|
Post by buddhamind on Dec 3, 2017 6:26:26 GMT
Multiboxing itself is fine, though I question the sanity of its practitioners. I have one alt account and don't really enjoy trying to manage two characters at once. What I despise is antisocial behavior. Examples: - Shouting that a run is full, despite multiple bots in party - Botted "cores" (What run are you doing exactly?) taking priority over real live people (when the rest of the party just really doesn't want to play druid again, but you can't fathom going without immute) - Starting a run from !tells only and not making an effort to include the general populace of HG For me, HG is first and foremost about socializing. I can go minmax a solo RPG, or something like Path of Exile if I want that grinding feeling. But as long as keys are consumable items, botting will always have a place and time.
|
|
|
Post by chirality on Dec 3, 2017 8:08:19 GMT
after reading poli new thread, here's a final troll post to tie things up nicely so ppl can move there for serious discussion. i think it's important to draw clear line between "possibility of new EE server being fresh vault" vs "possibility of current vault getting wiped". as best as we can tell atm, the latter is about zero possibility. altho it was listed in acaos options, i think it's pretty clear (due funky's posts + overwhelming public opinion) that "classic" hg vault will never be wiped. i think a lot of the hubbub arose from some fear of this occurring but it seems like there was never much question of a WIPE!! , just: will the vault exist in EE server. i know, maybe there's a feeling like "well if i cant play my old vault in ee it might as well be wiped" but ofc ur old stuff is still gonna be here, and if u care about it that much, just continue playing it? it seems like a feeling of wanting the cake and eat it too: keep all the old stuff and enjoy influx of potential newbies drawn by EE release/buzz. or if not the latter, what's the fear? that fellow hg playmates will leave u behind with all ur amassed wealth, so u have to make choice of either moving to EE with them and starting over or stay in "old hg" without them? imo this is a fine test of what really matters to you as a player (as a person and as a gamer, of which there are demonstrable various archetypes of each), and shouldn't cause any hurt feelings or bruised egos. if "reader" is afraid of being left behind in a dying legacy hg server, surrounded by the crumbling trappings of former glory, with more material possessions and tags than friends, well, some comments on that: 1) so basically same as now rite hg already dying, what's the difference tbh 2) lot of ppl multibox already, it's the hottest new buzz on forums, check it out so they can farm their own runs, isn't that the whole point? enjoy hg to urself, that's what u wanted the whole time rite, u suck too bad to box anything important by urself but look at all the years of practice u could get, u'll be the next polinuka 3) true pals would come back to login on classic hg for ur sake and help u complete those runs u cant do imo it's a matter of damaged pride, get over it. or what will you do when acaos or funky suddenly pulls the plug? how long do u really think this honeymoon was going to last? i know, i know, funky claim(s/ed) years to come, but let's be realistic, checking webdash other than east coast primetime / DT run is whispering "it's dead, jim" in ur ear. even if hosting stays up till 5th trump presidency, really doubtful ppl still gonna be as enthused to play in numbers of even now, let alone 2 yrs ago, let alone 2 yrs before that, etc etc. so u still gonna have to deal with the same pain and suffering when instead of losing all ur friends to EE u lose all ur friends to stop playing period, and ur in same position of logging in to look all ur kewl years of effort and fun and have no one to share it with; better hurry up boxing more, git gud kid. i'm sure if i stayed on "hg classic" while rest of hgbuds went to EE, i'd still be able to beg them to log in like old times and help me (considering even with 1 version of HG atm and ppl can barely match free times/motivated mood to play already, asking someone to help do ness or prince fight once per 8mos post-EE should be about same as now), and any other guild should be able to say the same imo, or is the problem that the regular guild runs can only be on one server at a time, the ppl wanting to play on EE would have to make a huuuuuge sacrifice to help the classic-addicted mate once in a while and the classic-addicted mate would have to make a huuuuge sacrifice by rolling a new toon to help the EE crowd as they push toward LLs? i saw some resentment directed at people that are inactive now but it's strange to see it coming from ppl that were inactive or nonexistent back when current inactives were playing a lot, horse is a lil high imo. funny vocal opposition to come from ppl that were absent for many years and returned fairly recently, or started playing after inactive guy went on hiatus.... where were u last 5 years when community was struggling! and pug scene was disappearing! and DMs were exiled to permahades! and blacklisters ran rampant across the server! with elitism reigning supreme!while poor nubvets and newbies alike suffered mightily? ppl come back and start playing again, or new player transformed to vet, playing a lot lately, and feel more invested so afraid to "lose it"...but check the forums, no one was poking fingers at disappeared vets or potential new players that were busy in 2013 on other NWN servers/other games for leaving server to wither and die, it was "ppl get older, married/kids, new jobs, times change, oh well, sux those ppl are gone but that's life, new players are hard to stumble on, nwn is dying game, new player rarely will appear", but now if active players-turned-forum lurkers appear they're to be scorned? zzz, cmon. to compound the comedy wrt current multiboxing drama, ppl returned from long hiatus with a tiny fraction of the loot that boxers acquired in 2-3 years, heh.
|
|
|
Post by blazingezus on Dec 3, 2017 20:08:12 GMT
Being a player who has returned to the server about a year a go who didn't bot in the past and doesn't bot now: I have no problem with people using bots. I remember when the only bots on the server were mules that carried loot because of bank issues. I have ranted on this server regarding bots (which I would like to forget) because I would see high level runs with 2-3 people running bots to fill the party without calling for a run. Some players would prefer to fill out a party with bots instead of giving real players a chance at the run. That is the problem I have.
Some players give the "lack of skill" excuse for not using real players for certain runs. How can a player gain the necessary knowledge and skill doing runs when it's difficult to obtain that skill without being given the chance to learn the area. I understand there are players here who have played for 10yrs or more who know most levels and spawns like the back of their hands. I have been on runs with those players as they call out spawning points during the run. People can use all the bots they want for all I care, but excluding live players because of their lack of skill only keeps those players from getting better.
It's like they want players to have the weaknesses of the individual beasts in the game memorized before attempting higher levels. I personally am unable to advance because it's my understanding certain gear is needed for higher levels. So my lack of knowledge, skill, and gear keeps me from advancing. It's hard enough to complete one round of hell to become demi(twice in 1yr). I have been back most of this year playing as consistently as I can, but I'm 47 I have a job and other RL obligations, and I feel I'm being penalized because I can't devote hours upon hours needed to be as skilled of a player as others. Bot all you want as far as I'm concerned, all I ask is to be given a chance to play in place of a bot.
|
|
|
Post by darkwaffle on Dec 4, 2017 18:13:33 GMT
I've done some dualboxing years ago to farm PHs, Wisdom Artis and assorted LL set gear/secrets/etc. Barring some bizarro scenario where server slots are maxxed and alts are taking up space over real players I don't think actually outlawing or restricting them is a good idea. Some people just want to play at their own pace, some just play at bad times, some just don't want to have to risk rolling low when a thing that they want finally drops - and multiboxing helps fill those valid niches.
I think the crux of the problem is that parties or players that are experienced enough to already competently complete a run often do not have much incentive to include additional players. I don't begrudge them this certainly, I've done it too, since more players means worse odds at the loot roll, greater chance of mistakes being made and often do not make a run significantly faster nor easier when so much of the module can already be killed instantly. I think this manifests in players choosing to simply play with themselves (phrasing) to maximize rewards and fairly frequent unannounced runs which give the perception that they are not 'open' or that other players are not invited. Totally within their right to do so imo - but what can we do so that those parties are encouraged to be more proactive about engaging other players?
I think the most important aspect to address would be the prospect of loot as it relates to additional players. Short of a severe screw-up on splitting or party KB enemies (note: I haven't been to Limbo or done Abyss in ages so maybe I'm forgetting some stuff) I don't think additional players really pose much threat to party success and inviting additional players that do not really 'improve' the party is more of a neutral than negative influence and I think would be easily outweighed by an appropriate incentive. So, ignoring for the moment XP* and 'fun', what can you give players that makes them want to (or at least willing to) invite more people when considering that it effectively reduces their odds of getting an item they want? The only idea I come back to is some kind of token system - some sort of static, incremental reward that is guaranteed upon completing a run. Maybe it can be exchanged for a set item from the zone for the token or maybe the tokens are zone agnostic and can simply purchase set items for which you are tagged or maybe they purchase BURs like Canopics purchase XRs. I do think that the tokens and/or items obtained from them might need to be character bound however. Or maybe something else altogether - but I do think the heart of the matter is finding/giving parties an incentive to engage more players.
*Though I think if players could 'bank' XP past 125M to 'build' reincarnation slots that might be attractive to some.
|
|
|
Post by woqued on Dec 4, 2017 21:41:59 GMT
I've done some dualboxing years ago to farm PHs, Wisdom Artis and assorted LL set gear/secrets/etc. Barring some bizarro scenario where server slots are maxxed and alts are taking up space over real players I don't think actually outlawing or restricting them is a good idea. Some people just want to play at their own pace, some just play at bad times, some just don't want to have to risk rolling low when a thing that they want finally drops - and multiboxing helps fill those valid niches. I think the crux of the problem is that parties or players that are experienced enough to already competently complete a run often do not have much incentive to include additional players. I don't begrudge them this certainly, I've done it too, since more players means worse odds at the loot roll, greater chance of mistakes being made and often do not make a run significantly faster nor easier when so much of the module can already be killed instantly. I think this manifests in players choosing to simply play with themselves (phrasing) to maximize rewards and fairly frequent unannounced runs which give the perception that they are not 'open' or that other players are not invited. Totally within their right to do so imo - but what can we do so that those parties are encouraged to be more proactive about engaging other players? I think the most important aspect to address would be the prospect of loot as it relates to additional players. Short of a severe screw-up on splitting or party KB enemies (note: I haven't been to Limbo or done Abyss in ages so maybe I'm forgetting some stuff) I don't think additional players really pose much threat to party success and inviting additional players that do not really 'improve' the party is more of a neutral than negative influence and I think would be easily outweighed by an appropriate incentive. So, ignoring for the moment XP* and 'fun', what can you give players that makes them want to (or at least willing to) invite more people when considering that it effectively reduces their odds of getting an item they want? The only idea I come back to is some kind of token system - some sort of static, incremental reward that is guaranteed upon completing a run. Maybe it can be exchanged for a set item from the zone for the token or maybe the tokens are zone agnostic and can simply purchase set items for which you are tagged or maybe they purchase BURs like Canopics purchase XRs. I do think that the tokens and/or items obtained from them might need to be character bound however. Or maybe something else altogether - but I do think the heart of the matter is finding/giving parties an incentive to engage more players. *Though I think if players could 'bank' XP past 125M to 'build' reincarnation slots that might be attractive to some. Nice post. I like it! Some notes: - The glaring exception in terms of more players potentially being detrimental outside demicount is Limbo, where having more players increases spawn size and shackling is worse than in other areas (anarchic aura bosses apply pens even through GR) - particularly in part 2 bringing a new player(s) along is most certainly detrimental to success rate (or more precisely, the fun due too high % of a spawn becoming a slog) of the run, unless they are extremely quick learners and are in a very stacked group to begin with, and the monsters are pretty freaky with immunities so there are certain complete loser classes / weapon choices for the run (which may work but hardly pull the weight of them increasing spawn size as is discussed to some extent here). - I really like the idea of set loot increasing with playercount - I've been hoping for the idea being implemented in some way myself as well, and always found 10 man party set loot prospects horrible. I.e set drops would have a certain % to drop based on amount of players on the run, capping at 10 players if the max party size is deemed appropriate at 10 (I'd prefer less for multiple reasons but that's preference and wouldn't impose it on others even if it'd make sense in some ways). > Example: out of 4 items one drops at end chest for 4 people: at 7 people there is a 50% chance to get two items out of the 4 instead of one, at 10 players there would be 100% chance to get two items. Or some other variation - at 7 people you have 50% to get 2 items, and at 10 players you roll 50% for 2nd item and 50% for 3rd item. You get the idea. - Or just a token system as you suggested somewhat akin to Canopics from Limbo, but instead of XR items you buy set items from that area (perhaps only applicable for Hells/Abyss/Ely/Abos/Limbo). I really like that idea as someone who farmed certain areas extremely extensively and never looted the object of attraction - ended up getting them by some other way - friendly charity, extreme overpay or something else. Felt pretty bad to spend over a hundred hours for a single specific goal and fail due to bad luck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2017 22:02:58 GMT
While it's true that usually having more human players won't increase the chance of failing the run, it can slow it down dramatically. 1) There is a tendency for players to wait in Zerial's Workshop for ages while a group is gathered and roles are decided, I absolutely hate this delay. 2) Bigger groups lead to chaotic, uncoordinated battles which end up being far slower than a small, in-sync group. 3-4 toons working closely together make it very easy to Curse/NB/Prayer/Battletide every target and then bring them down almost instantly; with 9-10 toons there are bigger randoms, more splitting and generally more confusion.
Consider something like Malbolge where 1-2 decent multi-boxers can comfortably finish the run from login-to-tag in ~30 mins, while a PUG run will usually have at least 30 mins in the Workshop and then an additional 45 mins in the run itself (on a good day)... overall, more than double the time required for the same run.
---
It's *very* tricky to create a token system to incentivise having more players in the party (ie: reducing the 'penalty' for bringing more players) without incentivizing multi-boxing even more. Canopics in Limbo is probably the best existing example of this, the run is primarily a multi-boxer haven.
There is probably a way to get the balance right, but I am not sure what that model would be.
|
|
|
Post by chainlink on Dec 5, 2017 12:32:01 GMT
It's really tricky as the randoms can cause significant issues and would almost be better if they were to be inversely proportional to the amount of real players in a run, however that would lead to small numbers of players potentially getting more randoms (therefore loot) which assuming they can handle them makes it more desirable to do low player number runs..........back to square one. If it were possible to increase incentives for maximum party size with no 'botted' characters rather than punishing lower numbers you're more likely to achieve the inclusion goals desired. It is also a bit disheartening when you log on for a called run only to find the 10th person has just joined and you're out (yes this does still happen occasionally), could we increase max party size to 12 for certain runs or would that turn the tide significantly in favor of the players vs the mobs?
|
|
|
Post by darkwaffle on Dec 5, 2017 17:50:03 GMT
I think somehow rewarding parties directly for containing more unique human players would be a really solid idea but it seems like logic to determine whether a character is currently unique or a duplicate is problematic. IP address is possible but then if the incentive is attractive enough the door remains open for potential abuse. A database recording unique combinations of accounts+keys could potentially group them into 'players' but seems awfully heavy handed. We could put up a voluntary registry of alt accounts? lol.
Undoubtedly - a guaranteed reward would inevitably benefit multi-boxing as well. But I think making them character or account bound could help mitigate it because one of the reasons Canopics are so alluring for multi-boxing is that you're able to aggregate them so that the time until you, the player, is rewarded is reduced dramatically by multiboxing. If a reward system is instead bound then the player's reward is decentralized into accounts/characters and backloaded rather than incremental. So the player's average reward over time wouldn't change - but I think how it feels would. If you wanted to earn enough tokens to turn in for X then instead of getting X after two runs on ten accounts you would rather get 10 X after twenty runs on ten accounts (which also puts them on even footing with an individual player where X requires twenty runs). You might even consider making X as well as the token to obtain X bound.
|
|
|
Post by buddhamind on Dec 5, 2017 19:37:57 GMT
How about this: Characters that are idle for a certain amount of time do not get XP or tags.
Not sure if this is a bad idea. New Zealanders should get to experience HG too. 😁
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2017 20:51:24 GMT
I think the aim of this thread was just to discuss the issue in the context of how it should be addressed *IF* there was a wipe, not necessarily to try and address it in the current iteration of HG. I don't think that dual-boxing is a major issue; although it's strong, many posters have demonstrated good reasons for it (and note that most of the arguments supporting 'multi-boxing' are just referring to dual-boxing bonuses). I haven't seen many good reasons for triple-and-above boxing yet, especially since several players have admitted that they can't actively play more than two at once anyway. The three attempts at justification that I've seen are:
At the most superficial level, it does seem kind of frail. If there was a technique which lets Nessus be beaten in 60 minutes, should it be in the game because some players have busy lives and can only spare 60 minutes to play a run? It may be reasonable in their case, but the issue is that the technique still exists during high-traffic periods - not exactly a balanced or sustainable solution. This is a complicated one to discuss though; combined with low server numbers, the situation is probably *worsened* by the ability to use triple-and-above boxing. I don't think Aus/NZ players are some total oddity, in 2-3 days there's been like 7+ Aus/NZ posters commenting on how few Aus/NZ players there are. Perhaps if none of us were able to solo the runs in the first place, we would have felt the *need* to make a legit guild or plan scheduled runs by now (instead just soloing in our own time). With dual-boxing available, it would only take 2-3 players to make most runs happen anyway. Food for thought?
As I mentioned at the top, this isn't the aim of the topic; it would only be restricted in a setting where everyone starts off on similar footing. Still, I think this argument could have applied to every nerf in existence (eg: don't nerf Abyss gold-piles because I didn't have time to farm it pre-nerf).
Don't think this needs an explanation on why this one is silly and unfair to players who don't utilize triple-and-above boxing themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Test on Dec 5, 2017 22:14:49 GMT
This is a complicated one to discuss though; combined with low server numbers, the situation is probably *worsened* by the ability to use triple-and-above boxing. I don't think Aus/NZ players are some total oddity, in 2-3 days there's been like 7+ Aus/NZ posters commenting on how few Aus/NZ players there are. Perhaps if none of us were able to solo the runs in the first place, we would have felt the *need* to make a legit guild or plan scheduled runs by now (instead just soloing in our own time). With dual-boxing available, it would only take 2-3 players to make most runs happen anyway. You do understand that several Oz/NZ posters have not been in game in a long time because of how bad the situation is in our timezone? The tone of your comments comes across as what our (NZ) newspapers often refers to as the inability of those in densely populated spaces to understand the lifeways of those in the back blocks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2017 22:18:40 GMT
You do understand that several Oz/NZ posters have not been in game in a long time because of how bad the situation is in our timezone? The tone of your comments comes across as what our (NZ) newspapers often refers to as the inability of those in densely populated spaces to understand the lifeways of those in the back blocks. I've lived in Australia for most of my life (in Brisbane for the last 3 years) so I am one of those "Oz/NZ posters". That's why I chose to use ' us' and 'we' words there. ----- I think many readers of the multi-boxing threads have entirely missed the point. I'll try and break it down: 1) Triple-and-above boxing offers a legitimate choice between soloing and partying in endgame areas 2) For a skilled player, triple-and-above boxing is vastly more efficient than partying, both in time and rewards 3) If triple-and-above boxing is restricted, then partying will become the most efficient option If partying is the most efficient option then people who would otherwise be soloing (for whatever reason) will put in extra effort to form parties - because they need to. This is the core point that Raj's post was trying to communicate. My previous post was trying to explain that for low-traffic areas, that 'extra effort' would probably have included formal guilds and/or scheduled runs. They don't really exist now because there is no need for it, since there is a very effective soloing option available instead.
|
|
|
Post by Retribution on Dec 6, 2017 2:09:22 GMT
We actually used to have a semi active aus/NZ guild (back before you joined poli). It relied heavily on myself and a friend playing cores, and the guild activity was heavily correlated with our school/uni holidays. Organising things was also a lot of work, and if people didn't show it messed around a lot of people. Also I should note I didn't feel the timezone pinch nearly as much until I started work, as I lost time flexibility and also had reduced free time. I started to wonder if several hours of admin for several hours of play is worth it when i only have 10 hours per week... maybe i am better off spending all 10 hours elsewhere. All a bit off topic anyway, and even though I did multibox (I wasn't that good, I could do hells apart from nessus and some early abyss) I would be in favour of restricting it if we see a boost in players. None of my favourite memories are from boxing, they are all from runs with friends. I only multiboxxed to try to keep up with my friends in other timezones. There would need to be a decent bump in numbers though. 9 years ago there were many more players in the aus/NZ timezone and we weren't boxing, but it didn't result in guilds and selflessness, people just left (frustration) or started to multi-box. This is after all a lesisure activity, and we have to be careful that solutions we hope might materialise dont feel like work.
Edit: just to clarify, I support all 3 points. More than dual box is excessive, currently the rewards for botting make it too attractive, and that we need to make partying a more rewarding option. I am just trying to caution that the assumption that if people can't multibox then the need for parties will cause parties to form. There is an alternative option, where it all seems too hard and they don't play at all. I would have left many years ago had I not had multibox, not because I didn't prefer to party, but the work in making parties exceeded my "work threshold", so I boxxed even when it was *possible* to make a party to do some run, because the actual alternative to botting was me not playing. Again, I support a restriction on multibox if the player numbers are increased.. it would be fantastic if the EE bought enough players we could go back to queueing to get into the server.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2017 2:38:53 GMT
Great post Scott, thanks. I am just trying to caution that the assumption that if people can't multibox then the need for parties will cause parties to form. There is an alternative option, where it all seems too hard and they don't play at all. To be fair, two dual-boxers (4 toons) is sufficient for the majority of Hell/Abyss. So in this instance, "parties" means finding *one* other player - not a major hurdle. Two dual-boxer Abyss runs make up some of my fondest HG memories.
|
|
|
Post by Test on Dec 6, 2017 3:29:50 GMT
We actually used to have a semi active aus/NZ guild (back before you joined poli). Maelstrom of Darkness. A few of the remaining Oz/NZ players are from it (Addo, Ebony and myself). the actual alternative to botting was me not playing. And unfortunately, in the Oz/NZ timeslot, these threads have already resulted in that outcome for one of the strongest botters (obviously not me given my lag issues). That will make run formation so much harder as it was a person who makes many if not most of our runs happen. I am however wondering if I would not be better off just returning to the other game given the Oz/NZ timeslot issues, the seeming growing desire to remove botting and the groundswell of enthusiasm for EE vault wipes. Funky's comments are the only thing that have held me back from reactivating my account there. (The amount of time I'm spending in the Chathams at present is another factor in my current absence.)
|
|