AO Community: How would you regulate Multibox?

[McKnuckleSamwich]

FC has given Multibox the official OK.

Some people quit. Some people didn't.

Those who stayed are faced with a changing face of AO. Some content is soloable, some is not. Tower wars and "open" or "mass" PVP is a completely different affair than what it was 5 years ago.

War is dominated by fast transport, extremely fast DPS, dropping a tower site before the defender can even respond. Defenders and defending, by-and-large, are limited to custom built gank-squads that exist for one purpose only: to eliminate attackers via un-defendable mechanics (AS or Nukes).

Question one: Do you like the new style of war?

Question two: If you don't like the new style of war how/what would you change, given that FC is unlikely to go back on their word regarding allowing MB?


My personal feelings are: I like how fast a tower site can change hands, but I don't like that there is literally no time for a non-org defender to get to site before it's fallen, except for at TL7 where there is sufficient time for a defence to get ready and transport there.

Regarding PVP, I'm disappointed that FC has not moved on this yet, but simply put, the insta-gank approach simply isn't fair, there needs to be some method of reducing incoming damage to a manageable rate so appropriate mitigation measures can be taken - i.e. instantaneous death due to nukespam/AS spam simply isn't cool.

Here are some ideas that I and others have suggested elsewhere, at other times. I don't claim these are the answer, but I hope that some discussion on this topic might produce some kind of reasonable solution and this is at least a productive starting point:

1. Any attempt to regulate MB must simultaneously validate the use of MB (FC simply can't go back on this after endorsing it for a couple years)
2. Limit the destructive power via either limiting the number of actions performed on one key press (probably difficult to enforce, and difficult to find real perpetrators)
3. Limit the number of active toons of a specific type (i.e. 6 NT's or 6 agents, etc.) per IP
4. Limit the destructive potential of any specific prof at any time (e.g. cap single hit max damage to 10% of max HP)
5. Significantly reduce the amount of subsequent damage any toon takes from subsequent attackers (i.e. 1-3 attackers = no change in damage taken, 4 attackers reduces all damage taken by 25%, 5 attackers reduces all damage taken by 50%, 6+ attackers reduces all damage taken by 75%) which would CLEARLY make it more difficult for people to /assist kill, and incredibly difficult for people to instagank anyone)
6. Alternately from 5, introduce some new method of stopping damage from any specific source resulting in rapidly diminishing returns if damage is taken too rapidly
7. Invalidate the /assist command

[Saetos]

Are we still on the mindset of "Genele said it was fine once so it's ironclad forever" or have we gotten final official total confirmation that this is fair and balanced?

[McKnuckleSamwich]

I'd say somewhere between, but I'm certainly not an official spokesman. I can tell you with 100% certainty that FC have given it the 'thumbs up', and I can also tell you with 100% certainty that "multiboxing" has been petitioned innumerable times with exactly ZERO consequence for those who are observed to be doing it, 'caught in the act' or any variant of. The response, ultimately from any complaint in game, which is produced as a result of a petition, is that multiboxing DOES NOT constitute a breakage of rules, EULA or otherwise.

So that pretty much guarantees that we are into the "ironclad forever" stage, but in my limited opinion, there has not been any visitation on balance with regards to boxing, and there certainly has not been any official statement suggesting that it is either fair or balanced.

[Saetos]

Oh, cool.

Glad I haven't bothered paying for my accounts since March. Guess I'll keep it that way.

[McKnuckleSamwich]

That's not productive. If you're willing to not play a game you like because of a rule FC has introduced, you should at least consider adjusting the rule or regulating so you can enjoy the game. Copping out is a weak man's win.

[Alternity]

Ban it, simple as that.

[Awikun]

Ban it, simple as that.

100% agreed, only sollution to MB problem and I am afraid it is already way too late ....

As for topic it should be changed to :

How to regulate unfair advantage?
or
How to regulate cheating?

[Caloss2]

Ban it or give players "knock back" in 25% zones.
Knock back "like some of the existing boss mobs have, and players in the collector instance have" is how WoW dealt with it, it seriously reduces how overpowered boxers are in open pvp areas. Knockback in 25% zones would cost the least to implement.

