Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Thread: New Idea to weaken Multiboxes in PvP

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinkera View Post
    It isn't a perfect solution as-is, though.

    It would need to have similar kick effects as the Cybernetic Demon thing in PoH that forces your toon to continue movement after being kicked, or do a black-screen blind in addition to the snare. That could screw some multiboxers that use /follow, but the ones that use "follow" hax probably still won't be affected too badly.

    However, if the kick radius is big enough, it could be useful by simply breaking up the cluster of toons. If you were to stop toons following, they're split up which is obviously bad. If they try to run back to the leader, they obviously aren't casting nanos or shooting, while pointing out who the leader is if it wasn't already obvious, which is worse.

    Meh, I probably won't get it in any form anyway
    Gotta keep the dream alive Vinkera, perhaps sometime before the final shutdown
    Don't you just hate this kind of ppl
    http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/w...rouscranus.htm

  2. #22
    What i'd envision myself without too much thinking nor coding, is an approach taking account of the result of MB : the simultaneous (or nearly) damage taken by a single target ; this could be kinda fixed by sending up a cooldown/blocker on any hit/special/perk/nuke/dmg that can land on the target from any PVP source (player, bot, pet) of, eg, few seconds duration or more after the first hit. This wouldn't affect the challenge of PVM bosses & instances but would reduce the MB power ... and also the natural zerging - wich in a way is at the same time the core of NW and the reason why some people never enjoyed it.

    In 3 words : spacing PVP damage.
    Bitnykk/Bittorrent - young RL of AP & old emissary of CODE

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by bitnykk View Post
    What i'd envision myself without too much thinking nor coding, is an approach taking account of the result of MB : the simultaneous (or nearly) damage taken by a single target ; this could be kinda fixed by sending up a cooldown/blocker on any hit/special/perk/nuke/dmg that can land on the target from any PVP source (player, bot, pet) of, eg, few seconds duration or more after the first hit. This wouldn't affect the challenge of PVM bosses & instances but would reduce the MB power ... and also the natural zerging - wich in a way is at the same time the core of NW and the reason why some people never enjoyed it.

    In 3 words : spacing PVP damage.
    Ill just repost my response from my reply to this in the monthly develop thread:


    This will make docs virtually immortal in pvp.
    As I and many others have pointed out in numerouse threads regarding this: The issue lies in the fact that the MBers can control multiple clients at once in a specific location in the game. Then the solution should be to fix this, and not implement a system that will serve as a band aid around the entire game. The simplest would be to enforce the ban on using third-party tools.

  4. #24
    It would also drastically change pvp as a whole, which isn't the aim. Why punish people and change a system they enjoy and have practiced, but changing it instead of just fixing the mb issue? Bad idea imo

  5. #25
    What if blockers only stopped what the engi wanted them to stop? lets say i cast my blockers and select it to stop specials of Aimedshots* or select it to stop specials of full auto... would b kinda op but at the same time it wouldnt be op if the opposing force just used different specials, So this way it stops lets say, a mb of agents? since AS is their main dmg

  6. #26
    I play Dota 2.

    So much easier than dealing with some jerk off.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by McKnuckleSamwich View Post
    I play Dota 2.

    So much easier than dealing with some jerk off.
    Well guys, we have found the solution. Cant believe it was that obvious!!

  8. #28
    It is futile to attempt to balance something that isn't supposed to be balanced in the first place. If MB was somehow balanced then nobody would make pvp mb, which would defeat the point for fc. Same could be said for banning multiple client syncing. While some pencil might log 6 toons on follow for tower smacking, there won't be any real multi-logged pvp happening without broadcast - which, again, makes building pvp mb pointless and reduces the revenue.

