said with multiple accounts -- the only difference being money in addition to (or instead of) time if the game is subscription based.
When you're able to fix all that is wrong with Capitalism, perhaps give the plight that MMOs has a try as well. Maybe doing away with all currency in game and having the ability to control an equal amount of PCs as anyone you encounter at the click of a button. Or building a guild that vastly surpasses such as the likelihood of anyone having 100+ accounts is limited to those who have the money to find advantages either way. Even hiring friends or their butler to play on different accounts surpasses the need and bypasses any ban on multi-boxing (I've actually known someone to do this).
All that written down, I've multiboxed WoW 10 man raids before with moderate success. It adds a sort of difficulty and management that isn't present in the game -- or any other really -- as a whole. In fact, the only thing that came close was the original Guild Wars what with trying to manage seven NPCs in your party (especially when heroes were announced). Gearing up 7+ heroes, unlocking and building skill sets for them out of thousands of skills, etc.
Though as a whole, it depends on the nature of the game if a developer would "allow it". But there will never be a game that is perfectly fair. It's a fool's errand to try and tackle it when there are so many loopholes, as well. In my opinion, at least.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
I like the FBSS example: As a normal player i go into Lower Guk and check if the boss is camped. It always was. Always. There is zero difference between a group with a waiting list, or a boxer. Both camp the boss. And there is always someone down there camping. If the boxer would not exist at all, the boss would have been camped 24/7 as well. Also a boxer might leave after his tank and maybe one melee toon has the belt. Groups used to camp for WAY longer because people would switch to their alts after their main got the belt.
In short: Boss was camped 24/7, with or without boxing.
Also people here still assume a boxer ALWAYS plays a full group. This is simply wrong. The boxers that do that are very rare. You might see more in trivial games, BUT PANTHEON DOES NOT AIM TO BE TRIVIAL.
Most boxers play a healer as second toon. Or a buffer. And both "multiboxed toons" are more likly a BOON to the community then anything else. Most of the time Multiboxers just play whatever is missing in the community. Sure they have a bigger gain from it, due to always having that option. But they also PLAY that option.
I remember COUNTLESS times in EQ when a raid would have been canceled due to clerics logging off. We then started to pass along login data and council members started to "box" said clerics so we could go on raiding. Same was true for groups. A whole group could be screwed if an enchanter was missing, or a tank, or a healer... one player able to box those as a backup saved groups countless times.
Stop pretenting boxing is always done to solo. That is not the case. You only notice that because you desperatly want to see that and point fingers at them. Check out the number of times a boxed toon is a boon to the community and compare that to the times a boxer is bad for the community.
Judging from statements the Pantheon team made they are very aware of exactly this issue. And allow boxing exactly because of this. They want to make Pantheon hard enough so playing multiple toons is nothing people want to to the whole time, but still offering the possibility to save a group by logging in a boxed toon. And no matter how hard you try to hate on boxing: Id much rather go on with my group and a boxed healer, then having to call it a night because we can not find a replacement.
One player boxing a group is not equal to a group of people. It is simple math. If one person can do what normally takes six people to do, it is not good, it is not a "boon", it is a detriment to the group play of the game.
You keep making excuses, not valid arguments.
Also, stop putting words into peoples mouths, stop acting like you speak for the Team. The team did not state what you summarized.
Boxing has been a detriment to many games, these are facts and your dismissal and loose "excuses" to justify it won't change that.
You misunderstand. What is funny is you accusing some other player of doing exactly what you do in every post.
???
What did I just say? I said "I did not falsely summarize you". Do you have a language barrier here or are those words too big for you? False summary means to take what someone writes and say it means something else.
Dual boxing is a player using 2 computers, each of which has an account and a character. Then, in game the player can group them and control both characters (if he or she has the dexterity).
Botting is using a computer program to cause characters to function automatically, including some types of play where the player himself is not there.
I am fairly certain I have spoken only about dual boxing, since it was my understanding that was the original topic.
But I have thought all along it was odd that anyone would feel so strongly about dual boxing.
