Producer's letter - upcoming no box/bot server

---------
There are other MMO's on the market which have that tech in place; they use it for their 'extra' security measures that players can purchase for their accounts. For instance if one uses a static VM its less easy to detect. And yes, you can pay and get that. However the bulk of the 'practicing cheaters' out there take the path of least resistance and of course, whatever is cheapest which means they use the 'freebie' VM sites and those addresses most definitely are changeable/variable, even multiple times in the same day.

So, perhaps DBG does have something for Plan A, B AND C in regards to this. Remains to be proven of course.

A no box server amuses me. I don't think people realize just how important boxing is to EQ. Not the 6+ boxing mage armies, I get that those can be disruptive, but 2, and 3 boxing has been a part of EQ for years, and is used to fill in the gaps left by classes that are essential, but unbelievably boring. I've been a main cleric on a CH rotation. It was worse than watching paint dry. One shaman on a raid gets to have fun and debuff, the rest are little more than spot healing buff bots. "Casuals" are shooting themselves in the foot by demanding a no box server. It is casuals who usually need the extra boxed cleric/shaman/chanter or two to make ends meet. And when the population starts to decline, as it inevitably will, it will only be felt that much more harshly without boxes to fill the gaps.

Have fun on a no box server. It is inevitably doomed once the novelty wears off. My biggest worry is that the initial release will pull from the communities of both the current TLP servers, hurting the population of all three once people get tired of no-box but have fallen too far behind to bother going back to Rage/Lock.

Agree with this. Make it a maximum 2 box server.

Since they're willing to devote some dev time to a new ruleset server, they should let the players vote for what ruleset is most important to them. Myself, I'd be more interested in a raid-instanced server than a no-boxing one. I think Frenzic had a pretty well thought out ruleset.

Yea this is stupid. So in 1999-2001 when I was too poor and young to afford more than one account, but now 16 years later I have a real job albeit limited playtime...I can't log on my 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 bot crew and enjoy the game myself?

The problem is quite clearly the massive OP of mages, and in turn software that allows you to run all of them simultaneously.

My pal/cler/enc/mnk/dru/wiz isn't OP by any means. But it gives me the ability to go where I want, when I want, and be able to accomplish things.

I played a paladin for years, and aside from SU3 boxing with a shaman in Crypt of Decay (4 expansions from now), it got really old putting groups together sometimes.

I'd rather just stay with the mage box armies and play my legit 6 box crew. Hell, most of the time I can still get to a camp if I wait a couple hours (which you used to have to do anyways). Most of them will even send you a tell when they leave so you can hope in their spot.

Just pay attention DBG, address the actual issues and quit lying to yourselves.

DBG has enough time and resources to code an entirely new client to "prevent" boxing but can't develop instances?

Lol yes that group actually WOULD be OP, assuming you could play it well. I imagine that, if you are trying to play 6 different classes without using software, then you are using macros which can be very limiting and unflexible. A 3box (or a 4box or a 5box), can break just about any dungeon camp in classic, 6 is complete overkill. In fact, a small group played well might be better than a bigger group played poorly. Just food for thought, but hats off for doing a big group of non-homogenous classes

I can see it only working if they revert classes to what they were in 1999.That would mean getting a new client for that server.To me that even more important then instancing.As far as VM is concerned i remember the number of people that got banned/suspend for using it on live so they seems to have a pretty good way to detect those.

they may limit boxing but bots are already illegal, I rather suspect that there'll be plenty of bots anyway

A lot of bots "hide" as boxes right now. If both were disallowed on a new server, it'd be far easier to catch the bots.

If you want to box, play on a different server then. Or don't play at all. I played on RF/LJ for a month, before deactivating my account, and didn't like all the boxing going on. I was told, among other things, if I didn't like it....don't play. Well, I'm not playing now;>

DBG is pursuing this idea because of a demand they have estimated. I plan to try it out, more than likely anyway, for at least a month to see how it goes. I like the idea, personally.

To the people that don't like the idea of a "no-box server"...go play on a different one. It's that simple.

As far as whether this is good for their business, or not, unless you "know what they know" about their company it might mean a little, but not a whole lot.

It's farts in the wind.

If this server doesn't perma-lock at like PoP/LoY/LDoN, it is doomed to fail so fast. Without extra boxes in the mix the population just won't be sustainable.

This is interesting...I think it will do quite well...if they invest the TIME and MANPOWER into doing it the right way. I have my doubts...

First...how will they enforce somebody like myself who runs their business out of their home and has multiple public IP addresses? Or people using VPN's?

IP enforcement does not prevent boxing. It makes it harder, but it does not prevent it. It discourages it yes, but does not prevent it. Any Windows desktop can be multihomed and placed on several networks, and can then alter what is the "primary" network adapter for each EQ instance. Plus, there are VPN's you can tunnel the data through. In short, this would not be 100% enforceable, without staff staying on top of it as people play, as is the case with p1999.

