Multiboxing support?

[Anaximander]

@Yamamushi


I have no beef with your idea of multiboxing mate. I have a problem with having 39 other accounts on a /follow command and a cross window targeting command. Your thing is not game breaking. Sure, if you find menial parts of the game, I feel you there. But you culd also have another guy with you on that journey of yours instead of playing two accounts at once >_> Just sayin'.

[Wardion2000]

Don't pick out one word out of the post you need to read the whole thing, you clearly do not whant to understand yourself what is said. There are always two towers to view things from...

 

But hey let me spell it out for you: You will not need to travel between markets if both market characters are on the same account - you will just change the toon, with too accounts you can have them both at the same time without log in log out trouble, but still no need to travel!

 

We don't know how the scripting will work but you might be able to have a perfect wingman with just drones or scripted ships. I do not see multiboxing giving massive advantage in fleet pvp in this game at this point.

I didn't.  I did, and DON'T go around misrepresenting me.  Yes, there are two towers to view things from.  You should try standing on the other one.   I was critical of one part of your post, doesn't mean I was being critical of the others.  vylqun is voicing an opinion based on what he knows.  You are voicing and opinion on what you assume.  Who says you'll get more than one character per account?  Some will view that as reason alone to ALLOW multi-boxing others won't.  Voicing your disagreement with either stance is fine.  Giving a reason more that it's "ridiculous" or because you assume it will work another way is not.   As to your last comment, I agree.  I said as much, I pointed out how A.I. and scripting could make it an irrelevant point.  I also pointed out how multi-boxing could be unbalancing if the game goes a different direction.  If you don't see it fine.  But not seeing it doesn't mean it isn't possible.

 

And finally, If you don't agree with someone else's views on a subject, that's fine.  They are voicing their opinions and concerns just like anyone else posting.  If you have an argument and would like to debate the finer points of their stance feel free.  Otherwise, your posts so far have been full of vitriol, smug rhetoric and contribute less to the subject at hand and more on what you feel about other posters.  Leave that on the other side of the keyboard, please.

[yamamushi]

@Yamamushi

 

 

I have no beef with your idea of multiboxing mate. I have a problem with having 39 other accounts on a /follow command and a cross window targeting command. Your thing is not game breaking. Sure, if you find menial parts of the game, I feel you there. But you culd also have another guy with you on that journey of yours instead of playing two accounts at once >_> Just sayin'.

 

 

Maybe this whole situation could just be diffused by having clear rules on what constitutes "bad multiboxing" versus "good multiboxing". 

 

Bad Multiboxing would be something like running 80 accounts and using them all to report someone at the same time (this happened in WoW recently).

 

Good multiboxing would be something where you're using more than one account to do completely different things, ie not using several accounts in the same fleet, but using several accounts across space doing different things. 

[SledgeHammer]

I didn't.  I did, and DON'T go around misrepresenting me.  Yes, there are two towers to view things from.  You should try standing on the other one.   I was critical of one part of your post, doesn't mean I was being critical of the others.  vylqun is voicing an opinion based on what he knows.  You are voicing and opinion on what you assume.  Who says you'll get more than one character per account?  Some will view that as reason alone to ALLOW multi-boxing others won't.  Voicing your disagreement with either stance is fine.  Giving a reason more that it's "ridiculous" or because you assume it will work another way is not.   As to your last comment, I agree.  I said as much, I pointed out how A.I. and scripting could make it an irrelevant point.  I also pointed out how multi-boxing could be unbalancing if the game goes a different direction.  If you don't see it fine.  But not seeing it doesn't mean it isn't possible.

 

And finally, If you don't agree with someone else's views on a subject, that's fine.  They are voicing their opinions and concerns just like anyone else posting.  If you have an argument and would like to debate the finer points of their stance feel free.  Otherwise, your posts so far have been full of vitriol, smug rhetoric and contribute less to the subject at hand and more on what you feel about other posters.  Leave that on the other side of the keyboard, please.

 

Oh interesting how it works only one way. Well good luck creating non toxic community.

 

p.s. As far as I'm concerned it was never an argument but merely my opinion. There is nothing to argue about realy, once the rules come out we will know - end of story. And if it doesnot prohibit boxing I sure as hell will!

[Bella_Astrum]

I voted against, just because I feel unless a game is designed to allow a single player to have so much advantage/power, whether it be for combat, harvesting or any other activity, then I don't think it's fair to other people who don't participate in doing that and play the game as intended.

 

Ultimately though it's up to the devs, but personally I prefer a game be played as it was designed to be experienced.

[AttacKat]

 

Ultimately though it's up to the devs, but personally I prefer a game be played as it was designed to be experienced.

 

I highly doubt the devs of any game ever design their game with multi-boxing as their primary focus, hence by default, multi-boxing players aren't playing the game as intended by the devs.