    That basically should indicate that the problem lies elsewhere. One might be able to petition griefing, but what do you do when the griefer is..
    Last edited by Qiquan; May 27th, 2016 at 18:51:11.
    Testicol.
    QIQUAN 220/30/70 DPS MA SUGUTOHTER 220/30/65 PVM DOC
    HAVOCK 220/30/70 TNK ENF ETC
    ASJAPULK 220/30/70 PVP CRT RED TIGERS. ORG

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Awikun View Post
    Its just a bad idea.
    Here is a GOOD IDEA HOW TO KILL MULTIBOXING:
    (I am not a programmer so I am not sure if its easy to implement but here I present the general idea)
    1. majority of MB usually runs multiple AO clients on the same computer (if he has several computers then my solution would not work)
    2. Make separate AO clients comunicate with each other and if any character is inside pvp zone (low gas or battle station) then any other character trying to zone to the same area should result in closing this client and logging off such character.

    That would solve the problem of MB! and what is more important it would not hurt casual players from loging their buff toon or bank toons and transfering items or buffing other characters.
    If they choose to go with a programmatic (rather than social, ie, policy -> petition -> warn -> (repeat) ban) solution ... that would make a lot of sense to me and I appreciate it allowing bank toons and casual dual-loggers to continue.

    Additionally for PVM I would appreciate a visual flag in the team window when one of my players is multiply logged on. Have the clients communicate on a timed basis. If no other toon has been active (except for chat), no indicator. If other toons are actively moving during team play but not in another instance or team, green indicator. If other toons on same box ARE actively moving/shooting/etc but NOT in my team ... yellow. If other toons from the same player are in MY team/raid ... red indicator.

    Some MBers in PVM will tell you up front. Many teams/raids won't care in the least. Some prefer to know that we're getting a fully dedicated teamer/raider.

    ...

    However, knowing how well game engines have been exploited in the past, as well as how many people multi-box in separate VMs or machines, I think this would need to be tracked by multi-casting on all active networks the machine is on rather than between game instances on the same CPU. Even then, a good exploiter will be able to block both the client-to-client API calls as well as the networked broadcasts (that part would likely be trivial UNLESS it was using the same ports as AO, and even then it would not be hard to firewall).

    There might be ways to incorporate -some- of this via merged logins on the same master account coming from the same IP address on the FC server side, too, for additional redundancy.

    ...

    Suggestion rating: good enough to be expounded on and put into a separate thread
    Theonara: "...but if I weren't married, some days I'd offer to kiss you. You just make too much sense. "
    Maeventura: "Sigh, once again I can but only bow for hyde's wisdom."

    ...."Social" keys, lightbars, wen-wens......Better tabbing!

    ... First Troxdoc with QL300 symbs (AO 17.0 pre-Albtraum guide) ... as well as first with 12 of 13 Alpha symbs.
    ... First TL1 Clanner with Omni-Armed Forces armor (pics) (pointless yet hawt)


    <original UI hacker ... when not actively playing AO ... email = 'hyde [at] athenpaladins • org'>

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Qiquan View Post
    It is futile to attempt to balance something that isn't supposed to be balanced in the first place. If MB was somehow balanced then nobody would make pvp mb, which would defeat the point for fc. Same could be said for banning multiple client syncing. While some pencil might log 6 toons on follow for tower smacking, there won't be any real multi-logged pvp happening without broadcast - which, again, makes building pvp mb pointless and reduces the revenue.

    That basically should indicate that the problem lies elsewhere. One might be able to petition griefing, but what do you do when the griefer is..
    That is the short-term view of things.

    With recent funding infusion, along with near completion of the new engine, FC has an opportunity to look again at AO with a longer-term view.

    The long-term view for me would be ... if a new player joins the game only to find that one of the key historical features of the game is completely facerolled by inexpensive multi-boxing (which is -usually- really just multi-logging with today's hardware) ... they're going to avoid that part of the game. Any part of the game actively avoided by new players gets a bad rap. Any bad rap for a low pop game is bad.

    It all boils down to whether FC would rather keep a clutch hold on the current playerbase at all costs ... or take a little risk and lose a few multiboxers to both make other people still actively playing (who miss that facet of the game but won't touch it for the same reasons) as well as to make things more friendly to new blood.

