Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Should boxxing be disallowed?

1235»

Comments

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    Nanfoodle said:
    Dullahan said:
    waynejr2 said:

    So you have a group in the zone taking mobs you feel are yours.  If it was a multiboxer you are upset but four people you are cool with it...
    Exactly! Four people playing the game cooperatively the way it was meant to be played, versus content taken by someone paying more money to achieve the same. I'm not sure how you could possibly be okay with that.

    Just to note, I do realize Visionary Realms has stated they are focusing on discouraging boxing by making gameplay more demanding. We can already see evidence that they're doing it. Nevertheless, I still feel it necessary to hardline this issue because it's just another form of convenience that has crept in among even our community and become acceptable.
    Same could be said for people who figure out how to solo content in a game thats designed for teaming. Its no different, as long as they are not cheating, exploiting and pressing every keystroke. 
    Actually, that's different. The game is supposed to require multiple players. If you are paying more money to circumvent that aspect, that's not good (even if it's allowed).

    When the game doesn't require multiple players, soloing is fine. It has no impact on other players, and if for some reason it does, that's something to be adjusted development side.



  • ZionBaneZionBane Member UncommonPosts: 328
    I don't see the problem with boxing, even if it is used to solo group content.

    For example, lets say you need to pull two switches, one on each side of the dungeon, and you use a second box to pull that off.. what's the harm?

    The days of spawn camping are long gone, most dungeons are instance based, so there is minimal to no impact upon the game by people boxing anymore.
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 4,248
    edited May 2017
    ZionBane said:
    I don't see the problem with boxing, even if it is used to solo group content.

    For example, lets say you need to pull two switches, one on each side of the dungeon, and you use a second box to pull that off.. what's the harm?

    The days of spawn camping are long gone, most dungeons are instance based, so there is minimal to no impact upon the game by people boxing anymore.
    If I'm looking for a cleric for my group, how many of those tank / boxed clerics are even going to respond?  This happened an awful lot in EQ1, the bastion of group play games.  Boxing removes potential players from joining a group.  Boxing in any form, to any degree, hurts games that require groups, and the ones that pay are those attempting to play the game as a grouping experience.

    Edit:  Sorry, @ZionBane.  That was supposed to be a reply to @Dullahan and @Nanfoodle above you.  Don't know how I missed that.
    DullahanGyva02

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • chukekle1chukekle1 Member UncommonPosts: 33
     Even if they disallow boxxing alot of ppl will still do it, i've boxxed on plenty of games that have so called anti boxxing programs without ever getting banned, it actually isnt that hard to bypass anti-boxing programs if you play it smart, hell i've been boxxing on project 1999 since day 1 without a single ban and they act like they have the greatest anti-boxing programs out there.
  • svannsvann Member RarePosts: 2,223
    ZionBane said:


    The days of spawn camping are long gone, most dungeons are instance based, so there is minimal to no impact upon the game by people boxing anymore.
    This is not true in EQ1 and Im almost certain untrue in pantheon.
  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member LegendaryPosts: 7,444
    There are a lot of reasons people multibox in games like EQ, EQ2, WoW and so on. Most of it came into my game play because of WoW and the horrible PUG community and the asshole players associated with that. I find it rather annoying that you join a PUG and some pissy Tank decides everyone needs to rush rush rush. Sorry, but if that is how groups are going to play out in any game, you can damn well believe I'll be multiboxing.

    I promise you, I will enjoy Pantheon far more if I'm relaxed and having a good time with similar people. Group Finder in WoW did anything but group me with similar people. So, if Pantheon can promise their group finder mechanic will guarantee me a proper mature and relaxed team, I'm all up for it.

    In regards to that, multiboxing is not P2W because people want an advantage. I did it because I'm tired of grouping with assholes or the notorious, group then AFK people.

  • LeGrosGamerLeGrosGamer Member UncommonPosts: 223
    Imagine if boxxing was banned from EVE, it would go from 35K online users to 10K  ;)

     Anyway jokes aside, you can thank Devs that decided to make dungeons completion a major criteria in order to advance further in to a game, and with more and more people jumping from MMO to MMO, people get sick and tired of spamming chat and queuing for hours, so they take matters into their own hands and multi box their way through the entire game.  

