AO Community: How would you regulate Multibox?

[Cratertina]

I like many of the migitation options.. Simply limit # of incoming hits that someone can take per second. so killing power to single character is limited... to say one of each special + 1 nuke per say 5 seconds. Anything along the lines would help overall AO pvp.

For me the problem is not multiboxing... but focused fire of many against single target that kinda wins mass pvp. I wanna see starwars like battles, of two sides meeting and blasting allover the playfield, ... not two sides each calling single target and blasting at one chasing that one while standing around. Totaly kills it for me.

But as is pvp system right now, most effective way is to kill other sides important professions fast and reliably.

Multiboxing in my eyes is perfectly fine, does not need to be regulated... Underlying problem is bad pvp gameplay that makes multiboxing so annoying.

in PVM multiboxing is not a problem at all.

We at our org pretty much have an army of returning veterans and we can raid whatever we want, excluding s42(we do with raid bots). We choose not to perticipate in multibox scrable.

I feel sorry for pvpers though. Mboxing maximized weaknesses of mass pvp system we have in place.

If i it is banned, I would ban it for pvp. How to police it? Video proof petitioned of attack sequence, its very easy to spot a multiboxer by attack sync. Video and account data available to GM's can confirm it boom 1 day ban, 1 week ban, then 1 month ban for third time offenders.

Its not rocket science to prove.

In PVM you have a choice to buy or not buy lootrights from multiboxer, in pvp you have no choice, you perticipate you can get killed. So that should be considered aswell.

[Pharexys]

Ok.

Lets regulate Multibox guys...


This is how we do it! I got the perfect way!(camel way)

We find a org, we join it, we scam evry org member we can find, then we claim theyr accounts. This is how you regulate Multibox!

This is the most constructive post on all the 3 threads about multibox so far.

Lets do it CAMEL WAY, Happy Camel way evryone!

[nanoforcer]

I don't think fc has the resources (or rather is willing to put the resources in) to police things so that's a bummer.

[srompu]

PvP is the problem, not PvM. Deal with it the same way AOMH was dealt with. A GM comes, sees, and nerfs you.
Kill one to warn a hundred.

[Bisca]

I like multiboxing as long as it does not effect me. I don't have money to pay for 10 accounts like some do. Does this means i need to be F* in pvp? Tower wars these days are nearly none existing just because it is impossible to take towers when you are with 3 people against 2 multiboxers. I got AS before i even could shoot one tower.

Why does FC allow such game changing f* up rule that effects players in such a horrid way

Side XP bonus: 0.00% CLAN?

[Wakizaka]

Side XP bonus: 0.00% CLAN?

First time for Clan. We've taken Omni to 0% more than enough times.

[Sunny-D]

Easy fix- reopen second server, have one where multi box is encouraged and one where it's not allowed. Then let everyone transfer their characters to whichever server they prefer. Everyone wins.

[sultryvoltron]

Easy fix- reopen second server, have one where multi box is encouraged and one where it's not allowed. Then let everyone transfer their characters to whichever server they prefer. Everyone wins.

Good idea! Let's increase our operating costs, reduce our profitability, undo the work of our predecessors, and split the low population!

Seriously people, stop suggesting this. It's dumb.

[grandefiasco]

The fix is in FC's power. They have to aknowledge that it is in fact a cheat, therefor disallowing it and guaranteeing joy for all the players and not just that small amount of multiboxers

There is no joy in towerwars, we are at 0% and every attack wde innitiate, in whichever range, brings multiboxers, even if I or someone else manages to kill the base, the ct is dead anyways
And they are making more and more of them, the solution is not to force everyone to multibox, the solution is simple, disallow it FC, its a 3rd party program controlling multiple accounts, its a cheat, its as simple as that, nothing more needs to be discussed, I dont care this happens in pvm, although I am not happy that there is more killstealing and less respect amongst palyers since this **** happened but in pvp, come on, this isnt what you omni guys want either, sure you are happy now that you have all towers, but for crying out loud, is this what you guys want towers and pvp to be? 1 click kills? Where's the challenge? Where's the joy? Where's the achievement?
You guys went from sad to pathetic when you went from exploits to multiboxing and still using sploits to plant CT's before the initial 20 minutes have passed (and that with an org that didnt kill the CT), I wonder if FC at all cares about this aspect of the game