    Only FC can answer that.
    Theonara: "...but if I weren't married, some days I'd offer to kiss you. You just make too much sense. "
    Maeventura: "Sigh, once again I can but only bow for hyde's wisdom."

    ...."Social" keys, lightbars, wen-wens......Better tabbing!

    ... First Troxdoc with QL300 symbs (AO 17.0 pre-Albtraum guide) ... as well as first with 12 of 13 Alpha symbs.
    ... First TL1 Clanner with Omni-Armed Forces armor (pics) (pointless yet hawt)


    <original UI hacker ... when not actively playing AO ... email = 'hyde [at] athenpaladins • org'>

  11. #31
    Tower wars pvp is just a mess right now. I am surprised some clan players are actually fighting omni MB, and on other hand you must note that omni as a whole pretty much has abandoned notum wars, it really is just handful of MBers left doing NW. So we are faced with a situation where nobody besides couple omni mbers and couple clan pvp enthusiasts are fighting eachother while others maybe join BS at most. NW content is dead and MB is making sure it's going to stay dead. If they want to make money, they need to provide content worth paying for. Admittedly, if FC paid me for it, I'd *consider* fighting MB.
    Testicol.
    QIQUAN 220/30/70 DPS MA SUGUTOHTER 220/30/65 PVM DOC
    HAVOCK 220/30/70 TNK ENF ETC
    ASJAPULK 220/30/70 PVP CRT RED TIGERS. ORG

  12. #32

  13. #33
    Unfortunately you can't ban MB. They have paid - like we all did and further more, at the time at the payment the MB was perfectly legal (as it is right now). We only can pray they paid for 1 year or so. If they paid for 10 years, 10 years we will have them around.

    Banning MB is like someone paid for a full holiday at your hotel and after they stay with the family for 2 days you kick them out "Sorry sir, no family allowed". You can not kick your paying customer in the butt !

    If you are versatile enough you can make the paying customer leave by himself - is the only way. And we ALL can be a part of this (by ignoring MB, not buying from them, etc.)

    Disclaimer : I am not MB, I will never be, I don't like them.
    Last edited by PigBrother; Jun 10th, 2016 at 15:50:56.
    Operator : "Are we safe from russian hackers ?"
    Support : "Da"

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Footer View Post
    if they did that they'd lose too much money and the servers would shut down. last time they fixed and exploit everyone was using we got visible opponent NCU windows....

  15. #35
    They would gain back hundreds (yes no exaggeration) that they lost due to mb, and the current population would be happier (as a majority). Yes they already paid. I'm not saying ban the MBers. I'm saying ban the mb. I don't even care about it in pvm, just ban it for pvp. They can still use all their toons as the game intended, but it would be a banable offence to mb them. Only fix there's ever guna be. Plain and simple, other games are noticing it a lot quicker.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by PigBrother View Post
    Unfortunately you can't ban MB. They have paid [...]
    Of course you can. You pay for access to the game and not the right to use the game in a specific way in conjunction with 3rd party programs.
    Avari 220/30/80 - Araghos 220/30/80 - Shishido 220/30/7x - Araninn 220/30/80

    Quote Originally Posted by Tergx
    If one of the few traders are PvPing around you and land GTH on you, take a trip to decon and it will be gone. What's the big deal hehe.

  17. #37
    Agreed. As many other games have proven, the game owners can pretty much do what they want regarding bans. I would expect FC would be good about notifying folks well in advance, rolling the policy out in stages, etc. If they wanted to be nicer than any other game facing similar issues they could even do a soft ban where those accounts simply aren't able to renew if they continually flaunt the revised rules (which means it would take a year for the last of them to disappear, giving FC a year to work on some fixes and boosting marketing of the game if the new engine ever comes out).

