Limit 1 acct/comp < window + mouse release?

I am wondering about Holly`s article and the aspect of the 3rd party programs. If they intend on trying to limit 1 acct per computer, what does that mean for those of us who box w/o 3rd party programs using the UI`s window mode + auto mouse release?

I run a four box this way and have no intention of buying more computers to box with. Will this still be available for me to do or will it be squashed along w/ the 3rd party programs?

Sorry seems I can not edit the thread title, it should read 1 acct/comp > window mode + mouse release, meaning if they limit us to 1 acct per comp - will that do away w/ the built in boxing mechanism?

They are not going to limit you to one account per computer. And if they did, people would just spoof IP addresses and get around it in like 2 minutes.

What is leading you to believe they're pursuing an enforcement of a single instance of EQ per computer?

I box 3 accounts, and I don't know what this auto mouse release thing is. I click the tab at the bottom of the screen and switch to that character to directly input every single action.

I have a feeling that article may have misquoted her, but from the way it was written, it's like, "since people are upset at third party program boxing, we're going to squash all boxing".

This. They would decimate their own population in a day.

That means you gonna need to have 4 computers if you want to 4 box.Gonna be interesting to see if people can find some way around it.I can see programmers busy with coding .

Holly`s article.

http://massivelyop.com/2015/06/30/e...the-everquest-franchises-progression-servers/

Overlooked in the rush to interpret the comments about Kunark votes, but it's in there:

Yes, I 4 box w/ in game window mode, I suppose you do the same? When you drag your cursor to the bottom of the window it automatically leaves the window and you can then change accts on the task bar, which sounds like what you are doing.

back in 2000+ when boxing was popular w/ the use of 3rd party EQW, the program forced the game into a window and also released the mouse from the window, which allowed you to easily switch accts. EQ`s version is much better.

They won't do it. They would lose too much revenue and they endorse the use of I.S..Boxer. That was her blabbing about nothing at all to try and appease the anti botting/boxing crowd.

Exactly! So instead of fixing the problem with a scalpel, they'll obliterate it with a hydraulic hammer.

It would likely be based on MAC to be able to limit per PC, but even MAC addresses are easily spoofed. This whole concept wouldn't work.

Sorry anti-boxers, you're stuck with us.

I sure hope not!

Most people are not anti-boxers from what I can tell. I run 4 accts on 1 computer using the stock UI and nothing else. The problem is in the 3rd party program useage which replicates key strokes and allows one person to run 6-18 accts all duplicating the key strokes for the main acct.

This should not be, you have single individuals beating our raid guilds on current content, not kosher at all.

it would probably have to be something in the launcher/patcher that detected if the client was already running to prevent more clients from starting. a lot of other games do this you simply get a message the client is already running if you try to get a 2nd one going. isbox also works just as well over a network as on a single PC. so all this would really do is hurt anyone that boxes an extra char or 2 without having a 2nd comp. which there seems to be a lot of.

I can not imagine DBG limiting us all to one account per computer. Why would they through away money?

You should try reading the actual article for yourself, instead of what other people are saying about it. First important quote, which may or may not have been exactly what she really said: "Longdale assures that they are aware of the issue, and they don’t want that ruining the experience even if it does provide them with subs."

Second important quote, which may or may not have been exactly what she really said: "she mentioned that he team is looked at locking logins to one account per computer. That way families could still game from the same house and players can still dual- or triple-box if they desperately want to. The difference is that they will have to physically run the extra accounts on different computers instead of using a third-party program."

Now, the article may have mis-quoted her or taken her out of context. She may have even totally lied (although your tin-foil hat would have to be really really tight for you to believe that). Fact is, that is what the article had to say about the subject of this thread.

I rarely have issues with things that you say, but in this case I have to ask for your qualifications for this statement.

The article specifically stated that it would not be by IP addresses.