The simultaneous sending of keystrokes is considered illegal in EQ2...

[Noxxy]

This post will have some serious repercussions for the entire EQ2 multi-boxing community if it can be further validated - if you do send any questions to SOE, make sure you query the legality of the 'simultaneous sending of keystrokes'

NB: Before you rush of and post 'but but but my GM said keyclone/HKN/vetra was ok' - please ensure your GM knows that they are simultaneous keystroke casters

Your 'constructive' input into this thread would be appreciated


Simply:
- The use of either hardware or software for the simulatenous sending of keystrokes to the same or across multiple pcs is considered character automation. As such, it is against SOE EULA and is illegal.

Had an interesting night last night. Introduced myself to a new server (went to try pvp) and, in summary, was told by several GMs that the simultaneous broadcasting of keystrokes is considered character automation and as such is illegal.

This simply means that plug-n-play hardware solutions such as the vetra megacaster and software applications such as keyclone, hkn and any other 'simultaneous keystroke broadcaster' are illegal in EQ2

After reading the GM replies, I checked their understanding against previous GM responses posted in Khatovar's MB & Current MMOs (http://www.dual-boxing.com/showthread.php?t=19768).

In Khat's post I found the reference to Ticket 090210-001499 where CSR Xavier "Spadaccino" M. replied:
'Every action taken by a character has to be the result of a unique keystroke. Usually this is accomplished by multiple computers with multiple keyboards, though it is permissible to use one keyboard to control several computers through a selector switch. You are allowed to use 3rd party software, as long as you do not in any way manipulate or change the client (EQ2) program and as long as you are at the controls and capable or responding from each character.'

If we analyse this further - Every action taken by a character has to be the result of a unique keystroke. - the simultaneous sending of keystrokes is not as such 'unique' - it is cloned. Whilst Xavier does go on to mention 'You are allowed to use 3rd party software' - I believe this is in relation to a software selector and defineately not a 'key cloner'

For your information, I have included an edited version of the incident report I submitted last night:

Incident: 091215-002136

Response (GM Yxyran)
12/16/2009 12:49 AM

[shortened]…The problem occurs when you…send commands…at the same time…it is important that you understand why you cannot use any device or program to allow you to control more than one character with one key stroke.

It offers you an unfair advantage over players using the game and interface as designed. It essentially accomplishes an action that…could not be done in the course of play. There is no way to link the actions of two separate characters in game. No way to make them work in sync where you take action with one character and it triggers an automatic action from another. You have to use separate keystrokes for each character's actions. Each character must be under the direct control of the player at all times. Anything that circumvents that direct control constitutes automation. Automation makes them a bot.

Thank you for your time,
Game Master Yxyran
"The Moon Moth"


Response (GM Kaerytha)
12/15/2009 08:58 PM

[Shortened – message relayed from the Lead GM on Nagafen]…In addition, simultaneous key broadcasting is not permitted. So if you are pressing one key on your keyboard, and it's causing all 6 of your characters to cast, or attack or perform any action simultaneously then that is something we would consider character automation, which is prohibited….

Safe Travels,

GM Kaerytha
EverQuest II
Sony Online Entertainment

[Fursphere]

Each character must be under the direct control of the player at all times.

Keystroke broadcasting *IS* direct control. The character does nothing without you pressing keys.

You could argue that you could have 2x PCs and 2x keyboards, and use one hand on each to cast at the same time? Is that still automation because you are using BOTH hands? What if you use 4x PCs and 4x Keyboards with hands and feet?!

Or two people practice enough that they are perfectly in sync with each other, to appear to be multiboxing? (like, synchronized swimmers)

[Fursphere]

Further, you may want to read this thread (post #2)

http://www.dual-boxing.com/showthread.php?t=26643

[Ualaa]

So, within EQ2, the best option (if you want to stick with the game) is Steps, or the equivalent for the software of choice.

Each keystroke is a step.
Step 1 - Toon A
Step 2 - Toon B
Step 3 - Toon C
Etc.

And then spam the key, as many times as you'd like actions to occur.
Maybe Key 1, is tank only.
But Key 2, is your four DPS toons, so you'd spam this key four times in rapid succession.

Which then gives four unique keypresses, with only a single action across all toons on each action.
The faster you could spam the key, the better.
But its still only a single action, on only one of your toons, from a single keypress.



Honestly, if this is Sony's stance on boxing.
I would tend to think, a new game might be a better option.
They clearly don't want you to play their game, as a boxer.

[Noxxy]

Hey Furs,

I totally agree re the direct control but I think the problem comes from the fact that the keystrokes aren't unique to each pc - as they are being cloned, well more appropriately the keystrokes are split in my case - and even if I could join the circus and use both hands'n'feet - there'd still be enough randomness going on to ensure the keystrokes weren't exactly the same for each pc therefore making the hands approach legal

As for the linky - I sure did read that one too to get more information. As for how I send in my querys, I always send all questions via the ingame game customer support website (not directly to random GMs etc) - this avoids a lot of problems. The issue seems to be that more GMs are sprouting the 'simultaneous keystroke' philosophy which imho is totally out of the blue


Hi Ualaa,

The only problem with staggering the keystrokes is the shear number of keys in eq2 - for example, each character has about 25 - 30 spells, etc. Times that by 6 chars = somewhere around 150 - 180 keys - that's a big keyboard not to mention some pretty fast keyboard spamming


Just has totally floored me as I have been happily playing for years and now it's as if there's a eula change in the wind

[Velassra]

Reminded me I hadn't cancelled my accounts. Anyway, I cancelled and for lol's I took their survey. They do list multibox as a style of play multiple times in their survey, so idk.

I listed a change in policy as reason for cancellation....but if they look they'll see I hadnb't played in like months anyway.

[Twiz]

Yeah, if this is the case, I'll have to cancel accounts. Shame. :(

[Noxxy]

Before anyone does anything drastic it will be well worth confirming the facts for yourselves via ingame support

[Twiz]

Yeah, I'll see what I can dig up first before anything happens!

[Gomotron]

Hmm if this is indeed true, at least it makes my decision easier. I've been wrestling with boxing Aion or EQ2 or LOTRO as my non-WoW habit.

Please keep us posted on developments.

[highlander_133]

I just threw a post up on the official boards here:

http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=464930&#5182388

[Trick]

While I don't play EQ2, I am a Keyclone user. What if you forced all keys into Round-Robin mode, and just spammed the key to make things happen? Yeah it's a reach, but tell me you've never spammed a key a couple of times just to make sure the command was recognized...

[Captive2]

EQ2 simply can't afford to alienate their multi-boxing user community. They've got enough problems as it is.

I see posts ALL OVER EQ2 Flames from people boxing. Sure, a few may just have a second character on follow - but most are using at least 3 accounts. If this is their official stance - and one they're going to enforce - my days with EQ2 are finished. I simply won't play the game with a single account. The same goes for WoW - these games hold no appeal to me if I can't box them.

Really disappointed to see this. I'll try to post to the thread on the official forums when I get home tonight - I can't get to those boards here at work. I wonder if this is perhaps a PvP-only issue - the whole idea of "fairness". If I'm in a 6-man heroic instance, or questing in the Pillar of Flames, who cares if what I do gives me an advantage; I'm not competing against another player.

Thanks for the heads-up Noxxy.

[Milque]

I can't make up my mind if I'm upset about this.

Right now I've got most of my combat zaps for each toon grouped into a single macro, and a toggle on the display that acts as a sort of Group timer that lets me know when I've let enough time pass for one spell (the top spell that isn't refreshing and the bottom spell in the macro) to have cast.

I have one key that fires this macro on each toon.

It's not the most efficient, and I'm sure my parses wouldn't keep up with a well oiled raid group's, but it gets me through fights, usually in one piece, and guarantees for the most part that my toons are all cycling through their spells as their available).

Round robining this so that I have to hit the button 6 times would not be a terrible hardship. Changing the setup to where keys 1 through 6 fire off the macro for each toon wouldn't kill me, either, and in fact would probably allow me better DPS since I wouldn't be wasting time on toons who are refreshed and waiting to case to catch up with slower casters with longer recycle times.

Just thinking out loud.

If I could figure out how to get a timer on each key so that I could see when each toon was ready to recast I'd almost RATHER have them all on a seperate key.

[Velassra]

I was actually thinking last week to try out the original EQ for a time. I'd imagine it would be relatively easy to box and there was so much content, even outdated, that would be a completely new adventure for me.....but if boxing is illegal in EQ2, I can't imagine it would stay legal in EQ either.

[Inactive]

I just PMed Rothgar on the official forums. Its not first time people have gotten a dev response on multiboxing, i hope he'll reply to me. We need an official non bs stance on this before we all rush out and buy new xpack times 6.

I'll keep you posted, but in all fairness i think all these GMs has misunderstood something, those are the exact same ones i dealt with and the elite GM that handled me in the end did end up telling me he misunderstodd me, i gave up talking to him though and when my email through site support told me to reply to this said GM i gave up.

However, dont rush out and cancel all your accounts. Im positive this is a misunderstanding.

[Velassra]

Looks like SOE replied to linked thread above.

[highlander_133]

Kiara responded, and then locked the thread.


So, multiboxing if you control all 6 characters signally and you have to type a command for all 6 characters separately is ok. Multi-boxing with the use of hardware OR software which allows you to control 6 characters with 1 command is not ok and considered in violation of the spirit of the game as it gives the player(s) an advantage over other players.

So using one mapped key to fire off actions on more than one client = illegal.

I cannot understand why SOE would have a policy that is so divergent from Blizzard, and is all but guaranteed to alienate players rather than encourage new accounts.

[asgradth]

Looks like SOE replied to linked thread above.

Yup, confirmed. Using SW is illegal and a violation of the terms of service, hence, a Bannable Offense. Time to cancel my accounts and move to a new game. It was fun, but it is no more. At least I can make some scratch selling my toons on the exchange server.

Thanks for all the help over the last few years, gang, especially you, Noxxy. I was able to do things I never thought possible as a multi-boxer... and I couldn't have done it without this community.

