AO Community: How would you regulate Multibox?

[Caloss2]

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

Thanks for the link, I and everyone else that voiced their disgust at boxers/ing in that single thread managed to get a response; FC admitted it's a problem they face as much as the players do.
Following on from that thread is this new one, with a new and vastly better GM running the show and clearer and more constructive ideas and solutions being offered.

It's slow progress, but it is progress.

[DarkerThanBlack]

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

Your answer is what you're expecting but it's far from reality and not at all serious. Multiboxing is very easy to spot as is warping around and into walls, and GMs actually logged in game to observe those people time and time again, or they said they would after getting bombarded with petitions by several people at the same time. Then nothing happened. Same would happen should multiboxing become illegal. Changing the rules is one thing, getting the gms to actually give a damn and sanction cheating is a totally different matter.

[Shadowforcee]

If there's a will there's a way.

[Caloss2]

Your answer is what you're expecting but it's far from reality and not at all serious. Multiboxing is very easy to spot as is warping around and into walls, and GMs actually logged in game to observe those people time and time again, or they said they would after getting bombarded with petitions by several people at the same time. Then nothing happened. Same would happen should multiboxing become illegal. Changing the rules is one thing, getting the gms to actually give a damn and sanction cheating is a totally different matter.

Yup absolutely agree with you there, except your assumptions about my perception of reality are grossly way off; these thing take time to happen, but it begins with having it made illegal; so for now I will focus on that, and then if enforcement isn't implemented right away which you're right it probably won't be, then I've already planned to focus on driving it's implementation.

I have no illusions about how hard it is to do or make things happen.
But unless people keep trying to change something it never will.
And once again if the game closes with boxers intact, I won't be blaming myself for that.

[grandefiasco]

In my opinion, they dont need to ban the players, they need to ban the multiboxing, disallowing the tool
If ofcourse, after they said it is not allowed, the player still mutliboxes, which is easy to spot, then they can temp ban to perma ban.
Its as simple as making the statement to say that it is not allowed as it steps outside of normal gameplay
I read they see multiboxing as the same thing as multilogging, thats not the case, if they, like me, log multiple accounts and manage them all manually without an external program doing eerythign in 1 click, then I see no problem with that at all.
You could also begin by removing keybindings from the game, you've given them extra tools to make it easier.
There's still other ways to ban mutliboxing
But the first thing funcom has to do is officially stating it is not allowed
Putting it in the Eula

[McKnuckleSamwich]

Ban multibox completely.

It should be banned

it is obvoiusly cheating

BAN IT.

Ban it or give players "knock back" in 25% zones.

cheating

Ban it

is a bannable offence.

ban the multiboxing

Stay on topic please guys. FC already has made their position clear. It is not bannable. So lets talk about what/how to regulate in a productive manner so that there is value in having more than one account, but doesn't completely change the face of PVP.

Thanks for replying, but none of you except Caloss2 is adding anything to the conversation.

Caloss2, you said knockback fixed the problem in WoW. Can you please provide a link to a video and explain in more detail how this works?

[Alternity]

You asked how people would like to deal with it. Seeing your above quoted replies it seems like you got answers. You might not like the answers, but that that does not diminish the value of the replies. Irregardless of FC's stand on the matter.

[Veebz]

So, I've been back to this game for a total of one day and already noticed the issue.

The best compromise is simply to take a page from CCP regarding multiboxing on EVE Online;
- Multiboxing IS allowed.
- Programs that automate or generate input for a player (Generating keystrokes or mouse clicks) are NOT allowed.

I would modify this for AO in two ways:

- The input ban should only apply during combat. Doing things like using Clicksaver to roll missions would be ALLOWED. Alternatively, you can simply ban the automation / duplication of MOVEMENT and ACTION (Attacking, perks, nano casting) controls.
- Chat bots should still be allowed.

I'd also recommend the addition of a client action that clears a character's fighting target whenever the client is no longer the window with mouse focus.

[McKnuckleSamwich]

You asked how people would like to deal with it. Seeing your above quoted replies it seems like you got answers. You might not like the answers, but that that does not diminish the value of the replies. Irregardless of FC's stand on the matter.

This deserves it's own thread. And notably you're trying to argue against FC here.

FC said yes to something.

You're saying FC should change the answer to no.

That's an argument you need to have with someone else, but this thread isn't the place for it.

This thread acknowledges FC's stance, and the discussion here is how to adjust or tweak gameplay so that any oversight in simply allowing that "something" to occur with no regulation/oversight/registration/administration is consistent with the general consensus of the community.

If the majority of the community doesn't want "something" then you may have a point, but perhaps the way to do that is to do a poll? Even if you do get a poll win, you'll still be up against FC's bean counters.

[Shadowforcee]

Regulating something by making it illegal is perfectly acceptable, and therefore well within the topic of this thread.

Here's a link to how CCP regulated it, as mentioned above.

[Prawn]

So, I've been back to this game for a total of one day and already noticed the issue.

The best compromise is simply to take a page from CCP regarding multiboxing on EVE Online;
- Multiboxing IS allowed.
- Programs that automate or generate input for a player (Generating keystrokes or mouse clicks) are NOT allowed.

I would modify this for AO in two ways:

- The input ban should only apply during combat. Doing things like using Clicksaver to roll missions would be ALLOWED. Alternatively, you can simply ban the automation / duplication of MOVEMENT and ACTION (Attacking, perks, nano casting) controls.
- Chat bots should still be allowed.

