Can they really enforce a no-bot server?

Nice that it is already against the TOS. I didn't know that....bonus;>

Using VM's is also a strain on the clients resources...just running 1 VM can be noticeable in lag, and if you add more you better have a pretty beefy machine to expect to run several VM's running a MMO at the same time. Using VM's to run 1 additional account would be a reasonable way around it, maybe even 2 VM's....
....BUT then again...I don't think the "big picture" of this is to totally get rid of boxing. It's meant to make it "harder" and much more "inconvenient" so you'll see FAR less, if any, 6 box armies running around on the server. Logic being that the people wanting to dominate content for RMT will go somewhere else because it's much less of a hassle on RF/LJ or normal servers, than on the "no box" server.

I, personally, might try it out when it comes out. (if it does) If I see too many 6 boxers I'll just close my account like I have already done. No biggie.

Waste of time for DBG to do this. They can't even enforce the miniscule ruleset they have on the current TLP's. Pure money grab.

Yea....I was just clicking through some of the latest drama about lockjaw crashes and so on because of some major screw ups on DBG's part.

If the TLP's tend to be glitchy with every xpac release and end up broken for months at a time...it's not worth it to me to give them money.

Life is too short. I have other things to do. My account will stay closed.

The announcement of a no-box server has to be one of the most ridiculous statements to come out of DBG yet. Yeah it might appeal to a few of the old school get-off-my-lawn types, but it's hard to imagine that there would be any ROI for the efforts it would take to roll out an EQ client modification to enforce the single instance. They really just need to put those resources towards new content development and bug fixes instead. That, in my opinion, would be a much better use of personnel.

Listen to me for once, I have tried to get this message through in every other thread about this, and if it finally sinks in maybe this will be the last thread we see about this.

1. They won't have to enforce anything.
2, The dev for the most popular third party tool used for boxing has already publicly stated that he will disable usage of it on a no boxing server if such goes live.

Let that sink in.
Basically it means that only a very few people will have the coding skill to bypass such measures.
And if only a few people box (or bot) it means the server will be of absolutely 0 interest to RMTers cause:
1. They are gonna have to spend significant time and or paying a coder or reverse engineer to either create new software, which could take months and at which point server might already be dead.
2. A no box server could be underpopulated from launch anyway in which case it is not of interest to RMTers anyway.
3. Every boxer I know including myself have said we would NEVER play.on a.no box server, and that makes sense, I mean why would we want to? We have ALL the other servers.

This not going to work for 99.9% of the people that play EQ. You can play around all you want with proxies or IP spoofing but unless you are playing behind a router which does not translate IP addresses (everybody's home cable router does) it won't work. The router could care less what you do on the private side of it. If you look at the people spoofing IP's you will find they have access to some type of VPN server located on the public internet through work or other means.

Once again, almost nobody that plays EQ has the access or knowledge to take advantage of such a thing, so quit acting like this is a commonplace practice because it's not.

I'm sure they'll slap together something that will prevent a basic boxer from being able to load up multiple clients into that server. However Sandboxed Programs and Virtual Machines and what not will likely bypass the restriction.

Best thing they can do is just be harsh with it. If you're caught obviously multiboxing, Suspended for a few days / Banned.

I think it could work with the right amount of guide support to help find/ban those who do manage to find a way to box.

I love how everyones comment above rely upon the assumption that in order to block multiple instances of EQ running on a single computer that it would involve IP addresses...
Silly people, there are games out there that are MMO and do this already. And this does not involve any form of IP address association at all. This is an internal coded issue and a few lines of python coding can actually pick out the program running and simply "not allow" another instance of it to be started. The only way around that is to break the python coding (which will not be done easily if at all) or you would have to find a way to sub out individual cores on a multicore machine to act independently from each other, of course that would mean virtual memory to prevent interaction as well, and while i know that this has been done as an exercise I do not know if both the memory and the cpu have ever been "divided" at the same time. Of course then you could always install more machines and have a computer for each box you want to run, but who is going to do that really? the wiring alone and the KVM switches would just be cost prohibitive vs the fun factor. of course some A-Hole would do it.

