Boxing

[Ninewood]

sorry but removal of follow will do nothing to boxing. i for one don't even use follow.

you all believe that funcom will reverse its policy on this. i find that hard to understand as I see no reason for fc to do that. they did not during a community outcry where people quite. economically its nonsense. population wise its nonsense. but fine. but at least try to imagine that this will NOT change, that your hope for a policy change for no reason will not happen. your believe is strong enough to not even consider this possibility? well, i guess then there's no point to this.

and if i may add: you are very clearly making the mistake that was so often done in similar situations. if you cannot see that - there is nothing left to be said. if the reason not to adjust ao development to something that is clearly an issue, been around for a long time and quite certainly will not go away is that you still hope its going away - well. /thread.

[Raggy]

sorry but removal of follow will do nothing to boxing. i for one don't even use follow.

you all believe that funcom will reverse its policy on this. i find that hard to understand as I see no reason for fc to do that. they did not during a community outcry where people quite. economically its nonsense. population wise its nonsense. but fine. but at least try to imagine that this will NOT change, that your hope for a policy change for no reason will not happen. your believe is strong enough to not even consider this possibility? well, i guess then there's no point to this.

Because embracing it will kill the game for those who don't multibox.

Because changing the policy will kill the game for multiboxers.

Because the only winning move is to not play.

[Saetos]

No, there isn't. Your idea falls under the entire purview that FunCom never, ever changes the policy on this nor considers the current and eventual ramifications of perpetuating this. Thus the arguments and thus the lack of progress on your idea. So no.

[Ninewood]

Because embracing it will kill the game for those who don't multibox.

Because changing the policy will kill the game for multiboxers.

Because the only winning move is to not play.

you clearly did not read what i wrote, so ... to lay it out for you again: embracing it=developing ao in a way to deal with it=controling it=making the life for people who don't box BETTER, not worse. thank you.


@saetos: no. my argument is that it makes no sense for funcom to reverse the policy, not that they don't for the sake of not doing it. please, this has been a respectful argument, don't make points up i never said. and if i may add: this whole discussion of whether they change it or not is pure speculation. it is here. it did not change. will it? you don't know, i don't know. but to refuse to think about the issue in the hope that it'll go away even though it didn't...that's like hiding under the blanket to make the monster go away.

[Raggy]

you clearly did not read what i wrote, so ... to lay it out for you again: embracing it=developing ao in a way to deal with it=controling it=making the life for people who don't box BETTER, not worse. thank you.


@saetos: no. my argument is that it makes no sense for funcom to reverse the policy, not that they don't for the sake of not doing it. please, this has been a respectful argument, don't make points up i never said.

I've read everything you've said, even two or three times in some cases. None of what you say will benefit people who don't multibox.

Counter my reasoning with legitimate points not just wavy arm flim flam.

[Ninewood]

I've read everything you've said, even two or three times in some cases. None of what you say will benefit people who don't multibox.

Counter my reasoning with legitimate points not just wavy arm flim flam.

designing instances that cannot be done by a single box won't benefit non-boxers? limiting the amount of toons from one ip on nw field won't benefit non-boxers? being able to control boxing won't benefit non-boxers? please reason why this is not benefiting non-boxers, in particular if compared to the situation at hand. you first miss the concept of this thread and now get aggressive and borderline insulting. way to go.

[Raggy]

designing instances that cannot be done by a single box won't benefit non-boxers?

No, because that would be mechanically impossible or needlessly convoluted for everyone else.

limiting the amount of toons from one ip on nw field won't benefit non-boxers?

No, because I live in a house where 3 people play AO and all of them PvP.

being able to control boxing won't benefit non-boxers? please reason why this is not benefiting non-boxers, in particular if compared to the situation at hand. you first miss the concept of this thread and now get aggressive and borderline insulting. way to go.

No, I don't miss the concept of the thread, you miss the fact that multiboxing is something that can't be combated without fixing the problem at the core.

[Caloss2]

I may run out of T-shirts on this thread.

[Roscoe]

Ha, threads gold.

