Multi-Boxing. Finally. The facts.

"

BuddhaSpeaks wrote:

And also, why do you need to say that again when you realized that I've copied and pasted?

Also, I do not think this is even that big of a text to be called "a small book". Did you expect someone to express ideas with just few words? I'm no Buddha or Jesus who can just sum up ideas with few profound sentences. And there are many posts in this thread with similar size.

"

BuddhaSpeaks wrote:

Profound sentences.

"

MrRoundTree wrote:

Agree with this, I will never understand the reason people need to cheat or test the boundaries with what they can get away with like children do to parents, and not just play the way a game was designed.

"

BuddhaSpeaks wrote:

I would like to make a small input.

I have not played Dragon Age myself, but I heard that you can control many characters, which means that the devs have intentionally designed the game such way.

Does PoE have it?

Clearly the answer is no, therefore the game isn't designed by the devs so that one player can control many. If one wishes to play multiple characters in a game, then that person should opt for games similar to Dragon Age.

However, this is the implementation aspect of the game, and such is not always in agreement with the devs' philosophy, and it seems like they are not against it.

In addition, if the devs explicitly wanted to ban multi-boxing, then they would've added some codes to block such actions, or at least attempt it. And the fact is contrary, as anyone can simply click the client twice and multi-box.

Now to the "ethics" of multi-boxing: The question is whether it is just an aspect of automation(=botting) or not, and the multiple loots for the multi-boxer. As a 1-char guy, I feel uncomfortable hearing these things about multi-boxing, because like many others I don't want to be left out from the gravy boat (I would love to get 4-5x the normal loot!). But personally, I've come to terms with it, realizing that there will always be inequality, and the only competition should be against myself, and maybe few of my peers.

Speaking of inequality, that seems to be the fundamental issue behind multi-boxing. I'm referring to the inequality of procedure, more specifically. It is without doubt that multi-boxing requires a better computer than just playing 1 character. Therefore, even though the opportunity to multi-box is there for all players, in reality, many cannot use it because they cannot funnel money on computers. At this point, I think it's safe to assume that the majority of the people who initially join this game does not expect to multi-box, but when they realize that this is occurring, they cannot help themselves to feel disadvantaged in comparison with those who multi-box. HOWEVER, like I've stated above, people in general should focus on what they have rather than what others have.

If human input is extensively required for the characters to accomplish tasks, then I do not find multi-boxing equivalent to automation.

From this I would conclude that although multi-boxing is a hot issue, the devs should either incorporate it into the game or add additional system requirements table for multi-boxing, so that it is explicit for everyone who is about to join this game that, "This is happening, and if you want to play a catch-up, then there's multiboxing for you. But if you don't have a good computer or money to do so, then we're sorry."

.. or just ban it.




The argument that multi-boxing will inevitably result in an advent of botters is just a fear tactic. For example, the "freedom of speech" clause in the US constitution is designed for the purpose of ensuring the freedom to voice opinions, but that does not mean that there aren't many people who abuse the shit out of them without a true appreciation (thinking of you Donald Trump!). But it doesn't mean that we need to outright ban the "freedom of speech," that would just be absurd. Now, in this case, the abusers of the "FoS" clause are not cheaters, or breaking any rules particularly, and botters are indeed blatant cheaters, but they are both using something (an abstract idea for one, and a program for another) in ways that aren't meant to be used.

The argument that multi-boxing is more challenging therefore should allowed for those who want it isn't valid, because you are focusing on one aspect out of many that this game can challenge you. Do you feel that playing 1 character isn't enough? How about reaching #1 in ladders/races, crafting, build developing, etc.? How about building your own system within PoE, such as organizing guilds and unofficial PvP tournaments? Unless you got some crazy fetish that you can only satisfy with multi-boxing, I think you might be surprised to find many challenges that come with 1 character. :)

Thank you, and TLDR = no comment for you buddy.

"

Zalm wrote:

"

MrRoundTree wrote:

Agree with this, I will never understand the reason people need to cheat or test the boundaries with what they can get away with like children do to parents, and not just play the way a game was designed.

Though I dont agree with some of your points, I would like to point out that multiboxing is not considered cheating...yet.

"

MrRoundTree wrote:

"

Zalm wrote:

"

MrRoundTree wrote:

Agree with this, I will never understand the reason people need to cheat or test the boundaries with what they can get away with like children do to parents, and not just play the way a game was designed.

Though I dont agree with some of your points, I would like to point out that multiboxing is not considered cheating...yet.

Yes, sorry... I should state that I- personally- consider it cheating.

"

MrRoundTree wrote:

Agree with this, I will never understand the reason people need to cheat or test the boundaries with what they can get away with like children do to parents, and not just play the way a game was designed. I also don't understand how the devs think this is going to jive with competitive aspects of the game without having them trivialized into a joke.

"

Pay to win... albeit externally :D

As far as not caring what others have, do keep in mind that it DOES affect everyone. An exaggeratedly inflated economy could cause adjutments to the game's difficulty, as well as many other unforseen consequences. In D2, you pretty much HAD to use 3rd party sites, duped items, or otherwise cheat if you wanted to do Ubers. Contrary to most, I enjoyed D2 the most before duped high runes, torches, annis and enigmas broke the game to hell lol.

"

I would like to see it addressed, but most solutions are only band-aids at best. The real issue is the economy and the greed and bad element of baggage that comes with it. Probably too late to change that now though.

"

I disagree about fear tactic, the botters will surely arrive, if not already here. It is only logical, and happens every time- the patterns indicate that this is not simply fear mongering whatsoever. I'm not sure about your comparisons with free speech, but Niemoller might be more fitting (First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out- because I was not a communist). In other words, a self absorbed view about things because you think it doesn't affect you is much worse than standing on principle, no matter how much of an idealogue anyone paints you as.

"

BuddhaSpeaks wrote:

Zalm: you are mean :(
Charan: Thanks :)

"

Zalm wrote:

"

Azidonis wrote:

If you have two people with identical credentials, and you hire them both to do job X. Do you think it is ethical to pay one person $3 an hour for that job, and pay the other $9 an hour for doing that same job?

I would pay worker a $3 if he did work. I would pay worker b $9 if he found a way to do the work in a third of the time. Or do 3 times the work in the same amount given to worker a. Then I would prolly fire worker a for being inefficient. But thats beside the point here.

"

Azidonis wrote:

"

Zalm wrote:

"

Azidonis wrote:

If you have two people with identical credentials, and you hire them both to do job X. Do you think it is ethical to pay one person $3 an hour for that job, and pay the other $9 an hour for doing that same job?

I would pay worker a $3 if he did work. I would pay worker b $9 if he found a way to do the work in a third of the time. Or do 3 times the work in the same amount given to worker a. Then I would prolly fire worker a for being inefficient. But thats beside the point here.

But that's the thing. Both workers are doing the same work.