I'd also recommend the addition of a client action that clears a character's fighting target whenever the client is no longer the window with mouse focus.

Bump

[McKnuckleSamwich]

Regulating something by making it illegal is perfectly acceptable, and therefore well within the topic of this thread.

Here's a link to how CCP regulated it, as mentioned above.

The best compromise is simply to take a page from CCP regarding multiboxing on EVE Online;
- Multiboxing IS allowed.
- Programs that automate or generate input for a player (Generating keystrokes or mouse clicks) are NOT allowed.

I would modify this for AO in two ways:

- The input ban should only apply during combat. Doing things like using Clicksaver to roll missions would be ALLOWED. Alternatively, you can simply ban the automation / duplication of MOVEMENT and ACTION (Attacking, perks, nano casting) controls.
- Chat bots should still be allowed.

I'd also recommend the addition of a client action that clears a character's fighting target whenever the client is no longer the window with mouse focus.

Ok, so, usage of multiple accounts is OK, but no key broadcasting.

Ya, so a bunch of alt tabbing etc.

which is the way everyone was doing it before.

Ya this is OK but there will be pretty significant outcry over this I think. For PVP/War, no worries, I think this s a highly valid solution - basically you can buff up all your toons and have them follow you into battle, when your lead dies, you alt tab to the next, then the next, so your staying power is 6x better than the soloer, but realistically you gain no significant offensive advantage other than perhaps an AR boost.

Ok, fine, thanks for the suggestion, @ Alternity, I see what you were saying now, sorry for the misunderstanding.


Edit: This would really require significant policing in order to enforce. There are easily codeable methods to delay commands using scripts to other clients.

@ veebs, I don't think your suggestion about losing target if not the active window is possible, and even if it was, it would have to be a clientside code which would be hackable

[Ciassene]

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.

Say hi to Formol (Lerisy/Mefistocle) next time you team with them, and ask to shut his hotkeynet so you can't operate his toons over internets!

[Ophiuchus]

Removing /assist won't stop the more sophisticated MBers, and instead will hit seperate players trying to coordinate with each other. If anything it would give more power to the MBers.

Edit: The CCP/Eve solution is my preferred one as it happens. Multiple accounts? Fine. But you have to control each one yourself.

[Caloss2]

Stay on topic please guys. FC already has made their position clear. It is not bannable. So lets talk about what/how to regulate in a productive manner so that there is value in having more than one account, but doesn't completely change the face of PVP.

Thanks for replying, but none of you except Caloss2 is adding anything to the conversation.

Caloss2, you said knockback fixed the problem in WoW. Can you please provide a link to a video and explain in more detail how this works?

Someone linked it previously in another ban multibox thread, but it seems that particular video is history now :/ however knock back works in a similar way to how a "kicker" works in the collector instance; and this disrupts the boxer hugely; one or more of their toons are knocked out of range of follow/assist so they have to loose that/those toons or switch screens and actually play the toon to run it back into range, if they choose this option then they can no longer multi-plex the remain group.

[grandefiasco]

All funcom has to do is make a statement that it is officially disallowed, thats all thats necessary to get rid of this.
Sure it will still need a GM supervision to make sure that it doesnt continue, but if its put in the Eula, then it should be enough to make it a bannable offense if it continues

[Amickson]

Still wondering so many people just can't read ...
MB is officially allowed because there's no way to detect it with 100% proof, so best thing FC can do is do nothing about it. OP asked for suggestions with premise that MB is ingame. So people asking for bans/forbid etc. are writing to wrong topic.

[grandefiasco]

Still wondering so many people just can't read ...
MB is officially allowed because there's no way to detect it with 100% proof, so best thing FC can do is do nothing about it. OP asked for suggestions with premise that MB is ingame. So people asking for bans/forbid etc. are writing to wrong topic.

Where did funcom actually state that it is allowed, not just knuckle saying it is allowed, thats not the same, FC saying there is not much they can do about it, doesnt mean that it is allowed, if they just disallow it through Eula, at least we can start fighting against it

[Soju]

Regulating something by making it illegal is perfectly acceptable, and therefore well within the topic of this thread.

Here's a link to how CCP regulated it, as mentioned above.

i went into here and read into the last 20 pages to get an idea of what is the current aftermath. Learned a bit about eve, and found some interesting things.
Their primary problem is multibox botting (purpose is for farming creds). The change in the eula did not get rid of botters.
It also looks like the value of their GRACE/plex dropped sharply for a month, then rised steadily until today its the same price as pre eula change. Seems as multiboxers are the main consumers of Plex, but the price is ultimately controlled by price speculators.

More applicable to ao is the secondary reason. ISBoxer software. It looks like powerful software. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUDY5QpCz3I

If anyone knows what did their sub numbers look like from this eula change till now?

[Shadowforcee]

MB is officially allowed because there's no way to detect it with 100% proof, so best thing FC can do is do nothing about it.

Yet other companies manage to regulate it? I do not see a reason as to why we should not expect the same from Funcom.

OP asked for suggestions with premise that MB is ingame. So people asking for bans/forbid etc. are writing to wrong topic.

The original poster asked how or what we would change to regulate multiboxing, given that Funcom was unlikely to go back on their own word. Expressing the desire to have it made illegal even though it is unlikely they will go back on their own word is perfectly within the topic of the thread.