The problem is Amanthe that the line between dual boxing and botting is so incredibly thin, that a developer cannot tell the difference between the two. This has been proved time and time again as MMO after MMO tries to stop chinese botters and epicly fails EVERY SINGLE TIME because they can't 100% prove that they were really botting and not boxing, so they have to return the account when its petitioned for.
Sinist went off on a little bit of a crazy train the last few posts here, but it's because he's a zealot for no boxing, and so am I. If you do not stop boxing/botting, and i guarantee you have to stop boxing to stop botting, then we will end up with the same situations that the recent EQ progression server was in, and absolute mess of boxing at every single camp in the game, entire 40 man raids boxing down raid targets all day every day.
Hell if boxing is allowed, i guarantee you i will run 40 accounts and camp them at contested targets and kill them immediately upon spawn and there's nothing you can do about it but leave.
Dual boxing is a player using 2 computers, each of which has an account and a character. Then, in game the player can group them and control both characters (if he or she has the dexterity).
Botting is using a computer program to cause characters to function automatically, including some types of play where the player himself is not there.
I am fairly certain I have spoken only about dual boxing, since it was my understanding that was the original topic.
But I have thought all along it was odd that anyone would feel so strongly about dual boxing.
The problem is Amanthe that the line between dual boxing and botting is so incredibly thin, that a developer cannot tell the difference between the two. This has been proved time and time again as MMO after MMO tries to stop chinese botters and epicly fails EVERY SINGLE TIME because they can't 100% prove that they were really botting and not boxing, so they have to return the account when its petitioned for.
Sinist went off on a little bit of a crazy train the last few posts here, but it's because he's a zealot for no boxing, and so am I. If you do not stop boxing/botting, and i guarantee you have to stop boxing to stop botting, then we will end up with the same situations that the recent EQ progression server was in, and absolute mess of boxing at every single camp in the game, entire 40 man raids boxing down raid targets all day every day.
Hell if boxing is allowed, i guarantee you i will run 40 accounts and camp them at contested targets and kill them immediately upon spawn and there's nothing you can do about it but leave.
Yep, I am a bit harsh at times, but that is due to having seen how this stuff turns out over and over again over the years.
Hearing the same stupid arguments over and over and watching them result in the same thing over and over all while those same people move on, then act like it never happened? It is insane.
Dual boxing is a player using 2 computers, each of which has an account and a character. Then, in game the player can group them and control both characters (if he or she has the dexterity).
Botting is using a computer program to cause characters to function automatically, including some types of play where the player himself is not there.
I am fairly certain I have spoken only about dual boxing, since it was my understanding that was the original topic.
But I have thought all along it was odd that anyone would feel so strongly about dual boxing.
The problem is Amanthe that the line between dual boxing and botting is so incredibly thin, that a developer cannot tell the difference between the two. This has been proved time and time again as MMO after MMO tries to stop chinese botters and epicly fails EVERY SINGLE TIME because they can't 100% prove that they were really botting and not boxing, so they have to return the account when its petitioned for.
Sinist went off on a little bit of a crazy train the last few posts here, but it's because he's a zealot for no boxing, and so am I. If you do not stop boxing/botting, and i guarantee you have to stop boxing to stop botting, then we will end up with the same situations that the recent EQ progression server was in, and absolute mess of boxing at every single camp in the game, entire 40 man raids boxing down raid targets all day every day.
Hell if boxing is allowed, i guarantee you i will run 40 accounts and camp them at contested targets and kill them immediately upon spawn and there's nothing you can do about it but leave.
I am neither a fan of boxing nor an opponent. To me it's harmless. I don't do it, but I probably would if I was able. I would enjoy seeing a video of you operating 40 boxes.
I agree with the opposition to botting. Botting is cheating that as you illustrate, can hurt everyone.
If you are right, and allowing one opens a door for the other that cannot be closed, than for what little it is worth Pantheon has my blessing to ban both. That seems strange to me, though. They ought to be able to find a solution. Such as, for once hire enough CSRs that they can react quickly to complaints, investigate, and ban people who are botting.
I reject Sinist's argument that boxing hurts the community, as that is pure nonsense.