Banning them, while my preferred option, would require GM's to be in game and witness a boxer boxing to ban the accounts involved.

Or as a third option open a third server, a very small one, ban boxing on the main server and offer a free transfer to the new one for those that want to go there.

For all the hilarious claims in previous threads that "boxing helps the game" I'd be be surprised to see anyone but boxers moving to the new server to keep their accounts.

[Herkulease]

BAN IT.

6 accounts vs the one person who quits isn't the issue.

The issue is, its one more problem breaking the camels back...and when you already have a mass of people who quit long ago for many other problems, when they even THINK about coming back...seeing things like this quickly turns them toward other games.

When your PvP pool consists of a few handfuls of players..and 4 or 6 dweebs who multi-box on their workstation to farm loot rights or harass "noobs" for fun.................It ruins the atmosphere of the game.

The atmosphere is already in bad shape. The engine is a big help, the rebalance is a big help, the new starting area is a big help...but it can't stop there. A few common sense fixes will go a long way, and this is one of em.



Ban the people who log 6x NT's or Agents to harass people.

Leave alone those who are dual logging to solo instanced encounters. It really isn't a big deal.

[grandefiasco]

Look how pathetic its getting, it needs banning as it is obvoiusly cheating

[Shadowforcee]

It should be banned for reasons mentioned several times before. Even if Funcom just said it was not allowed we would see a significant decrease in multiboxers.

[Pharexys]

Hello,

Once again i will be the black one, unfortunaly FUNCOM cannot take such measures , we ban X player couse he has 5 agents and we dont ban X player couse he have 5 NT's, you cant make those criterias of selection.
Only thing they can do, and i've said it thousands of times, is to eliminate dual log, wich is not possible or all of you who flame MB'ers now, will cry and quit over it too.
I dont have any issue to fight 5 26 Mb's or 3 75's or whatever those no-lifers making nowdays, after they have like 15 toons attacking a level 15 CT, they take Solja, Keeper add dmg aura's or even sacrifice sometime if we log in for defence or they see us online.
The pathetic'ness of omnis always been like this, they lost ANY FIGHT on similar terms. Theres not even 1 time omnis won agaisnt DI with same raid force or same number of twinks. So i feel they really need to Multibox atm, otherwise they never win anything, so please let omnis multibox they do need it after so much knees sucking.

[leetos]

said the one who multiblox alot phare ? :S before blaming omni or some1 else look at urself.

[nanoforcer]

It's anarchy, let us log all toons from the same account and let the problem sort itself with a zerg....

On a slighty more serious note, the problem with it is that the guy with most accounts/computers still usually wins, and in turn it benefits fc's economy so they don't mind all that much i guess.
The real fix i guess would be not to allow to log more than one client at a time, but then again that could also be circumvent by using more computers.
Disabling /follow if flagged/ in pvp zones would be a somewhat bigger blow, add a few pvp effects like kicker of kell or other items/nanos that disperse the mb's toons and you're onto something.

[sultryvoltron]

Hello,

Once again i will be the black one, unfortunaly FUNCOM cannot take such measures , we ban X player couse he has 5 agents and we dont ban X player couse he have 5 NT's, you cant make those criterias of selection.
Only thing they can do, and i've said it thousands of times, is to eliminate dual log, wich is not possible or all of you who flame MB'ers now, will cry and quit over it too.

Ban multibox completely. Create account-wide bank. Create buffing terminals that exchange a small amount of credits for ability and skill buffs.
Problem solved.

[Dollcet]

Hmmm....

First Step in my Opinion would be that any MB needs be registered with FC (all Toons must have the same owner and payment info , paying a registered MB with GRACE would not work!), if the Owner logs more than one Account a MB+Userspecific Number is displayed under the Org-Name and also at any time under the Charakter Info you get by pressing T .

Unregistered Multibox would be forbidden after a Period of lets say 3 Months , during that Time People constanly get reminders for registering via the Launcher in multiple Languages.