[McKnuckleSamwich]

@grandefiasco

Dude, chill. FC gave MB the OFFICIAL Ok. It's been given the OFFICIAL Ok for years. you need to catch up with the current state of the game. Do you not think that players wouldn't be hyperzealously policing each other on multiboxing when Tl7 tower sites were dropping like flies? The reason I started this thread is exactly because FC gave it the OFFICIAL nod, but has not yet given any indication that they have observed the effects of it, in other words, they've said "OK go!" but what they haven't done is assessed what that "ok go" means in game.

@ cratertina I agree with a lot of what you wrote. I personally feel the best way(s) to regulate MB is to simply reduce the offensive threat either by passive automatic mitigation that occurs on a target or otherwise.

@ Caloss, I don't like the idea of knockback as you've described it, It just sounds too difficult to code/too problematic.

[Dollcet]

... but has not yet given any indication that they have observed the effects of it, in other words, they've said "OK go!" but what they haven't done is assessed what that "ok go" means in game.

...as if FC never made stupid changes that took Years and a different GD to get rid off.
Its way harder to stand up and say " We took the wrong Way Years ago, but now we gonna fix it " instead of twiddeling the Thumbs and hope that the Problem solves itself because the Complainers quit.
Remember how many Threats & Polls it took before Rk3/DNW finally got the Transfer ?

...unless Funcom plans to do future Marketing Campains like this :


/sarcasm on
Rubi-Ka is the place where refugee Multiboxers/Boters can take a pleasant Vacation until the ban in UO/DAoC/WoW/EVE whatever is lifted.
We have a rich Pool of non-PK that are easy Targets and the Battlestation even offers PvP versus free Players without Expansions aka Killscore-Pinatas.
There is no cumbersome need to socialize, you can fill up your own Team at any Time with your own Toons and you can easily Pay to Win ( if you can affort it ) by buying Items for resale from our Ingameshop and trading them vs Ingame-Currency/Speedleveling/Lootrights to awesome Endgame Gear.
Explore the feeling of Might and enjoy the 1/8 inch Epeen Growth when you kill with 1 Keystroke.....
/sarcasm off

[Caloss2]

@grandefiasco

Dude, chill. FC gave MB the OFFICIAL Ok. It's been given the OFFICIAL Ok for years. you need to catch up with the current state of the game. Do you not think that players wouldn't be hyperzealously policing each other on multiboxing when Tl7 tower sites were dropping like flies? The reason I started this thread is exactly because FC gave it the OFFICIAL nod, but has not yet given any indication that they have observed the effects of it, in other words, they've said "OK go!" but what they haven't done is assessed what that "ok go" means in game.

@ cratertina I agree with a lot of what you wrote. I personally feel the best way(s) to regulate MB is to simply reduce the offensive threat either by passive automatic mitigation that occurs on a target or otherwise.

@ Caloss, I don't like the idea of knockback as you've described it, It just sounds too difficult to code/too problematic.

Code is already ingame. Apparently
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8ZxWMlPWEU

[McKnuckleSamwich]

ya, no I get that Caloss, I mean, how does the code discern an individual player which is on follow from an individual on follow that is boxed?

I assume it looks at the IP of each toon attacking and if IP is same as previous attacker then initiate knockback.

That's fine. I think there are ways around it but I won't post them here.

[Qualto]

Some type of "grenade" that pretty much anyone could use would be nice. F.ex

Req:
User: Grenade from 120.
Target: Must be player.

Range: 40m
Attack: Instant (target player, right-click, boom!)
Effects: Stun target for 0.5 sec, Knockback enemies in 5m radius of target and snare them for 3sec.

