Possible multi-box fix?

[Psikie]

If MB works the way I think it does, it relies upon key binding of some type? If that does not include mouse movements then why not have a pop up prompt that needs to be clicked on anytime you change suppression or zone?

For example countdown 5sec timer to disconnect, obviously a single account player would have no problem, with clicking on a 5sec timer, but alt-tabbing 3-5 screens would be hard pressed to complete within 5 sec timer window. Especially if the box popped up in a random section of your screen, top bottom, left or right.

So anytime you run into a tower zone with different gas, timer window pops up, when you run outside the gas, pops up again. Battle station zoning from decon room same thing.

Now I don't know if its practical or possible to do this, but I sure bet it would eliminate 1 player with 4-6 toons multi boxed.

[Gaggee]

You can still zone 1 toon at a time tho ^^
More popups? No thanks
The only thing such change would effect is the amount of time it takes to zone 2-6 chars, from 5secs to what, maybe 20..

[Psikie]

The key is not really on zones but suppression fields. If it is an annoyance to wait with each toon at zone border, and have to re-follow, maybe its a deterant. However it would definately make a difference when trying to evac or kite though.

[Xootch]

there's just one fix. to only allow ao to run one instance. that'll prevent, i guess, 95% to 99% of mbing. i think steam may fix it, i think steam just allows once instance as well. not sure though.

but before you shout hooray, i honestly do think the game will die if multilogging is not possible any more. a major part of the population does it on a daily basis and won't accept to pay for two accounts or more if they can suddenly only log one. so you're effectively ask people to give up their dual log combos or even delete half their toons.

i really think that this "issue" is ridiculous. there are 2 guys who effectively mutlibox in pvp, and most of the time its just one. fact is, it did not break pvp balance as both were omni and clan still had the upper hand due to by far larger numbers. Now you're asking fc to change their policy, to change the game and whatnot because...? because what? because these people have been instaganked by one guy? wow. that is mature. the only difference between him and the fp fixer of 3 + X propvpers is that those guys are 1.using something that is blockable with spec absorb (noobs should reroll nts) and 2.are in fact different people. the effect is the same: you have 0 chance to react or survive (other than parking a MULTILOGGED engi in a by because they use as and not nukes). so ban teams, teamspeak or countdown scripts? come on.

oh. and i would like to mention something about why this got to be a problem in the first place. declining population? maybe a catalyst. the only reason why this even became possible is daily missions. if one guy had to level 5 toons to 220 on ado hecks, i don't think we'd even talk about it. the amount of people who would go through that just to p1ss people off or enlarge their virtual mating organ is very very small. but ya'll wanted free 220/30/70 so bad, now deal with the consequences and don't emo out.

there are a million better reasons to quit. starting with fc ruining ot equipment advantages and thus empowering clans. why do you think clans usually have the upper hand? because they are more. because people are more likely to join the fairy tale good guys. to counter that, ot had better gear. so people switched to ot to get the least bit of twinking, even though it did not have an all too significant effect of what was possible equipwise. so ot usually had a larger population of hardcore pvpers. people who were on rk3 in the black thorns era know what i mean. gone with the wind. very good reason to quit. or just look at the million nonsense changes over the years. i can totally see why people loose faith in this game.

the simple fact that so many people put such high hopes in a graphics update that will change so little is very representative of the population. like in real life, emoing > thinking.

[Leetlover]

it's the instant special-attacks, certain nukes and uber teambuffs/auras that makes mb so potent, nerf that

[edmaster3]

If MB works the way I think it does, it relies upon key binding of some type? If that does not include mouse movements then why not have a pop up prompt that needs to be clicked on anytime you change suppression or zone?

For example countdown 5sec timer to disconnect, obviously a single account player would have no problem, with clicking on a 5sec timer, but alt-tabbing 3-5 screens would be hard pressed to complete within 5 sec timer window. Especially if the box popped up in a random section of your screen, top bottom, left or right.

So anytime you run into a tower zone with different gas, timer window pops up, when you run outside the gas, pops up again. Battle station zoning from decon room same thing.

Now I don't know if its practical or possible to do this, but I sure bet it would eliminate 1 player with 4-6 toons multi boxed.