And of course I pay little attention to anything Sinist says because he is rude and deals only in self-absorbed absolutes.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Comments
I understand the social implications of the Hadden camp, he was going to actually do an act that was against the EULA by spawn stealing. You aren't arguing that, you are saying that you are going to use a community to surround a guy who is legally playing the game according to the EULA as VR (in this instance of discussion) would find perfectly acceptable and then bully them into accepting others to his group?
LOL
You have your idea of right and wrong so far screwed up it is scary. Your solution is anti social. In fact, if you acted in such a manner, I would be on the forums showing your poor behavior trying to force others to play as you and your thug friends decided and you would be lucky if you and your friends were ever to find a group outside of your little circle.
You see, I think it is completely anti-social and ridiculous to try and enforce something that the game designers says is ok. You see, if I don't agree with the game designer, I don't play their damn game, but apparently you, no... you take it into your own hands to dictate your policy through social thuggery!
Good job there Mr. Social! /boggle
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Here is what you don't get. I was a Test player in EQ, I was on the Test server up until the big wipe. The thing about the test server is we had a very strict social acceptance of given behaviors as opposed to that of the production servers.
For instance, EC trading for plat and the like was highly discouraged, shunned, not an accepted thing on the Test server. You see, we traded (bartered) our goods or in many cases would pass them down to those in need. So, the EC trade crowd was kind of a counter to the community we had there.
The way we handled it was to not deal with them. That is, we didn't trade, we didn't communicate, we didn't play with them. We let them know that we weren't interested in the EC trading crowd and told them to go back to the production servers if they wanted that form of play.
We did not however show up to their doorstep and antagonize them or bully them over a legitimate form of play. You see, Verant had no problems with people trading and it wasn't against the rules. So, it would be the height of stupidity to go up to them and try and force them in some way or another to appeal to our way of life on the server. As I said, we just didn't deal with them and that alone was enough to kill the activity for quite a while (until the wipe and many people left and stopped caring about the community anymore).
What you suggest is idiotic. It is pure BS agressor dumb arse tactics of bullying people to a stupid idealogy. That is, as I said... if VR accepts it and allows Boxing, the only way a community can fight such is to not include them in the society.... Here is the joke on that though... A boxer doesn't need the communities approval and there is nothing the community can do to change that for the boxer without breaking the EULA (ie harassing the player).
You get it now? The boxer doesn't need you. They can solo the game up at their leisure and you can whine, cry, throw tantrums and make menacing stares, but nobody will give a shit because it won't stop them from being able to solo the content.
Now compare that to the idea of an individual who must keep a solid reputation or they won't be able to get groups, won't be able to find ways to exp, to excel or obtain advancement in the game?
You see? You just don't flipping get it. The boxer doesn't need you or anyone in the game so no stupid social dictation you make will mean a damn thing. In fact, if someone so deems, not only will they be able to solo all the group content while flipping you the bird, but they will also be able to create raids of boxers to do the same thing. And if you don't know about EQ having someone raid boxing an entire raid solo, then you really don't know much about EQ.
So go ahead, believe what you want, but I think it is clear that you have been the one here arguing for mainstream features and defending concepts that are anti-social and anti-group. /boggle
Eventually those complaints brought us to the cash shop.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
My overall point was that social pressure can discourage players who annoy other players. I gave an example, which you decided was a one-size-fits-all solution to every possible problem, and of course interpreted in the worst possible way. But that is your habit, I see.
If a boxer can solo Pantheon, than the game is going to be stupid easy and not worthy of my interest. In fact, based on your fears of the entire sky falling because of speculation that some people might 2 box, it sounds little better than a browser game. But I expect that your hysterical diatribes aside, the game will be just find with or without boxers.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Ah, yes... I am the odd ball out, apparently I am some fringe element who is arguing aspects that nobody agrees with.. but alas... what is that? Look at my profile, the bulk of the posts and when they were made, then look at the number of agrees and other approving notes. Does that look like I am some rambling idiot who is going on about crap nobody wants to hear? Or.. maybe I am making some points that a lot can identify with? Nah, lets take your post count, your agrees and we can see right well that you are the real winner here in approval! /boggle
Your point was that you could use anti-social approaches to bully results. I pointed out that you were wrong to think you can socially be an aggressor against a behavior that VR could possibly find acceptable. If you do attempt to socially push such in the manner you explained, then your solution is ant-social, aggressive and counter to the games play, hence my comment about you and your friends being blacklisted.