Until the next Game... This is Pang/Militant of Chainsaw Leprechauns on Oasis, signing off.

[Fat Tire]

I am curious when they made this policy change?




Edit: You may want to post this on the General Discussion forums so it gets a little bit more visibility for anyone considering playing EQ2. This is a pretty big deal. I could see wow doing the same thing.

[Svpernova09]

Here is a direct link to the SoE reply:

http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=15&topic_id=464930#5182737



INC OFFICIAL RESPONSE!!!
End of debate http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif Thank you very much everyone http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif


Our terms of service state: (http://soe-ing.custhelp.com/cgi-bin...p?p_faqid=12248 (http://soe-ing.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/soe_ing.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=12248))
6. We may terminate this Agreement (including your Software license and your Account) and/or suspend your Account immediately and without notice: (i) if you violate any provision of this Agreement; (ii) infringe any third party intellectual property rights; (iii) if we are unable to verify or authenticate any information you provide to us; (iv) upon game play, chat or any player activity whatsoever which we, in our sole discretion, determine is inappropriate and/or in violation of the spirit of the Game; (v) upon any violation of the Station Terms of Service and/or the Game Rules of Conduct and/or (vi) upon any violation of the Exchange Agreement. If we terminate this Agreement or suspend your Account under these circumstances, you will lose access to your Account for the duration of the suspension and/or the balance of any prepaid period without any refund. We may also terminate this Agreement if we decide, in our sole discretion, to discontinue offering the Game, in which case we may provide you with a prorated refund of any prepaid amounts.

So, multiboxing if you control all 6 characters signally and you have to type a command for all 6 characters separately is ok. Multi-boxing with the use of hardware OR software which allows you to control 6 characters with 1 command is not ok and considered in violation of the spirit of the game as it gives the player(s) an advantage over other players.




IMO "6 characters signally and you have to type a command for all 6 characters separately is ok" Sounds like if you round robin everything so only 1 toon is getting a key at a time, you'd be ok. But it's definitely a Box at your own risk until they clarify further.

Going to move this to General Forums.

[Inactive]

From the thread on the official boards:



So, multiboxing if you control all 6 characters signally and you have to type a command for all 6 characters separately is ok. Multi-boxing with the use of hardware OR software which allows you to control 6 characters with 1 command is not ok and considered in violation of the spirit of the game as it gives the player(s) an advantage over other players.



What this means is that its perfectly fine to still have one keyboard for 6 accounts as long as you are controlling each client signally and uniquely. You can accomplish this with ISBoxer using keymapped steps while making no use of the repeater whatsoever.

I just changed my setup to comply with these "new" rules. A few examples:

First press goes to client1 second to client2 etc etc

Num9, client one invites all group, clients accept - I press 6 times and voila
NumComma, Client stops follow - I press 5 times
Q - Assist and autoattack 1 - Same thing i now have to press 5 times

I also have an elaborate keymap setup where i use 3-4 different ingame macros on each toon with the one of my "spam" button, depending on which mode set on my main guys keymap a different keystroke is send to a specific client. This button where before i had to hit once every sec, i now have to spam as it first goes to client 2 then 3 etc.

This complys with no simultaneous keystrokes or cloned keystrokes, and would be impossible for SoE to even determine or scan for since every action on all chars happen at different times.

It does however still give me the "unfair advantage" over other players. And SoE can just as she said at their sole discretion ban everyone they feel like for no reason whatsoever, so ya.

I think what started this was this being brought to attention on the PvP servers, where this indeeds gives a huge advantage everywhere except T8 pvp.


Im going to continue to box with the current setup i just posted, im fairly certain i wont get banned tbh.
Its ofcause up to you if you wanna continue to play, but i wouldnt break a sweat if you swich to a different round-robin kinda setup

Good luck!

[Lax]

So it's interesting that Kiara says that broadcasting to multiple clients is a violation of "the spirit of the game". It's also interesting that she said it gives "an advantage over other players" (p.s. "signally"? singly perhaps?). So does owning a G15 keyboard, X-Keys, an n52, etc. That's the whole point of going out and buying a new input device, because you expect to get some advantage in your play. But these things are available to anyone, and without violating the explicit terms of the EULA. (There is no part of the EULA that explicitly states you may not use these input devices, broadcast keys, etc) Doesn't that make it a fair advantage?

But, like people have brought up.. what they seem to be saying is that if you are sending a key to 1 window at a time instead of all of them at once, then they have no problem with it. Which means multi-step/round-robin and whacking the key 6 times instead of 1.

At any rate, if EQ2 players in general hear of this, any EQ2 multiboxer -- regardless of whether they are using any added hardware or software or not -- can pretty much expect to be reported. There's no way of detecting whether you're broadcasting to multiple clients or not, especially considering your round trip time to the server is probably high enough to whack the key a couple times. They would either have to adopt a ban all reported policy, or spend man-hours to watch you long enough to make a determination.

I think this is going to cost them more money in lost subscriptions (they're practically begging you to spend your money on WoW instead) and added enforcement costs than they stand to gain in not losing subscriptions from people who are upset about someone broadcasting to multiple clients. Unless, of course, they do not plan on banning you for multiboxing or having to enforce the policy... in which case they're still losing because customer service will still have to field additional complaints about multiboxing due to making such a statement. I'm not really sure where they win here.

[Fat Tire]

Here is a direct link to the SoE reply:

http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=15&topic_id=464930#5182737




IMO "6 characters signally and you have to type a command for all 6 characters separately is ok" Sounds like if you round robin everything so only 1 toon is getting a key at a time, you'd be ok. But it's definitely a Box at your own risk until they clarify further.

Going to move this to General Forums.

So, multiboxing if you control all 6 characters signally and you have to type a command for all 6 characters separately is ok. Multi-boxing with the use of hardware OR software which allows you to control 6 characters with 1 command is not ok and considered in violation of the spirit of the game as it gives the player(s) an advantage over other players.


Not sure that needs anymore clarity. :D

I for sure wouldnt take the chance as a want -to- be boxer i.e. spending the money for a computer/extra monitor/s, broadcasting software and accounts after reading that. Definitely a sad day for the boxers who have put in so much time/money already.

[Ellay]

Very silly change.

Either the above mentioned GM is going to retract his/her statement as being uninformed or EQ2 is going to lose a massive amount of subscriptions.
% wise I'd guess EQ and EQ2 are the most boxed mmo's out there. Of course more people box WoW but if you take it from an overall % of players, EQ2 has way too much to lose on enforcing this policy. On top of that coming from a game that allows you to macro all your abilities into 1 button if you wanted to and just spam it.

[Fursphere]

Keep in mind this is SoE. So *ANY* game by Sony potentially has this problem.

[Fat Tire]

So this was a pvp change.

Is it pausable that Blizzard would do the same thing with the coming rated bgs?

[Korruptor]

Well I guess I'll never go back to Vanguard either.

Pity.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

Very silly change.

Either the above mentioned GM is going to retract his/her statement as being uninformed or EQ2 is going to lose a massive amount of subscriptions.
% wise I'd guess EQ and EQ2 are the most boxed mmo's out there. Of course more people box WoW but if you take it from an overall % of players, EQ2 has way too much to lose on enforcing this policy. On top of that coming from a game that allows you to macro all your abilities into 1 button if you wanted to and just spam it.
Sony won't bat an eye. They have far too many other "primary" gaming markets to care about the "vanishingly small" percentage that their MMOs make up, IMO.

[Captive2]

This is just stupid. As I said in my other post, EQ2 can’t afford to lose a significant portion of their player-base. If this is the hill they want to die on, then I guess we boxers don’t have any choice. I’m not going to jump through ridiculous hoops and get carpal-tunnel spamming keys hundreds of times per minute just to get around this ridiculous arbitrary decision.

I think I’ll just continue to play the way I am today – with ISBoxer broadcasting keys. I don’t PvP EVER – and am running around zones which are almost completely empty (which might suggest to SOE that they shouldn’t go out of their way to drive paying customers like me away). So if someone reports me, or if after all this time they decide to start cracking down on this sort of thing by actively hunting down people doing it, well I guess my days with EQ2 are over. I certainly won’t be buying their expansion unless they publicly reverse this position. However, as others have stated, SOE is generally their own worst enemy so I don’t expect them to do anything that prudent.

This is where PvP gets in the way of a game which was NEVER intended to support it. The game was never built around PvP; it was never balanced around it. You can’t balance classes for PvP and yet make them interesting to play in PvE (see WoW). And yet because people complain about an unfair advantage, this sort of things happens.

[Lyonheart]

This bums me out! I consider ( or did ) EQ2 my secondary MMO. I have 6 accounts there and I play it when there are gaps in WoW content. I am already maxed out on triumph badge gear in WoW. I can log on and knock out the frost badge random in less than an hour. It wont be long before i have a few hundred K in gold and items. That is when i find it hard to log in, so I play EQ2 until new content comes out.

SOE benefits from people like me, even though we do not maintain active subscriptions indefinitely. The two to three months a year I play 6 accounts = more than a single account who plays all year.

I do not see how it is an "unfair advantage" over 6 individual players. There is a lot of instanced content that is much more difficult, if not impossible, to BOX that 6 players could do very easy. The ONLY advantage ( and not unfair ) is that a boxer does not have to waste hours waiting for groups, and they PAY for that privilege. That is not any more unfair than taking a car to work over walking. You can afford it so that makes it unfair?

[Noxxy]

Totally and utterly devastated - many many hours creating chars for the pure enjoyment of the game whilst under the misguided impression I was acting within the 'spirit' of the game

Even went to the lengths of introducing myself, the team and my playstyle/equipment to servers and getting GM approvals - now, after all those hours, to have had the rug pulled out from under my feet is just totally...not cool and quite misleading

If SOE is serious about this they really need to re-word their EULA to clearly state what is considered botting, etc. That would only be fair.

As for locking a thread on the main SOE forum which directly relates to this new stance is also strange. Yes, they may be trying to stop a flame fight but the information, and SOEs stance, will be lost to new comers to the forums as the post will quickly sink to the bottom of the pile and never be seen or heard from again. Absolute shame.

