Limit on Boxes

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Merriam, Jun 7, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lyrad

    Lyrad Member

    Messages:
    127
    "Zetro" +1
     
  2. layonhands

    layonhands Active Member

    Messages:
    34
    I'm completely satisfied you were griefed, cheater.

    On a side note, why not have the same rule set as EQMac did? Pretty straight forwarded, unlimited accounts without 3rd party shenanigans.
     
  3. Ravenwing

    Ravenwing I Feel Loved

    Messages:
    3,166
    Free-to-play signaled a sea-change for Al'Kabor.

    Sure, there were always boxers, but the rise of a significant chunk of the server's population boxing groups capable of downing small raid targets magnified the power differential between the boxers and the box-nots.

    The reciprocity that underpins the social structure in a game like EQ breaks down when relationships between players become so asymmetrical.

    I think two is a great number.
     
  4. Darchon

    Darchon I Feel Loved

    Messages:
    3,627
    2 or 3 sounds good to me.

    I will miss my bard auto-mez box, but sacrificing that for a better community is definitely worth it.
     
  5. Esildor

    Esildor Member

    Messages:
    100
    Coming from the guy who was doing the griefing, while using warp hacks and MQ on the PC client.
     
  6. layonhands

    layonhands Active Member

    Messages:
    34
    I had access to none of the tools to grief was. If I wanted to grief, I would have done it on my main character. Let me guess, did Tolixs feed you false information? I told him what he wanted to hear 6months back - Doesn't necessary mean it's true.

    If you have real evidence that I griefed you, feel free to post it.
     
  7. Speedz

    Speedz Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,469
    Rants section for this type of thing please
     
  8. Esildor

    Esildor Member

    Messages:
    100
    No need Speedz.

    Scrubs will be scrubs, own it like a man.
     
  9. shortok

    shortok People Like Me

    Messages:
    325
    Much like Zombocom, the only limit is yourself.
     
  10. Dane

    Dane People Like Me

    Messages:
    305
    Personally, I'd much rather the limit be set at 3 than 2. With 3, you can accomplish far more by yourself than with 2 characters, and it still does not allow for abuse/exploitation. If you enjoy or only have time to solo, the ability to load up a Tank, Healer, and a DPS allows you far more flexibility than if you had just a Tank and Healer or DPS and Healer.
     
  11. Strikur

    Strikur New Member

    Messages:
    28
    Blaming boxing for one's antisocial behavior or the decline of a server is like blaming spoons for making Rosie O'Donnel fat.
     
  12. Klok

    Klok New Member

    Messages:
    28
    Completely agree. 2 boxes lets classes who can't solo get by if nobody is around. 3+ is not necessary.

    Maybe so, but I've seen it time and time again, including some In Virtue private emu's.
     
  13. Vanayr

    Vanayr New Member

    Messages:
    1
    Well, it would be nice if I could get 1 box running, never mind 18... lol
     
  14. Circe

    Circe New Member

    Messages:
    35
    I haven't read all the way through this thread, but if the idea is to canvas everyone's opinions, then I'm strongly in favour of minimal boxing. And if the idea is to get consensus on a specific rule, then add my vote to those who think a two-box limit would be a good idea for the health of the server.
     
  15. Maximoose

    Maximoose New Member

    Messages:
    19
    I think a two box limit is ideal. More than that and the server becomes an anti-social snooze fest, where people are content to just run around with their box armies soloing content. The best part of EQ is that the game forces you to group with people because it's too damn hard to manage most things alone. Boxing more than two characters undermines this basic principle.
     
  16. Strikur

    Strikur New Member

    Messages:
    28
    Players who are anti-social by nature will be anti-social whether they are playing one character or playing 15. If someone wants to play alone, they have that right. Where the problem lies is when one person or a small group of persons collectively play 20-40 characters and begin hogging content and ruining the experience for others. Those people can be handled on a case-by-case basis dealt with accordingly. There were entire guilds of 40+ members on Al`Kabor that I considered anti-social that routinely took down bosses with little if any regard for other, usually newer, guilds that may not have had the numbers at all hours of the day to take said targets.

    What it's going to boil down to is whether the people who play here are decent or elitists. And that's something that can't be controlled by box limits.

    I'm personally for a three box limit, if any limit at all.
     
  17. echofinder

    echofinder Member

    Messages:
    90
    I like the idea of setting limits. Two makes sense to me as a great idea but as far as setting a limit I would pick 3. Three lets you choose to make your main a harder to solo class and you could get all the reinforcement you require to make playing your main an enjoyable process. I believe this will enrich the raiding situation for guilds because you will have mains that make up a diverse group of classes. The fact that any of us are still interested in a game of this era speaks to our age and probably not the available game time we may have once had. Playing three lets you do things when you want if you are pressed on short play time windows.

    Beyond that it will come down to various guilds defining the approach they expect their members to take.
     
  18. Ravenwing

    Ravenwing I Feel Loved

    Messages:
    3,166
    Speedz et al -

    On the voting poll, I think the options will lead to some confusion.

    I think people are prone to read "box number" as "maximum number of accounts" - certainly, I think that's how many people in this thread have been discussing the issue. The inclusion of zero as an option in the poll makes me think you're using the phrase to mean "number of additional accounts beyond one."

    Regardless of which meaning makes more sense, the current wording is going to cause some people to vote erroneously. Can I suggest eliminating zero as an option, rewording to "maximum number of accounts", and resetting the poll?
     
  19. Speedz

    Speedz Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,469
    Ah yes, good point. Will adjust. Votes can be changed I set them to unlocked.
     
  20. Berran

    Berran New Member

    Messages:
    13
    Woops, I think i got confused. What option is the "No Boxing" option? I selected 1 thinking that meant 1 account.
     
  21. Speedz

    Speedz Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,469
    Poll got reset, I removed the none option due to the rewording.
     
  22. Ravenwing

    Ravenwing I Feel Loved

    Messages:
    3,166
    Thanks, Speedz!
     
  23. Speedz

    Speedz Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,469
    Yup Thanks for pointing it out. I reread it myself and was like uh wth?
     
  24. lurari

    lurari People Like Me

    Messages:
    646
    Low box limit please.

    Less boxes creates a more community-focused server.

    There are plenty of emu servers out there available for folks who want to box a lot and win EQ single-player style. EQMac was never about winning the game alone, but banding together as a large crew to overcome great obstacles.

    Al`Kabor was special, in part, because of its history of interdependence and sharing of precious resources (e.g., raid mobs). A server without a box limit will consolidate power into a handful of a few boxers, where many more masses and newbies will be turned off.

    I would argue that a large part of P99's success is because of its strict no boxing policies. Boxing was a reality of life on Al`Kabor, especially in the last year of the server's life, but the heart of the server was the community and too many boxes severs that connection.

    Two characters, to me, is around the ideal for 90% of circumstances. Some prefer to box more. Three is fine, and is definitely convenient and makes things easier. With four you can do it all. Five and six, you've completely eliminated the need for community outside of raiding.
     
  25. Throy

    Throy Member

    Messages:
    131
    I'm with Strikur and his points about a player's mentality. 'Anti-social' players as they're being called will either avoid the server or play solo classes. As the devs have made clear - we're not talking huge automated armies, but manually boxed players. As I stated in my post, there are friendly boxers out there who aren't set on 'winning' the game and merely want to experience it their way.

    I propose that we go the other route with more open doors (6 feels right to me) and if someone is monopolizing content, then have a server policy that will punish these players. I don't imagine it being very easy to sneak under the radar with huge boxing guilds capable of taking down raid content. I would love to hear/see some devs opinions strictly from a technical and support perspective. If we're introducing stricter rules and guidelines up front, then I'd imagine that is more dev work and support work to monitor/enforce these rules.

    Which servers are you referring to? The only thing remotely close to EQMac that I'm aware of is Project 1999, which happens to be a non-box server, so I would think the opposite that non-boxers can go play there.
     
  26. shortok

    shortok People Like Me

    Messages:
    325
    6. Sometimes it's amazingly fun to roll hard and take down things like Rumblecrush with a box crew and some helpers. Those that like to deal with the tedium of playing 6 consistently, all the time, with no macros/automation, are weird, but it would be nice for them to be welcome as well.

    5 would be funny because it'd mean boxers always have a slot open.
     
  27. Quaos

    Quaos New Member

    Messages:
    153
    /agree

    I think that 2 is too limiting. I think you should have the option to gain some xp if you're stuck on a time zone that is less trafficked. I know that there are plenty of means of gaining xp with 2 boxing but you really have to stick to popular combos to be successful. With 3, it opens it up to more possibilities and the ability to get stuff done if no one is online.

    Just because you're allowed 3 boxes, doesn't mean you'll play them all the time either. I think there was a distinct mind set on Al`Kabor that you had a main and alt and you worked towards improving those. A third box leaves some options to have a porter or something to liven up your team.
     
  28. furst

    furst Member

    Messages:
    375
    I kind of wish the polls were set up in a series.

    1st poll

    Boxing range

    1 Box/account
    2 Boxes/accounts
    3+ Boxes/accounts

    Then if 3+ was choosen

    3-4
    5-6
    6+

    Then the GMs can decide better.

    There seems to be 2 overwelming sides (roughly)

    The first side is either 1 box or only 2 boxes

    Then 3+ (I am including 6 and no limit here) as of right now you are spliting the votes between 1 and 2, then the other side has 3, 4, 5, 6. Thats like having one democrat canidate then 4 republicans for the presidency. Of course the democrats will win because they have a clear choice
     
  29. Neealana

    Neealana People Like Me

    Messages:
    1,260
    I wish there were some legal way to let everyone have one or two accounts "free", but make additional boxes dependent on some sort of contribution to the good of the server. The Paypal button is convenient, however there could be other ways to help. I noticed the poll did not go over 6 boxes, and am very happy about that.
     
  30. Yinn Yang

    Yinn Yang People Like Me

    Messages:
    543
    I'm pretty sure Lurari is referring to PEQ... it is boxer heaven there. Granted, it goes up to GoD, which AK never did, but if you want to box 6 or more, that is definitely the place to do it. Most players there are boxing 12-18 characters at a time.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.