Will we ever see..

Discussion in 'Time Locked Progression Servers' started by Crowley, Jun 19, 2019.

  1. Crowley New Member

    A TLP server release that is not Truebox?

    This is an honest question. We have had 5, let me repeat FIVE, TLP's launch since Lockjaw & Ragefire, and they have all 5 been Truebox rule set. I know some people are going to complain, because people just love to do that without much consideration, but I think we need to see the next TLP not have this rule. Before you reply with complaints, hear me out.

    So I have played on every TLP up to this point, all the way back to the Sleeper & Combine. Some I played on more, some I played on less. We'll talk about LJ & RF more since it has been more recent with those 2 in comparison to what the TLP's have become now. So on RF, before LJ opened and transfers were allowed, I to had my qualms with box armies and etc. I got picked on by several of them while trying to exp and farm items. I expressed my frustration both in game, and on these forums. With that being said, I enjoyed the ability to box 3 toons, and sometimes more on my 1 pc. Why? Because sometime sitting around being LFG for 2-3+ hours is boring and as an adult with career, and family at home, I don't have time to sit there that long waiting. So I would box my own group with my LFG tag on. Or if I wanted to farm a piece of gear to upgrade, I could do so.

    The biggest problem I seen with LJ & RF wasn't necessarily the box armies themselves, it was more so those armies chasing open world raid mobs. Well, DBG decided to implement MotM buff to alleviate that, which it did help, but it didn't outright remove it either, oh and pick zones (which picks came before MotM I think?). As time went on, especially after Classic, the box armies weren't as bad because you had the MotM, and more content available. The only issue then was open world raids being held down by 1-2 guilds. So then people complained about that. Eventually Phinny came out and not only did it have MotM, it also brought in raid instancing which was really cool. With that new feature, it also came out with Truebox. Well, I played on Phinny, and the exp wasn't my favorite, but it was cool being something different on the rule set. In time with the slow exp, LFG seemed to become a problem, but you couldn't box unless you had multiple PC's. Eventually I just got bored and went on to other games. Came back for Agnarr, same thing. I actually went to 50 before Kunark, and could solo a bit more playing a chanter and didn't need to box while LFG, but I also got bored because I couldn't really go farm much content for alt gear and stuff, or go and work some epic mobs solo, or even 2 boxing on another PC. Now I am back on Mangler, this time playing a melee, and there are times sitting around LFG for hours is boring, and a waste of time. I can 2 box with a healer, but the exp is very very slow.

    Again, this is my personal run in, and opinion on it. My point is this- Even on these Truebox servers, box armies are still locking down camps people want (see forum and in game complaints). So what does it matter if these servers are truebox or not, the box armies will never go away unless DBG just makes the server 1 PC & 1 IP period. But even then, the RMT type will find a loophole, they always do. What matters is being able to use the instancing for raiding and such. If you are using instancing, you don't have to worry about losing raid bosses, and some epic mobs to these box armies. Because again, the box armies are gonna do their thing on plat camps regardless.

    So, DBG, how about next time around you bring back a TLP that is NOT Truebox. Keep the pickzones, keep the raid instancing, and we will be set. I think Mangler is the perfect setup minus the fact it is Truebox. Make a Mangler and allow single PC boxing, enough Truebox, we've had 5 in a row now.
  2. TLP Addict Augur

    Enough TLP's period imo. But I doubt DBG will stop releasing them unless people stop moving to the freshest one.
    potatoface and Yinla like this.
  3. HoodenShuklak Augur

    I'd honestly be ok with a non-true box server at this point. Make it PVP enabled as well, and name it "Dead in 60 Seconds".
    Thalliius likes this.
  4. Xhartor Augur

    Throw in FV rules too and throw the ruthlessness up to 11.
    Borune likes this.
  5. Jaera Augur

    * No Truebox
    * FV Ruleset
    * Starts in Velious for 4 months
    * MOTM is removed 1 expansion later (ex: Classic & Kunark raid mob MOTM removed in Velious)
    * NPCs with MOTM don't spawn in the open world, only in instances
    * 3 Month unlocks after the first (even on non-level-cap-increase)
    * LDoN bundled with PoP and LoY (maybe put in a thing that says you have to kill RZtWL before you can request LDoN raids. Alternately, bring back the Combine server's unlocking which opened LDoN once any guild killed RZtWL.)

    The dream that will never happen...

    --
    To the OP, your points are both valid and very good, but have been posted time and time again. Back channel information and rumor points to DBG believing that Truebox is the only reason that Phinigel was successful (it wasn't, it was the only option that had AoCs) and thus they will continue to only churn out Truebox servers, even with the overwhelming evidence that Truebox (a technological change) solved nothing at all while AoCs and MOTM (gameplay changes) did.
    potatoface likes this.
  6. Elemenopi Augur

    Im fine with it if they suspend krono consumption on just that one server.