So many people are now openly talking about boxing on eq2flames - you can't tell me they are all 'iron man boxing' (bashing seperate keyboards) - seriously, it's a new century - upgraded software and hardware solutions are coming out on a daily basis - multiboxing IS a valid playstyle

This is really a pretty large spike in the wheels in regards to multiboxing on all SOE run mmporgs (EQ2, EQ, Vanguard, etc)

Still shaking my head - many hours gone

Rat army retired

NB: Honestly, guys and gals who play other mmporgs - be really wary of this new stance by SOE - it COULD effect you in whatever game you currently play no matter who created it - the end of modern mboxing for all?

[thinus]

NB: Honestly, guys and gals who play other mmporgs - be really wary of this new stance by SOE - it COULD effect you in whatever game you currently play no matter who created it - the end of modern mboxing for all?

Oh stop over dramatizing. SOE has been a bunch of cocks since EQ came out. I realize that you put a lot of time into boxing and that this is a major blow to you but to assume that other companies would give a shit about SOE's policy on boxing and seeing it as the end of modern boxing is just being hysterical.

[mrmcgee21]

I am worried about how they enforce this like what Lax said above, I personally used very very few globally broadcasted keys as I prefer more control over my toons so this effects me very little in general. But as Lax said above its nearly impossible to pinpoint who is and who isnt globablly broadcasting, fuck I send out 5 or 6 keystrokes within 1 sec everytime I pull a mob into camp, how can you tell that isnt all 1 keystroke exactly? I could see how it appears that way to a underpayed GM looking to crack down with this new rule ..... I guess we will see. Either noone gets banned, or we all get banned honestly ( I imagine it will be the former ) in terms of SoE at least ( I am boxing EQ1 currently ). I have "ironman" boxed a group of 6 before but WOW that was a ton of work compared to how convenient Isboxer has made it, I never want to go back to that shit ( I just alt tab'd extremely fast on one machine, not 6 keyboards ).

[Starbuck_Jones]

Continue to play as you have. When they no longer want your business they will let you know.

[Malekyth]

Oh stop over dramatizing. SOE has been a bunch of cocks since EQ came out. I realize that you put a lot of time into boxing and that this is a major blow to you but to assume that other companies would give a shit about SOE's policy on boxing and seeing it as the end of modern boxing is just being hysterical.

Agreed. It's more a "oh, Sony, you retards" than a call for anyone else to follow their lead. Blizzard in particular has been explicit about its tolerance of multiboxing, and they're not going to change their minds based on what stodgy traditional ol' Sony thinks is right. WoW only exists because a bunch of EQ players decided (correctly) that they could do a lot better.

[mrmcgee21]

Here is my issue with this rule, if they are claiming this change has to come because we have an unfair advantage. Well we all know we STILL have an unfair advantage, thats obvious. So they need more rules to fix that right? Whats next exactly? As long as I am boxing, I have an unfair advantage, I conceed that in any discussion about boxing because its evident. I can do much more than somone with one char, thats why I'm freaking boxing. So if this rule came about in the interest of making everything "fair" then it is insufficient and I can see no reason why more rules won't come to continue this same line of thinking. Of course we now know we cannot take anything SoE says as reliable so who knows what tommorrow holds, this may all be a mute point. All this boils down to, do I really want to invest time in a game that may or may not take away all of my accomplishments at any given moment? I guess this can be true in WoW but I find it much more likely to occur in an SoE game now.

I'll just wait and see if they recant this most recent 180 and become more consistant, if not I find my confidence in SoE and my willingness to invest time and money with them is diminished significantly. Is it enough to make me quit? I cannot say just yet but it's a big step in that direction.

[Milque]

Here is my issue with this rule, if they are claiming this change has to come because we have an unfair advantage. Well we all know we STILL have an unfair advantage, thats obvious. So they need more rules to fix that right? Whats next exactly? As long as I am boxing, I have an unfair advantage, I conceed that in any discussion about boxing because its evident. I can do much more than somone with one char, thats why I'm freaking boxing. So if this rule came about in the interest of making everything "fair" then it is insufficient and I can see no reason why more rules won't come to continue this same line of thinking. Of course we now know we cannot take anything SoE says as reliable so who knows what tommorrow holds, this may all be a mute point. All this boils down to, do I really want to invest time in a game that may or may not take away all of my accomplishments at any given moment? I guess this can be true in WoW but I find it much more likely to occur in an SoE game now.

I'll just wait and see if they recant this most recent 180 and become more consistant, if not I find my confidence in SoE and my willingness to invest time and money with them is diminished significantly. Is it enough to make me quit? I cannot say just yet but it's a big step in that direction.

Don't agree with that logic at all. We're talking about fairness in a business model. If you're paying for x accounts, the question should not be can you do more than a person who is only paying for one account. The question is should you be able to do more than x accounts played by individual players.

I surely can not. The key mappings I employ to keep the thing manageable guarantee I am not optimally casting every spell. I am certainly not pulling off proper HO's. I have to be constantly checking to see if Manny, Moe, Or Jack got stuck on a wall during that last corner. Handling mobs that knockback with a multibox group is.... Well, I laughed after I picked up my corpses.

I'm at a decided disadvantage vs any pickup group of the same number of characters, and even more so against a group of friends that work together. Yet, I pay the same amount as they do.

Now, if I was doing something to disrupt the game for others, I should get banned, but that's not boxing, that's being an asshole. I've seen plenty do that without needing extra accounts.

[Herc130]

So, multiboxing if you control all 6 characters signally and you have to type a command for all 6 characters separately is ok. Multi-boxing with the use of hardware OR software which allows you to control 6 characters with 1 command is not ok and considered in violation of the spirit of the game as it gives the player(s) an advantage over other players.


Sounds more like the misguided, probably biased opinion of that GM. How about I have 6 individual keyboards for 6 computers running one account each. How about I make a fully mechanical device that physically presses whichever key on all 6 keyboards via one control point. Would that be ok?

Really, the spirit of the game? Sounds like the same type of person that will also go on to preach about "the journey and not the distination" to people powerleveling up their 100th character.

Boxing gives me an advantage over a single player because .....I gotz more accounts. Boxing does not give me any advantages over a group of players, in fact, my "group" is far less effective. And I don't think at any point that it gives me an "unfair" advantage. Hey.....those two guys grouped up...that means they have an "unfair" advantage over a solo player? I am playing on a computer that runs the game at all the settings maxxed and great FPS on a huge ass high res screen that makes it easy for me to see everything.......I guess that's an "unfair" advantage since there are probably people out there playing on something tht barely runs the game?

This "GM" sounds like she/he is making company policy off her/his personal opinion. Go over that person's head if you can, cause I don't think the left hand knows what the right hand is doing at SoE and if it did, that GM will probably get a quick slap to STFU and stop losing us $$$.

[Shodokan]

Sounds more like the misguided, probably biased opinion of that GM. How about I have 6 individual keyboards for 6 computers running one account each. How about I make a fully mechanical device that physically presses whichever key on all 6 keyboards via one control point. Would that be ok?

Really, the spirit of the game? Sounds like the same type of person that will also go on to preach about "the journey and not the distination" to people powerleveling up their 100th character.

Boxing gives me an advantage over a single player because .....I gotz more accounts. Boxing does not give me any advantages over a group of players, in fact, my "group" is far less effective. And I don't think at any point that it gives me an "unfair" advantage. Hey.....those two guys grouped up...that means they have an "unfair" advantage over a solo player? I am playing on a computer that runs the game at all the settings maxxed and great FPS on a huge ass high res screen that makes it easy for me to see everything.......I guess that's an "unfair" advantage since there are probably people out there playing on something tht barely runs the game?

This "GM" sounds like she/he is making company policy off her/his personal opinion. Go over that person's head if you can, cause I don't think the left hand knows what the right hand is doing at SoE and if it did, that GM will probably get a quick slap to STFU and stop losing us $$$.

I agree with a lot said in this post. The last thing games need to have is personal feelings of GMs get in the way of business.

[Targ]

This is so typical of SOE, they built a clunky PvP system that not enough people want to play in groups. The net result is multboxers have an unfair advantage because they always have a group.

Rather than fix the game and admit the the error, they pick the easy way and instead they kill the players. They could have said no multboxing in PvP but no they went the extra mile and take all the multiboxers down every where. This comes after years of explicitly saying that key cloning was ok.

And to top it off, when they clearly have made a policy change, is there an annoucement to let everyone know, no they just let the players stumble into warnings and bans. Only after players get warned / banned do they fess up to the change. That is NOT a nice way to treat some of your most loyal players.

I am pretty glad I made the switch to WOW last year. But would have liked to have had the option to go back during waits for new WOW content.

[Gomotron]

WIth this policy change I am canceling my accounts. While I understand that I may not ever be banned or lose my accounts, I see no reason to support a company/game that doesn't want me there to begin with.

And to think that EQ was the game that I cut my proverbial MB teeth on... so sad.

[Velassra]

With the change so sudden and my most recent monthly charges submitted, I think I will dispute the charges on my cc. I haven't logged in and months so I haven't accepted their liscense agrement since before the last game update. I'll phrase my dispute as change in use that can't accept thus entitled to a refund.

This will also make me unlikely to ever resubscribe, or purchase a new SOE product in the future. Idk, it seems like they are shooting themselves in the foot.

[Gadget6]

With the change so sudden and my most recent monthly charges submitted, I think I will dispute the charges on my cc. I haven't logged in and months so I haven't accepted their liscense agrement since before the last game update. I'll phrase my dispute as change in use that can't accept thus entitled to a refund.

There is no such dispute. There is a 'not as described' but that would be if you ordered a black couch and got a red one delivered. You could go services not rendered but that is not true either really as the service was available you just didn't log in heh. All in all I doubt you will have any success disputing it.

[Gadget6]

Don't agree with that logic at all. We're talking about fairness in a business model. If you're paying for x accounts, the question should not be can you do more than a person who is only paying for one account. The question is should you be able to do more than x accounts played by individual players.