[Anonimofied]

i want to tell a real story that happened during ao lifetime, and hopefully this will enlightens some people.

once upon a time in a kingdom far far away there was some videogame geeks who dont know that videogames is to play and have fun. but instead they takes videogames dead serious and seems to forgot what is realand what is virtuality by treating eachother as real enemies, and fling poos at eachother etc.
one day a unidentified man had to step up to reminds these dead serious videogaming geeks that eventhough we all doing things differently, and looks differents on the surface but at the sametime we all are so much alike beneath. we all needs to eat, drinks, poop our bodies contains the same important organs like heart, brain, livers and lungs and it doesnt matter who you are or where you are from, we are all citizens of the earth.
later that evening some understand others dont understand while most people dont care what this unidentified was talking about.
however all of them doesnt matter if they understands or believes or not, they all will continue living their lifes happilyever after ...

[Ninewood]

this thread has turned hostile and left all reasoning behind by page 3 the latest. it's amazing how irrational people still are about this.

/thread and /game as far as i am concerned.

[Gargle]

I have some T-shirts for sale.

Drugs are here to stay, people don't like it and complain about it, lets face it it won't go away, the drug life isn't easy and crying doesn't help. The decision has be made (by the AO worst GD in the history of the game) Drugs add complexity to the game and make it interesting again; I guess I just don't like the concept to begin with.

Alaska becomes latest state to legalize multiboxing use

[Anonimofied]

To be continued of the previous true story that happened during ao lifetime:

After unidentified poped in the last incident it appears two players name Ninewood and Gargle who expressed their concernings and feelings about the state of the forum and the game while gargle seems not to care much and wanted to smoke a spliff to forget what kind of place we are living in and what types of humans we have to deal with ondaily basis without knowing that theres two types of drugs categoriesed as soft drugs and heavy drugs, the goverment in most countries only allows the shops to sell softdrugs with bellow 15% thc which is like smoking air but for most people they can pass out.
Both ninewood and gargle didnt say much in their concernings but rumours has it that they later secretly got married ingame and in real life and have 5 childrens together and live their life happily ever after.
This is a true and secret story were people are not suppose to know so please dont tell anyone internett

[Caloss2]

Alaska becomes latest state to legalize multiboxing use

Interesting, the most destructive drugs are the most commonly legal ones, alcohol and tobacco.

[DarkerThanBlack]

Interesting, the most destructive drugs are the most commonly legal ones, alcohol and tobacco.

They're only destructive when consumed in large quantities, just like... literally every other chemical substance in existence.

[Caloss2]

They're only destructive when consumed in large quantities, just like... literally every other chemical substance in existence.

Statistically alcohol and tobacco cause more health/social issues in every region they are legal than any other similar substance in any other region or group, anything with a few exceptions in moderation for is relatively harmless.

Feel free to read.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/canc...r-the-evidence

[McKnuckleSamwich]

I liked the picture Caloss2 posted with all the peeps in Camelot.

I agree that that picture represented a robust population.

What I don't understand, however, is how the conclusion has been drawn that MB = death of AO.

The problem I have is that I feel many people are uninformed of what "in game" looks like right now, what "in game" looked like back "then", why it's different, and how to quantify that difference.

Let me expand for a moment.

In euro prime time AP has 30+ people online, it's jamming, the chat screen scrolls so fast you can't keep up unless you're actually watching it directly.

We have 2 groups of people levelling in Ely
We have 2-3 groups levelling in inferno
We have 8 people raiding APF/12m/inf key/pande/DB or whatever
We have a few people equipping and twinking
We have a few people city raiding
We have a group doing Dark ruins in Ado
We have a group doing S7
We have a group of 4 people farming hard (MB)

The population is there, active and very busy. It is different from 2001-2003 with 30-40 people gathered in a room prior to Chicken Dinner, but the difference isn't in the number of people...

The difference is that in today's AO, there is a much larger variety of level relevant activities to do than there was back in the early 2000's.

In 2001-2003 for example, once you got to level 150ish you were actually approaching endgame. IP was maxing out for many key stats and anyone with a decent setup in TL5 was actually totally capable of competing against people in Tl6 (PVP wise) but also PVM content was actually totally the same for everyone between 125-200, aside from the levelling range inconsistencies that meant that you'd be excluded from teaming around 145 (if you had a 200 in team) which meant everyone was doing the same thing, IS and high level RK missions.

Getting 30-40 people together for the same activity back then was commonplace. Sure, you talked to people, sure, you could bang out a high level RK mission together and chatter in /t, and people still do that today, but instead of high level RK missions it's pande, APF, 12m or inf grinding.

TL;DR people are spread out and people are doing level relevant activities that weren't available when that picture was taken. Oh, and the MB isn't even a factor here - but the MB is helping build org value because it is generating loot as fast or faster than 4 people working together for the same purpose.

[Caloss2]

I liked the picture Caloss2 posted with all the peeps in Camelot.

I agree that that picture represented a robust population.

What I don't understand, however, is how the conclusion has been drawn that MB = death of AO.

The problem I have is that I feel many people are uninformed of what "in game" looks like right now, what "in game" looked like back "then", why it's different, and how to quantify that difference.

Let me expand for a moment.

In euro prime time AP has 30+ people online, it's jamming, the chat screen scrolls so fast you can't keep up unless you're actually watching it directly.

We have 2 groups of people levelling in Ely
We have 2-3 groups levelling in inferno
We have 8 people raiding APF/12m/inf key/pande/DB or whatever
We have a few people equipping and twinking
We have a few people city raiding
We have a group doing Dark ruins in Ado
We have a group doing S7
We have a group of 4 people farming hard (MB)

The population is there, active and very busy. It is different from 2001-2003 with 30-40 people gathered in a room prior to Chicken Dinner, but the difference isn't in the number of people...

The difference is that in today's AO, there is a much larger variety of level relevant activities to do than there was back in the early 2000's.

In 2001-2003 for example, once you got to level 150ish you were actually approaching endgame. IP was maxing out for many key stats and anyone with a decent setup in TL5 was actually totally capable of competing against people in Tl6 (PVP wise) but also PVM content was actually totally the same for everyone between 125-200, aside from the levelling range inconsistencies that meant that you'd be excluded from teaming around 145 (if you had a 200 in team) which meant everyone was doing the same thing, IS and high level RK missions.

Getting 30-40 people together for the same activity back then was commonplace. Sure, you talked to people, sure, you could bang out a high level RK mission together and chatter in /t, and people still do that today, but instead of high level RK missions it's pande, APF, 12m or inf grinding.

TL;DR people are spread out and people are doing level relevant activities that weren't available when that picture was taken. Oh, and the MB isn't even a factor here - but the MB is helping build org value because it is generating loot as fast or faster than 4 people working together for the same purpose.

I've come realise that, MB is just one of the many health problems older games with low populations have; and the glory days of a younger game and it's larger more vibrant population is something in the past, that picture was of a Storm raid group, others where raiding mercs or sergeant lamb or any one of the other RK encounters that evening. Literally that was bout 20% of those online in guild at that time.

There's a massive difference between then and now; also back in the day even dual-logging would cripple even a then "monster system" but of course most phones have more computing power now.

Hence the T-shirts, for all those repeating what has been said before on the issue.

[DarkerThanBlack]

What I don't understand, however, is how the conclusion has been drawn that MB = death of AO.

The answer to that is mind-blowingly simple actually. Haters. No other way to explain total neglect of every reasonable argument other than blind hatred.

[Artyomis]

Biggest problem is extremely low population/content rate nowadays.
If instances will become temoprarily closed and all playfields won't be instanced - then we'll get much higher population/content rate and multiboxing won't really affect it anymore.

As for PvP - multiboxing affects it hardcore due to low overall population that participates in PvP.
Take 6 vs 6 fight and add 1 multiboxed team there - big difference.
Take full RI vs full RI fight and add 1 multiboxed team - almost no difference.

As for myself - I've started multiboxing my accounts with HKN to counter opposite faction activities at a first place, then I've started doing PvM content with it (I did all PvP content 6-logged on manual control for more than 4 years before).
And, of course, multilogging used to help me farm "what I want and when I want" without wasting time trying to find teams or rezz/wait while noobs that died will realise what to do.

AO mutated during all those years from highly populated mass-played content to solo/small team based multilogged content, and it happened because of 2 things:
1. Overall population lowered
2. More content introduced and a big part of it became instanced.

Regarding multiboxing in general - I think it's good and bad same time (depends on situation), but it shouldn't be forbidden (hey, i pay for my accs after all).