As I pointed out, if VR decides to accept Boxing as fair play, you won't see me throwing thuggish tantrums to try and force something opposite that they accept. That would be idiotic as only a complete moron plays a game that allows a given behavior and is stupid enough to think they are justified in forcing the opposite. A sane person refuses to play a game that has behavior or game mechanics they disapprove of.
A boxer can solo any game provided and as I have explained multiple times. You pick a game and I will have the tools setup to run whatever you say I can't do. So your "condition" that if someone can box it, the game won't be worth a shit is some BS excuse to try and justify the behavior. The fact is, there is not a game that exists that I can not multi-box and likely better than a group of players. Oh, I am sure you will have a bunch of stupid conditions as "You can only do this, but not that, but you can't do that, or this... " to claim that I didn't meet your "requirements", but as I said before, you can't stop me and no company can stop me if I choose to. Which is the entire point. Either you are for full boxing/botting, etc... or you are against it because there is no way to allow it and then condition it. Only a technical laymen even thinks that is possible.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
You guys keep using the first term incorrectly when you really mean the second
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Botting is using a computer program to cause characters to function automatically, including some types of play where the player himself is not there.
I am fairly certain I have spoken only about dual boxing, since it was my understanding that was the original topic.
But I have thought all along it was odd that anyone would feel so strongly about dual boxing.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Ok, lets consider it. Are you going to ban using a macro/scripting keyboard and mouse? Keep in mind this is pretty much every gaming mouse and keyboard these days. So how are you going to tell the difference between a guy using a macro on their keyboard (through a firmware establish, no software used) and that of a guy honestly using two computers and accounts? How are you going to tell between a Virtual PC instance that I have running which looks, smells, and acts like a completely different PC running in its own memory environment than that of an actual PC? How are you going to tell when I am scripting versus hitting keys manually? How are you going to tell?
Look, I have education in software engineering and network engineering and I can't see a way to be sure to tell what a user is doing without completely taking over their machine (not going to be allowed by any self respecting user). So again, tell me how you are going to stop people? You going to click your heels together and magically tell or maybe you were going to rely on the good nature of people to be honest and not do such?
Please explain?
I want the positive/negative player reputation to make a meaningful return.
As a normal player i go into Lower Guk and check if the boss is camped. It always was. Always.
There is zero difference between a group with a waiting list, or a boxer. Both camp the boss. And there is always someone down there camping. If the boxer would not exist at all, the boss would have been camped 24/7 as well.
Also a boxer might leave after his tank and maybe one melee toon has the belt. Groups used to camp for WAY longer because people would switch to their alts after their main got the belt.
In short: Boss was camped 24/7, with or without boxing.
Also people here still assume a boxer ALWAYS plays a full group. This is simply wrong. The boxers that do that are very rare. You might see more in trivial games, BUT PANTHEON DOES NOT AIM TO BE TRIVIAL.
Most boxers play a healer as second toon. Or a buffer. And both "multiboxed toons" are more likly a BOON to the community then anything else. Most of the time Multiboxers just play whatever is missing in the community. Sure they have a bigger gain from it, due to always having that option. But they also PLAY that option.
I remember COUNTLESS times in EQ when a raid would have been canceled due to clerics logging off. We then started to pass along login data and council members started to "box" said clerics so we could go on raiding. Same was true for groups. A whole group could be screwed if an enchanter was missing, or a tank, or a healer... one player able to box those as a backup saved groups countless times.
Stop pretenting boxing is always done to solo. That is not the case. You only notice that because you desperatly want to see that and point fingers at them. Check out the number of times a boxed toon is a boon to the community and compare that to the times a boxer is bad for the community.