    The reason: The people who keep asking for this should be the ones paying for it, not the people who have to buy their items due to camp monopolization. If you are paying straight cash for your 24 subs then you can 1-box 24 characters.
  7. Mepps Sr. Community Manager

    Anything is possible. We do strongly believe the downsides to not having truebox are critical and significant.
  8. Ehrz Journeyman

    Can you go into detail a little bit about these downsides? because to be frank most people cheating and running VM's already are by passing the whole point of truebox... so when you 1 guy playing 24 accounts its a big think when you dev's say stuff like this
    potatoface and Borune like this.
  9. oldkracow Augur

    Why not add in another rule to truebox to limit to (x) boxes.
    Or enforce the VM bypasses some of these 12+ boxers are obviously using.
  10. Xorsazis Augur

    Biggest issue I have with Truebox is that it disconnects me and my wife while playing because we mash our spam keys at the same time. Not with keyboard software spam, just me pressing it repeatedly and her doing the same. It's annoying and ruins my ability to play on TLP's.
    Yinla likes this.
  11. qweasy Augur

    What are the downsides of a non truebox server that aren't already solved by AoCs?
    potatoface likes this.
  12. jimini New Member

    My personal opinion on this is: on Agnarr, every top guild is populated with boxers 5-24 per person. Obviously Truebox is not working. When I say populated, I mean they are the majority.
    My guild, maybe 3 people are not boxers, the other 99% are boxers and they regularly talk about their tech and how to improve it. So yeah, Truebox isn't working, in the slightest.
    Every ban, they crank out a new set of bots. Right now there are 3 new sets all comin up in my guild from last ban (or strange coincidence).
    Agnarr is rife with bad actors breaking Truebox code, (and they ARE bad actors).. they monopoloize drops and force folks to buy the loot drops, as they will never give up the spawns.
    So for someone to come around and say, oh we need a non-Truebox TLP... you already have them. Truebox isn't stopping anyone. I wish it did, but it's not the case.
  13. Neldarion Lorekeeper

    Truebox worked for a short time on Phinigel and it was great. But for whatever reason it's no longer working.

    The M Q 2 aspect of Truebox is even pointless now, since there's another set of bot / automation tools available.


    Update your Truebox code pls.
    potatoface likes this.
  14. Accipiter Augur


    There's another thread on this that might help.
  15. Jaera Augur

    It never worked except for being "new". People had to take time to figure out all the workarounds, and by that time, the server was in Velious/Luclin and that's past where botting is an issue that people make such a big deal about it.

    Now that all the various methods to get around it are well known, well published, and readily available, Truebox only potentially punishes people who want to legitimately play the game with more than one character (or play in a household with multiple players) and does nothing to affect those that want to bot, exploit, and farm so they can make a quick buck.

    But sadly, its here to stay because DBG wants to bury their heads in the sand about what made Phinigel work, when in actuality it was AoCs and giving everyone a chance at content.
    potatoface likes this.
  16. Ehrz Journeyman

    Still waiting to hear the downsides to not having true box that are so critical and significant im curious because the people who are unaffected by truebox are the bad apples that would cheat regardless of your server type and the people hit most are the people who just like to box but follow all the rules.
    potatoface likes this.
  17. yerm Augur

    Time to step it up:

    Nobox

    If truebox is only partially effective, or losing effectiveness, the answer is not to give it up and go back the rf/lj era hordes with crap like box merc armies competing for por bottlebecks. The answer is to move forward! Limiting boxing was a net positive. Keep going.
  18. Jaera Augur

    Once again, Truebox was never effective. People figured out solutions for it within a week of Phinigel being opened so they could easily box and even bot. Phinigel had an immature version of almost everything that was subsequently fixed before Agnarr and Coirnav came around, like picks being able to be kept open as long as 1 person stayed in it, constant server crashes due to the too many pickzones open, and several guilds vying for group content and zero scruples about training each other, and so on. This hid the problems with Truebox until things stabilized, and each subsequent progression server has less and less people to interfere with bot crews.

    Doubling down on it is just doubling zero, which is the amount of effect a 'nobox' server would have on stopping any of these behaviors. The only way you could do so would be to continue to punish and harm legitimate players by removing options like autofollow or assist socials, and probably still wouldn't affect botting in the slightest. Any kind of technological solution has already been worked around due to Truebox's ineffectiveness.
    potatoface likes this.
  19. HoodenShuklak Augur

    Its mostly effective. I promise you this, if there was no truebox i would have probably 12 accounts going. If you tried to take my camp on a non truebox server i would have a pack of boxes just to make sure you don't get anything useful done. And im pretty easy going in game, so i don't doubt there would be hoards of people with disposable armies just waiting to sit on anything of value. The game would feel a whole lot less classic.

    At least with truebox i need to work with others or invest a lot of energy into turning my office into a third world internet cafe. I choose to play with humans instead and truebox helps many people make that healthy decision.
    yerm likes this.
  20. Elemenopi Augur


    Its far easier to enforce no-box than it is true-box.

    The reason true-box was ineffective was because they wanted to allow people to multi-box AND attempt to eliminate botting, which as you claim didnt work. Theres alot of doubt as to whether someone is botting versus whether they just have the right set up to allow them to spam the same buttons at the same time manually. That is not relevant to enforcing a one-character-per-player policy however.

Share This Page