FAQ: Multiboxing - What the Fudge Is It?

"

Yawn_God wrote:

"

How is that an argument against it being an unfair advantage over people who don't multibox?

Ventrilo, Teamspeak, and now Skype are third party programs and should be considered hacks and malicious software when playing videos games that do not have integrated voice communication between players, as they impart an unfair advantage to those that use only the client for their gaming experience.

No relevance to multi-boxing at all. Even if we try and squeeze that in here, better communication still does not remove the human element between human players. Cloning actions eliminates the need for that. And other players.

"

Putting no offense after an obvious insult is just cute.

I'm not insulting you. I don't consider retardation an insult. I'm a determinist.
[/quote]

Last I checked calling someone or something retarded outside of medical and precise mechanical terms was considered an insult. Determinism has nothing to do with this. Either way, this part is pretty much OT so let's drop it.

We talking about cloning actions or multiboxing?

Now you're being annoying on purpose.

It doesn't matter if it's an unfair advantage, mainly because it's not an unfair advantage. You choose to not multibox. You have the capacity to multibox and you refuse it on your own grounds.

That is not an advantage on the multiboxer: That is a handicap you impose on yourself.

You care about the human element of the game, correct? Well, the human element of the game dictates that communication be done though text. No text, no communication. If you use third party programs, such as Skype, Ventrilo, or Teamspeak, you are bypassing the constraints of the game and gameplay, and are using third party software for an unfair advantage. You are using a computer program to modulate and transmit your voice to another computer while the game program is open and being actively played, something that the game does not allow you to do otherwise.

Again, I hate using the fallacy arguments, but now you're making a strawman. I don't care about cloning actions. We're not talking about cloning actions. We're talking about open clients. Stop talking about cloning actions. Everyone knows cloning actions is against TOS, and has been since the early 2000s. If you want to complain against botting, complain against botting. This is a thread about MULTIBOXING. Comprehend this.

You're retarded in the sense that you're slow to understand the point. I'm using the word properly and correctly.

I'm glad to see the thread isn't descending into the usual tit for tat.

I feel at this point like I really did expect way too much of certain people in this community. It's a shame, because I very much like most people in this community.

Ah well.

"

Yawn_God wrote:

Everyone knows cloning actions is against TOS, and has been since the early 2000s.

Depends on the game.

Some MMORPG's as far back as Ultima Online banned people for duplicating input to multiple clients simultaneously because of the added scripting and/or macroing element - but didn't ban for vanilla multiboxing.

Other MMORPG's didn't/don't care so long as there's a human actively performing the duplication.

"

indeliblestain wrote:

I have done both. I predominantly play solo, in fact. Unless you can quantify specifically the advantage a multiboxer has in economic terms, I'm not going to include it. I'm also not going to alter the wording.

From the mechanics thread:

"Each player in a party after the first gives a +50% item quantity modifier on drops. So a party of three will see twice as many drops as a lone character."

At four you are getting +150% and +250% at six characters. Rarity and quantity only count from whomever gets the killing blow but you could have a rarity/quantity gem on each character.

Getting 4 times the amount of items you regularly do while playing and 50-100% rarity would be doable without anything too crazy gear-wise if you can run 6 characters.

"Ergo, 5 character multiboxers are having to spread 5 character's worth of loot out across 5 characters."

After however many edits, your logic is still faulty. One human being doing one human being's worth of clicking around is getting 4 times as much loot.

"

indeliblestain wrote:

"

Chypre wrote:

Supposedly GGG said somewhere that they don't care about multiboxing, but I doubt they are going to come give it a blessing and encourage it. They probably could do some things to make it harder, but the amount of people doing this is so small that it doesn't matter. I'm more worried that the game is popular enough we have botting (maybe we already do?).

I would very much like to see the GGG post "espousing" multiboxing, as I was under the impression they had not given a concrete opinion on the matter.

And yes, most online games have botting. Botting is a separate issue however. It's one of those logic problems you got in school: not all oranges are lemons, and not all lemons are apples, so to speak. Multiboxers != botters. Botters can be multiboxers, and vice versa, in the same way solo players can be botters and vice versa. Etc etc, so on and so forth.

Nowhere did I say anything about GGG "espousing" multiboxing. Go look at websites where people hack games like D2 and find a thread about the interview with Kripp or find that and watch it from the 3 hour 17 minute mark.

What Chris basically said is, "We're okay with people running a 'a couple' extra clients, but most people don't know about that."

I understand the difference between playing 6 characters and having many autonomous bots. I would still argue that it is kind of a grey area and a little questionable, but Chris goes on to say that he doesn't mind if people find some exploit like being able to see 6L items with the 5 item vendor recipe, as long as they don't write a bot to automate it.