      Should boxxing be banned? Ask yourself this question instead; should releasing 40-50 MMO's a year be allowed?  Take the time you want at answering this simple yet complex question.  ;)

    NanfoodleGyva02
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 9,093
    Mendel said:
    ZionBane said:
    I don't see the problem with boxing, even if it is used to solo group content.

    For example, lets say you need to pull two switches, one on each side of the dungeon, and you use a second box to pull that off.. what's the harm?

    The days of spawn camping are long gone, most dungeons are instance based, so there is minimal to no impact upon the game by people boxing anymore.
    If I'm looking for a cleric for my group, how many of those tank / boxed clerics are even going to respond?  This happened an awful lot in EQ1, the bastion of group play games.  Boxing removes potential players from joining a group.  Boxing in any form, to any degree, hurts games that require groups, and the ones that pay are those attempting to play the game as a grouping experience.

    Edit:  Sorry, @ZionBane.  That was supposed to be a reply to @Dullahan and @Nanfoodle above you.  Don't know how I missed that.
    I cant count how many times in EQ1 there was no one to team with but a boxer. They often were the reason there was a team to join in the first place. I cant count how many times I had a team because the only healer around was one someone logged in on a second account. I also cant count the number of times that second account was logged off the min a guildie logged in with their healer. 

    There is a difference between the boxes that play 5 accounts and take over an area. Or are gold sellers farming to sell gold. With that guildied that has 2 accounts to have a pocket healer. This is the only type of boxing this game will have. A boxer wants to get a dungeon done, they will need to find people to make a group. Done!
    SavageHorizonCatibrie
  • ZionBaneZionBane Member UncommonPosts: 328
    @svann ;

    EQ1, (Everquest) is an iconic MMO, it's also an Archaic MMO. Modern MMO's have long since moved away from that idea of spawn camps and move to instance based dungeons, and I am sure, despite his being 'the Vision' behind EQ, Brad has learned that players are more then happy to say good riddance to those bygone days of EQ and 16 hour spawn camps.

    @mendel

    It's all cool, but I'll still address what you said, in the cases of people using a pocket-healer, they were not looking to join a group as a healer, but as the tank, and as things would be, by being able to box, they were still able to play, which is IMHO better then them sitting around spamming LFG for an hour before logging off in frustration. 

    Wouldn't you agree?
    Nanfoodle
  • ExcessionExcession Member RarePosts: 709
    edited May 2017
    No, Boxing should not be banned, sure it is a bit of a brutal sport at times, but it is not as bad as MMA.

    Multiboxing is something else though.
    When I first started multiboxing, it was with SWG, and it was easy to do, as you could set in game macro's to handle pretty much anything, and I ended up running 5 accounts at the same time, 2 on one PC, 2 on a second, and my main on my gaming rig, and it was fun.

    I multiboxed Everquest 2, Rift, WoW, and a few other MMO's and had fun with it.

    I may be a little biased, but I see no problem with multiboxing, as long as the EULA and/or ToS allow it.



    MaxBacon

    A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.

  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 4,248
    Nanfoodle said:
    Mendel said:
    ZionBane said:
    I don't see the problem with boxing, even if it is used to solo group content.

    For example, lets say you need to pull two switches, one on each side of the dungeon, and you use a second box to pull that off.. what's the harm?

    The days of spawn camping are long gone, most dungeons are instance based, so there is minimal to no impact upon the game by people boxing anymore.
    If I'm looking for a cleric for my group, how many of those tank / boxed clerics are even going to respond?  This happened an awful lot in EQ1, the bastion of group play games.  Boxing removes potential players from joining a group.  Boxing in any form, to any degree, hurts games that require groups, and the ones that pay are those attempting to play the game as a grouping experience.