Judging from statements the Pantheon team made they are very aware of exactly this issue. And allow boxing exactly because of this. They want to make Pantheon hard enough so playing multiple toons is nothing people want to to the whole time, but still offering the possibility to save a group by logging in a boxed toon. And no matter how hard you try to hate on boxing: Id much rather go on with my group and a boxed healer, then having to call it a night because we can not find a replacement.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
While the players may see the person behind the screen, when you're creating an economy and preparing it for a new release or whatever, you only see account and characters. The potential for overuse with various systems -- again not caring who is getting the gold, but the fact the gold is being generated -- and tools and money sinks you provide (among other things) help inflation.
What 18 accounts can do, can be done by 18 accounts. It doesn't matter who has them or what they do -- the potential and effects are the same.
That said, when you speak of competitive games and multi-boxing software, things change a bit. No longer talking too much about the economy, we're talking about the fun your individual players are having versus one who is controlling 18 characters at once. This becomes a concern with actual economics -- the prosperity of your game and business -- in that the negative effects from the perception could cause ripples. When the dollar is starting to be hurt by reputation -- even if the same could happen with a PvP guild of 18 different accounts (probably not to the same degree as I doubt they all could attack at the same time on one target within .10 seconds), the perception of what is happening is a negative factor.
Both of these circumstance involve capitalism in some way. Within game, people are bound to become rich and even potentially control the economy even if they're just using one account or many; if the game lets 10 or so characters per server, and you have the time to level all of them and raid old dungeons or raids or whatnot, then your free time has a distinct advantage over someone who only plays a single main. The same can be said with multiple accounts -- the only difference being money in addition to (or instead of) time if the game is subscription based.
When you're able to fix all that is wrong with Capitalism, perhaps give the plight that MMOs has a try as well. Maybe doing away with all currency in game and having the ability to control an equal amount of PCs as anyone you encounter at the click of a button. Or building a guild that vastly surpasses such as the likelihood of anyone having 100+ accounts is limited to those who have the money to find advantages either way. Even hiring friends or their butler to play on different accounts surpasses the need and bypasses any ban on multi-boxing (I've actually known someone to do this).
All that written down, I've multiboxed WoW 10 man raids before with moderate success. It adds a sort of difficulty and management that isn't present in the game -- or any other really -- as a whole. In fact, the only thing that came close was the original Guild Wars what with trying to manage seven NPCs in your party (especially when heroes were announced). Gearing up 7+ heroes, unlocking and building skill sets for them out of thousands of skills, etc.
Though as a whole, it depends on the nature of the game if a developer would "allow it". But there will never be a game that is perfectly fair. It's a fool's errand to try and tackle it when there are so many loopholes, as well. In my opinion, at least.
You keep making excuses, not valid arguments.
Also, stop putting words into peoples mouths, stop acting like you speak for the Team. The team did not state what you summarized.
Boxing has been a detriment to many games, these are facts and your dismissal and loose "excuses" to justify it won't change that.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
What did I just say? I said "I did not falsely summarize you". Do you have a language barrier here or are those words too big for you? False summary means to take what someone writes and say it means something else.
Seriously, do we need to move to pictures?
Sinist went off on a little bit of a crazy train the last few posts here, but it's because he's a zealot for no boxing, and so am I. If you do not stop boxing/botting, and i guarantee you have to stop boxing to stop botting, then we will end up with the same situations that the recent EQ progression server was in, and absolute mess of boxing at every single camp in the game, entire 40 man raids boxing down raid targets all day every day.
Hell if boxing is allowed, i guarantee you i will run 40 accounts and camp them at contested targets and kill them immediately upon spawn and there's nothing you can do about it but leave.
Hearing the same stupid arguments over and over and watching them result in the same thing over and over all while those same people move on, then act like it never happened? It is insane.
I am neither a fan of boxing nor an opponent. To me it's harmless. I don't do it, but I probably would if I was able. I would enjoy seeing a video of you operating 40 boxes.
I agree with the opposition to botting. Botting is cheating that as you illustrate, can hurt everyone.
If you are right, and allowing one opens a door for the other that cannot be closed, than for what little it is worth Pantheon has my blessing to ban both.
I reject Sinist's argument that boxing hurts the community, as that is pure nonsense.
And of course I pay little attention to anything Sinist says because he is rude and deals only in self-absorbed absolutes.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests