Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2017 3:45:41 GMT
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). Some threads discussing the idea of an EE upgrade (not even the current iteration of HG) including nerfs to triple-and-above multi-boxing (a tool that is only necessary for solo play) are causing people to quit the game? Why? I'll add that my own suggestion for an EE upgrade ( here) tries to reconcile the different wants of players; my intention is for people who want to continue multi-boxing with their existing toons to be able to do so in EE. So what's the issue?
|
|
|
Post by tank on Dec 26, 2017 12:09:08 GMT
nice challenging run - completely nullified by multiboxing
|
|
|
Post by Methes on Dec 26, 2017 16:58:28 GMT
Why not scale loot rewards in proportion to number of run participants? With multiboxing not allowed that would be great incentive for people to play together as they'd divide more loot = more randomization chances. Right now runs are more difficult to force people playing together which is problematic with low population.
|
|
|
Post by desocupado on Dec 27, 2017 13:00:24 GMT
Well, what if we support multiple players better instead?
1 - Don't make any area scale with the number of players or demigodhood interactions (more people is always welcome, as lon as they listen to guidelines like no run spawn) 2 - Have the old demigodhood difficulty to scale with average party level instead (suggestion 1,25 demigodhood for each level above 60) - don't scale loot drops this way 3 - Use personal loot drops exclusively (like elemental planes and feywild) 4 - Have set loot as personal drops (what each player gets doesn't affect others) 5 - Remove item pick restrictions (asmo, artifacts)
This removes loot split drama and difficulty increase drama.
|
|
|
Post by arek on Dec 28, 2017 18:09:15 GMT
One option here would be to allow 2 connections from 1 IP before considering extra connections to be "bots". For families, having a way to manually register them and not ever have the related accounts count as bots would also be nice. I also think that incentives for taking extra players instead of bots would be better than punishing bots, unless you caught someone circumventing the IP restrictions, ofc. -- arek
|
|
|
Post by Raj on Dec 28, 2017 18:39:39 GMT
In practice there're so few couples playing from same connection that just 1 IP limit - and manual register for exceptions - would work. Me and my imaginary friend will keep play together no matter what else.
It'd be way better to simply not add loot/lower dropchances if additional players share the same IP (and aren't on the lovelist), to still allow for helpers but prevent the mechanic abuse for solo runs. That, and better loot for real parties (atm it scales for every 2 additional partymembers up to 7 but doesn't care if bot or real).
|
|
|
Post by condude on Dec 28, 2017 21:34:49 GMT
Just make it so that a character that doesn't take any action for 30 seconds is automatically killed.
|
|
|
Post by Raj on Dec 28, 2017 21:59:39 GMT
I think action-usefulness check for bots is going to hit many 'legit' players
|
|
|
Post by dopplegang on Dec 29, 2017 0:36:47 GMT
Just make it so that a character that doesn't take any action for 30 seconds is automatically killed. One good bathroom break and you party wipe?
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Dec 29, 2017 2:42:59 GMT
One option here would be to allow 2 connections from 1 IP before considering extra connections to be "bots". This is the most likely approach we would take. Next most likely is just treat more than 1 as bots, so far as loot/xp are concerned. Preserves incentives to invite others while allowing runs to still be completed. Not ideal for those who can't do them otherwise, though. Funky
|
|
|
Post by Enius the White on Dec 29, 2017 4:19:23 GMT
Families are actually not entirely uncommon on HG, especially in the lower level ranges.
We have 4 accounts, with up to 4 distinct players here (same IP). Most commonly 2-3 of us have played together over the years, and I also commonly used 1 of those accounts to run a bard or cleric bot on some end game HC runs when needed.
From my experience, bots have filled some critical class holes, allowing runs to happen. I think that this is a legitimate, productive resource for the server, and it would be a shame to loose that compelling run forming utility.
I've never run in a party containing a bot when an additional player was an alternative. If this is occurring, it would clearly be undesirable on a couple of fronts.
|
|
|
Post by madzapper on Dec 29, 2017 5:06:51 GMT
Depending on how you connect, IP's can be very unreliable. There are several people that use multiple pc's. Any extra pc can run a different vpn to get a different IP. Any phone here can provide a different IP address, and there are also other cellular options available. Additionally, it's quite possible for a pc to have multiple ethernet cards.
IMHO The best way to make IP address matter is by making it only one of many metrics to weight on the legitimacy of a toon. In combination with proximity to combat, whether or not the toon is in GS, if the toon has moved, multiple useful actions depending on the type of toon. This is something a user could likely keep up for two or theree toons, but for 10, it would become very difficult over time.
The obvious problem with bot-detection is that it is that it's going to take a lot of programming to get right, and then it will take a lot of processing as well to detect.
It makes more sense to me to have users flag their own accounts as being extra accounts.
People that share their accounts are one thing (I didn't think we were supposed to do that?), but it seems like a much less intensive method would be to flag accounts as all belonging to the same person.. something like the following.
Log in with account "account1" - !acct madzapper
Log in with account "account2" - !acct madzapper
...
Log in with account "account 28" !acct madzapper
Alternatively this could be done with cd-key, or cd-key + account
With that in place, you could then detect extra accounts with much less intensive checking. People know what to expect, programming could be done to deal with extra accounts in a regular fashion. i.e. ability to note on webdash. Allow only one toon to be primary.
Make it mandatory to flag your account with penalties similar to regular breaking-the-rules. We can surely self-police this until we actually have a problem with it.
.02
** EDIT ** The intent would be that that account belongs to a master account. Once done it would be forever done for the entire account.
|
|
|
Post by chirality on Dec 29, 2017 6:59:26 GMT
simply not add loot/lower dropchances if additional players share the same IP (and aren't on the lovelist), to still allow for helpers but prevent the mechanic abuse for solo runs. That, and better loot for real parties (atm it scales for every 2 additional partymembers up to 7 but doesn't care if bot or real). this. there's really not any more satisfactory and less problematic solution to be found. this idea drives directly and immediately at the root issues: --the multibox "problem" -> Whether for greed or simple cost:benefit analysis, the question of "to box or not to box" is useless and meaningless; when the option exists under the current system, the "choice" is illusory --the multibox "question" -> How to adversely impact multiboxer loot while not adversely impacting run formation/progress? by negating the "undesirable" motivation for multiboxing (loot), and leaving the "reasonable" motivation (tag) unscathed. the more complex the scheme, the worse it is. this simple and effective adjustment is no more and no less than necessary. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I'd add that levers should be removed. It's an ugly and outdated "balance" mechanic that long ago lost any meaning it may have once held, and exists now only as a "punishment" for the few players that don't have a 2nd account.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2017 10:02:10 GMT
Raj's idea is best. Anything which prevents multi-boxing ultimately hurts the server more than helps. Remove the bonus for added loot chances for bots in party, so if players want the bonus, you add humans. This won't impact set drops either way which ensures players can still get value from a run.
I think anyone wanting to remove multi-boxing is being ignorant to the varied timezones and playtimes of the players on the server and are grossly overestimating what population buffs will come with EE. Multi-boxing is core facet of getting runs going. And while everyone does it differently, and the quality and the ability of those doing it also varies, it is essential to run formation. Ruining that only hurts the server. There is no way around it. We should be offering incentives, big ones, for human parties > bots. But, removing bots is not the solution.
Make it so worth it to players forming runs to have other players in their party, that it's WORTH it to fill the slot, if able, with any other living player, than it is not to have them there. That fixes your problem. Not removing boxing.
|
|
|
Post by madzapper on Dec 29, 2017 15:28:24 GMT
The need for multiboxers to have 2+ high level toons on different accounts also made them farm xp on their own. You can spot those guys 6-10 manning legendary level runs only to get xp quicker. More often than not, they're not shouting the run because a true newbie is slowing them down with unnecessary rests/deaths, or they haven't the patience to teach them the run so "sit there in GS, don't die" is common practice. These runs are all but a good thing for new people trying to get to the end game: they get a lot of xp fast sure, but learn next to nothing if a level 80 sorc is carrying 5 fresh immo bot tanks plus you in GS. Most of the time it's Desert/Dustbone or PoM runs with very little good loot, so even if the carry player is feeling generous (usually they reserve the keys/unique drops tho) you risk getting at Hell levels far from being "Hells-ready". Okay, so I reread this and damn, IMHO it's a little judgy and presumptuous. I guess I'm one of the "6-10" man LL run "guys", farming LL runs for XP. It is true I often take arcane + cleric + bard plus a toon or two into Desert and Dustbone and I don't see a lot of other people doing it. You're certainly welcome to have your opinion, but be serious for a second. You don't know other players motivations for playing and you shouldn't just presume crap about other players and post it like it's gospel. I'm always working on one or two toons. I will generally try to join other groups with the toons I am working on first before I start a run. I actually run around to servers asking if I can join parties. I call runs sometimes, and sometimes I don't call runs. It has more to do with whether I'm playing hard or semi-afk watching tv while spinning my wheels. I don't turn people away and I don't require them to sit in GS. I use the cleric and bard because people are very squishy in the low 40's to early 50's. I encourage people to play, and there is almost always some sort of synergy that happens when they do. Sometimes they do sit in GS and chat or ask questions. More often than not, they play. In my experience, most players, especially new players, want to contribute to the run. If they play well enough, I drop the wizard, cleric, and/or bard and jump on my other toon. I frequently ask them questions as well if I notice something, and give advice if I see they are struggling. It is NOT uncommon for me to drop the desert run and hop to something else like Myco or Fey to allow them to contribute more or to get them gear that will help them like the spell pen cloak. I even bail on my runs to go do super-lowbie stuff when people need it! A lot of times, people are just stuck in some way and need a little nudge to get over the hurdle. As a random idea tossed here, even if multiboxing is left as an option, now that we have the shakling mechanic all the LL runs should be limited (drastically reduced xp, no special-loot like the PH in toyshop, so we have a precedent, while the option to do the run with levels 55+ for fun is still there) to a certain level range to avoid such forms of drag. If you think that I'm being too meany with less skilled players, who can't imagine doing Sissy without a 70+ PM carrying them (and find it fun), know that the same players are only delaying the future halt in progression, when they won't be able to contribute to higher level runs because they learnt and looted next to nothing in the level-appropriate content. And the multiboxers who dragged them won't be there, because they still don't need them, but this time there's worthy loot they don't want to share. I like this idea in principle, hate it in practice. Shackling requires a separate set of gear and dramatically impacts some classes. It's not bad for sorcerors, but other casters get a royal shaft. For me, it's easier to make another toon and lock it at the appropriate level with the correct gear for the run. On the topic of multi-boxing, I'm neither for or against it. It won't hurt my game either way. It will probably make me play LL levels less though which from the sounds of it might be better regardless. Cheers
|
|