    Edit:  Sorry, @ZionBane.  That was supposed to be a reply to @Dullahan and @Nanfoodle above you.  Don't know how I missed that.
    I cant count how many times in EQ1 there was no one to team with but a boxer. They often were the reason there was a team to join in the first place. I cant count how many times I had a team because the only healer around was one someone logged in on a second account. I also cant count the number of times that second account was logged off the min a guildie logged in with their healer. 

    There is a difference between the boxes that play 5 accounts and take over an area. Or are gold sellers farming to sell gold. With that guildied that has 2 accounts to have a pocket healer. This is the only type of boxing this game will have. A boxer wants to get a dungeon done, they will need to find people to make a group. Done!
    I was an enchanter.   I could occasionally join a tank-cleric duo, except when they were already grouped with an enchanter-mage boxer.  That was always my kind of luck.

    The point is that when someone boxes, they remove 1 player from the overall available players to group with.  When enough start boxing, it makes it tougher for others wanting to group. 
    svannDullahan

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • QuillimQuillim Member UncommonPosts: 83
    edited May 2017
    ZionBane said:
    @svann ;

    EQ1, (Everquest) is an iconic MMO, it's also an Archaic MMO. Modern MMO's have long since moved away from that idea of spawn camps and move to instance based dungeons, and I am sure, despite his being 'the Vision' behind EQ, Brad has learned that players are more then happy to say good riddance to those bygone days of EQ and 16 hour spawn camps.

    @mendel

    It's all cool, but I'll still address what you said, in the cases of people using a pocket-healer, they were not looking to join a group as a healer, but as the tank, and as things would be, by being able to box, they were still able to play, which is IMHO better then them sitting around spamming LFG for an hour before logging off in frustration. 

    Wouldn't you agree?
    LOL... have you seen the streams? They're obviously remaking EQ1 in a new form, right down to the FD splitting. The inventory is roughly the same, the UI is the same, you have stats, you have skill levels. They probably even use the same AC/ATK style for determining tank gear/mitigation.

    There. Will. Be. Camps. Its what Brad knows very well, and what they've based their game around.

    That said, I doubt there will be 16 hour camps. There are certainly ways of mitigating that.

    But it'll certainly be a game most twitch-kiddies completely ignore. That can either be a good or a bad thing depending on how many people are left. The great part being that those with a patience for the style of play tend to be far more mature. The funny part being that I consider the Golden Years of EQ to be when the game flushed a lot of the kids to WoW post-GoD, and started fixing a lot of the major issues. If they can keep the feel of classic while adding the Quality of Life fixes, they could have something.

    But it's not unlike D&D(tabletop). Its still played across the country, but its a very niche thing and only appeals to a limited segment of gamers. Hence why they're making this on a shoestring and largely having that be crowdfunded.

    Heck, even EQ1 is still alive and kicking under Daybreak, often under Progression Servers that are restricted to Classic and usually start dying after PoP is left. So there is an audience there that can be mined.
  • ZionBaneZionBane Member UncommonPosts: 328
    Quillim said:
    ZionBane said:
    @svann ;

    EQ1, (Everquest) is an iconic MMO, it's also an Archaic MMO. Modern MMO's have long since moved away from that idea of spawn camps and move to instance based dungeons, and I am sure, despite his being 'the Vision' behind EQ, Brad has learned that players are more then happy to say good riddance to those bygone days of EQ and 16 hour spawn camps.

    @mendel

    It's all cool, but I'll still address what you said, in the cases of people using a pocket-healer, they were not looking to join a group as a healer, but as the tank, and as things would be, by being able to box, they were still able to play, which is IMHO better then them sitting around spamming LFG for an hour before logging off in frustration. 

    Wouldn't you agree?
    LOL... have you seen the streams? They're obviously remaking EQ1 in a new form, right down to the FD splitting. The inventory is roughly the same, the UI is the same, you have stats, you have skill levels. They probably even use the same AC/ATK style for determining tank gear/mitigation.

    There. Will. Be. Camps. Its what Brad knows very well, and what they've based their game around.

    That said, I doubt there will be 16 hour camps. There are certainly ways of mitigating that.

