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

[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