Anyhow the point is it can be done and should be done if it will generate income for DBG and if it will allow the choice of playing there and NOT being forced to compete with the boxers.

No but it wont be as in your face as it is now.

I think 2-3 boxes should be allowed.... its the 6-20 boxes that are just nut

The "at the keyboard" policy doesn't mean . These botters will work around every technicality, ToS or not.

They already do.

It's funny reading the P99 forums about how all the velious raid mobs were beat on day 1, and people saying "well, no more releases and all raid mobs killed on day 1, what now?", and a couple proposals of a future recycle server or if progression past velious were even possible (which I believe with their client, is not). There was a couple comments about P99 socking, exploiting cheesy raid tactics like everyone having soulfires and donal's bp, inflated economy, etc

....and then you have the DBG devs wanting to make a server that's more like P99. Hmm, P99 wants to progress (and wants harder raid mobs), and TLP wants to be P99. Grass is always greener

So no one in EQ has access to google or the knowledge of how to google is what you're saying?

And would this prevention separate this single server from all the other servers which boxing is allowed since you have to go through the same log in that it checks for?

1. Good idea until you hit after PoP and your population starts to nosedive like it does on every TLP created, then you will be begging for the ability to box to fill in missing gaps to do raids and groups.

2. This would stop your bigger boxers but for someone like me, I already have 3 computers set up in my computer room that can run EQ just fine, 4 if I brought in my lap top and i'm about to buy a new computer so that would make it 5 and even now I have no problems running toons individually to where I want to go or staggering my actions as if each toon was an individual so there would be no way for anyone to tell i'm boxing if I wanted, and i'm not even big into boxing. Granted I have never boxed more than 2 other characters and probably wouldn't anyway but how are you gonna stop that?

It doesn't need to be stopped. If you can't tell someone is boxing, it isn't disruptive to other's game play and they won't complain about it. Boxing isn't the problem, disruptive boxing is. They would likely only take the steps needed to remove or discourage disruptive boxing. I doubt anyone really wants to break out the lynch squad because someone logs in an alt to port themselves somewhere, or throw themselves a heal or two in a tough spot.

I'm big on semantics, so, when I say I two box, I mean "two boxes". I run the exact same set up now as I did from 2000-2005. Two towers, two monitors, two keyboard, and two mice. I just love using the plural of mouse. . I run two characters on two accounts. The only software I run on my PC's would be a fairly current version of windows and the official everquest software, period. If you are on Lockjaw, you may have already grouped with me and probably didn't even know I was boxing. This is exactly how it should be. I pride myself on being able to play two characters simultaneously. Notice the word "play". This is the issue when you paint all boxers with the same huge brush. This is why boxers and botting shouldn't be used interchangeably. I understand the connotations, and the hatred. But, there are stark contrasts. Maybe my hypocrisy knows no bounds, but I can't stand botters either. So, why post this long winded explanation for which no one cares? Simple. I promise you I am not alone in how I play EQ. I promise you I am not alone in how I think the game should be played, meaning if you are going to box, then actually spend the physical and mental energy to play the characters. I also promise you a no box/ no bot server will attract a lot of boxers, just like myself. I, personally, probably wouldn't roll there because of the boxing hatred. But, I can certainly see why it would be attractive. We hate botters just as much as all those who profess to play single characters.

Pretty much this. I doubt Daybreak is going to throw a ton of resources at this server to stop someone from two-boxing a cleric and warrior, but they're definitely going to hammer anyone 6-boxing mages. It's going to be another one of those situations where the community is going to end up being the police force. It will prevent boxing abuse, but it won't prevent boxing.

Really, so let's say after I get my new comp and this server opens I make 5 mages and play them in a way that you can't tell they are being boxed and I decide I am going to ks camps this time around? Just because someone can act like they aren't boxing doesn't mean they still aren't a .