Multiboxing should not be considered in game design ???

[Yamio]

If the game is good, and I mean really good, then I agree that they shouldn't lift a finger to help multiboxers. Good games draw lots of innovative players that are inclined to make an already fun game an overall better experience for them. With that said, if the game doesn't have /follow then it'll be mighty tough for anyone to multibox. Someone will find a way around that I'm sure.

R.A. Salvatore is one of my all time favorite fantasy writers, and I've always been a fan of Curt Schilling, including the bloody sock. (If you don't follow baseball then you won't get that remark). But just because a game has rich investors doesn't ensure that it's going to be great. Gameplay is ultimately the bottom line. I'm like some of the other posters above; this endeavor is up against steep odds and I'll be moderately surprised if it has any kind of success.

[Khatovar]

I wouldn't count too much on the stargate MMO, I'm in the beta and its pretty crappy (and rumors constantly abound about the company being this close >< to shutting down, which sucks, since I am totally gay for anything Stargate)

Don't say that!! *whine* The possibilities with the Stargate concept made me have so much hope!

But on topic, I don't think games should be designed around boxers, just like I don't think games should be designed around, say collecting stupid friggin pets and "points" for going through content at 80 that you should have done at 10. I think game companies need to stop sniffing around the butts of what they think worked and start getting innovative on their own. These game companies have no idea what makes games succeed anymore. For starters, a working game at release would be nice {Vanguard, I'm looking at you}. A game that feels like an MMO and not just a single-player RPG with a chatroom {I see you over there, AOC}.

Jumping on the multi-boxing bandwagon as a way to market games is about as brilliant an idea as saying "It's got elves and dragons and Asain chicks play it!!" and expecting that to sell you a couple million copies. While I am very unlikely to play a game that I can't multi-box, I still might if the game is good enough. On the other hand, I'm not gonna pay $50 x 3, 4, 5 or more to play a game that sucks just because they love boxers and give us free toys or something.

Whoever said that they should not waste thier time/resources on developing for multi-boxers was right. They should worry about developing a good game instead of sticking all the latest fads into one big messy box. Show me a good game first. If they're smart, they don't outright prevent boxing and all you smart people here can figure out how to make it work. If they're real smart, they work with us later by doing things like making auto-follow smoother or their macro system neater and saying "Hey, Multiboxing, but not botting, is cool with us, stop bugging them!" And no, I don't give enough credit for most people to know the difference between us and bots yet. I won't play a game that can't make the distintion.

[Zaelar]

IIRC they said it was a new universe, so not starcraft, warcraft, or diablo. Unfortunately this probably also means no rock and roll racing mmo...

If multiboxing is allowed then it definitely should be considered in the game design. Do it in a way that makes it possible in non-annoying ways(/follow, /assist), while making sure boxers don't have a huge edge over players that don't box. This isn't something that a huge amount of time should be spent on, and the game should be designed around the solo player first and foremost.

[Flight]

[quote='Bollwerk',index.php?page=Thread&postID=1796 30#post179630]Flight!

You were on Bristlebane back in EQ as I recall. Your name is so familiar. Were you in AO or another guild like RoV, CoL, Club Fu?

Remember a Wood Elf bard named Alumriel? (that's me)

Nice to see you around here. =)[/quote]Heya Alum

Yeah its Flight from BB and of course I remember you. [url='http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums/index.php?page=Thread&postID=1660&highlight=#post1 660']I've been around for a while[/url] - back then people like Xzin weren't using broadcasting keyboard they were using synchronized mouse to activate their toons.

Good to see you too, hope you and yours are well.

[Flight]

But on topic, I don't think games should be designed around boxers, just like I don't think games should be designed around, say collecting stupid friggin pets and "points" for going through content at 80 that you should have done at 10

Whoever said that they should not waste thier time/resources on developing for multi-boxers was right. They should worry about developing a good game

I want to underline that in the original post I wasn't disagreeing at all - I absolutely agree with Khatovar.


What I said was : small number of minor issues being considered by the game designersearly in the games development cycle could produce huge benefits in
terms of both game experience and subscription numbers

What I am looking for is small ideas - basic game mechanics - that benefit boxers, but also non-boxers. Things like auto facing and looting options have been great ideas to suggest and debate.

[Flight]

What I am looking for is small ideas - basic game mechanics - that benefit boxers, but also non-boxers. Things like auto facing and looting options have been great ideas to suggest and debate.

Do you work for them?

No mate. But I wish I did - I really believe in the company they have put together.

[Taliesin]

What I am looking for is small ideas - basic game mechanics - that benefit boxers, but also non-boxers. Things like auto facing and looting options have been great ideas to suggest and debate.

I'm iffy on the auto-facing, as it has a small underpinning of doing some action instead of the user. Granted, Blizzard does use it for for channeled attack spells, but there's not many of those. Otherwise, I think anything I would want to suggest has already been covered above.

These games are supposed to be designed around the idea that you advance through combat and tactics/strategy. Anything that doesn't have any impact on the advancement of the game I don't really have much of an opinion on. Stuff like looting rights, player housing (or other storage methods), gender re-assignments, player pets, etc, etc. If they exist, great...if not, then it doesn't make the game any easier or harder to play.

[Tonuss]

Wasnt Shilling the eq player that like to go in game and let everyone know he was someone famous, do interviews and post on msg boards about it too?

No idea on how he acted in EQ, but as far as I can tell Schilling is a pretty hard core gamer who seems to really enjoy MMORPGs. He plays (or played) WoW, if I am not mistaken. I saw an interview on a gaming site and he seemed like any other video gamer geek, talked about his "rigs" and gaming and the like. I like his enthusiasm and willingness to 'mingle' with the crowd on his blog and message boards.

As for developers proactively supporting multiboxing, all I am generally concerned with is that they are not against it. As long as they tolerate it, I'm cool with that. Heck, if they make a game that is deep and involved and fun to play with friends, I won't even worry about multiboxing...

[Caspian]

I know Schilling plays WoW, I used to know who his character was, maybe I can dig up the link. He is also a very avid gamer and has been for a very long time. I don't know much about the other guys or the team they put together, though I do know they were looking for "competitors" and top notch technical people only. There is no guarantee of success for any game. But Curt seems like a good guy and I hope they do well.

Here is an article I found. I think it is a rehash of the one I read a while ago. It is a random google link. If you don't like it just good Curt schilling wow.

http://kevcr0we.wordpress.com/2007/1...d-of-warcraft/

The game company
http://www.38studios.com/

his blog - searching for warcraft
http://38pitches.weei.com/?s=warcraft&x=0&y=0