    But it'll certainly be a game most twitch-kiddies completely ignore. That can either be a good or a bad thing depending on how many people are left. The great part being that those with a patience for the style of play tend to be far more mature. The funny part being that I consider the Golden Years of EQ to be when the game flushed a lot of the kids post-GoD.

    But it's not unlike D&D(tabletop). Its still played across the country, but its a very niche thing and only appeals to a limited segment of gamers. Hence why they're making this on a shoestring and largely having that be crowdfunded.

    Heck, even EQ1 is still alive and kicking under Daybreak, often under Progression Servers that are restricted to Classic and usually start dying after PoP is left. So there is an audience there that can be mined.
    Well, I can say, as an old EQ player, if Brad is foolish enough to try and put in the archaic method of spawn camping, his game is gonna sink faster then Speedy Gonzales. The mature players that were around during that era, 17 years ago, have all grown up, and built lives and quite literally don' the time for that kind of BS anymore.

    Also, Daybreak IS Sony Online Entertainment, just re-named.
    Gdemami
  • QuillimQuillim Member UncommonPosts: 83
    edited May 2017
    ZionBane said:
    *snip*
    Well, I can say, as an old EQ player, if Brad is foolish enough to try and put in the archaic method of spawn camping, his game is gonna sink faster then Speedy Gonzales. The mature players that were around during that era, 17 years ago, have all grown up, and built lives and quite literally don' the time for that kind of BS anymore.

    Also, Daybreak IS Sony Online Entertainment, just re-named.
    Well.. that's the market he's looking to hit and the type of game he knows how to make. He wants those who play p1999 or a Progression server, or young people who might want to experience an older group-game style of play in a new game. He isn't bashful about saying it. Its also why the game has been almost entirely crowdfunded from fans. Its fairly easy to make whatever you want, when fans give you the money. Elite Dangerous. Star Citizen. And these fans aint looking for a WoW-clone out of Brad. They're looking for a p1999 or progression-server style clone with a new story, so that's what they're making.

    Also, Daybreak is not SOE. SOE was sold by Sony to Columbia Nova Technology Partners, an investment group which then renamed the company to Daybreak. Smedley got pushed out not too long after, they cancelled EQ Next, and iirc moved in and out new devs as needed. Either way, if you think Daybreak was the equivalent of say Verant.. you were misinformed. The company has no connections to Sony and a lot of the development team is not the same.


  • ZionBaneZionBane Member UncommonPosts: 328
    Quillim said:
    Daybreak is not SOE. SOE was sold by Sony to Columbia Nova Technology Partners, an investment group which then renamed the company to Daybreak.
    Ergo, Daybreak was SOE, you just described the whole process.

    Quillim said:
    if you think Daybreak was the equivalent of say Verant.. you were misinformed.
    I never said nor even hinted that Daybreak was in any way the equivalent of Verant Interactive, wherever did you get such a silly notion.
    svann
  • TibbzTibbz Member UncommonPosts: 613
    NO, if i want to play with myself (snicker) i would play a regular RPG... boxers kill it IMO

    image
  • Nightbringe1Nightbringe1 Member UncommonPosts: 1,335
    edited May 2017
    @DMKano Whatever they did to stop it in EQ1 on their progression servers helped a ton.

    Maybe there weren't any "serious" multi-boxers playing, idk.

    But the multi-boxers running 6+ mages and killing raid bosses solo no longer seemed to happen. 

    Also, if boxing was against the rules and someone bypassed the system in order to run many multiple accounts, it'd be pretty obvious and GM could intervene.


    They added code that decreased the effectiveness of pets as the number of pets on a raid target increased.

    A shame really, because when I put together a group of mages + one shaman to hit a target, there were six real people involved.

    Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
    Benjamin Franklin

  • Nightbringe1Nightbringe1 Member UncommonPosts: 1,335
    How do you discourage it? Only allow one account per IP? Arent you jsut hurting your sales that way? Also I really dont foresee this game getting millions of players...I'd guesstimate 100k is about as high as it will get....its an old school game aimed at an old school crowd.

    One account per IP would kill a lot of potential customers. It would, for example, prevent a husband/wife duo from playing.

    Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
    Benjamin Franklin

Sign In or Register to comment.