[Please No!] December Server -no box

Discussion in 'Time Locked Progression Servers' started by KarmaThaKing, Aug 29, 2015.

  1. KarmaThaKing Elder

    Please no!

    I know there are some folks who have requested this and it really is a good idea! But, let me draw out a few points if you will allow me. Some of you may recognize some of my highlighted posts from other threads:

    1. Revenue & costs
    2. The real problem
    3. Mis-aligned feelings
    4. Populations

    I really don't want this to be another 4 page long thread. So hopefully I can keep this as concise as possible. This thread is not intended as debate fodder. Only my plea to the developers.

    1. REVENUE & COSTS
    I lead with this topic because it is probably the most important thing for the development team. I will start with the latter: costs. You (the devs) have probably already started to move people onto this project and it will take until December? While that is quick work, it sounds like wasted work? Why? Because you will be spending money (resources) to make even less money going forward (Revenue). So let's talk about that revenue: No box obviously means no multiple sub'd accounts. This , I believe, will become even more of a problem when we start talking later about populations.

    2. THE REAL PROBLEM
    I have said it once, I have said twice. Other people have said it thrice! The problem is botters! The problem is not the boxers....I say again, it is the people who use 3rd party programs, automation, advanced tracking, hacks, scripts, Whatever!!!

    3. MISALIGNED FEELINGS
    Which is why you (the devs) have heard people ask for this type of server rules. And it really is a good idea until you start to consider the things I mention in this post. People have never really complained about the 2box guy/lady.
    This never really became an issue until:
    a) Like 10+ years ago when that one guy was hooking up 6 computers to 1 keyboard and wrecking it with a 6-box wizzy group. ( he used 1 keyboard hooked up to 6 computers)
    b) In today, when is not only that 1 guy playing 6 accounts.... But many many people doing this 6-mage Boom-boom party. It's no longer a rarity, but commonplace.
    In closing number 3, I believe the majority (90%) of ALL players do not mind the dual-boxer. I firmly believe the distaste we all have in our mouths.... is from being locked out of content/economy because of the massive amount of automation taking place

    4. POPULATIONS
    This is a good point to hit on because I only saw it mentioned once or twice. And honestly only the development team know the real numbers behind this... But, the moment you open up another server = another server dies. This game is not 2015 game of the year. This game, even if free is not experiencing tons and tons of new players daily. The people who play ( please correct me if I am wrong ) have been playing for years!!! The only people who play are the people who have been playing. It's not like I got an email and all of a sudden I say to myself "OMG, a TLP server you have to pay for, Just what I was waiting for!" I started playing again because that is just what we all tend to do from time to time. We pick up the game for a while, and then we put it back down. Which is exactly my point when considering opening up another <insert gimmick server here>. If you will log onto a Live server right now, their population are pretty dismal. Before I subscribed myself, I was just playing around on the Live server and it is pretty barren.
    #4 Summarized: If you open up another server, it will only take away from the servers that currently exist.


    Whether this is all good or bad.. Ill let you decide as I am sure you will anyways. I just hope you ( the devs ) understand why people are asking for a no-box server. In the medical field we try to fix the Root problem. We don't try to simply fix the symptoms of the problem. I mean, just the fact that you say this new server is called "no box/no bot" is pretty scary. It means you admit to the fact there is a "botting" problem but yet this is okay for you (the devs) and us (the community) ???

    Thanks for hearing me out!

    50 Bard - StonedTone
    50 Shaman - Anabear
    Motherlee, PPQ1 and Ghubuk like this.
  2. AlmarsGuides Augur

    I didn't think I would see the day I agreed with you.
  3. Vaclav Augur

    #4 is complete horseshit. How many servers died because TLP3 opened? Hint: It's a number less than 1. Stop making up stories with no foundation in reality.

    The rest of the intent is valid, but #4 is completely misplaced - and honestly if you're optimistic the NoBox could in theory be a testbed for solutions to #1-3.

    Normally for something that would drastically change something that has been status quo a while you test it in a limited environment first - and we've seen here many times that Test unlike its name doesn't have enough dedicated and varied players to truly test things to make sure they work large scale. (i.e. look at RL political changes that are often tested on a state level before they go Federal)

    They very well might be planning exactly what you want primarily but in your short-sightedness with #4 you would hamper the overarching theory.
  4. Nolrog Augur

  5. KarmaThaKing Elder


    Please note: I did not say "servers being dismantled"............. My definition of a dead server is one in which there is very little population. Thus further leading to a negative-loop condition where people log on and see nobody is online, and then log back off.

    As far as Im concerned Cazic thule is pretty much dead. Oh sure... there are people on that server.... Alot of buff bots sitting in GuildLobby. There is actually a server-tracker on EQResource.... I don't have a paid membership to see the last 6 months of population levels. But, I am pretty sure once Ragefire and Lockjaw opened up.... The Live servers lost a lot of players.

    Someone with paid membership to eqresource is welcome to chime in on this fact. But, until I see something otherwise; I do not believe that all these people on Ragefire and lockjaw are new players.
  6. Hasty Blades Journeyman

    It's not like I got an email and all of a sudden I say to myself "OMG, a TLP server you have to pay for, Just what I was waiting for!"

    Actually, that's exactly what happened for me. I was very naïve thinking a pay again server would have more robust customer support and oversight regarding player actions. I quit in 2005. I thought this would be a great chance to come back and eventually do some of the later expansions. Until I subscribed, I didn't know what a KRONO was and I certainly didn't understand the severity of the Mage bot issue. I was addicted, so when I quit, I had to really quit. I fully understand now how those are linked and how detrimental they are for these TLP servers. Again, I really like what you had to say. But, I want to see those later expansions as people are actively playing them. It may take a new winter TLP server that tries to get a handle on the botting in order to have a server that remains viable long term. I think botting is already killing the two we have now.
    KarmaThaKing likes this.
  7. Vaclav Augur


    Day to day population is lower - very few guilds have had a slump of people showing up to raids entirely where they spend NO TIME on their old server anymore.

    Most people are capped on AA and capped on groupable gear on Live - if there wasn't the TLP to split their time with when they've got lockouts on the pathetic amount of raiding currently they'd either be AFK in lobby or offline while doing something else with their time - be it the TLP or another game or RL or whatever.

    You're sounding like you're quite unfamiliar with Live if this is a revelation to you that the last few expansions have been very content light where most people have no real desire to play outside of raid nights on Live.
  8. KarmaThaKing Elder

    This is basically all I am saying..........

    Per Hasty Blades, if a new server is what it takes to stop "mage armies" ( the whole point of this thread ), then so be it! I would just have thought that DBG would prefer to fix the problem instead of applying a band-aid. You seem to agree with everything I said except #4. And even your argument for #4 is arguing semantics. Because when I talk about population, I mean the daily # of players who are logged on and actively playing. I am not referring to all the potential characters who can log on, for a weekend raid. The latter does not sound like fun to me.

    Let me change the conversation a little bit by asking you one simple question Vaclav:
    Q: If, on Ragefire and Lockjaw........... there were no automation mage armies. Would you still have a problem with the 2boxer?

    (Please note: There is no wrong answer in my opinion for the question above. I just think that ultimately we desire the same thing......... Which is that DBG needs to get a handle on these things which are already against the EULA)


    DBG Policies:
    Somehow I came across these 2 items from another older thread:

    REGARDING 3rd PARTY PROGRAMS:
    https://help.daybreakgames.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/19176/kw/3rd party
    REGARDING AUTOMATION / AFK:
    (updated 8/22/15)
    https://help.daybreakgames.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/37758/kw/afk
  9. Vaclav Augur

    I personally don't have a problem with boxing outside of that, no.

    However on a personal level, I understand how a "bell can't be unrung" - the damage from such has already been done to these servers already - even if they fixed it tomorrow they'd still be tainted to me. (and many others, I'd imagine)

    And regardless you're still ignoring my primary point with #4 - that they need to testbed any such change SOMEWHERE that would have controlled impact first.

    For both logistical and financial reasons - maybe the NoBox server will be a failure because not enough people play without boxes. Maybe there will be some loopholes found that allow hardcore boxing to occur on it. Etc.

    Versus throwing it Live from the get-go and possibly alienating a ton of existing customers basically costing themselves thousands a month and not gaining enough revenue from the people that are happy with the changes to make up for it.

    Things like that need to be tested in scale. And better to subject a new willing population with it, than to suddenly throw it onto an old one that might cause a loss of subscriptions over.

    You claim to be a medical person - think of it like how experimental surgeries work (you know, sign this waiver - not just "SURPRISE WE'RE TRYING SOMETHING NEW TODAY - GOOD LUCK!") and how when a very ill patient needs many procedures they're spaced out so as to not risk killing the patient from shock.
    Fallfyres likes this.
  10. KarmaThaKing Elder

    No disagreement or counter-argument from me about the need to test.


    This may very well be the case for a lot of folks. In fact a point I had not considered, even if I don't personally feel the same way. ( I think if they fixed the problems, the servers would easily turn around...After all, we are only on vanilla classic expansion at the moment )

    I am not sure why we / you are talking about testing. I said nothing in my point #4 about making any changes. I simply expressed a concern about population shift if they did open up another new server. Fundamentally, I agree with the need for testing mechanics/loads/etc.... Not sure where you ended up thinking that I had opposing thoughts on this.

    Are you trying to explain/educate to me on how "consent for treatment/procedures" are carried out? <---That is what it is called afterall....... I think not. Your just kind of rambling on now....

    Testing for bugs/loads/balances is not similar to giving a patient information needed related to the consent for a procedure. And like I said again, I don't know why your hooked on testing as I had said nothing about making changes.

    In fact, the opposite:
    "I am suggesting we make no changes and keep the servers where they are, and DBG to devot the resources instead to tracking people who use these automation programs' users and ban them"

    .... Simple as that. I thought we were on the same page, but your comments come off argumentative and condascending...Im pretty much done replying to you now.......

    This was meant as a plea to the devs. Feel free to follow Nolrog's link above where this is plenty more banter you can participate in.
  11. Shmef Augur

    as much as they have said thus far, the rule they are looking at will be 1 client per computer/laptop, not a 0 boxing policy. this is causing a problem by them calling it a no box server as evident by this post. people hear no box and think no boxing at all. this could be very bad for this server in the end if a large chunk of people that play there think it actually means no boxing, start playing there, then rage when they see boxing on the server.

    even under the 1 client rule people could still 6 box and they could still use isbox with 6 computers (it works across a network just as easily). even before they start the actual work on the server they need to sit down and figure out a solid rule set so that people know what this server is about and not be waiting with high hopes for months for something that wont come.

    its kind of hard to tell what you really have a problem with, you say botting/automation but you seem to put a lot of emphasis in your post on 6+boxers, do you consider isbox to be botting? automation? specifically 6 toons standing/casting/etc at the same time? if so you might want to specify your problem with isbox and not just say botting/automation because a lot of people, including daybreak do not consider these the same thing. you must be precise in what you have a problem with if you want change.

    3rd party has also become a dirty word lately, vent, TS, mumble, gameparse, gina are all 3rd party programs. they all give you an advantage in some way, but many consider them harmless and daybreak has no issue with them.


    also, if you dont want feedback/etc to be discussed - send it to them in an e-mail, or /feedback in game, or send roshen a PM here. forums are in place for discussion.
    KarmaThaKing likes this.
  12. KarmaThaKing Elder


    To be honest, I am not familiar with ANY of the 3rd party programs at all...

    I also have no problem at all if someone can play & 6-box all mages and play them as boxes as allowed to play under EULA. No problem whatsoever, I have said it elsewhere in other posts but let me be clear: I can only 2box 100% on my characters. And while I don't believe anyone can play like a 100% person on 6 different characters, if you can do it even in the slightest respect.... by all means please feel free. This is not against the EULA afterall.

    I dont know ISBOX is, so I wouldn't even know how to comment about it. But 6 mages standing up and sitting down at the exact same time and casting spells at the exact same time is against the EULA. (I guess technically if you ran 1 keyboard to 6 computers it is not considered programs and therefore not against the eula)... I did link the DBG policy above.

    You make a fair point about the no box/server rules being interpreted in different ways. And I am not saying that they should allow boxing on a no-box server....... I am asking that DBG use the resources they have to track , disallow, warn, temp ban, perm ban, whatever! All the people who are abusing this game.

    I think if we as a community, could agree where the real problem lies.... ( not in krono, or in the 2box ).... BUT in the 3rd party automation application/programs that are botting <insert whatever # you want here> 3, 5, 6, 12, 24 mages... it doesnt matter. What matters is how they are operating, not who or how many of them there are.....

    . And apparently other than simply botting, there are other programs that can track mobs before they spawn? I dont know, I am only speculating about the last part.
  13. Vaclav Augur


    A plea that includes "don't do the NoBox server" - for someone interested in it - you can see why that plea requires some tempering second opinion.
  14. Eliseus Augur

    Super stoked for the TLP coming! Can't wait!
    Malachi and Friday like this.
  15. KarmaThaKing Elder

    fair enough...
    :( . You all will leave me and I will left with bots to keep me company.
  16. Malifer New Member

    This is yet another post suggesting boxers are the ones supporting DBG. They are NOT. Boxers pay for their accounts using krono that was bought by someone ELSE. Once that krono is purchased by someone ELSE it makes no difference to DBG if its actually used in game or not. DBG already have their money before boxers even get the krono.
    Fallfyres and Friday like this.
  17. Zarakii Augur

    boxing 2-6 isnt what bothers me what bothered me was seeing the mage army screenshots and that made me not want to play an alt on a tlp. depending how server population is i might actually make a character on the new no box server

    Also for those against this idea why try to stop it? theres 2 tlp's you can play on and box right now i for one am kind of looking forward to seeing how this one turns out
  18. oldkracow 9999 Is the Krono Account Limit

    1. Making guesses at revenue and costs without financial data to back it up = waste of time. It's obvious they are trying a no box server for a reason. I'm hoping it's because of data they think supports a high population with a lower rate of drop off. But who really knows


    2. Botting / automation agreed is a problem, people boxing is a distant 2nd but still an issue.
    I'd wager to say the amount of boxing on a TLP is beyond 4 out of 10 players... unlike in 99 where it was quite rare as heck.

    3. Do people hate boxers? Yes when they think boxing = advantage which it does on a TLP style server. On live I doubt anyone cares if you bot let alone box. Who knows I'd never play on a live server as that game is old, outdated and not what I played or would ever play.

    4. EQ is an old game, they can either try to keep the cancer patient alive and lose population year after year, or come up with new ideas to try to attract new customers, older customers back to new ideas.... I'm sure they already know EQ is past it's prime and will never pickup steam in it's current state.
    Friday likes this.
  19. Friday Augur

    I am really looking forward to winter launch of no-box. While I might cancel an account, my EQ budget will not change. The money I save will likely be spent in the DB store, or I might just keep the extra account, get another PC up and running, and coerce my wife to play with me. I speculate if a business focuses on the product first (rather than profits), the profits will indeed come.

    The bulk of 'the problem' might indeed be bots, but I know if I were one of the ones who had a 6/12/or 24 character mage army that had been legal or at least tolerated up until now, I would be pretty upset if the rules were to change this far into the game. The cake has already been baked, pretty much.

    I don't particularly mind the subtle two or three box; I two box myself, but I only do so because I oftentimes cant get groups lfg two, three, or even four hours in. I prefer to run only one character, and hope to once again play on a server where every character is commanding 100% of a players focus and attention. THESE are the truly elite squads, able to push the envelope of a groups capabilities to the point where the game is at its best IMO.

    OP states he is concerned about populations, that a new TLP he regards as a "gimmick" will take away population from the established TLP. A new server wont take me away. True, I have two accounts on LJ, but I play only seldom now that I am of a level to try to get into some loot camps and they are most typically mage army/bot/afk camped...or I guess I wouldn't be exaggerating to say they are always camped--the ones I want by afk blind, staring mages. If I am typical of the player who wants in on the one box, we aren't playing that much on LJ/RF anyway. I also see this server as positioning itself more to compete with 1999 than our established servers.

    It is funny that the tone of the +boxers seems to be shifting from pronouncing a one box server dead on arrival to 'please don't make it!' It kind of reminds me of someone whose beliefs prohibit him from eating pork, but is not content to abstain himself, he prefers to worry about other people enjoying their bacon!
    And as for the OP stating 'This thread is not intended as debate fodder'---You didn't truly expect to be able to roll out your reasons against the creation of something that many want and not also hear dissenting opinions, did you?
  20. Ultrazen Augur

    I think your hypothesis is 100% wrong. The only way DBG can actually monetize this game is to keep opening new servers, because they are the only thing that spurs people to sub. The continual promise of being top of the heap on the new hamster wheel is what gets most people to start on a new server. Once that opportunity becomes established and vanishes, the subs start going away.

    All of this is largely moot, the present servers will all be ghost towns within a few years. The more content there is in this game, the more the player base spreads out. That becomes a self fulfilling decline.

    I think the smartest thing DBG could do, is continually coming up with excuses to open new TLP servers, it's the one thing that's proven to generate any interest in the game. This game has been limping along for years, and TLP servers have a built in shelf life. Keeping people involved in the initial gold rush that new servers provide, is by far their best chance at keeping the income of this game above water.

    A new TLP per year with different rulesets, would probably keep this thing going for quite a while.
    Terranos likes this.