Second, what about those that have kids that play with them? Again, in my case I have 3 accounts, and 2 kids that play and we all group up, NOT as a mage army. ;-) We can (and have) played p1999 as I have exceptions from them. But this requires manual work and validation on their part, after a manual request in which I had to provide quite a bit of evidence that I wasn't trying to fleece them. The process took several back and forths, and was not trivial. Will DBG have the staff to handle this that will be needed to ensure that both: 1) the policy is available (thus not losing a TON Of possible players and 2) the policy isn't abused.

Both of the above isues represent REAL hurdles to the success of such a server.

If you don't handle the first right, the server will fail to meet it's goal, and you'll still see mage armies.

If you don't handle the second right, it'll be a ghost town.

It is possible do to both, but it's going to take a real commitment from DBG to do both well.

I think a lot of the people that aren't into this server's ideas just have a different mindset and this is not the right environment for them. Maybe it would take months before enough people get organized and have the right components to start successfully raiding without due to 15 people not having the effectiveness of 30 people or 45 people or 60 people due those 15 people running more than one account. Vox or Nagafen could actually sit there unmolested for a good amount of time before the server could muster a strong enough force together to take them down.

There could be a shortage of tanks, healers and utility classes which would in turn create a real need and reward for the people that do choose to play those classes as their mains. This might actually mean that people have to form relationships with other people again and care about their reputation on the server.

Sure the server could be dead by PoP, but this game is already 16 years old and the only thing that is creating all the hype and interest over this game right now is the progression servers, it's sure not any of the upcoming new or recent content being released.

I'll happily give up my 2 box , sometimes 3 box setup if the new server would enforce the following rules.....

• Caught boxing = delete characters + account. None of this "I didn't know crap"
• Zero ability to use a krono for the subscription until the server is at least 1 or 2 years old.

You'll also have to tone down the use of a certain program that gives every class track style ability in any zone they are in....
Can they do it ? Who knows at this point.

Dumb dumb dumb. This idea is destined to fail if there aren't certain measures or rules put in place right away.

I can think of 3-4 feasible ways to get around the "no-boxing" rule without putting much thought into it at all. Anyone else have old laptops or computers that can run EQ? I have about 5 sitting there that could run it. 5 mages on auto follow wrecking stuff just the same as this round of TLPs. The only difference is I'm pressing 5 buttons instead of 1 for "pet attack". Oh wait, keyboards and software can span multiple computers now days. Fix that first.

This idea is also short-sighted because the game turns into something that requires boxing. I played through Fippy to level 85. If we weren't allowed to box, the server would have died pre-PoP. What if your main 3 clerics can't make the raid one week or decide the CH rotation isn't the life for them and quit the game? The pool of recruitment is likely empty due to all competent raiders already being in raiding guilds. Boxes have become a staple of the game. They are required to get any real progression done. I don't mean 6 boxing a full group. I mean having a backup healer to come in when your other ones call in sick. Or a boxed bard to push your DPS a bit higher to push that last 10% of a mob's health that you've been struggling with for 3 weeks.

If this server starts with all necessary expansions and a merc system, it may last a bit longer. But a recycled ruleset server with a claim of "no-boxing" attached is an instant fail.

This server sounds like a stepin the right direction. Count me in.

You don't really need macros. You just get into a rhythm pressing keys. I have done this using 6 PCs and, later on, 3 PCs (main PC had 3 EQ instances that I alt-tabbed between). No 3rd party software needed or wanted. My chars were druid, shm/enc, rog/mnk, cleric, war, wiz. Haven't played for a couple of years on Live but took 8 characters to 100 doing this.

I think there is a significant difference in boxing an extra healer or support class to help a group/raid then boxing 6 mages or more to dominate content yourself.

Boxing this way was a staple of old EQ and was quite healthy for the game. My guild back in the day got a huge boost by sometimes boxing an extra healer or other class to help fill in groups or raids, and I started a boxed cleric to help form groups faster myself or solo when no one was around.

Today's problems on the TLP servers are the 3rd party software programs that didn't exist originally and make it too easy to control a bunch of characters, and the fact computers weren't strong enough to handle more then one instance of EQ.

I'd like to see boxing limited to two instances of EQ. That's not enough to just overtake large amounts of content yourself, but it's enough to start groups and provide some utility. Otherwise, you risk a group of DPS standing around with nothing to do thanks to a lack of a healer, enchanter or other support type class that is commonly boxed.

I assume they'll figure out how to prevent boxing for the most part. I assume some people will certainly try to get around it. I assume that the community will report these cheaters. I HOPE that DGC will actually do something about it or have a solid boxing test like P99