No damage. Only disruption.
10m Cooldown on User
5m Cooldown on Targets


Combine this with some form of Grappling Hook, similar to Keepers Clarion Call, and you've got yourself decent tools to fight multiboxers.
I'm not saying that 1 person will win vs 5 or 6 agents/NTs because of this. But I'm saying it would be much easier for 2-3 players to deal with
a box of 5-6 agents/NTs with these tools.

Grenade ->Aoe Root ->Hook -> alpha 1.


That is how I would deal with it at least.

[grandefiasco]

I think you are too chill about it mcknuckle, but then again, you also use it
You dont see the fulld ownside of it + if all the people ingame would complain here on the forums, then maybe FC would realise that allowing this blatant cheat is wrong
because this is by far the worst thing FC has ever done to their own game, allowing this

[Awikun]

You should want to cure the disease (MB) and not only reduce some of its negative effects.

Grenades, kickers and any kind of partial sollutions are bad idea because:
1. They still need quite a lot of resources to implement (which FC obviously do not have)
2. They only try to reduce a gap between cheaters and honest players
3. I am afraid that developers of MB software as well as some "skilled cheaters" will find a way to nullify most of those partial sollutions.

A clear statement from FC that starting from certain date MB in AO will be illegal and will be treated as banable offence would be a good start.
I perfectly understand that there may be no 100% sure way of catching all multiboxers and proving that they in fact used MB but I am sure that it would be better than saying MB is legal because we can not do anything about it.

Cmon FC wake up!
AO Eula was writen almost 15 years ago and at that time nobody even thought about MB because there was no such things. I am not 100% sure but I can not remember any change of content of Eula from start of AO up to now.
With new inventions comes come new laws 40-50 years ago there was no law about internet, no hacking and no crimes involving modern technology.
So first change Eula (law for AO) then slowly try to enforce it instead of doing nothing...

[sultryvoltron]

@grandefiasco

Dude, chill. FC gave MB the OFFICIAL Ok. It's been given the OFFICIAL Ok for years. you need to catch up with the current state of the game. Do you not think that players wouldn't be hyperzealously policing each other on multiboxing when Tl7 tower sites were dropping like flies? The reason I started this thread is exactly because FC gave it the OFFICIAL nod, but has not yet given any indication that they have observed the effects of it, in other words, they've said "OK go!" but what they haven't done is assessed what that "ok go" means in game.

@ cratertina I agree with a lot of what you wrote. I personally feel the best way(s) to regulate MB is to simply reduce the offensive threat either by passive automatic mitigation that occurs on a target or otherwise.

@ Caloss, I don't like the idea of knockback as you've described it, It just sounds too difficult to code/too problematic.

Meh, I don't agree that it was given official support by FC. Until there is a press release, forum announcement, or similar you can't really make that kind of claim. So far we have people who work in FC support who have basically said no we won't ban you for it, but that's certainly not the same as official support.

See the difference between decriminalized marijuana and legalized marijuana.

[Nycrow]

Allow somehow for a player to hire npc's to complete their group up to a maximum of 6?

[Alternity]

Allow somehow for a player to hire npc's to complete their group up to a maximum of 6?

I get the sincerity of your idea and reasoning behind it. However it would play out badly, if you've ever done Tara or NW battles with large numbers, you might remember this. AO's netcode is really not that happy about mass slaughter. Attacking force having to walk down the hallway, as to not scare the crap out of the server and have it CC you back. Rushing the enemy shooting your CT only for the server to put everyone in the CC-blender, and warp you off... Somewhere.

Now with people bringing NPCs a 30 man clash is essentially 180 entities, huge battle of 80 people total amount to 480. See where I'm going?

[DarkerThanBlack]

I get the sincerity of your idea and reasoning behind it. However it would play out badly, if you've ever done Tara or NW battles with large numbers, you might remember this. AO's netcode is really not that happy about mass slaughter. Attacking force having to walk down the hallway, as to not scare the crap out of the server and have it CC you back. Rushing the enemy shooting your CT only for the server to put everyone in the CC-blender, and warp you off... Somewhere.

Now with people bringing NPCs a 30 man clash is essentially 180 entities, huge battle of 80 people total amount to 480. See where I'm going?

We're not in the year 2009 anymore though.