can we get a boxing server please so non usa players can play the game.

Discussion in 'Time Locked Progression Servers' started by wildone, May 13, 2019.

  1. wildone Elder

    most american guilds raid at 9.30 am my time,yes we are 1 day ahead,i 6 box some times 12 box on a non truebox tlp,unfortunatly i love eq up to pop in the group game,love raiding in pop,god and omens.(omens has been fixed since the old days).the guild i am currently in we raid with 40 plus mains sometimes all are mains,half of the guild boxes the other dosent,we raid 3 times a week and a 4th days we set aside for epics and sometimes after raids we boot up the boxes and help getting single account and boxed characters their epics,everyone understands mains before boxes,we always have fun and carry on vent,i love the guild but i hate the content now that we are in sof and a part from raiding i never log in eny more,please db give us a non truebox tlp.
    Icaen and Nessirfiti like this.
  2. Jaera Augur

    Look at this heathen, wanting to be able to box on a single computer in an early progression so they can actually play the game instead of having to sit around LFG! Clearly they they just want to bot farm everything because that's the only reason people want to be able to box, right?

    Sarcasm aside, the canned response you'll get is they don't have plans to make one at this time but its possible in the future. Some behind the scenes rumors I've heard is that they'll never again make a non-truebox server because certain developers believe its the reason that Phinigel was so successful and the others don't really care. I'm right there with you on wanting to be able box on one PC, so I hope that the rumors aren't true.
    Icaen likes this.
  3. Nuttmeg Augur

    I'd be ok with a boxing server if they also released a No-box server.
  4. jeskola pheerie

    Boxing server requires zero new work apart from any other tlp launch. No-box requires extensive back-end work and constant supervision.
  5. Machentoo Augur


    The seven they have released recently aren't enough?
  6. Elemenopi Augur

    No box wouldnt be as hard to police as true box, as all of these debates about whether they are using bot programs would get put to bed and only one character would be allowed period. The insistence that they cant do any thing unless 100% sure its a bot wouldnt matter at that point. All the bots would be on the other server with the other true boxers and virtual boxers.
  7. wildone Elder

    there are everquest forum questers thats all they do his put down other peoples posts,i dident say no we must not have a truebox server or servers,all i asked was for a non truebox server were i can 6 box or 12 box on the one pc and play a game i love,for instance my main his always a warrior,i made one on selos without boxing and looked for a group and couldent find one,they are great for raiding but for group tanks its an sk and a pallie the preffered classes.
  8. Machentoo Augur


    Woops, replied without reading. Sorry.

    I am fine with the idea of releasing a no box server alongside a boxing friendly server. Just be prepared to come back and cry more on the forums when there is just as much boxing and automation on the "no box" server as there is on the "truebox" servers. They will not be able to stop it any more than they are able to stop the current shenanigans.
    jeskola likes this.
  9. Elemenopi Augur


    I disagree with that, as its blatantly obvious when someone is running more than one character -vs- having to patrol and determine if automation and/or VM is happening. I get that the claim of "dwindling resources" is often used as a blanket statement of "cant/wont enforce" - but it would be painstakingly lazy to hide behind that blanket statement and claim to not to be able to enforce a "no box at all" rule, to the point of ridicule.
  10. Nuttmeg Augur

    Agreed!

    And to clarify my stance, I'm not arguing the difficulty, feasibility, or cost of a no-box server, I am simply stating: I would be fine with an AoC instanced boxing server (which specifically caters to boxers) if they also released a no-boxing server to specifically cater to the single box player.
  11. Captain Video Augur

    A no-box server will never happen, for the simple reason it is now uber-easy to spoof IP addresses and make it look like two or more "friends" are logged in from separate locations. There is no way for DBG to police that no matter how many GMs they throw at the problem, and an "honor system" wouldn't last five minutes after server launch. It's simple enough to spoof the Truebox code DBG is using now. A hobbyist group running a not-for-profit server in someone's basement. and limiting the total playerbase to 1-2K people, might come closer to making it work, since their staff can become familiar with every single active player, assuming there is actually player demand for such a thing. Oh wait...
    jeskola likes this.
  12. Nessirfiti Augur

    At this point I'd support a No-box server just to see some of our more excitable forum residents running around accusing pre-made groups of being boxers.
  13. WaitingforMoreEQ WaitingforTBC

    Phinny was the TLP with the least boxing
    Phinny was the only TLP with raiding guilds in 5 time zones

    OP has it backwards
  14. Machentoo Augur


    It may be blatantly obvious, but you still have to have a GM to do something about it.
    jeskola likes this.
  15. Magic Augur

    Will love to see not-truebox and FV ruleset server!
    Truebox fans already got 2 servers so them must not care :)
    jeskola likes this.
  16. Elemenopi Augur


    The "lack of resources" position =/= they have zero GMs. Furthermore, those GMs who are left would find it much easier to identify boxers on a no box server compared to having to identify the botters and VMers vs the true boxers who are actually playing. It might be exactly the kind of thing they need in order to manage the job with fewer headcount.

    No box server - one character per player.
    Box server - anything goes. Begun, the clone wars have.
    Far easier to enforce this situation compared to what they have now.
  17. jeskola pheerie

    I am not sure you understand the actual time it would take to police this. This would require multiple full-time GMs working around the clock dedicated to just this one task.
  18. yerm Augur

    You are missing his point. Enforcing no boxing whatsoever is easier than enforcing an arbitrary line of boxing on multiple pcs but not same or vpn etc. If someone is found to be boxing multiple characters they are cheating - no grey area. People will work around it just like they work around truebox but at least it's easier for a gm to enforce.

    Personally I would like it if their enforcement included a cc on file requirement. My opinion is that 90% of the scumbaggery that happens is on accounts that deliberately avoid ever attaching a card. I churn cards for reward points and even I wouldn't be able to keep up with the ban rate on some of the worst trainers, nevermind the lvl 1 cleric accounts we know damn well are burners using a krono.
  19. Machentoo Augur


    I don't think it is as easy as you guys are making out. Someone scripting, or six boxing, is fairly obvious. Someone boxing one or two extra characters, not necessarily as much. Is it autofollow? My wife (who would have her own ip, credit card, mac address or whatever hardware verification they might use) is lazy and autofollows me everywwhere we go, while actually playing her toon. How can you tell the difference between that and me boxing her? Is it frequency of activity? Some players are just bad and only hit keys every few seconds. These sorts of things aren't going to be figured out by a GM popping in and watching for ten seconds.

    They would have to make at least some effort not to ban legitimate players, and that is going to take more time and work than you guys seem to think.
    jeskola likes this.
  20. jeskola pheerie

    I understand the point. They can just ignore most truebox infractions as "no evidence" and don't even investigate the majority of the reports due to staffing. No-box would be a customer service nightmare, as they would be forced to police 100 times more due to how much easier it is to spot.

    Also, it wouldn't exactly be a money-maker, either. Yeah, a company that is owned by an investment firm wants to hire more full-time staff to police a server with way less subscriptions.