I surely can not. The key mappings I employ to keep the thing manageable guarantee I am not optimally casting every spell. I am certainly not pulling off proper HO's. I have to be constantly checking to see if Manny, Moe, Or Jack got stuck on a wall during that last corner. Handling mobs that knockback with a multibox group is.... Well, I laughed after I picked up my corpses.

I'm at a decided disadvantage vs any pickup group of the same number of characters, and even more so against a group of friends that work together. Yet, I pay the same amount as they do.

Now, if I was doing something to disrupt the game for others, I should get banned, but that's not boxing, that's being an asshole. I've seen plenty do that without needing extra accounts.

Milque I registered to say - you nailed it. He was looking at it from the same angle that SOE is - which is a mistake.

Assume I am six boxing using keyclone and I jump a single player - he / she gets crushed. Unfair? Well sure. Assume 6 individual players jump on the same guy. Unfair? Well sure - even more so as 6 individual players will always be superior a 6 boxer - keyclone or not.

How this logic eludes SOE is beyond me - a lobotomized chimpanzee could figure this out. It's really aggravating - SOE is myopic and they are shooting themselves in the foot.

[Velassra]

There is no such dispute. There is a 'not as described' but that would be if you ordered a black couch and got a red one delivered. You could go services not rendered but that is not true either really as the service was available you just didn't log in heh. All in all I doubt you will have any success disputing it.

eh, maybe, maybe not. Doesn't cost me anything to make a call to my bank's 1-800, but it costs them man-hours to fight the dispute. Petty maybe, but it's probably some petty PvP dispute (a GM or Dev got pwned by a MB) that brought on the change. Fuck SOE imo.

[Khatovar]

So, I have to wonder what they have in the works. Massive policy changes like this don't come about for no reason. And we know it's not because the other 80 people playing the game are ticked about the barely existent amounts of PVP that go on. This sort of "house cleaning" is something I would expect to see from a company releasing a new game, like Turbine when they went on to AC2, LotRO and DDO or SOE when moving from EQ to EQ2. Not "just because".

[Iceorbz]

There is no such dispute. There is a 'not as described' but that would be if you ordered a black couch and got a red one delivered. You could go services not rendered but that is not true either really as the service was available you just didn't log in heh. All in all I doubt you will have any success disputing it.


You can for sure dispute the claim, and they have to send lawyers to fight you for your 13.99.

[Naysayer]

Keep in mind this is SoE. So *ANY* game by Sony potentially has this problem.

hahahaha sony fucks up everything

[Noxxy]

...So, I have to wonder what they have in the works...

I'd have a guess and say that as it looks like cross-server PvP is being introduced SOE are trying to avoid a situation similar to WoW where boxing teams basically WTFPWN due to co-ordinated fire - just a guess

[KvdM]

The weird thing is that there has been no policy change. It would be interesting to know why these GM's are interpreting their policies differently. (And whether it is official or just some misinformed GM's)

[Inactive]

I recieved a response to my PM to Rothgar where he basically asked me if he understood my questions, i responded that he did and didnt hear from him again, but shortly after Kiara posted in that thread on the official boards.

I figured since i have nothing better to do, and Rothgar being pretty cool and down to earth, id write up some of the good points in this thread and send him a letter. Im sure he'll read it, and just hope he'll point out to whoever makes the decisions (if any were even made lol) that they should, if not allow this, at least either give us a clearer response on how to do things.

[Targ]

The weird thing is that there has been no policy change. It would be interesting to know why these GM's are interpreting their policies differently. (And whether it is official or just some misinformed GM's)

Well I would have to disagree there has been a policy change. The TOS is still grey on issue,but SOE's policy on Multi-boxing is not.

Kiara the Everquest2 Community manager posted (http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=464930&post_id=5182737#5182737):


So, multiboxing if you control all 6 characters signally and you have to type a command for all 6 characters separately is ok. Multi-boxing with the use of hardware OR software which allows you to control 6 characters with 1 command is not ok and considered in violation of the spirit of the game as it gives the player(s) an advantage over other players.



I have a PM from her predecessor that indicated the opposite position.

Sure looks like a policy change to me.

[Milque]

I recieved a response to my PM to Rothgar where he basically asked me if he understood my questions, i responded that he did and didnt hear from him again, but shortly after Kiara posted in that thread on the official boards.

I figured since i have nothing better to do, and Rothgar being pretty cool and down to earth, id write up some of the good points in this thread and send him a letter. Im sure he'll read it, and just hope he'll point out to whoever makes the decisions (if any were even made lol) that they should, if not allow this, at least either give us a clearer response on how to do things.

For those interested:

That to me reads between the lines like, "Give me what I want or I'm taking my ball(money) and going home."

I'm not liking the official stance, but the thing I want acknowledged is it's not fair to judge what one person/account can do vs what a multiboxer can do, but what a group of the same number of accounts can do vs what a multiboxer can do. Making that comparison we're at a decided disadvantage (which is of our own choosing), we're certainly not screwing the game or other players.

I got a tell from someone in game last night asking if I was multiboxing. I said yes, after cringing a few minutes wondering if I was gonna get the boot. He thought it was cool and we laughed about how badly things go on certain mobs (I then took on Commander Keg and we laughed as my party got flung around like so many bowling pins.)

There's nothing I can do that 6 individuals paying for the same accounts couldn't. There's plenty 6 individuals can do that I can't. Where's the unfair advantage?

[Lokked]

I guess I'm even more glad that I cancelled my accounts to try out Melee Multiboxing in WoW, but a little disappointed that all my efforts in EQ2 are for naught.

I'm a little stressed that the company would do this. The response came too soon to have been discussed appropriately behind the scenes. When it comes down to decisions regarding money loss, no intelligent company would make these decisions on a whim. This money matter isn't someone threatening to cancel their account as a bluff to get what they want, it is several players cancelling multiple accounts due to a vague contract written in lawyer language being interpreted differently, causing them to be unable to continue playing.

I think you should all ask for a refund, as previously you have been told your playstyle was acceptable, and (without breaking the agreement prior) you are now in violation of a different interpretation of the same agreement. I read a linked section of the agreement (Section 6) in regards to this.

While the time dwindles away at work, I may give SOE a call, as I'm a concerned citizen.

[Inactive]

Lokked, just realize that when calling CS you will get a rule-slave that wont be able to do anything but tell you that multiboxing is fine as long as you dont clone keys and that you have to either alt+tab or use 6 keyboards (lol right?). You might persuade him to put on his superviser, ie. a senior GM on the line to tell you the same thing.
But who knows you may have better luck than i did and persuade them to put on someone who will listen to your feedback.

[Inactive]

That to me reads between the lines like, "Give me what I want or I'm taking my ball(money) and going home."


Sure does and thats what the vast majorities of MBs in EQ2 will do. At least the ones playing more than 2 accounts. Its worth pointing out that this most likely wasnt taken into consideration. They wouldnt make this decition if they knew what loss they'd take. There are alot of MBs in EQ2, just yesterday i met two at KP docks, and today one so far.


Where's the unfair advantage?

Id like an answer to that as well. Sure if its PvP and i run around low level zones with a twinked group of 6 solo ganking everyone trying to do anything, i could see this being extremly annoying. But really, i agree the definition is vague and pointless.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

These CM responses show that even a mouth-breather anti-boxer similar to those that inhabit the general forums can make into a position of responsibility. :P

[Noxxy]

Feldon over at EQ2Wire (http://eq2wire.feldoncentral.com/2009/12/18/keyboard-mapping-and-you/#more-2689) has been kind enough to write a blog entry regarding this current issue - but it looks like a done deal ppls

[moosejaw]

May as well delete my EQ2 install. SOE always finds a way to screw up a good thing.

[faulteroy]

I won't be cancelling or uninstalling just yet, as I have no issue with being banned. This really isn't the first stupid statement SOE has made about one of their games.

When EQWin was released for EQ1, SOE immediately came out and said that it was bannable and that alt-tab was disabled in the client "to prevent cheating." About a year later, they integrated EQWin into the client and removed the keyhook for ALT+TAB, allowing users to use windowed mode or alt tab from fullscreen.

Kiara is a dumb windbag (I know, I played EQ1 with her for years) and frequently talks out of her ass. It really wouldn't surprise me if she said "OH MULTIBOXING THAT'S CHEATING" and went to moving her hamfists across her keyboard in some motion as to create her post without ever cross-referencing it with a GM or policymaker. It also wouldn't surprise me if it was completely accurate and reflects a policy change at SOE that's going to screw us all over.

The most likely outcome is that yes, some people may be banned, but the majority of multiboxers will go ignored and never have any issues. Botting is illegal, but how many harvesting bots do you see on a daily basis? If I'm running through JW or KP and I *don't* see a harvesting bot, something is wrong. Sure, some of them get banned but the majority don't.

[Lokked]

The problem is with the new risk involved and the upcoming expansion. Do you people really want to invest ~$250 with this looming over your heads?

I'm not saying this statement like, "You've gotta be stupid to do that!"

I'm saying curses to SOE for causing this sort of stress from what used to be a form of stress release.

**EDIT** - I've removed a distasteful statement, and added an important update: Please see my next post.

[faulteroy]

True enough. That's also exactly why I canceled 6 pre-orders for Sentinel's Fate. Until SOE clarifies this, they aren't getting anything outside of my subscription fee, and I'm fairly sure that many others will be doing the same.

The additional revenue generated by multiboxers may seem insignificant to their resident hambeast of a community manager, but I'm sure their sales and marketing departments will notice the impact.

[Lokked]

I've received a sort of calming PM back from Kiara, only calming in the way I choose to interpret it. I'll not bother posting my original PM, as it is rather lengthy, but you can gather the jist of it from the response:



People wanted an answer, I got it from CS and gave it to you exactly as given to me.

I haven't interpreted anything. It isn't my place to enforce the EULA. It's CS and thus their call. That is and has been the official stance for as long as I have played EQII.

Nothing has changed in our policies.