[yamamushi]

I highly doubt the devs of any game ever design their game with multi-boxing as their primary focus, hence by default, multi-boxing players aren't playing the game as intended by the devs.

 

That seems to be one of the main purposes of any sandbox game, to play the game in a way that it wasn't originally intended for. 

[vylqun]

That seems to be one of the main purposes of any sandbox game, to play the game in a way that it wasn't originally intended for. 

 

As long as you can archieve it with ingame means, yes. If you argue anything else then you would also allow cheating tools.

And multi boxing is certainly not something you can do solely with ingame means

[Wardion2000]

That seems to be one of the main purposes of any sandbox game, to play the game in a way that it wasn't originally intended for. 

True, but it might be a stretch fitting multi-boxing into a sandbox criteria.

[KlatuSatori]

That seems to be one of the main purposes of any sandbox game, to play the game in a way that it wasn't originally intended for. 

 

The purpose of a sandbox game is to provide a game universe that doesn't have any predefined goals - nothing more; nothing less.

 

The tools/abilities/environment/physics provided in a game define what can and can't be done and there may be some things which can be done that the developers did not expect or did not intend.  If it's something they didn't intend - i.e. it is not something they want to be possible, then they will change it.  If it's something they didn't expect, but still falls within what they intend for the game, then it's fine.  This is nothing particular to sandbox games, it is true of any game.  A game feature is either working as intended or it isn't and needs to be changed.  The only difference is that some or many unexpected consequences may fall within what is intended.

 

All of that is within the game universe.  Multiboxing is entirely outside of the game universe and has nothing to do with the whether the game is a sandbox, simulator, arcade or anything else.  It is a type of hacking, of getting around the in-game mechanics to accomplish things which would otherwise not be possible.  You could design a game that is intended to be multiboxed, but that would be an entirely different concept and that game may or may not be a sandbox game.

[Anaximander]

@Yamamushi


It seems to me you are saying that I can go in a playground and kick the shit out of every little kid there.
Sure, it's not something logical, nor was intended for when the playground was built, nor fair I picked a fight with a little kid, but ain't playgrounds supposed to be a place for everyone to enjoy themselves?


Klatu Satori defined the nature of a sandbox accurately. WoW is not a sandbox Yamamushi, and people multibox. Your arguement on that is invalid. And I only condemn "pack-behavior" multiboxing, one guy controlling a drone fleet of accounts for instant death focus fire. 

[Kongou]

Looks like he was agreeing with you though?

 

They may have been different genres but multiboxing 40 or 80 accounts in wow has roughly the same disruptive effect of multiboxing that many in eve.

 

You one shot everything that comes near you. And have an effective health pool of all the characters combined.

 

Only one character per account can be learning at any given time. And we know that multi boxers will exist even if few in number.

 

You'll be able to have alts you can log on from one account to check market prices. If that's not effective enough then if you want to pay for another subscription nobody can stop them from doing so.

 

Here's a side thought though, we could boost the economy around the du plex by making it so you can use one and then run two characters from the same account in separate sessions at the same time. Allowing two characters to learn simultaneously.

 

My problem with this though doesn't lay in the possible advantages of boxing but that it dilutes your existence with the community. I'll forever miss og swg, one character, one server, no alts. And not many people tried to multi box

[AttacKat]

It seems to me you are saying that I can go in a playground and kick the shit out of every little kid there.

Sure, it's not something logical, nor was intended for when the playground was built, nor fair I picked a fight with a little kid, but ain't playgrounds supposed to be a place for everyone to enjoy themselves?

 

This is the natural problem with any sandbox open world free PvP game tho; hence my push for PvP:PvE balance that must be put in by the devs, but yet, goes against the nature of "sandbox".

 

In your statement, the game is the playground, but since this is open world free PvP, there is no one to order/police around that the older kids must play nice to the new younger kids to the play around.

 

One serious question I have for those calling open world free PvP. If this game goes that route, what makes this game different then EVE Online other then the Mindcraft features? For those that left EVE Online, why would they want to come here and play this game? For those that are still playing EVE, why would they want to come play this game? The truth is from what I am seeing in the forums so far, I do not sense this game being any better/different then EVE.

[Anaximander]

@AttacKat


Wanna bet there will be a Carebear Police in the game? Guys who wanna PvP, but also suffer from the White Knight syndrome? I know so, I used to roam my open PvP server in WoW and Age of Conan, looking for known a-holes to put down. Plus, players could create their own "safe ones" by implementing defenses in space stations, like I said on another thread, "the world's greatest tower defense game". There are means to maintain a safe zone. For starters, in EVE, PvE players usually just run away from PvP players. Same thing could be done here. You don't wanna fight? Then don't. You are not honorbound to PvP. You won't lose your mancard if you don't fight. 