Hell no, so this mean every time I travel long distances ill get disconnected. Not to mention the millions of bugs causing popups during raids and bs.
We appreciate your effort but please stop beating a dead horse.

[Psikie]

Too much eh? Well perhaps it will spark another idea along the nuissance to MB line lol.

I don't MB and only pvp I do is duels so it's not really my problem but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.

[edmaster3]

Your passion is honest, through passion we gain strength, but if their was an easy fix, MB wouldn't be such a problem in every mmorpg.
I guess an interesting approach to solve it would be to instance all towers (More like the bs zoning, where you loose all your buffs)
Wait how about capture the flag battles to gain controls of the tower site for 18 hours. Winners tower buffs would be activated.

[Quee]

Im not sure what kind of "multi-box" u are thinking of but if u look at one of most used mutli-box at the supported games it says clearly AnarchyOnline a big NO ....

http://isboxer.com/wiki/Supported_Games

[Pennypacker]

Im not sure what kind of "multi-box" u are thinking of but if u look at one of most used mutli-box at the supported games it says clearly AnarchyOnline a big NO ....

http://isboxer.com/wiki/Supported_Games

that will change with new engine tho as it is DX9

And right now they are using the older MB software that relies more on scripts than on pretty UI's

[jorricane]

there's just one fix. to only allow ao to run one instance. that'll prevent, i guess, 95% to 99% of mbing. i think steam may fix it, i think steam just allows once instance as well. not sure though.

Steam typically does allow only one instance - however, since Steam will be calling the launcher, and not the client itself, that probably will not block multiples. And, even if it did, lots of people still use Windows 7, which has built-in virtualization - running each instance in a VM will bypass that limit quite handily [Source: Experience].

[sannz]

Steam typically does allow only one instance - however, since Steam will be calling the launcher, and not the client itself, that probably will not block multiples. And, even if it did, lots of people still use Windows 7, which has built-in virtualization - running each instance in a VM will bypass that limit quite handily [Source: Experience].

Actually, AO with DirectX 9 will make it even easier. Just needs a Windows 8+ System then. Activate Hyper-V, slave the GFX card through with RemoteFX and profit.

Don't even need a Quadro/Tesla/FireGL for it to work, unlike with ESX and Xen. Add in a E3v4(vt-d!), maybe an E5v2 (if you're in the budged range for a big i7), 32 GB memory, a SSD to house the VMs and a graphics card with a fair amount of memory. There, multiple AOs on a single piece of gamer metal with hardware acceleration at every turn.

Price? Not that much more than you would spend on a decent i5 or i7Ex rig.

[jorricane]

Actually, AO with DirectX 9 will make it even easier. Just needs a Windows 8+ System then. Activate Hyper-V, slave the GFX card through with RemoteFX and profit.

Don't even need a Quadro/Tesla/FireGL for it to work, unlike with ESX and Xen. Add in a E3v4(vt-d!), maybe an E5v2 (if you're in the budged range for a big i7), 32 GB memory, a SSD to house the VMs and a graphics card with a fair amount of memory. There, multiple AOs on a single piece of gamer metal with hardware acceleration at every turn.

Price? Not that much more than you would spend on a decent i5 or i7Ex rig.

Yeah, the point I was trying to make is that the "single instance" limitation that keeps getting suggested is not, in any universe, a fix for MB. The only thing it would accomplish is making standard multilogging more difficult. The devs know this, and a lot of the players do as well.

The best way forwards with this whole MB situation is to think of creative solutions, not keep posting the same darn suggestion that Devs as well as players have already disproven as a fix.

[Pennypacker]

Might i suggest only allowing AO to run in single instance?

[sannz]

Might i suggest only allowing AO to run in single instance?

As was demonstrated above, more than one computer - virtual or real - can be used to circumvent this limitation. At the same time, the inconvenience to the players would be enormous.

[jorricane]

As was demonstrated above, more than one computer - virtual or real - can be used to circumvent this limitation. At the same time, the inconvenience to the players would be enormous.

I think that was a troll.

[Pennypacker]

I think that was a troll.

aww, it's so sad when someone has to point it out