Just because we err on the side of the customer and don't harshly enforce a rule, doesn't make that rule non existent. It's in place so that we can (and very often DO) get rid of plat farmers and those who abuse it.

Just because people don't like the answer doesn't make the answer wrong or invalid. Those who wish to do so, will still look for the loopholes and grey areas all they can. I can't stop that.

I've read the threads to which you allude and it makes no difference. As I said. Policy is policy. We err on the side of caution and leniency. But that still doesn't change the underlying policy that allows us to stop abuse of the system.

Happy Holidays!


My analysis of this, biased based on her need to stick to relating policy:


Nothing has changed in our policies.

Just because we err on the side of the customer and don't harshly enforce a rule, doesn't make that rule non existent. It's in place so that we can (and very often DO) get rid of plat farmers and those who abuse it.



I've read the threads to which you allude and it makes no difference. As I said. Policy is policy. We err on the side of caution and leniency. But that still doesn't change the underlying policy that allows us to stop abuse of the system.

I read this a few times. I see this as the EULA being grey enough for rules to be enforced based on personal decision (as expected). There are 2 instances where she alludes to the rules being enforced on those who are breaking another rule or abusing "the system". I've asked for a description of "the system", although I can probably guess.

Quote 1 references the primary purpose of this rule, and this makes sense. I would guess SOE has no desire to ruin anyone's day, however, they will ruin the day of someone who is breaking this rule while ruining someone else's day.

All in all, it comes down to what the GM you are dealing with thinks is fair play. No EQ2 boxer has been banned yet (that I've heard of, and who are legit). If you currently multibox, don't change servers. If you are thinking of multiboxing, choose a server that is inhabitted by boxers. If you are going to PM a GM to ask about multiboxing, phrase it in a way that brings his personal view on the subject into play and avoids the request for a policy spew. I CERTAINLY would not play on PvP servers, as you will be banned FOR SURE, as GMs will just get tired of dealing with complaints about you and just get rid of you.

Good Luck.

[Inactive]

Thank you very much Lokked, this does indeed make a ton of sense.

While i wish they would have as open and clear a policy as blizzard, this is good enough for me!

[Khatovar]

IMO, we're not going to get anywhere. These GMs, TSRs, CSRs keep saying nothing has changed, and it has always been this way. I 100% disagree and see it more as a means of them turn the "grey" against us so they don't look like the ones pulling the rugs out from under valid, paying customers. It is not just one or two random people saying "no" now. from the tone of the response I received, this is a BIG issue, not something that the people answering your questions don't know about.

I am calling it a policy and/or tolerance change and will NOT continue to call it a greenlight in the MB and MMOs thread.


Hello,

I have sent you several tickets previously asking about your stance on multiboxing. Those tickets are 090210-001499 and 090306-000046. In both tickets, I was informed that multiboxing, via a means of sending single keypresses to multiple copies of the game was perfectly acceptable.

Quote - Multi-boxing is definitely allowed. What we do not allow is automated botting.

Quote - it is permissible to use one keyboard to control several computers through a selector switch. You are allowed to use 3rd party software, as long as you do not in any way manipulate or change the client

Quote - If you are at your computer while the character is being played, then multi-boxing is fine. Generally speaking we will only take action against people who automate their characters to play unattended.

In these tickets, I specifically stated what multiboxing is.

Quote - What is Sony's stance on SOFTWARE multiboxing? IE the use of the Programs Keyclone http://www.solidice.com/keyclone/ and Innerspace http://www.lavishsoft.com/joomla/ in particular?

Quote - If you are unfamiliar with multi-boxing, it is a play style in which a single person will play multiple accounts in a game simultaneously.

Quote - Software multi-boxing is using one computer to run several accounts via hardware emulators or scripts that send a single key press to all open instances of a game window.

Quote - Many games have a 1 press = 1 action rule in that 1 input action from a key press can only equate to 1 single action taking place in game on each account.

Quote - I press 1, my mage casts fireball, my hunter shoots a flame arrow, my tank taunts, my healer casts a buff, as that is the single action on each account located in the "1" hotbar location. 1 press, 1 action.

I believe I was very clear in defining multiboxing, in as far as my inquiry, was the simultanious reciept of a single key by EACH open client. I also believe that the reps who responded were clear on that fact as well, telling me repeatedly that the ACTIONABLE offense was automated and/or unattended botting, NOT attended simultanious keybroadcasting.

Now I have people being told that simultanious keybroadcasting is automation, and actionable :

091215-002136 - Response (GM Yxyran)
12/16/2009 12:49 AM

[shortened]…The problem occurs when you…send commands…at the same time…it is important that you understand why you cannot use any device or program to allow you to control more than one character with one key stroke.

It offers you an unfair advantage over players using the game and interface as designed. It essentially accomplishes an action that…could not be done in the course of play. There is no way to link the actions of two separate characters in game. No way to make them work in sync where you take action with one character and it triggers an automatic action from another. You have to use separate keystrokes for each character's actions. Each character must be under the direct control of the player at all times. Anything that circumvents that direct control constitutes automation. Automation makes them a bot.

Thank you for your time,
Game Master Yxyran
"The Moon Moth"


Response (GM Kaerytha)
12/15/2009 08:58 PM

[Shortened – message relayed from the Lead GM on Nagafen]…In addition, simultaneous key broadcasting is not permitted. So if you are pressing one key on your keyboard, and it's causing all 6 of your characters to cast, or attack or perform any action simultaneously then that is something we would consider character automation, which is prohibited….

Safe Travels,

GM Kaerytha
EverQuest II
Sony Online Entertainment


However, TSR DanielH was recently given tips on how to use one of these programs to send simultanious keystrokes to multiple clients at the same time, where he thanks the poster and says he'll try it out -

http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=0&topic_id=457105#5100073


So, what's the deal? Is the act of sending a keypress to all open instances of EQ2 suddenly considered automation? And does this apply to all SOE games now? Please clarify.

Thank you.


Greetings,

Thank you for contacting Sony Online Entertainment.

There has been a lot of questions surrounding the issue of multi-boxing lately. I recognize a lot of those quotes you mentioned in your ticket in an e-mail I have received recently. Essentially what it boils down to is this... Multiboxing is allowed so long as each character performing an action requires a unique and separate keystroke.

If you have any other questions or issues please don't hesitate to contact us again and we'll be happy to assist you.

The reference number for this ticket is (091217-000026). Please use this number if you need to refer back to this contact for any reason.

Update your ticket by accessing http://station.com/kb and viewing the "Questions" section under "Service History". Simply click the name of the incident to update it.

Thank you again,

Chad A.

Technical Support Representative

Sony Online Entertainment

[Gomotron]

Of interest, in the exit interview when canceling an EQ2 account, there are MANY references to Multiboxing (sometimes referred to as solo-grouping, which I though was a clever term).

Weird that the exit interview thing has MB'ing so prominently placed as a play-style and yet is now considered against the EULA?

[Gadzooks]

This is where PvP gets in the way of a game which was NEVER intended to support it. The game was never built around PvP; it was never balanced around it. You can’t balance classes for PvP and yet make them interesting to play in PvE (see WoW). And yet because people complain about an unfair advantage, this sort of things happens.

It's a fault/attitude of the PvP junkies, who complain if another class gets one more dps than they do, and wage campaigns on forums about it, because another class is OP vs. theirs.

Look at how rogues are treated in WoW - they're not especially OP in any way, if you know your class, and know how rogues work, but the forums are littered with "OMG NERF ROUGES".

PvP attracts a certain kind of player, the same ones who play ContraStrike on XBox live, and spend all day spewing racial slurs and offensive comments at everyone - the "hur hur" crowd, as I like to call them. They discovered WoW during BC, and brought all their friends.

They're pretty much anywhere you go, now. Luckily, the general consensus within the WoW community is that MBers are fine, stop crying. I doubt the current leadership of WoW will change their stance, they understand MBing, know we don't exploit, and try to not annoy/interfere/cheat other players.

[zenga]

I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea of the past. But in my country (and many more EU contries) the law supersedes any eula/contract. Even if you sign and agree with it, it doesn't make the contract valid. My point is:

- one asks and official representative if it's ok to multibox: answer = yeah.
- based on that answer & their eula that does not forbid it you spend / invest money
- they change the eula out of the blue and make it no longer possible for you to play the way they agreed with

I'm really curious to know what would happen if someone with enough money/ free time goes to court for fun. Again, it's not because you agree with the eula, that it makes their eula valid. There is still something like 'bait and switch'.

If someone can get mcdonalds because their coffee was too hot, then regardless of all the expensive words in their eula, it wouldn't surprise me if a judge would enforce the rights of the customer in one of the eu countries.

If some have tried that in the past, then consider my post as bs and ignore it.

[Velassra]

Well, I've contacted SOE and they are sticking to their: "There is no change in policy. The same restriction regarding multiboxing have always been in place." etc etc

Probably trying that approach protects them vs credit card disputes sine: "nothings changed."

Either way. I'm going to dispute the charges on principle. Too bad other people's support tickets off a gamne forum can't be used as "evidence" to support my dispute.

[Dooz]

I think I would be somewhat worried / paranoid if I MB'd EQ. That's pretty shaky ground to be playing on.

[Velassra]

I think I would be somewhat worried / paranoid if I MB'd EQ. That's pretty shaky ground to be playing on.

I'd almost bet their legal department told them not to change the policy and say it's always been like that with the exptactation that I really don't know what was in someone elses support ticket and in actuality, I won't have access to the other person's ticket no matter what it says anyhow. It just seems to me SOE is intent on lying about the policy (interpretation of the polcy) change.

This seems to me completely dishonest. I was very angry when SOE significantly nerfed pet groups etc in EQOA, enough so I cancelled my accounts there and moved to WoW. But that was a different situation so I gave them another chance w/ EQ2. At least when Blizzard makes policy adjustments they tell you that they did w/ basically "our game, our rules" attitude.

I was considering EQ1 for a multibox group b/c I've really never played it and it's been around forever (and probably has years left on it). I wonder if the policy has extended to EQ1....everything I heard there is everyone is a multiboxer. A policy change like this would kill it.

Anyway, I'm disappointed w/ their responses, it seems sleazy and will make me very unlikely to ever deal w/ a SOE product ever again.

[mesmerise]

sigh i cant still believe what i read....i just checked dual boxing today and see this moved thread, not sure what i am going to do, i really like boxing in EQ2 and i juste like EQ2, i dont think i would go to another game, i dont see a possible return in EQ for me now, 2 years away is too much But maybe i just need to wait for ban or something and still play, i am enough lucky to be in a low population server (eurpean) and i rarely see any people in add-on before ROK/TOS, this will be different at 80 i guess....and then i will be reported maybe.

[TheFailTrain]

I just realized that I have 5 active EQ2 accounts I wasn't playing. In light of this thread I will be canceling them as well.

[Targ]

When you call SOE to ask for a refund you should ask for all money paid from when you started multi-boxing. You relied on their explanation of the rule at that time to make your purchase decision, as they have changed their interpretation of the rule you are entitled to all of your purchases refunded. This would include all expansion packs, all subscription fee's the whole enchilada.

Of course they will refuse but then file a complaint with your states Attorney Generals Office of Consumer Protection. Be sure to let SOE know that is what you intend to do this.

That should get SOE's legal department churning and burning up some money. The more it is likely to cost them, the more likely they will change their minds.

[Velassra]

When you call SOE to ask for a refund you should ask for all money paid from when you started multi-boxing. You relied on their explanation of the rule at that time to make your purchase decision, as they have changed their interpretation of the rule you are entitled to all of your purchases refunded. This would include all expansion packs, all subscription fee's the whole enchilada.

Of course they will refuse but then file a complaint with your states Attorney Generals Office of Consumer Protection. Be sure to let SOE know that is what you intend to do this.

That should get SOE's legal department churning and burning up some money. The more it is likely to cost them, the more likely they will change their minds.



Lol, it'll cost them more to talk w/ their lawyer, than the refund lol.

[Gadzooks]

I'd almost bet their legal department told them not to change the policy and say it's always been like that with the exptactation that I really don't know what was in someone elses support ticket and in actuality, I won't have access to the other person's ticket no matter what it says anyhow. It just seems to me SOE is intent on lying about the policy (interpretation of the polcy) change.

This seems to me completely dishonest. I was very angry when SOE significantly nerfed pet groups etc in EQOA, enough so I cancelled my accounts there and moved to WoW. But that was a different situation so I gave them another chance w/ EQ2. At least when Blizzard makes policy adjustments they tell you that they did w/ basically "our game, our rules" attitude.

I was considering EQ1 for a multibox group b/c I've really never played it and it's been around forever (and probably has years left on it). I wonder if the policy has extended to EQ1....everything I heard there is everyone is a multiboxer. A policy change like this would kill it.

Anyway, I'm disappointed w/ their responses, it seems sleazy and will make me very unlikely to ever deal w/ a SOE product ever again.

Anything associated with Sony tends to follow this pattern, I stopped buying anything Sony after the MiniDisc debacle, and their rootkitting, and a nasty, played out effort to get them to honor their warranty on a piece of pricey stereo equipment that was bad out of the box (and involved Circuit City, who could have just swapped me a new one, but insisted I had to deal with Sony because I didn't buy their extended warranty - never spent a dime at CC ever again, either). I simply do not trust Sony, and I just spend my money on other companies.

I am in the market for an eBook reader, and I refuse to even consider Sony's. I have zero interest in playing any of their games, old or new. Blizz has issues, but looking at other game forums? We have it pretty good with Blizzard.

[thinus]

I have zero interest in playing any of their games, old or new. Blizz has issues, but looking at other game forums? We have it pretty good with Blizzard.

Amen. I won't say I have zero interest but I do shake my head when I read of or experience some of the decisions made by the dev teams in other games.

[Captive2]

I think it may be time to just lay low and play the game – and stop bringing up this issue and keeping it at the top of every GM’s radar screen. After all, SOE didn’t come out with a front-page article on their website about how they’re going to crack down on automation, and then immediately start banning people for doing it. They haven’t tangibly done anything differently – they’ve just said things in forums and emails. Actions speak louder than words.

[Tonuss]

I've received a sort of calming PM back from Kiara, only calming in the way I choose to interpret it. I'll not bother posting my original PM, as it is rather lengthy, but you can gather the jist of it from the response:
I read it as "stay out of our crosshairs, and you can multibox all you want." Personally, I don't like to trust a company not to use those grey areas, especially if I'm about to spend $xxx on expansion packs.

I never played EQ2, after going from EQ to WOW I was in no hurry to give SOE another nickel of my money. This doesn't change that.

[Milque]

Contemplating a change to WoW over this, but if I'm reading correctly wow you have to buy the game and each expansion seperately? There's no all in one pack?

That's pretty prohibitive for a multiboxer.

[highlander_133]

I think it may be time to just lay low and play the game – and stop bringing up this issue and keeping it at the top of every GM’s radar screen. After all, SOE didn’t come out with a front-page article on their website about how they’re going to crack down on automation, and then immediately start banning people for doing it. They haven’t tangibly done anything differently – they’ve just said things in forums and emails. Actions speak louder than words.

I agree; this whole thing has a 'don't ask don't tell' vibe to it.

However, it's difficult for me to rationalize playing a game that takes an at best ambiguous stance on multiboxing. Compare that to Blizzard's embracing of the multibox community, and SOE does not come off well.

[zanthor]

Contemplating a change to WoW over this, but if I'm reading correctly wow you have to buy the game and each expansion seperately? There's no all in one pack?

That's pretty prohibitive for a multiboxer.

Battle Chest for $36.99 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832127004)
WotLK for $36.99 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832127005)

So for $78 you have all three, this is pretty standard even in the world of EQ, where they would bundle all but the current expac.

[Captive2]

Agreed. Since they’ve taken this stance at least in writing, I can’t justify buying the expansion six times. For me, however, that’s fine; I enjoy playing the game an expansion behind the current wave anyway. That way, I have relatively empty zones, don’t bother other people over semi-contested spawns, don’t have to deal with idiots or plat farmers, and don’t have to deal with as the bugs that are endemic with new content. It also lets me save money, as you can generally buy the “new” expansion much more inexpensively if you can wait 6-12 months for it.

So hopefully they’ll just let me keep playing quietly – not PvPing, not going after highly-contested current content, and not plat farming. Just playing the game with my own happy little group of six characters enjoying the game - paying them $90 a month for the privilege.

[Velassra]

I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea of the past. But in my country (and many more EU contries) the law supersedes any eula/contract. Even if you sign and agree with it, it doesn't make the contract valid. My point is:

- one asks and official representative if it's ok to multibox: answer = yeah.
- based on that answer & their eula that does not forbid it you spend / invest money
- they change the eula out of the blue and make it no longer possible for you to play the way they agreed with

I'm really curious to know what would happen if someone with enough money/ free time goes to court for fun. Again, it's not because you agree with the eula, that it makes their eula valid. There is still something like 'bait and switch'.

If someone can get mcdonalds because their coffee was too hot, then regardless of all the expensive words in their eula, it wouldn't surprise me if a judge would enforce the rights of the customer in one of the eu countries.

If some have tried that in the past, then consider my post as bs and ignore it.

Looking it up, at least in Massachusetts, it looks like a clear case of "unfair and deceptive practices." I could send them a demand letter threatening court (small claims....MA makes it very very easy.) and I would very likely win a judgement from what I read....However, the fact that SOE (very likely) does not physically do buisness in MA takes it out of MA courts jurisdiction. Lawsuit threats would be like pissing into the wind. I wouldn't be surprised if SOE is already aware of that.
Legal systems have yet to catch up to the internet.

Although, I have threatened to dispute the charges with BoA as fraudulent charges....they claim it would be fraud if I did so. My guess, if I go back and quote the section of M.G.L. dealing w/ "unfair and deceptive practices" I may get further (I've had BoA side againt me on disputes before.).
Either way, SOE drops $400/hour on an attorney for a $90 claim.

[Fursphere]

Looking it up, at least in Massachusetts, it looks like a clear case of "unfair and deceptive practices." I could send them a demand letter threatening court (small claims....MA makes it very very easy.) and I would very likely win a judgement from what I read....However, the fact that SOE (very likely) does not physically do buisness in MA takes it out of MA courts jurisdiction. Lawsuit threats would be like pissing into the wind. I wouldn't be surprised if SOE is already aware of that.
Legal systems have yet to catch up to the internet.

Although, I have threatened to dispute the charges with BoA as fraudulent charges....they claim it would be fraud if I did so. My guess, if I go back and quote the section of M.G.L. dealing w/ "unfair and deceptive practices" I may get further (I've had BoA side againt me on disputes before.).
Either way, SOE drops $400/hour on an attorney for a $90 claim.

...and when the judge throws it out, and then Sony turns around and sues you for "whatever they want" you go bankrupt tryying to defend yourself.

Good plan! :rolleyes:

[Targ]

However, the fact that SOE (very likely) does not physically do buisness in MA takes it out of MA courts jurisdiction. Lawsuit threats would be like pissing into the wind. I wouldn't be surprised if SOE is already aware of that.
Legal systems have yet to catch up to the internet.


That is not correct, MA courts do have jurisdiction as SOE put their products into the distrubution chain with the intent that they enter markets in MA, that is all that is required

[Tonuss]

I would assume that a company as big as Sony has its own legal department, and probably other attorneys on retainer. Dealing with a lawsuit brought by an angry gamer is unlikely to cost them anything, as they have to keep legal staff employed anyway. And if you file a civil lawsuit you will need to prove damages, and I'm guessing that the extent of damages that you could recover would be the cost of a month's subscription. How many lawyers would agree to represent you for a cut of a $15 settlement? And how many judges would allow a $15 lawsuit to get past a summary dismissal?

(And no, don't mention class action, because the same considerations apply.)

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[zenga]

A few reactions to afore mentioned posts:

1. If an american based company has a website that is available in belgium then they are subject to Belgian / EU law, regardless if they have a plant here or not. If they violate the law then it's their responsibility to either comply with the law or to not 'distribute' in Belgium (by means of filtering IP's for example). That is the theory at least. It's a gigantic network vs understaffed commissions.

2. Many of those big companies have flat fee per year agreements with their lawyers. So do many governmental departments here. Meaning that it doesn't really matter how small or how big the case is. Same goes for sony: if someone files a lawsuit against them, they need to set an example. It's not about the 100 contested dollars. They need to make a stand as a business.

3. There are many examples where a small individual wins vs a giga corp. There are lawyers who jump on that, who are specialized in this, ... Microsoft pops up on several occasions, as well as the Bosman ruling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosman_ruling) (where an anonymous football player changed the sports world). Myself i've been involved into a case against a major insurance company for 7 years after a car accident (they sued me), and in the end they had to change their (dont know the name in english, the small letters in the contract).

4. A normal human being shouldn't do this, but there are examples of people who can afford it who did do it. Sometimes there are even special companies/funds created to limit the consequences if it goes wrong.

5. Every country has different rules. It shouldn't be necessarily a US law suit.

So yeah in theory there is some ground. But it won't happen in reality i'm afraid. I'll never go through the trouble nor do i want stress in my life :)

I think the biggest problem most gamers have is the arrogance of such companies: you buy their products and they have the right to change it anytime. That's what most players pisses off imo.

[mebben]

Good lord, I was just about to start multiboxing EQ2 on the side again and then I find this thread... Bleah, guess I wont activate my five accounts.

[Captive2]

I can't reach the official forums here at work, but it sounds like another post was started about this issue. I gather from the comments on EQ2 Flames that they're basically saying "Don't do anything stupid, or be a plat-famer. If you do either of those things, we'll find you and ban you." Reading between the lines, as several have done both here and in that thread, you could make the case that they're not going to do anything to people simply playing the game.

Here's the thread on EQ2 Flames. It's full of the profanity and obnoxiousness we've all grown to know and love about that board, so be warned.

http://www.eq2flames.com/general-gameplay/56560-certain-forms-multiboxing-now-illegal-fact-3.html

[Velassra]

...and when the judge throws it out, and then Sony turns around and sues you for "whatever they want" you go bankrupt tryying to defend yourself.

Good plan! :rolleyes:


Yeah, Ill just delete. Not worth the aggravation. I guess I really don't care anymore. Been playing WoW again for months. Lol.

[Lokked]

Seems my last PM to Kiara (which, as I'm sure those who are familiar with my writing style can imagine, was as professional and to the point as was appropriate) caused the account I sent it from to be banned from sending/receiving Private Messages.

I might just have to relate my distaste from another account! (but not likely).

[Flekkie]

I don't play EQ2. And I don't PvP. But I found this thread interesting. So sorry if I write nonsense..

It sounds like they don't like the ability of multiboxers to do co-ordinated burst damage.
This is possible in a non-MB group, especially with voice comms (and without the split-attention & input disadvantages).

Personally, I think maybe the ability to co-ordinate/synchronise is the plus to a multiboxer, versus the minuses of split-attention and multiple-input. I guess players are jealous of the former (just as multiboxers enjoy it). Perhaps EQ2's business strategy is to attract these players by differentiating themselves in this way.

Personally, I am surprised a company would decide to exclude anything which adds depth and variety to their game.

WoW players would be bored if they were still fighting Ragnaros for their loot. "Variety is the spice of life." Surely WoW players enjoy their encounters with multibox PvP groups for similar reasons? (Attend for a moment to the 'silent majority' before pointing to raging forum posts.)
Further, isn't it player-generated 'content' which is the main draw for any MMO? For example: guild interaction, sharing as a group the learning/experience of encounters, PvP, or role-play. A shame, IMO, to squash this particular form of player-driven inventiveness.

[Durant]

:( Damn, and I just spent the holidays perfecting ISBoxer with a 3man team. TBH I have not had any hassle from anyone, but as someone has pointed out most of the <80 zones are sparsely populated so I might get some flack if I spend time levelling my trio and end up 80.

[Multibocks]

Even if this spread to WoW, I would be ok with it. The new LFG system is so fantastic that I could really care less if I cant do a whole group anymore. It would make my life in WoW easier, thats for certain.

[merujo]

Some EQ2 dev or GM is butt hurt? lol

[Captive2]

Just in case anyone is still interested, I’m still 6-boxing EQ2 with ISBoxer and have had zero problems with GMs, warnings, complaints from other players, etc. I plan to continue playing this way until they tell me I can’t and ban me.

[BobGnarly]

I don't box eq2, but if I did, I'd be gone. If they are trying to surreptitiously tell us it's OK, then sorry, that doesn't work. I don't want to spend a big chunk of my time to have it all lost to a GM in a bad mood.

Heck, Blizzard has made their stance on this subject crystal clear, and we still have GMs banning boxers because they don't know the company's position. Yeah, it gets resolved, but I doubt it would in EQ2. They'd just trot out the party line and call it good.

So yeah, no eq2 boxing for me.

[Fursphere]

Even if this spread to WoW, I would be ok with it. The new LFG system is so fantastic that I could really care less if I cant do a whole group anymore. It would make my life in WoW easier, thats for certain.

This thought has been in the back of my mind the last few days. All the reasons I started multiboxing are quickly becoming a non-issue.

[Noxxy]

Have to totally agree with Bobgnarly - all it will take is a slight slip up on on boxers part (i.e., all jump at once, etc.) or some peeved off n00b/GM and all your work will be down the drain - be constantly looking over your shoulder wondering when the big ban hammer would fall

Not worth the effort at all - and even if you did spend the time mboxing EQ2, you'd know 100% that what you were doing is against the TOS - sure, some people can live with that - personally, I can't

Only problem is - finding it hard to get a replacement - went back to my old original playgrounds and 6 boxed DAoC for a bit (omgawd - hell no! Better left as a fond memory that one) - tossed around the idea of going way way back and 6 boxing EQ1 but won't simply because it's SOE and will having the same TOS issues as with EQ2

Sure there's WoW but still totally burnt out from my time in a raiding guild as MH - never again...can't even re-install it!

IMHO - that's the real problem with WoW - it's gotton so big it has either wiped out the majority of the existing niche mmporgs or new developers won't even try to float their mmporgs as they know they won't grab enough of a market share to last a year

Constantly scanning the upcoming beta lists looking for the next 'big thing' - few things of interest, just have to fill in the time till they go public

[Captive2]

Have to totally agree with Bobgnarly - all it will take is a slight slip up on on boxers part (i.e., all jump at once, etc.) or some peeved off n00b/GM and all your work will be down the drain - be constantly looking over your shoulder wondering when the big ban hammer would fall


What are you risking by continuing to play? You said “all your work will be down the drain”. If you quit, you GUARANTEE that will happen. If you continue to play, it might happen or it might not. If you enjoy the game, I’d keep playing and hope they leave you alone.

[Starbuck_Jones]

Its against the law to have sex in the state I reside in out of wedlock (fornication). Till its enforced, it doesnt mean a thing.

[BobGnarly]

Its against the law to have sex in the state I reside in out of wedlock (fornication). Till its enforced, it doesnt mean a thing.

Sure, and one day when you piss off your DA for some reason or another, he'll drag you over the legal coals because you are technically violating the law (speaking hypothetically, don't know if you personally are or not ;] ). This would almost certainly get thrown out pretty early, but the TOS violation from EQ2 probably wouldn't.

There is another side I didn't mention before, which is that I don't want to support a company with stupid policies that can't differentiate between a person playing 5 characters at once and a "bot" or "gold farmer". I don't even understand how these two are the same, do gold farmers multibox their farming now? How does "one click, one action over all clients" apply to gold farmers? /confused

It all just strikes me as a group of people who are too chicken-shit to make a stance on a subject, so they keep the policy in place to satisfy the moronic masses while they wink at the multiboxers and tell us to "lay low." No thanks. I was actually very impressed when Blizzard stood their guns on this subject since it was such a powder-keg for a while. I guess SOE isn't willing to do the same.

[victor]

i canceled all my accounts last month. I don't want to waste time playing when i can get banned for no good reason. Sony has a strange business model when it comes to games. On one hand they have station cash and those virtual playing cards/loot cards to bring in extra money but at the same time they allow workers to make decisions which effectively discourage, via banning and threats, existing boxing players and potential boxing players down the line. I seriously doubt any lore loving obsessed player has ever quit due to witnessing a boxed group. Anyway, regardless i don't want to play a game where i have to sneak around thinking that i might get reported and banned at any given moment.

[JoeWunsch]

Its against the law to have sex in the state I reside in out of wedlock (fornication). Till its enforced, it doesnt mean a thing.

The south has some crazy laws lol.

Just by the sound of it, I am guessing that is a southern law.

[Captive2]

Just in case anyone is interested, I’m still 6-boxing with InnerSpace and have had zero issues. No harassment from other players or GMs, no warnings, no bannings.

[KAC]

So, within EQ2, the best option (if you want to stick with the game) is Steps, or the equivalent for the software of choice.

Each keystroke is a step.
Step 1 - Toon A
Step 2 - Toon B
Step 3 - Toon C
Etc.

And then spam the key, as many times as you'd like actions to occur.
Maybe Key 1, is tank only.
But Key 2, is your four DPS toons, so you'd spam this key four times in rapid succession.

Which then gives four unique keypresses, with only a single action across all toons on each action.
The faster you could spam the key, the better.
But its still only a single action, on only one of your toons, from a single keypress.



Honestly, if this is Sony's stance on boxing.
I would tend to think, a new game might be a better option.
They clearly don't want you to play their game, as a boxer.

if blizzard decides to whine about boxers and pulls some crap I would hope hope every boxer would do what I would do, sell all my gold and chars call blizz and tell em to bite me. As much as i enjoy my downtime playing wow in the winter where i live i could give a rat's ass about giving a company my money for a product I can't use the way way I want. The only reason people cry about multiboxers is because they are either too stupid or too poor to multibox themselves. I would be rich if I had a dollar for all the ignorant kids who whisper me out of the blue and call me a fag botter and or cheater. Hell, I can do myself what 5 or 10 stupid ass kids can't do half the time. Boxing was my solution to enjoy a multi-player game wthout having to deal with the multi-dumbass aspect.

[Captive2]

Boxing was my solution to enjoy a multi-player game wthout having to deal with the multi-dumbass aspect.

Those are pretty much my sentiments exactly.

[Catamer]

well, this saved me the trouble of even trying EQ2

[Lax]

I've been informed that SOE does NOT want to ban multiboxing, even with keystrokes being broadcast. What they don't want is for multiboxers to grief other players.

If you're playing 36 (or even 6) toons in PVP and just standing there demolishing someone over and over, it ruins that person's day and that person is going to have a newfound hatred for multiboxers.

I'm told that as long as you are not using your multiboxing for nefarious purposes, and are otherwise following the rules (not botting, not selling plat/gold/whatever, etc), that you should not be banned.

SOE, like other game companies, wants to a) make money and b) have as many people as possible play, and enjoy, their game. They don't want to run a gestapo -- it's just bad business (unless you ask the RIAA). If your net effect on the previous statement is positive (i.e. you are making them more money than you are losing them), and you are not violating their eula/tos/tou/whatever, then you are a customer they want to keep. There is no other way to look at it, it is a very simple business decision.

What this all comes down to is "being a good citizen". If you put on a good show for the people you come across, they are going to look at you with curiosity and wonderment instead of disdain. Likewise, if you're just being a dick the whole time, people aren't going to like you -- that's when you start having a negative effect on the equation, and you should expect trouble (hint: instead of destroying someone over and over just because you can, destroy them once and then let them walk away the next time. maybe even wave.). Putting on a show can be done with some very simple choreography. Sorta like live machinima. In WoW sometimes when people follow me around and watch, I spread my guys out into a Flying V formation (a 2-step Key Map where 4 people move the first step, 2 people move the second step) and break into dance. The only negative thing anyone really has to say is "why do you waste so much money on this game", but it's relatively rare (my response is usually "I know people with much more expensive hobbies" -- some people spend thousands of dollars building things for fun, like vehicles. this is VERY cheap in comparison!). Most of the time they will just sit and talk for a minute or two and ask how it works, what program I use, etc.

That's not to say don't do any PVP. I do plenty of PVP myself (albeit not in EQ2). Sometimes people will actually come attack me thinking they can kill one or more of my guys before I am able to kill them. Usually they're dead wrong, with extra dead (unless they outlevel me by far, for example). Sometimes they even try it a second or third time! Sure I could chase them down for a while if I wanted to ruin their day. But what's the point of harassing some random person? It wouldn't improve the perception of multiboxers and it certainly wouldn't make the game publisher more apt to see things my way if that person complained.

I know you're not going to take me at my word when there's a post at the beginning of this thread with quotes from GMs that suggest otherwise, but SOE knows it was a mistake to suggest that they would ban every multiboxer who is using key broadcasting. Hell, I might not believe me either if I was in your position. But it's true.

[Kalros]

So has anyone continued to multibox EQ2, using the keystroke broadcasting? Any issues with dealing with GMs or being reported?

I had always planned on coming back to EQ2 and trying to multibox, but obviously this issue would cause me to not want to.

Basically I'm just wondering how much they are enforcing this, if at all.

[Gomotron]

Kalros,

I had cancelled my accounts and took a swipe at LOTRO but have now come back to EQ2, mostly based on what people have posted in this thread.

I have yet to even get a /tell let alone be reported. I am on the Mistmoore server, FYI.

[Twiz]

I took a short break but have resumed multiboxing. I haven't had any problems nor have I been contacted by folks in game. I only 6-box early in the mornings on weekdays, so the likelihood that I'll actually run into another player is fairly slim.

I seriously doubt SOE would do anything to a multiboxer minding their own business, especially with an expansion right around the corner.

[Naysayer]

I only 6-box early in the mornings on weekdays, so the likelihood that I'll actually run into another player is fairly slim.


hahaha that game must be dead.

[Captive2]

I'm still 6-boxing with InnerSpace. No warnings, no petitions (that I know of), no harassing tells. A few players ask me if I'm boxing, and I politely tell them I am. Most say "Cool - that must be fun" and go on their way. I honestly don't think they're going to do anything to people who aren't griefing or farming/selling gold. I haven't heard of a single case of a boxer being banned. Not here, not on EQ Flames - anywhere.

So if you're thinking of giving it a shot, I would go ahead and do it. I wouldn't play on a PvP server, as I think boxing may be considered more of a no-no in PvP. But I haven't even heard of any PvPer boxers being banned, so you might not have any trouble there either.

[mesmerise]

Still boxing with IS here too and no warning, no ban, nothing...

[mebben]

Aah I have this urge of coming back to EQ2..just not sure if I should do a full multibox or try and enjoy the people who actually play. Any idea how the population is leveling wise? I figure I have to play on the american servers to get a decent populated server?

[Vega]

After reading this thread I was curious as to how exactly they word their stance on multiboxing. While they never directly refer to it, they do allude to it. Here's what I found:


EVERQUEST® II USER AGREEMENT AND SOFTWARE LICENSE:

"You may not decrypt or modify any data transmitted between client and server and you may not use, post, host or distribute macros, "bots" or other programs which would allow unattended game play or which otherwise impact game play."

This sounds intentionally vague to me. They use the words "other programs" and "impact game play" to differentiate from botting. This leaves it wide open for interpretation.


If you were to read it paraphrased, it would say:

You may not use other programs which impact gameplay.

Presumably "other programs" refers to 3rd party programs. That's clearly their meaning in the full quote.

"Impact gameplay" is about a vague as it could possibly be. From the sound of it, they simply want to reserve the right to say that any mod/addon/3rd party program is against the rules at the discretion of their GM/CS staff. It appears to me that their "stance" on multiboxing is that they don't condone it or condemn it, but will leave it up to the individual GM; and likely give the player no recourse once the decision to ban/suspend is made. (But that's pure speculation.)



EVERQUEST® II RULES OF CONDUCT:

"You will follow the instructions of authorized personnel while in EverQuest II or on the Official EverQuest II Forums."

That is the entire rule. They don't mention what sort of instructions they are referring to.

This leads me to further conclude that they give GMs carte blanche in gameplay-related matters; and that multiboxing, being unprotected by the language of their user agreements, may be considered an infraction of the rules by one GM and perfectly acceptable by another - and that both are considered correct as far as SOE is concerned.



They have another curiously worded rule:

"You will not create, use or provide any server emulator or other site where EverQuest II may be played, and you will not post or distribute any utilities, emulators or other software tools related to EverQuest II without the express written permission of Sony Online Entertainment."

To paraphrase:

You will not post or distribute any utilities or other software tools related to EverQuest II.

Clearly this is referring to botting, hacking, and other cheating and/or malicious programs; but words like "utilities" and "software tools" are vague enough to include literally any 3rd party program - no matter how benign.

Under these guidelines a simple thing like a UI mod or a dps counter would be illegal. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that SOE purposely leaves these matters in the hands of their GMs. If that's the case, we're basically at the mercy of everyone - including other players. All it takes is one report in the wrong GM's queue and we're done. Of course this doesn't necessarily mean we'll be banned outright; but it certainly seems that the lack of a written rule expressly outlining what is, and is not, acceptable by multiboxers is intentional.

Further evidence of this is in the varying responses by GMs and CSR. This suggests to me that while they may know the EULA backwards and forwards, they were not given a conclusive explanation of the rules as they apply to multiboxing. I'd be curious to hear from a GM whether there is an official rule regarding non-bot multiboxing; or if it is indeed simply up to each individual GM's interpretation of the rule.



Of course this is all speculation but until SOE either makes up its mind about multiboxing or gives us a definitive answer, speculate is all we can do.

[Khatovar]

It's already as clear as it needs to be, IMO. There are more than a few places where they say you can not send 1 keystroke to all accounts and have all accounts respond to that same keystroke.


Multiboxing is allowed so long as each character performing an action requires a unique and separate keystroke.

Their idea of multiboxing now is the old-school alt-tab method. 1 keystroke = 1 action on ONE account. You want to round robin actions to each instance {1st press > acct 1, second press > acct 2} that should be fine. But sending all presses to all accounts is no longer acceptable to SOE.

People coming back saying "Well I haven't been banned" is not confirmation, it is the same as people coming back to the WoW boards saying "Well, I share accounts and I haven't been banned, so go ahead and do it" IMO. We have 4 responses from 4 different CMs all stating the same thing and dozens of responses from players trying to to say that SOE is talking out of 2 both sides of their mouth. I don't see a single CM response that includes "quote quote, wink wink, nudge nudge".

[Vega]

I see. I was reading their software license. I got ahead of myself and posted before I read the EULA itself. Psssh. Newbie mistake! :p

But yeah, that does seem pretty darn definitive. That's a shame. I guess I'm switching back to WoW.

Thanks for pointing that out. As far as I'm concerned that's the deal breaker right there. :(

[Captive2]

Hello all. Just wanted to let anyone know who might be interested - I'm still 6-boxing with InnerSpace. I haven't received any warnings, bans, threats, complaints, etc. I really hate to see EQ2 boxing die - I haven't heard of a single instance where they banned someone for doing it.

Maybe no one cares anymore - but I'm having a blast and the new expansion has brought a lot of people back into the game. If you're thinking of coming back, I honestly don't think you'll have any trouble.

[Twiz]

Yeah, I've been playing too, although life has picked up so I don't get a chance to play as often as I did before. I 6 box maybe once a week now for a couple of hours, the rest of the time is duo/trio'ing. I haven't had any trouble and have even had some folks swap in for quest finishes and I've gotten nothing but thanks.

I've been having fun checking out the new Golden Path quests that came with GU55; especially looking forward to the TT line that rewards class armor. :)

[Svpernova09]

Seems like this thread has run it's course, and topics are shifting, going to lock the thread.