Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The last quote pretty sums up my position, though--this is a problem our community can solve with minimal involvement from Goblinworks.Have we decided what types of multiboxing are harmful to the game and which aren't?
Clearly there are some situations wherein GW is ok with it. Probably at least crafting, maybe private "dungeon stone" instances (eventually), gathering?, hunting npc mobs?, hunting players?, guard duty at POIs?
How will the Community solve those issues with limited GW involvement? Is multiboxing a hex for resources on your home settlement's territory wrong?
Edit: I am unlikely to be a multiboxer, but am curious where people feel "the line for abuse" may lay.
I can draw a line at "Running multiple characters so as to avoid interacting with other players."
The only other place I can draw a line is "Using software that gains an advantage from faster reactions."
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan Dancey (Never punish a player for using a single account) wrote:
The better solution is to use non-technical means to stop players from abusing the game via multiboxing. This falls under the category of "community management"."
It has been made clear that GW will probably not try and stop multiboxing. At the same time, Ryan seems to feel (at least as of that quote) that there is potential for naughty multiboxing and that "the community" will need to deal with it (mostly). I am not sure if he means through reporting, peer pressure, or a combination of those. I am sure that GW does not want a flood of reports for multiboxing. Do they want any at all? If so, under what situations is it valid to report? Clearly, the community will not come to a "universal agreement" on when it is naughty and when perfectly fine (play as intended).
I suppose that if the community is tasked with it, they will discourage it in various ways. I do not suppose that we will all agree on when it needs to be discouraged.
Well why reinvent the wheel on this?
Look at WoW Warlock/hunter pets
2-5 abilities, and some basic AI presets
WoW offers (As I last played) Aggressive, Defensive, and passive stance for its AI
This game should simply offer the skills to be set as how the AI works.. not just for henchmen but for ALL NPCs
Attack range defines manuevering
Armor type defines mobility and manuevering
ect.
so if your guy has his plate and bow, and he's AI with a lot of tank gear and tank moves, he'll behave as a tank.
MVP would be to have this be automatic by the henchman's gear/stats/skills
Slightly over MVP would be to allow you to set up something akin to gambits in ff12 and manual commands with percentage chances like in skyrim
As in, you're a warrior with a theif alt/henchman You tell him to pick a lock. He does so by the random chance of his own skill modifier
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I don't understand where there could be a "line for abuse"?
Ryan has said that PFO will allow for multi-boxing. Therefore, any use of it that is allowable my the mechanics and by GW is permissible.
Not every action that falls into a reference class that is not categorically prohibited is not discouraged.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well why reinvent the wheel on this?
Look at WoW Warlock/hunter pets
2-5 abilities, and some basic AI presets
WoW offers (As I last played) Aggressive, Defensive, and passive stance for its AI
This game should simply offer the skills to be set as how the AI works.. not just for henchmen but for ALL NPCs
Attack range defines manuevering
Armor type defines mobility and manuevering
ect.
so if your guy has his plate and bow, and he's AI with a lot of tank gear and tank moves, he'll behave as a tank.
MVP would be to have this be automatic by the henchman's gear/stats/skills
Slightly over MVP would be to allow you to set up something akin to gambits in ff12 and manual commands with percentage chances like in skyrim
As in, you're a warrior with a theif alt/henchman You tell him to pick a lock. He does so by the random chance of his own skill modifier
Because we won't all agree on when and why certain cases of multiboxing need attention, it may very well be a non issue. It may simply be an individual or group choice and dealt with case by case.
I was just curious where people feel there is a "line" or if there even is one. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan Dancey (Never punish a player for using a single account) wrote:
The better solution is to use non-technical means to stop players from abusing the game via multiboxing. This falls under the category of "community management"."
It has been made clear that GW will probably not try and stop multiboxing. At the same time, Ryan seems to feel (at least as of that quote) that there is potential for naughty multiboxing and that "the community" will need to deal with it (mostly). I am not sure if he means through reporting, peer pressure, or a combination of those. I am sure that GW does not want a flood of reports for multiboxing. Do they want any at all? If so, under what situations is it valid to report? Clearly, the community will not come to a "universal agreement" on when it is naughty and when perfectly fine (play as intended).
I suppose that if the community is tasked with it, they will discourage it in various ways. I do not suppose that we will all agree on when it needs to be discouraged.
One problem we have is that the best way to deal with multi boxing abusers is probably KOS, and we can't do that since multi boxing alts will mostly be high rep, LG farming machines.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One problem we have is that the best way to deal with multi boxing abusers is probably KOS, and we can't do that since multi boxing alts will mostly be high rep, LG farming machines.
Actually my guy doesn't care about that. His life goal is to take all the lawful and either kill it or turn it into neutral... So like, I guess if you need someone to come KOS a bot XD...
Another bit of evidence for my theory that multi-boxing will be very hard to pull off in PFO: CCs and parties (and Settlements, I think) have maximum roster sizes. As such, I believe the multiboxers will be forced to work mostly independently, in one-man adventuring parties.
Honestly, I'm still not convinced they're going to have much of an impact on the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gold sellers and exploiters are also rampant in every mmo ever. Should we just give in to them? Don't give in to botters either.
This is giving into botters the same way PLEX gives into gold farmers. Really the exact same way, they undercut the gold farmers and give you a legal way to buy in-game currency in a way that profits their company and won't get you banned. PFO's own version of PLEX has already been confirmed.
This makes a simpler, easier way to multi-box that profits GW and won't run the risk of getting you banned.
Literally the exact same solution to a different problem.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One problem we have is that the best way to deal with multi boxing abusers is probably KOS, and we can't do that since multi boxing alts will mostly be high rep, LG farming machines.Actually my guy doesn't care about that. His life goal is to take all the lawful and either kill it or turn it into neutral... So like, I guess if you need someone to come KOS a bot XD...Are you planning to be low rep AND travel from settlement to settlement?
Or just grinding rep all the time?
No, I plan on travelling from Aspect to Aspect, Faction to Faction. Could be there is more than one in a single city, could be there is only one in the entire kingdom.
I do not plan on having a low reputation, it is just my IC doesn't care about it, and so I imagine he would probably disregard instances where it would hinder. Obviously he would want a high reputation, but if a very close friend asks him to do something, he will do it. In addition, if a tyrant is doing something and stopping him would hurt reputation significantly, then oh well you can be dam sure my man will be in there with the dukes up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gold sellers and exploiters are also rampant in every mmo ever. Should we just give in to them? Don't give in to botters either.This is giving into botters the same way PLEX gives into gold farmers. Really the exact same way, they undercut the gold farmers and give you a legal way to buy in-game currency in a way that profits their company and won't get you banned. PFO's own version of PLEX has already been confirmed.
This makes a simpler, easier way to multi-box that profits GW and won't run the risk of getting you banned.
Literally the exact same solution to a different problem.
Companies monetizing a solution to a problem doesn't magically make it go away. There are still gold (isk) sellers in eve and there are still exploiters. Your idea doesn't make botters go away but it does detract from game socialization and it will hurt the economy. Each henchman a merchant has is one less player that needs to be used as a mercenary and each crafter henchman used is less gathering or building a player needs to undertake. Even if your idea was implemented there would still be botters, as there will be gold sellers even with goblin balls, and there will always be exploiters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll multi box an entire CC, watch me..Then I make a Macro so they all sing:
I got my own CC
Yeah you know me
I got my own CC
Yeah you know me
I got my own CC
Yeah you know me
I got my own CC
We form our own pah-ty!
Exactly! This man while sarcastic, knows what he is talking about.