Now if you encounter a MB who does not have the visible MB and Number displayed you can safely assume its a Case of Accountshareing , provide the registered MB-Number shown under T-Info and the GM will have a word with them about what the EULA says about Accountshareing.

Obvious MB who are not registered get a stern warning the first time , 3 hours ban on second Offense , 1 Day on third , 1 week , 1 Month , 1 Year ...

-Allow MB for all instanced Raids like 12man , Vortex , Miitar , Collector , aipf 28/35/13 , Pande etc ...
-Allow MB for Leveling anywhere as long as the automation does not reach the Level of unattented Gameplay.
-Allow MB for non-instanced Raids like Smug/Eel/Swamp-Hags/Dreadloch/Rk&Sl_unique-Bosses but under the Condition that if a ordinary Raidforce wants to raid there and ( failing Diplomacy ) it comes to a OD-Match he is not allowed to use a greater Number of Toons than the Opposing Force has.
- Regarding Towers i would limit the Number of Toons allowed in a MB to 2 , still gives him a Edge over any a regular Player but not too harsh imho.

[DarkerThanBlack]

Serious question: how does any one of you expect fc to regulate multiboxing when other forms of more blatant cheating (wallhack/speedhack) have been used long before that, petitioned regularly to the point of absurdity without any consequences for the cheat user. Even if funcom does officially outlaw multiboxing they won't do anything to address it, just like they don't address account sharing or cheating at all anymore, then all you multibox haters will be even more frustrated. Obviously none of you have ever dealt with the frustration of petitioning an actual cheater for the hundredth time just to have the gm politely tell you to f*ck off over and over again ("thank you for the petition we will investigate the matter" > case closed). Think about that for a minute.

[Caloss2]

Serious question: how does any one of you expect fc to regulate multiboxing when other forms of more blatant cheating (wallhack/speedhack) have been used long before that, petitioned regularly to the point of absurdity without any consequences for the cheat user. Even if funcom does officially outlaw multiboxing they won't do anything to address it, just like they don't address account sharing or cheating at all anymore, then all you multibox haters will be even more frustrated. Obviously none of you have ever dealt with the frustration of petitioning an actual cheater for the hundredth time just to have the gm politely tell you to f*ck off over and over again ("thank you for the petition we will investigate the matter" > case closed). Think about that for a minute.

Serious answer: An Experienced GM actually logs in to game to observe said boxing/hacking at given location, and if convinced of the crime instantly bans the account/s involved; boxing is very easy to spot in AO; as for getting the brush off; well I have worked in the music industry for decades and I still do, and one thing you should never become is disheartened about it being told no.
You analyze, digest and adapt, it does however dishearten some but then people are always going to make the decisions they are able to make at that moment in time; ask the ones that gave up and are still stuck a career they hate because they gave up if they made the right choice back then, they now 100% of them regret it but they made the choice they felt was right to make at that time.

Hindsight is easy, Foresight is not.

I literally have no regrets.

And so long as boxing persists in AO then I will vocally denounce it and those that do it.
Because only two things will happen.

It will continue to destroy this game, but I will have done and said what I could to stop it.

It will stop, and the game will live one for an indefinite period of time.

Either outcome with not trouble my conscience.

[Nermal]

It's here to stay, the last few players will play 6 toons and farm/sell, while, god forbid an old returning player, or gasp even a new player can't get a team/gear as everyone is just playing with themselves! Whee.

FC doesn't like it, but can't enforce it.

http://forums.anarchy-online.com/sho...=1#post6175523

[Phatkeep]

It's here to stay, the last few players will play 6 toons and farm/sell, while, god forbid an old returning player, or gasp even a new player can't get a team/gear as everyone is just playing with themselves! Whee.

FC doesn't like it, but can't enforce it.

http://forums.anarchy-online.com/sho...=1#post6175523

This is how you fix this with next to no effort.

1. Make a statement saying that multiboxing outside instances (except BS) is a bannable offence.
2. The main "offenders" are well known. Track them and give them a months vacation if they still try it. And a permanent one if they try it twice.


The End

ps. Time is short. Many ppl are simply drifting away from the game and time outside AO isn't exactly standing still either.