He doesn't say clearly that multiboxing is okay and I doubt they will ever give it a blessing, but it seems like it won't be bannable.

This is quite an interesting topic. This is actually the first time I've ever heard of multiboxing, and the OP's is the first description I've read of it.

That said, I am still compelled to disagree (to the point that I'm writing this post, even though it doesn't affect me) with the claim that what is described in the first post is somehow a legitimate way to play the game.

The way it works is irrelevant. The way it is worded is irrelevant. The intent is irrelevant. Frankly, whether some game or other allows it or not is irrelevant. What is described in the original post, namely:

"

indeliblestain wrote:

Generally speaking, multiboxing at a play level functions by sending a single keypress to several clients at once. So if I press "W" to activate a skill, that keypress will be sent to all of the clients I have open; every character will use the skill tied to "W".

invalidates any and all arguments to its defense. I've read many an argument in this thread that multiboxing is simply running more than one client (and, one would assume, performing actions in one window, then switiching to another to perform actions there). And you know what, I'm OK with multiboxing in that definition. I mean it's weird, and no, unlike someone further up said, I would not do it if I can. But if you want to try juggling multiple characters, feel free.

But "sending a single keypress to several clients at once" would be using the game client in a way that is not intended even if it somehow worked without any external program. That (again, "sending a single keypress to several clients at once") is not a legitimate way to play, period.

Now, multiboxing doesn't really affect me, so, if GGG allows it, go nuts. But please don't claim it is a legitimate way to play, or that it doesn't abuse the game's systems. You cannot perform more than one action with a single keypress and make that claim.

"

DiamondTiki wrote:

But "sending a single keypress to several clients at once" would be using the game client in a way that is not intended even if it somehow worked without any external program. That (again, "sending a single keypress to several clients at once") is not a legitimate way to play, period.

Now, multiboxing doesn't really affect me, so, if GGG allows it, go nuts. But please don't claim it is a legitimate way to play, or that it doesn't abuse the game's systems. You cannot perform more than one action with a single keypress and make that claim.

We can, and we do.

One keypress, one action, per client has been the long established definition of legitimate play from the vast majority of game developers for decade or more now.

Whether GGG ever makes a definitive statement in support or against multiboxing, I don't really care. When I did multibox, I only ever did it for the challenge of soloing multi-player content, which simply doesn't apply here. I suspect however, they'll have no more problem with it than anyone else does.

even without a multibox software, u can still open up more than 1 client. If GGG allows you to do this, they allow you to play more than 1 character per computer

Keyboard using should be against the rules as it takes your command and sends it to the game client (automation). Using mouse/keyboard progams to modify hotkeys should be against the rules because it takes a command and sends a different one to the game (automation). Macros should be against the rules because it once again automates things (Sorry /oos macro'ers). Or we could just be reasonable and differentiate between indirect "automation" and actual botting. Sending a single keypress to multiple clients, or having macro's is not botting, and seeing it as such starts getting into a semantics debate. GGG have already stated their position on multi boxxing and they are absolutely fine with it. A multiboxed character is not automated, it is controlled completely by the player in same with the use of a macro. The input for a multiboxed character, for absolutely every action, originates from a player made keypress, the same cannot be said for a botter. This specific point is why equivocating the two is very silly, and is why people are against botters, as their input is COMPLETELY AUTOMATED.

As for multi boxing not being "intented" the fact that they let you start multiple sessions of the game, and that they have come out saying they are fine with it, would more hint towards it being intended rather than not. However there is imo no conclusive evidence for, or against the claim of whether multiboxing is intended or not. Heck is there evidence that macros are "intented"? Or rebindable mouse/keyboard programs (like my seinheiser, or my g18). Kind of an odd position to take on this argument if you ask me.

"

robroyman wrote:

All of this is so hilarious - the game is in no way different from a single player game for the majority of us - akin to ARPG's of old. The only difference here is that the game requires an internet connection to play, which results in an obligatory social interaction and inherent "jealousy" and competitiveness. If more of us just regarded this game for what is what meant to be - a single player ARPG with an optional multiplayer/PVP component - none of this crap would matter. The number of threads recently which seem to equate this game to WoW or the like is pathetic...this is NOT a feckin MMORPG in essence

It doesn matter wether its an mmo or not, its an online game with a growing comunity and as you said it gets competitive. Everyone wants to be #1.

Personaly i dont mind multiboxing if someone has the will and skills to do it, why not. Sooner or later pvp will become the focus to quite a few players and when that time comes they want to be ready.

I for one intend to make a few builds and enjoy pvp.