But the way I see it, organisations/cities/what-have-you will have PvP players in their ranks to act as an army of sorts or militia and the PvE players could do their own thing. But let's face the harsh truth. I seen many PvE players getting a taste of PvP and realising it's not some arcane art. The problem is not PvP, is mindless PK from a multiboxer. Safe zones did not protect players in EVE in high security areas from smart bombings or suicide runs. And magic fields of no PvP will ruin the freedom the game offers.


But let's stay on topic of Multiboxing and how Pay-2-Win it is.

[SledgeHammer]

This is the natural problem with any sandbox open world free PvP game tho; hence my push for PvP:PvE balance that must be put in by the devs, but yet, goes against the nature of "sandbox".

 

In your statement, the game is the playground, but since this is open world free PvP, there is no one to order/police around that the older kids must play nice to the new younger kids to the play around.

 

One serious question I have for those calling open world free PvP. If this game goes that route, what makes this game different then EVE Online other then the Mindcraft features? For those that left EVE Online, why would they want to come here and play this game? For those that are still playing EVE, why would they want to come play this game? The truth is from what I am seeing in the forums so far, I do not sense this game being any better/different then EVE.

 

I play eve, I have 5 accounts, currently useing only 4, and pvp with 1. Others are for industry, missions and other carebearing stuff and I enjoy all of it. I simply whant to be efficient with my time in game and RP in my own way. I do not need to follow RP metagame or what ever, for me I can be 5 characters all at once.

 

The idea is somewhat similar to EVE, apart from that it sounds like DU will be alot different and alot more sandboxy. It is far too much to cover why DU is differnet but if you play and read about DU's dev blog I can very much say that it will apeal to you. DU if it delivers will simply be the next step in gameing - complete freedom. In eve you can not build your land base, cannot desine your ship, cannot script, cannot have player defined organisations (you can create corporations only - system is good but it aint completely free to modify) surely there are many more differences - but the spirit of sandbox and player driven stories are the same for both games.

 

Also if you read through dev blog and developers posts you will see that free pvp has been decided long before this topic was started, what they are accualy discussing  are the Arcified zones - how big, how limited etc.

 

By the way - EVE's pve or carebears as they are called, are prety well protected. You are nowhere truly safe, but to gank someone in a safe zone is not easy. Its called suiccide ganking - because if you kill someone in High sec ("safe area") you will 100% loose your ship, and so will everyone helping you.

[AttacKat]

 

By the way - EVE's pve or carebears as they are called, are prety well protected. You are nowhere truly safe, but to gank someone in a safe zone is not easy. Its called suiccide ganking - because if you kill someone in High sec ("safe area") you will 100% loose your ship, and so will everyone helping you.

 

While true, but the ship balance is a total whack and lacking in EVE. I can gunk your 2B Tech-3 PvE setup ship using a 100K Tech 1 PvP ship with ease. Even if I do not gain anything, just the mere fact that I can and and the result of you to losing 2B isk is often enough for people to do it.

 

To attract, as well as to keep them playing, the devs from DU needs to build and prevent this into their game balance. Players will not stay with this game if what took them 10 hours to build can be consistently trashed within minutes, be it ships or buildings.

[SledgeHammer]

While true, but the ship balance is a total whack and lacking in EVE. I can gunk your 2B Tech-3 PvE setup ship using a 100K Tech 1 PvP ship with ease. Even if I do not gain anything, just the mere fact that I can and and the result of you to losing 2B isk is often enough for people to do it.

 

To attract, as well as to keep them playing, the devs from DU needs to build and prevent this into their game balance. Players will not stay with this game if what took them 10 hours to build can be consistently trashed within minutes, be it ships or buildings.

Well your numbers of this suiccide ganking comparison are not true unfortunately, for a number of reasons.

First of as you said its a pve ship - it is not prepared to fight other players.

Second you would probably need about 15-25 "suiccide gankers"  each costing about 4-9mil depending on what you are useing, an also each of those gankers will need to be well skilled because a 1 month carachter will not cut it here.

If you are ganking at higher level your ship might cost 60-75 million and you might need more than one, so it has te be calculated, ganking for profit is not an easy task.

Now if that "victim" ship is made for pvp how ever assuming he knows what he is doing this would be completely different story without going in to particulars. Ships in EVE are some of the best balanced content I have seen in any game - it makes you realise that for every job there is a tool and you have to use the right one.

 

If a player spends 10 hours or even 1 month building what he thinks is an amazing inovation but then gets trashed in 2 mins well that just proved how wrong he was, or he did it in a wrong place, or wrong time, or didnot have right backup, or a million other reasons. And if that happens consistently well then as Einstein has said: "Stupidity is doing same thing and expecting different results"

[yamamushi]

 

Klatu Satori defined the nature of a sandbox accurately. WoW is not a sandbox Yamamushi, and people multibox. Your arguement on that is invalid. And I only condemn "pack-behavior" multiboxing, one guy controlling a drone fleet of accounts for instant death focus fire. 

 

I never said WoW was a sandbox, what I said was that the point of a sandbox game is for people to do things that the game wasn't designed for. Sandboxes are where developers give players tools to do creative things, but they never strictly outline what it is we should do. 

 

Do you think Minecraft was designed so that people could build calculators and hard drives in it? Absolutely not, but people used the sandbox elements of redstone to do it.

 

Even Eve Online has had features placed in the game to make certain playstyles possible for players, and they've also closed several issues that people were otherwise exploiting using ingame mechanics because they weren't designed to be used in a certain way, but nobody was banned for it. Eve certainly wasn't designed for multiboxing, but after realizing that multiboxers were a core part of the Eve universe, CCP has accepted them with open arms. 

 

Even Dwarf Fortress has been used to build things that Toady never envisioned, like building computers and playing space invaders. 

 

 

 

Ultimately I don't think they are going to outright ban people for playing on more than one computer at a time, which is what this whole thread was about originally. 

 

CCP Figured out how to allow Multiboxing in a way that doesn't negatively affect everyone who isn't multiboxing, I don't see why DU can't follow the same model:

 

[MaximusNerdius]

Please do not allow multiboxing. Multiboxing gives advantages to those doing it with very few disadvantages. At a minimum, don't allow it on the same PC.

[CosmicDragon]

I am not against multiboxing, although I would never do it. How would be lessen the advantages of multiboxing, without also hitting the five friends who are playing the same way as the multiboxer?

[vylqun]

I am not against multiboxing, although I would never do it. How would be lessen the advantages of multiboxing, without also hitting the five friends who are playing the same way as the multiboxer?

 

that argument again, its, sorry for that, stupid.

If you have 5 friends which play with you, then, for equal comparison, the multiboxer will also have 5 friends which play with him.

 

If i do the same work as you, and earn 6 times as much, would you say its ok, because you could get 5 friends to give most of their earnings to you? That doesn't sound reasonable, does it? And yes, multiboxing is more work than using a single account, but thats outside of the system, its a big advantage over players who can't do that.

[magnatron]

 

 

 

nice yamamushi i just can across the same graphic was coming to toss it up in this thread. this seems like a good way to deal with combat multi boxing as spotting a fleet of multi boxed ships is pretty easy.

[KlatuSatori]

I never said WoW was a sandbox, what I said was that the point of a sandbox game is for people to do things that the game wasn't designed for. Sandboxes are where developers give players tools to do creative things, but they never strictly outline what it is we should do. 

 

Do you think Minecraft was designed so that people could build calculators and hard drives in it? Absolutely not, but people used the sandbox elements of redstone to do it.

 

Even Eve Online has had features placed in the game to make certain playstyles possible for players, and they've also closed several issues that people were otherwise exploiting using ingame mechanics because they weren't designed to be used in a certain way, but nobody was banned for it. Eve certainly wasn't designed for multiboxing, but after realizing that multiboxers were a core part of the Eve universe, CCP has accepted them with open arms. 

 

Even Dwarf Fortress has been used to build things that Toady never envisioned, like building computers and playing space invaders. 

 

 

 

Ultimately I don't think they are going to outright ban people for playing on more than one computer at a time, which is what this whole thread was about originally. 

 

CCP Figured out how to allow Multiboxing in a way that doesn't negatively affect everyone who isn't multiboxing, I don't see why DU can't follow the same model:

 

Well, that is basically what I said, except all those games may have tools with unexpected abilities they are still all "working as intended" and they are all completely within the confines of the game universes and physics.  My point, however, was that none of that is relevant to the conversation about multiboxing.

 

I definitely disagree about CCP.  A solo player who isn't multiboxing is at a disadvantage in Eve whether it is PvP or PvE.  The low-end ore market is completely dominated by high-sec multiboxers (at least last time I was there, but I doubt it's changed) and that has a knock-on effect to the whole economy.  Maybe CCP designed their game to be that way, but I wouldn't want that for DU.

[macdja38]

Something no-one has really brought up is the possibility of an item that gives you more ingame time being released, which I think I heard something about. That would allow multiboxers to mine and earn enough to support their other accounts without pay to win... potentially making this style of gameplay more common.

[SledgeHammer]

Something no-one has really brought up is the possibility of an item that gives you more ingame time being released, which I think I heard something about. That would allow multiboxers to mine and earn enough to support their other accounts without pay to win... potentially making this style of gameplay more common.

They did say they whant to introduce something like PLEX in eve, item that gives you game time that you can buy for money or for in game currecy from other players