Making botting or multiboxing legal just leads to this type of play and a degradation of player interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It has been a few hundred posts and I think I have lost the gist of what the OP is really asking for here. Just for clarification:
Is it the position that instead of having alts as independent characters that those characters would be henchmen (companions) with a tag that identifies the main character, company of main character and settlement of main character?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
However the moment it becomes 2 real players to 6 boxed bursters it already becomes more of a fight, especially when there is some crowd control capability with the 2 real players. The two would probably lose but may kill an opponent or two themselves.
6x3 and I do not think that any good 6-boxer could stand up to any well-oiled group of 3.
I think you are asking for trouble when you roam the lands in PFO with a boxed group like that, hoping to find single characters or duos. You are a juicy, sitting duck for any trained group of 2-3 or more.
That is contrary to my understanding. If memory serves there was a bot user in a large Korean game (I'm not recalling the name but the game's name was Something 2. The bot was reportedly invincible.
This is because it did not have to wait for graphics only specific location and game event information. It's cool downs were perfectly timed and its accuracy unerring. It was a killing machine that went around harvesting non-stop and killing anyone or anything that came close to it. Six of those would be just as able to defeat any player controlled group of six in equal combat as that Korean bot was able to take down whole groups trying to kill it.
I don't think your belief is right that six player-controlled toons will not find a challenge versus an equal number of bots.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Being
I was talking about boxed characters, not bots.
I talked about the difference a while back in this thread.
Boxers: not using extra software but just the ingame commands of /follow and /assist and quickly switching between clients (that are in a a window) so that the player can control the extra characters. Boxers are always at the keyboard, there is no automation, all the characters have to be controlled in realtime through input by the player.
A boxer can also be someone who simply has a Crafter alt on one monitor and playing his Main on his main monitor.
Hackers: using software that hacks into the client/sniffs out packages that are sent between client and server; very forbidden and going much further then just controlling alts; can do stuff like displaying every monster/player in the area, warping across the zone, invisability hacks etcetera.
What you describe sounds definately as if the characters are controlled by advanced software, and that software is also most likely reading the UI so that it can instantly react on changes (also graphical). So that would be bots, maybe even while hacking the client though that is not necessary for what you describe.
The word Box refers to the fact that people have a second computer running with an extra client (though nowadays you can just open another clientwindow on the same computer) and bots refer to robots, automatons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually all Henchmen does is... Give the bots henchmen too. And my multibox alts will have henchmen.
So with this, everything will be situation normal.
Eve did not get rid of gold farmers in the least bit, all they really did with PLEX is give themselves more money to fight the problem with. The gold farmers just have lower profits, and more are being caught... but these are useless alts anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From the OP, I find this to be contradictory and worrisome.
One Big Happy Family
The first step in this system is organizing your character's into groups.
All groups have an identifying name over their head that can't be hidden or changed, for example:
Andius Meuridiar <- Character name
House Meuridiar <- Group Name
The Empyrean Order <- Company NameAll those characters will also share the same company/settlement affiliation and reputation. There may also be some bonuses, penalties, and other effects that can be applied to the whole group.
Alignment is not shared but many actions you take will apply their alignment effect to all henchman with you when the action is taken.
You are allowed multiple groups that are as separate of entities as two characters in EVE. They share no positive or negative effects, and have no common identifier. So you can keep your paladin a very separate character from your necromancer if that's important for you.
The potential contradiction is in the last paragraph allowing for multiple group membership, but we can have up to 3 group memberships (companies), are all of these to be public? If two can be obscured, why not all?
The concern I have with this is that if implemented, you render all assassins, spies and hired mercenaries exposed to detecting their employer's identity.
Essentially this system would limit alts to use as heal bots and harvester / crafters. No political intrigue, no espionage, no secret contracts to raid a rival.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If memory serves there was a bot user in a large Korean game... The bot was reportedly invincible.
This seems unlikely to me, but if it is true I expect it's because the game's combat system was extremely shallow. It seems odd to me that no one was able to identify and capitalize on the bot's predictable actions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lineage 2 was the game. Seeking a cite for the specific article. I didn't find it but the Lineage forums are pretty full of discussions about them as a problem in PvP.