    However, I'm in a pessimistic mood, I don't think any of this is likely to happen. Technical nor social solutions.
    Theonara: "...but if I weren't married, some days I'd offer to kiss you. You just make too much sense. "
    Maeventura: "Sigh, once again I can but only bow for hyde's wisdom."

    ...."Social" keys, lightbars, wen-wens......Better tabbing!

    ... First Troxdoc with QL300 symbs (AO 17.0 pre-Albtraum guide) ... as well as first with 12 of 13 Alpha symbs.
    ... First TL1 Clanner with Omni-Armed Forces armor (pics) (pointless yet hawt)


    <original UI hacker ... when not actively playing AO ... email = 'hyde [at] athenpaladins • org'>

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by PigBrother View Post
    Banning MB is like someone paid for a full holiday at your hotel and after they stay with the family for 2 days you kick them out "Sorry sir, no family allowed". You can not kick your paying customer in the butt !
    Not at all, it would be like 2 families booking a room for 4, but one of the families actually brings 16 and houses them in the room of 4. Then the family of 16 continue to use up all the hotels facilities so that the others don't get a chance, even though they both paid for the same room and experience. That would be a better example.

    Edit - yes I realise the big difference is that those 12 people wouldn't be paying customers whereas mb "pays". That said, (I have no proof) but it is my belief that most mb use grace, and they can farm this money by using mb, so it's a nice cycle for them, if you can afford the 6+accs and the time to build 6 toons in the first place.

    That said even if these 16 hotel customers were paying, if they were hogging all the facilities and almost harassing customers who wana use them, I'm sure there would be complaints and some sort of compensation for the other people who missed out. All we have is failed attempts at compensation. I think my point is clear, they would probably be banned from returning to that chain of hotels if they were abusing the system and causing other customers grief.
    Last edited by Footer; Jun 22nd, 2016 at 11:07:03.

  19. #39
    Nice analogy, but is wrong.

    Paying by GRACE is actually better for company than paying for 1 year (paying for 1 year makes a month worth like 6-9 something and a GRACE is like 17 something - any GRACE bought in game is a GRACE bought with 17 something by someone from Funcom).

    The analogy is wrong because they paid for all the accounts and bringing nothing more "in the room".

    The only thing we can do is DON'T buy from them (lootrights or from GMI - if you look closely you can spot them on GMI). A MB will NEVER pay with RL money (I may be wrong on this, but in 96.36% of cases I'm right). I even spotted a MB / re-seller / egpal seller on GMI - no names, but is not hard.
    Operator : "Are we safe from russian hackers ?"
    Support : "Da"

  20. #40
    Of course it's wrong, I already stated it wasn't a perfect analogy, but I took the original which wasn't even close and made it more suited to our situation.

    Unfortunately a lot of people dont know they are buying from mb, and they never will. And besides, it's not down to the customers / community to sort out problems. Sure we can try and help by all means, but we've tried and we clearly can't, or we wouldn't be here. It's simple likes I've stated. Mechanics won't change mb.

    FC need to make a decision,ban it, or let it be forever. I appreciate the attempts they have made and their hard work of course, their intentions are good. But it's just blind and will never work. Either ban it, or let it be, don't give us false hope to cling onto and waste our time.

    You can even see things on the ao Facebook page and stuff, people actually returning to the game after hearing the assist change fixed mb. They return because they thing mb is gone, then get annoyed when they discover it isn't. If FC wanted to ban mb, in sure they would gain more custom by spreading the word to the old vets and the retired aoers.

    Myself, I don't mind fighting mb. Yeah I dislike it, but I realise without it, Omni don't have much at all, and woukd be heavily outnumbered.

    My personal view -ban mb, get us on steam to generate more users, alongside the returners, and hope that omni balances out and can fight clan fairly. Maybe make it more enticing to newbies to join omni to encourage pvp faction balance (I say this because I'm sure the majority of old players whom would return after an mb ban would be clan, further upsetting the battlefield balance).

    But thats my opinion, it isn't fact by all means.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •