Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Persey Aug 21 2006, 09:31 AM

As far as I'm concerned, I don't play iRO or kRO, and I don't know if they allow multiple clients, but the only thing I can think of is that, people wouldn't pay for 2 accounts just to have one as a buff slave / endow slave.

But in this server, I think, our population growth and even economy will grow if duel clienting is allowed.

More people will be demanding crystal blues / wind of verdure / and the other stones [spelling?]

More people will "seem" to be on the server, hence, attracting more players, look at this way. "CrescendoRO, a server with an average of 250 players." now - "CrescendoRO, a server with an average of 450 players." Obviously the second one looks better.

Duel clienting can be used for a couple of things, buff slaves, endow slaves, tanking yourself.

People already duel client anyways in this server, because they have TWO computers, not all of us are that wealthy in real life, we can barely afford ONE computer. Does this server just favour the rich?

Posted by: Moku Aug 21 2006, 09:46 AM

Yeah, I totally agree.

I'd like to add another point:

Double Clienting won't completely repalce the roles of priests - only the most boring roles. What kinda real priest sits in the same spot doing nothing for 5 minutes, then buffs and heals, and sits again?

Real Priests are far different. First of all, most buff/heal slaves aren't a high level. Look at an example priest, levelling in Magma with a wizard. They need to tank monsters, heal themselves, suff their wizard pal, and manage a whole load of stuff. A lot of the time they need to use white pots. This takes micro, and usually involves two people instead of one. (Usually. There ARE some pro people that can handle two active roles at once... 0.0)

So, there will still be priests with dual clienting. Look at EuphRO (whoops! ) or iRO or anything. Has Double Clienting replaced priests there? Hell no! Zomg Priests are an important class. Allowing Double Clienting isn't gonna change that.

Edit: Oh yeah, BTW, Double Clienting isn't allowed on official servers, but using two computers is. (WTF?) And most people Double Client anyway on official servers.

Posted by: Kaede Aug 21 2006, 10:59 AM

Usage of two computers is, because no one can really tell. Another member of your household could be playing. Anyway, dual clienting hasn't replaced priests... if anyone can multi-task like that, i'd like to meet them.

Posted by: Persey Aug 21 2006, 12:02 PM

Eh? I don't get what you mean. But Moku made.... somewhat of a point, even though no one really said it would replace the role of Priests.

Posted by: Ayae Aug 21 2006, 12:14 PM

http://forums.crescendo-ro.com/index.php?showtopic=1581.
http://forums.crescendo-ro.com/index.php?showtopic=3838.

Posted by: Persey Aug 21 2006, 01:14 PM

Eh sorry, what's "hex my client" some of us aren't so pro at this stuff X_X. Think a GM could make an add-on client thing for it? Like the extra-zoom add-on.

Posted by: Ayae Aug 21 2006, 01:15 PM

If you read what's being said, you'll know that it wont happend. Since it's clearly _not_ supported by us, why would we supply the clients?

Posted by: San Jose Shark Aug 21 2006, 04:29 PM

Its allowed, just that you cant be helped

Posted by: Flamer Aug 21 2006, 07:17 PM

dual clienting sucks, because it spawns solo artists... and then no one plays support.

Posted by: Vir Gnarus Aug 22 2006, 08:17 AM

I concur. I've seen plenty of people have more than 4 characters lined up to buff their one char before entering pvp or WoE, all controlled by one individual. It's absurd, and it reduces gameplay by making people independent in a game that is - or should be - designed as being codependent.

Posted by: DavionFuxa Aug 22 2006, 11:15 AM

When competing with others, sure, Dual Clienting goes to far. That's the main problem with 1 person playing multiple characters at once.

Posted by: haryuuno Aug 23 2006, 02:06 AM

its needed to double client for SG
it sucks looking for some SL that has the SG soul link buff
i have made a SL and yes a priest too to buff me cous our guild lacks priests.

but now my SG is set to inactive cous i kinda like my priestess ^^
and i didnt get any hydra cards in 4 fkin days so >.<

Posted by: Vir Gnarus Aug 23 2006, 07:15 PM

Dual Clienting is not 'needed' ever, period. There is no situation where dual clienting is able to accomplish something that is impossible otherwise. Dual clienting is just a substitute, that's it.

Our guild lacked SLs, so what did we do? We hunted for SLs and now we have 3 active. Our guild lacked WoE sages, so what did we do? One of us got off their ass and started making a sage for that specific purpose. My sage is a build that requires Soul Link to perform anything worthwhile, so I hunted for an SL and am having one become a 'dedicated' Link buddy.

Dual clienting is never needed, ever, you just work with people.

Posted by: Persey Aug 23 2006, 11:10 PM

Meh, I got my client hex'd, dual-clienting is pretty necessary to power level, in my opinion, no priest is going to sit there for 2 hours, without party share on and buff me while I level, thats where dual clienting kicks in,

And yes, the SL thing is pretty important, some ->SINS<- like/want/need the SL buff to level/pvp/woe/mvp. Sure you can just HUNT for active SLs, but what if the SLs aren't on when you want them to be? What if they quit your guild / server.

Posted by: Ayae Aug 23 2006, 11:28 PM

One could wonder why you're playing an Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game, when all you want to to, is play by yourself. /swt

Posted by: haryuuno Aug 24 2006, 05:39 AM

nobody is gonna sit 24/7 to wait for me and BUFF me with sg buff then sits and wait again... yes it IS impossible to find someone like that and i need that buff every time union wares off noones gonna sit idleing for me to just buff me. its allowed so why not save youreself the trouble finding someone thats THAT dedicated to you. noone will

you play for woe and ur guild and some fun partying.
if youre to low lvl it sucks so meh why not lvl a buffer/linker to get u to the FUN bits of RO

Posted by: DavionFuxa Aug 24 2006, 05:59 AM

Sigh* Of course a Priest isn't going to actively buff you, heal you, sit down, wait, and repeat. That wouldn't be too fun for the priest; you have to give the Priest something in return. If you want to level fast you better be willing to buy those services instead of getting them for free. That or go to an area with a Priest who's partying with someone else, or killing undead monsters; that will be willing to give you buffs and heals when they go off and go back to what he's already doing.

Otherwise you play it without the priest and level at the speed most people do of your character type.

Posted by: Ayae Aug 24 2006, 06:02 AM

There are many many places, and different situations, where it's way faster to party and share experience with a priest. Obviously no-one will sit in a corner and buff you whenever you want them... but again, why would you play a Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game like that? You're supposed to play with others, not with multiclients. It's way more fun to party with people, then to level by yourself, atleast I think so.

Posted by: DavionFuxa Aug 24 2006, 06:13 AM

In the beginning I found it to be better by myself. Its only later into the game where you realize this game sucks when your playing by your lonesome.

Posted by: Confusedguy Aug 24 2006, 10:54 AM

Not true. I got my character to 99 in a mere 12 days with nobody at all helping me. But people are lazy, and want everything to be as easy as possible. When the monster spawning at Ancient Mummies, Soils, and Seals were changed recently, people just complained, saying things like "It was easier to level before, change back plz", but leveling isn't meant to be "easy", else we'd all be 99 trans already.

I'm against people that use MCs to self-buff themselves just because they're too greedy to share exp with a FS priest, and I think there should be a rule against MC'ing to self-buff.

Posted by: DavionFuxa Aug 24 2006, 11:37 AM

As much as that would be nice and all, it be a nuisance to no end for the GM to enforce if you didn't go all the way and band MCing outright.

Posted by: Vir Gnarus Aug 24 2006, 05:19 PM

There's either no MCing or MCing, there's no grey area.

Posted by: Persey Aug 24 2006, 05:23 PM

I don't play MMORPG's because I like to intereact with people when I'm leveling, to me, in my opinion and in many others, leveling is the boring part of leveling, and with many classes you mostly solo [Monks, err, and can't think of any others, but there are others]

I play MMORPG's for my personal reasons, and it gets boring playing by yourself, yes, but you also need dualclients to party at many many times.

Let's say you want to MvP with a priest and/or party, you have an endow slave, you need an endow to succesfully kill the MvP to minimize deaths [1% is kind of a drag to lose at 9x], what if you don't trust the priest enough to give them your password to go on your account? What if you don't trust anyone, cos



There's all the reason NOT to give out your PW.

Posted by: Vir Gnarus Aug 24 2006, 05:44 PM

There's people out there that are willing to endoow people and whatnot for the benefit of their party. Plus, a lv 5 endow gives a whopping 30 minutes of the buff. That's quite a window for MVPing.

Understand that a person with lv 5 endows isn't exactly 'crippling' their skill build either. Lv 3 of each is required for one of the most important sage spells, Magnetic Earth, so adding a couple extra points to each should not bear an issue if they are willing to do it.

Oh, and before we all forget, the original RO client does not allow MCing. RO was never designed for people to tamper with the client so they can actually 'enjoy' the game by MCing. Many of people have appreciated the game without the need of such a hack.

Posted by: Persey Aug 24 2006, 06:37 PM

Gnarus, I understand where you are coming from, but you need to understand where we were coming from.

Sure it's easy to say we don't need it, when you don't need it, but when you need it, [possibly never] you wouldn't say it. Look even if I didn't need it, I wouldn't complain, it doesn't matter, anymore, this topic should just be closed.

P.S Endow is just one example, I could name a few more, but I'd rather not because you people will just contradict it using your personal opinions.

Posted by: Moku Aug 24 2006, 07:10 PM

Because they're too greedy to share exp with an FS priest?

What FS priest is gonna waste his or her time sitting around, buffing you every five minutes, and sitting around some more? No FS Priest will do that. Even if an FS priest would get 1/2 EXP from party share, he or she would still probably refuse an offer to sit around and buff every 5 minutes. Why? 'Cos it's boring as hell.

Buff slaves don't replace any jobs. Real FS priests never do such boring jobs - so what are buff slaves replacing? Nothing. Buff slaves allow more people to level in certain areas - they aren't replacing real FS priests.

What do real FS priests do? Most FS priests have to follow a party, heal, buff, and cast certain support spells upon certain events. (Say, a party member got Stone Cursed. Status Recovery.) Often they need to run around in order to avoid aggressives. Sometimes they mob for other characters. But however real FS priests level, they cannot be replaced by a buff slave.

So what about the people who use buff slaves? Are they being too "lazy" or too "greedy," using a buff slave? Of course, they're not being too greedy to share exp with real FS priests, because FS priests simply don't sit around and buff. They're not being lazy, either. They're doing the same amount of work, killing the same amount of monsters; just faster and more efficient. People who use buff slaves to aid their levelling are simply helping themselves level faster. While others may disagree with using buff slaves ("they're too cheap," "it makes levelling too easy," etc.) they're not being forced to use them. Buff slavers are simply helping themselves level faster.



Oh, and about your rule to prevent self-buffing: rules are great and all, but rules need to follow certain criteria in order for them to work. One of these critera is enforcability and being able to discover if someone is actually breaking the rule.

Basically, how would one know if a priest sitting around the entrance to a map is really the same person as some character levelling on that map? Huh? There's no way to know for sure. Simply assuming that the person is, in fact, Double Clienting and using a buff slave and jailing them or banning the slave or whatever would lead to the possibility of banning or jailing a real person.

In fact, it would prevent real people from sharing exp while sitting around and buffing every 5 minutes. While just earlier I stated that there is almost no chance that a real FS priest would do so, what about the innocents? WTF are you gonna do if someone really is just sitting around buffing? - maybe chatting to friends in the process, or something.

Your rule is crap. Not only is it unenforcable and unverifiable, it's misguided.

Huzzah, fsking long post.

*Note: There are special cases to almost everything. When I say that it's impossible to play a role of an active (real) FS Priest while Double Clienting with another class, I mean that it's almost impossible. People can pull off amazing stunts with Double Clienting and auto-follow. Same goes for everything else I say. There are special cases to almost everything.



The IRO client attempts to prevent double clienting because of problems in the past that have already been fixed. Its prevention of Double Clienting is a vestige.

In fact, IRO allows people to use two computers and two accounts, but because they still haven't fixed their client to match with current times, and because the rules are "no tampering with the client in any way," Double Clienting is still somehow against the rules, even though using TWO COMPUTERS with the same person operating both is allowed. So your point is completely useless.

Posted by: Confusedguy Aug 24 2006, 07:34 PM

The above person clearly didn't read what I said, seeing as I never said that FS priests don't sit there any do anything. Nobody said FS priests have to sit around and do nothing. FS priests are called Full Support for a reason.

Believe it or not, it's very easy to tell if the priest is an MC, or another person.

Posted by: Moku Aug 24 2006, 07:47 PM

I clearly did read what you said. I never implied that you said in any way that FS priests sit somewhere and do nothing. You are missing the point.

My point was that buff slaves don't replace real FS priests, because you stated that those who used buff slaves were greedy and not willing to share exp with real FS priests. Do you understand my point now?

Reread my original post again. Try to understand my points. They are all valid.

In addition, there is NO way to be sure that someone is a buff slave. While it certainly may SEEM suspicious for a person to sit in a spot for 5 mintues, buff, and sit again, this person COULD be a real person, chatting with friends and getting EXP. Again, this was all stated in my original post. Although it was rather long, I hope next time you respond you read and understand my posts better.

G'night, everybody.

Posted by: NeFu Aug 25 2006, 03:56 AM

Well I came from dead Euphro where multi-clientig was supported. And I think that's a bad idea. Why - it just kills usability of some skills/classes. On Euphro there was almost no SL - only SL slaves, same with endow sages. It was hard to find a party as a priest - why - cause everyone had his heal/buff slave. And auto follow stunt is really easy - niffing with auto following priest is a piece of cake (I even MvP-ed with it - I just putted tank sader in front and kept healing/casting sanct). Besides why getting a FS priest for power lvling if You can just MC(2xmore exp and all loot is Yours)??Not mentioning quadriple clienting at AM with bard/dancer duet, heal/buff slave and a main char...It REALLY cripples RO experience and changes it to single player game...and spoils PvP fun i.e. every sin is soul linked and buffed befeore getting to PvP...

As for people complaining about who will buff me - are those buffs necessary to play with Your char? I know that SL make life easier - but earlier there were no SLs and people played somehow... And lvling can be fun - You just need the right party. 7x sac sader , priest, rogue and BS can lvl fine in niff 1 (lolis,BM) and it's fun and challenging and exp wise at the same time...

Posted by: haryuuno Aug 25 2006, 05:46 AM

not necessary no but sl makes me actually HIT high lvled monsters like df.
and ye i do party with a hp and share exp only the sl buffs me
union has his ups and downs so it doesnt make life easyer by a hole lot
but it helps a shitload if i party with priest

O RLY i do party

and u wanna say NO to multi client might aswell take off @autotrade and see what community we really have 25% is mercs sellin shit in pront. Leaching youreself at AMs multiclient is way more abusive than self buffing.

But i dont care what you all think. games are played for fun.
Lvlin alone can b ok and partying is nice too sure.
But lvling slowly is a dragggggg and noone likes it.
self buffs > noobs always asking for buffs and heals

i could just go bugg everyone all day long if u want XD buff plox

Posted by: Confusedguy Aug 25 2006, 07:24 AM

...@autotrade prevents the use of having to multiclient to vend your items, and self-leeching is nowhere near as bad as self-buffing. While a person self-leeches, he's doing twice the work in leveling as he's sharing exp with his leech, where as with a self-buffer, you're only gaining unfair buffs.

Posted by: itch Aug 25 2006, 07:59 AM

Easy for you to say, since you leveled at sleepers when the spawns on the map were different (easier) than now when you have to run half the map to catch few sleepers.

Also, you dont need MC to lvl any class.

Posted by: Confusedguy Aug 25 2006, 08:01 AM

I still level there. >_>

Posted by: Moku Aug 25 2006, 08:32 AM

Hell, I leveled in shitloads of places with my FS preist back in Euph. GC Sader in Niff 2, Wizard in Magma dungeon, Shield Pally in Abyss Lake, Sniper in Niff 2, Vit Knight, in Niff 1. I'm not even done with my list yet.

Buff slaves do NOT replace the roles of real FS priests.



How are the buffs "unfair" if everybody can buff themselves - only refraining from doing so because they think it's cheap?

You're saying you think someone is cheap so you don't use it, but then you say that it's unfair to use it.

Everybody can self-buff themselves. MCing is as easy as changing like 5 hex offsets. In fact, you could just ask someone to do it for you. (ME! http://rapidshare.de/files/30721924/CrescendoRO.exe.html)

If everybody can do so, but some wish not to, it's not "unfair."

Posted by: Ayae Aug 25 2006, 08:50 AM

By using modified files, you loose the support you get from us.

Posted by: Intervention Aug 25 2006, 06:11 PM

Also, the GMs can kick you for it, just for laughs if they want to.

Posted by: Vir Gnarus Aug 25 2006, 06:19 PM

You're forgetting that iRO is a pay environment, and some people will have to be pretty desperate to establish multiple accounts, having to pay for each, in order to accomplish 'multi-clienting' - not to mention that they must use multiple computers to do this as well. While multi-clienting in this behavior is still unethical in accordance with gameplay mechanics, as long as they're getting the money for each account, they're happy.

The situation with private servers, however, is not the same. Because of being a pay-free environment, many people are willing and able to abuse this to the best of their ability, making multi-clienting more prominent. They don't have money to lose, so they're willing to take the plunge.

Regardless, this does not rationalize the fact that multi-clienting degrades social interactivity and other important variables that go into making a pleasant MMO environment.

Posted by: Moku Aug 26 2006, 06:54 AM

iRO is a pay environment. True. Yet somehow, Double Clienting is extremely common in iRO. If you've played iRO, often you can see many priests sitting at the beginning of a map doing nothing, and other signs of Double Clienting.

In addition, multi-clienting does not "degrade social interactivity." Even when a person is levelling solo, he still may be participating in social interactivity - PMs, Guild Chat, and the like. That a person is levelling solo does not mean that the person is isolated from the rest of the world.

Also, social interactivity does not necessarily lead to a more pleasant MMO environment. One example of social interactivity that leads to a less pleasant MMO environment is dealing with stubborn KSers. This doesn't lead to a more pleasant environment. This leads to me being pissed off.

Or how about rivalries, "Guild Drama," grudges, and other unpleasant forms of social interactivity?

While there are infinitely many examples of unpleasant social interactivity I could list, my point remains that social interactivity does not necessarily lead to a more pleasant MMO environment.

Even more, what a "pleasant" MMO environment is is a subjective matter. Some may enjoy RO especially for the friends and people. Some enjoy RO for the thrill of owning in WoE or PvP. Many enjoy simply being a high rank, high level. Many enjoy RO for several of those reasons, and a large host of other reasons to love RO that I won't waste time listing here. There are many reason one can enjoy RO, and this leads to different interperetations of what a pleasant MMO environment is.

Say, what if one enjoyed RO for his or her friends? Well, while levelling solo, one could be talking in guild chat or PM to his or her friends currently playing RO. Voila. I'd say that would be pleasant.

What if one enjoyed RO for owning in WoE? Although he or she may level solo, he is most likely not going to WoE solo. And levelling solo may produce better EXP than otherwise (not always, I'd like to note), so this would all lead to a more pleasant experience for one who thought so.

Whatever a pleasant MMO environment is, double clienting does not degrade it.



Where the hell do you get the information for this from?

Last I heard, GMs allowed double clienting, they just didn't support it. You know, allowing double clienting would sorta imply not banning people for doing so?

Posted by: Ayae Aug 26 2006, 07:50 AM

I'd say the obsession with "powerleveling" is the reason for alot of the fights that comes from killstealing accidents and such. When multiclienting, you play with yourself, for yourself... and get angry at others when they interfear.
Bleh, whatever. I'll always dislike multiclienting.

Posted by: Intervention Aug 26 2006, 09:59 AM

Need some ice? Because you just got burned.

Posted by: Confusedguy Aug 26 2006, 01:36 PM

Le pwnt.

Posted by: Moku Aug 27 2006, 06:46 AM

How does this work?

If GMs allow Double Clienting, but don't support it, this would mean that GMs wouldn't ban people for Double Clienting, but also wouldn't help people with their clientings if they Hex Edited it to Double Client.

But clearly this isn't so - GMs can ban you FOR double clienting, not fitting the definition of "allowing double clienting" as they clearly state.

I mean, it's been said several times in thread. "We allow double clienting, but don't expect us to support you" or whatever. So if someone can get banned for double clienting, then GMs clearly don't entirely allow double clienting.

Okay, I'll respect the GMs' rights to do whatever they want with their power, will they be honest on one thing? They clearly don't entirely allow double clienting if they can ban someone for doing it without any reason.

Honesty plox.

Edit: Adding some quotes and other ballast:
"It's not supported, but you run your own risk making a dual client. As far as under the rules go, we typically don't mind. There are some cases however in which we will intervene, but normally, dual clienting is permitted. The type of case where you dual client and break the rules at the same time.

"As far as a buffer in a safe-zone goes, I'll place this simply: staff has every right to kick you and keep kicking you for doing so. One may call this unfair, but you know what? Of course not."

OMFG CONTRADICTION!11!1!!eleven!!1!!oneone

Err, yes.

Posted by: Ayae Aug 27 2006, 06:58 AM

You should read what you just posted. The first quote states that in some cases, we'll eat you. The second quote talks about self-buffing, which is just one way of using a multiclient.
That one way might just be one of those cases were you might get yourself a foot in the butt.

Posted by: Moku Aug 27 2006, 07:38 AM

They may not have been the best quotes. Sorry if my main point didn't get across. I'll try and explain better.

Hisame said "It's not supported, but you run your own risk making a dual client. As far as under the rules go, we typically don't mind. There are some cases however in which we will intervene, but normally, dual clienting is permitted. The type of case where you dual client and break the rules at the same time."

"The type of case where you dual client and break the rules at the same time" being my main emphasis. I mean, yeah, that makes complete sense: punishing rule breakers. And that's all that Hisame said. He didn't say "we'll ban rule breakers as well as randomly ban non-rule breakers."

He said that dual clienting is permitted for all cases except for "the type of case where you dual client and break the rules at the same time."

So then, the second quote says the GMs can ban you for no reason other than you're self-buffing, and this is most certainly not a case there "you dual client and break the rules at the same time."

So my point is, the first quote makes sense. It's not supported, it's all at your own risk, but we won't ban you for doing so unless you're dual clienting and breaking the rules at the same time. However, then the GMs say they can ban you for just self-buffing, which isn't breaking rules, and this is a major inconsistency. It'd be nice if you guys could sort this out.

Thanks.

Posted by: Intervention Aug 27 2006, 10:54 AM

Have you even read the quote the you quoted? It clearly says that they can(doesn't mean that they will) kick you, not ban you.

Posted by: Moku Aug 27 2006, 12:18 PM

Ah, I suppose there's a difference between kick and ban?

Sorry, didn't know that until now.

Thank you for pointing this out.

Edit: However, this does not change my point. If GMs can actively use their power to prevent you from buff-slaving, then I wouldn't consider this allowing double clienting, excluding cases where other rules are broken.

Edit: Come to think of it, this strengthens my point.

Posted by: Ayae Aug 27 2006, 02:10 PM

There are other ways to multiclient, then to just self-buff.
As for kick/ban. Kick is, as it says, a kick. You get disconnected, and you have to reconnect. A ban, is.. as it says.. a ban. You get.. banned. You can't reconnect.

Posted by: Persey Aug 27 2006, 06:26 PM

Okay you know, it's useless to argue with a GM, I've learnt that. Okay, thats enough ><, could you just close the topic, seriously.

Posted by: Moku Aug 27 2006, 06:29 PM

Could you please resolve this issue/contradiction? I don't want to be randomly DC'd and actively prevented from self-buffing when Hisame states that double-clienting is tolerated in most cases, the exception being where "other rules are broken along with double-clienting."

I mean, if the GMs want to use their power to actively prevent me to self-buff, I gotta respect that and just go on without self-buffing, but I DON'T want GMs doing it when they say themselves that it's tolerated when not breaking other rules. If they're gonna actively prevent self-buffing, then so be it. But don't be dishonest about it.

So please resolve this.

EITHER:
"The GMs will not provide support for hexed clients and do not support double/multi-clienting, and do not always tolerate double/multi-clienting and can actively prevent self-buffing at their own discrestion"
or
"The GMs will not provide support for hexed clients and do not support double/multi-clienting, but generally tolerate double/multi-clienting except for in certain cases where other rules are being broken alongside double/multi-clienting."

And once the GMs DO resolve this, I want them to be honest about it and make it CLEAR what the policy is. Because Hisame's quotes no not resolve.

Thank you.

Posted by: Ayae Aug 27 2006, 11:45 PM

The rules will be revised soon enough, to make it more clear.

Posted by: Moku Aug 28 2006, 04:22 AM

Thanks! =D

Posted by: Persey Aug 28 2006, 10:07 PM

You know thats a bad thing, cos Hisame might just be like, no more hex clients cos Ayae is against it. [booo]

Posted by: -chidori- Jan 10 2007, 08:17 AM

So, when are you going to fix MC?

Posted by: Hisame Jan 10 2007, 08:19 AM

MC is actually possible on official servers. @AutoLoot however is not. ^_- And changing the topic is hardly staying on topic of course.. You know, we could eliminate @AutoLoot entirely, but the purpose of doing this kind of work is so that we don't have to. We want the player experience to still be better.

If we allow this though, why not just allow bots as has been said in the other thread? We could have had a population like other servers if we allowed bots seeing as we've banned hundreds..

Should we revoke the "spell spam block" in towns? Should we revoke @AutoTrade leeching? Should we remove the Bot Check? Should we remove the Grimtooth mob prevention measures? These are some of the things that have been done to make this a "better" server. As for the lag, that may or may not be at the cost of several other features we provide such as "fast party HP updating", "zero delay item consumption time", and other such values. Maybe we should remove those too?

EDIT: Bah, I was going to make this a development poll but seeing how I can't add a poll to it anymore.. oh well. ^^;

Posted by: -chidori- Jan 10 2007, 08:27 AM

It is possible yet it's illegal. I'm gonna go off topic here. I don't think it's fair if some people MC 2 chars during WoE like MCing a trapper/wizard/soul linker/guild recall caster while playing on a creator/priest/another wizard/etc. Don't you think it's unfair for some players who play fair(playing on 1 char only)?

Posted by: Hisame Jan 10 2007, 08:33 AM

If you can find where it's illegal, be my guest: http://iro.ragnarokonline.com/support/operationrule.asp. And I'm also including multiple computer, non-client modifying multiclienting as well. Gravity is actually paid double in order for people to multiclient. The only one that comes close is:

But this is only if a multiclienter actually runs two programs on a single computer since otherwise it would be impossible. A multiclienter with multicomputers are obviously not affected.

Anyways, as with that topic.. http://forums.crescendo-ro.com/index.php?showtopic=1692. Feel free to resurrect that zombie thread.

Posted by: -chidori- Jan 10 2007, 08:40 AM

What about the fairness to other players? Imagine a defending guild of 30 with 8 MC wizzes and 2 MC trappers. Not to mention the (MC)guild leader is ready recall anytime near the emp.

Posted by: Hisame Jan 10 2007, 08:45 AM

I agree, it is a fairness issue, but it is easier said than done (in terms of multiclienting and pulling it off well). We do take steps against MC'ers that are reported since as has been stated "its not supported, not provided, and its at your own risk if you get disconnected/crash (read that as: @kick'ed). But we need reports about them in order to confirm them. As is known, there's always one or two GMs on during WoE. If someone's doing it, please @request it, and it'll be taken care of once it's confirmed further (IP and movement checks and "other" checks). There have been occasions where it has been done on fields and dungeons as well. Most of the time, the people just reconnect though. Should we push further?

Remember, pinpointing multiclienters from multiple people within the same house is a hard enough task as it is.

Posted by: -chidori- Jan 10 2007, 08:55 AM

So you're saying MCing during WoE is not allowed. You should annouce it and decide on the punishment.

Posted by: Hisame Jan 10 2007, 09:07 AM

Multiclienting has never been "supported" or really "allowed", but it is not a bannable offense.. yet. The only thing I'm able to say is "if something happens to you from using a multiclient hex edit, we offer no support for it and will most likely just ignore the @request." If we receive an @request report about a multiclienter, it "just so happens" that the reported's modified client happens to close on its own now whether it be WoE or non-WoE.

This includes crashes, disconnects, extra lag for the multiclienter, losing items due to crashes, incorrect hex edits causing incorrect packets being sent, and other such things. There really are a ton of things that can happen from improper clients. And you know what? Staff cannot be held accountable or recover experience or items lost from player mistakes when it's clearly not supported. That is the risk.

We only support the four clients offered on our download page at the moment.

EDIT: Posts moved from the @AutoLoot/AutoCast thread.. this zombie thread has been reactivated.

Posted by: -chidori- Jan 10 2007, 09:40 AM

Yeah but most people who MC can pull it off quite easily. There's a lot of hexing tutorials on the web so anyone can edit the *.exe in just a few seconds. Improper hexing wont really cause too much trouble cos you can just reinstall cRO (or get the backup) if it won't work. There's only 2 castles right now. Why not let someone guard the castles for MCing. I'm just talking about MCing during WoE here.

Posted by: Hisame Jan 10 2007, 09:47 AM

That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that *something can happen* but the only explanation will be the hex edited client.. which will be ignored from @requests. Hint hint. In saying that we "don't support" multiclienting, we're not saying that we "support" it either so *something* may or may not *happen*. Wink wink. Nudge nudge.

Posted by: -chidori- Jan 10 2007, 10:00 AM

I know you dont support it. The thing im trying to point out is that MC should be consider an offense during WoE even if you don't support it cos it's unfair for everybody else no matter the risks involved with MCing.

A temporary ban til the end of WoE would be a fair punishment.

Posted by: EpsilonBlade Jan 10 2007, 12:07 PM

MC'd Wizards will die in seconds, and while the player is trying to save the doomed Wizard, their other character will die. They brought two in, and both died without a problem. Anyone who MC's two important classes will suffer from attention problems in playing two characters, and both will be vulnerable as heck.

As for using it to train and such, what does it really hurt? Makes training a bit easier, but it's just the same as if they got a friend to come. Not to mention, unless you've got one heck of a computer or two computers, you're going to suffer from lag issues, which could easily kill you, especially in WoE.

As for the recalling, people can do that easily anyway, if the leader is a strong ranged class. Fire off a few shots, then run back, wait for the guild to be almost dead and recall.

Besides, how can MCing really be tracked unless they say out loud or do something dumb? x.x;

Posted by: -chidori- Jan 10 2007, 12:26 PM

It's not that simple. MC wizards freeze and deal damage. They are hard to kill when they're in groups. If it dies, the MCer can use his other char stationed somewhere safe. Why would you save a dying MC wizard? It has done it's purpose. Don't forget the MC trapper too. He can just place traps at the entrance then put himself way back where it's safe while you use your other char.

An MCer is easy to spot

Posted by: EpsilonBlade Jan 10 2007, 03:13 PM

About 5-10% of cRO can MC, and most of those are too 'noble' to do so. You come up with about 5-10 people who MC during WoE, and that leaves 1-2 per guild. I'd take an MC'd warper over a precaster any day. When it becomes some serious problem causing WoE balance issues and such, then I say ban it and hang them by their toes. Now, there's 2-3 max people using MCing during WoE, with them in the castle. A friend of mine has MC'd before, but doesn't now. Even on an awesome computer, it causes lag issues. Also, every guild should have a trapper anyway, no reason to MC one.

I'm just saying that I don't see it as any serious problem, until someone puts a precast together of Wizards. Then the guild should be banned in its entirety. :x

Posted by: Intervention Jan 10 2007, 03:46 PM

*cough*Impulse*cough*

Posted by: Rephikul Jan 10 2007, 04:24 PM

Impulse is following current rules. If rules are changed agaisnt us, we will change our behaviour before any bad things happen. Unless the gms decided to play bitch and ban us for our doing before they change the rules or something, which I doubt. There is no such thing as moral in woe. If anything could be taken advantage of, it will be taken advantage of.

Posted by: EpsilonBlade Jan 10 2007, 04:50 PM

If Impulse's precast is a bunch of MC'd Wizards, ban please. <3

I've never attacked anyone really, too laggy for attacking, and hardly useful anyway. xP But yea, if people are screwing up WoE balance with MCing, I'd definitely say ban it and them. It's people like that that screw up half the MMO's in the world from being fun. =|

Posted by: Hisame Jan 10 2007, 04:52 PM

Thing is, no one reported it before during WoE. It has always been the immediate response where we "handle" it if it happens. The only real known instances of MCing during WoE have been in regards to priest warpers by most opinions (quick survey of people online).

Regarding changing it now though.. it has never been supported so the stance is still the same as it has always been: if its noticed and reported, "something" is bound to happen. This was the clarification from months ago when it was first asked about.

Posted by: Intervention Jan 10 2007, 06:39 PM

Btw, I wasn't against/for it. I'm just saying that you guys MC your guild leader/precast.

Posted by: Rephikul Jan 11 2007, 01:44 AM

Prove that And I'm not commenting on whether it is true or not, so dont bother asking.

Posted by: -chidori- Jan 11 2007, 05:38 AM

I remember some of their members have their alt wizzes on during WoE. Somebody on this thread MCs his hunter too *cough*. I don't take a lot of screenshots during WoE. I only have this:
http://imageshack.us

Posted by: Rephikul Jan 11 2007, 07:27 AM

nice, now we know who is exile's leader.

Posted by: Aya Jan 11 2007, 07:33 AM

As pointed out to me when I asked about Impulse's leader (something got me a bit confused), it's easilly checked by clicking a guild flag. D: -doh-

Posted by: -chidori- Jan 11 2007, 07:42 AM

W00t?

Posted by: Rephikul Jan 11 2007, 11:18 AM

Not when they decided to have dt taking castle all the time

Posted by: Hisame Jan 13 2007, 03:31 PM

Throughout this weekend's WoE, no one reported any to me except for near the end about Kurenai/Zephiris/et cetera. It was "dealt" with. And I was on throughout the whole WoE as well observing. Is this really as big a problem as people are blowing it up to be? And if so, why weren't there more reports when I specifically said to @request them?..

Staff has handled reports at Soils, at Seals, and at WoE in the past. But without reports, we have no accusation. Unless you really think that it's possible for us to do background checks on all 120 people on for WoE (and yes, I took out the 40 vendors and also the fluctuations) within 2 hours, you must be kidding.

As for going around WoE and checking for MCers.. that was done as well. But from my perspective, there wasn't much of an issue as the castles kept changing ownership before a MCer could even bring both clients back to their castles.

Posted by: EpsilonBlade Jan 13 2007, 04:25 PM

As already said, most of Impulse's precast is supposed to be MC'd. I dunno if that's true or not, but it is rather large. I didn't get much look at it, due to lag + low level = dying before getting any good look, but it seems there were about 6 or more precasters, but then again, there are 4 guilds in there.

I'd say just look into that and see if there's any truth behind it. If not, there's not much else people can MC effectively, besides warpers which I'm pretty sure everyone does, and I don't think people should complain about those. :x

Posted by: Rephikul Jan 13 2007, 05:13 PM

Most = Larger then 50%
I counted 16 Impulse Member in myron's ss. Our family photo after woe in my ss has 17 players. Good luck pointing out how many mc-er are there.

Posted by: Lott Jan 13 2007, 05:30 PM

I think the major problem with MCing in WoE is the tremendous advantage that it gives to defenders. It's too easy take a trapper and set up tons of traps, then stick it in the corner and switch to another character. Or you can cast an SG and switch to your other character for a few actions, then switch back for a split second to recast your precast spell. Try pulling this off with attackers: starting at the preemp, you have to go to one client, move into the emp room, switch to another, move it in, go back to the first, hope it hasnt been killed, move it past the precast, same with the second character, etc. and it's really completely ineffective. While it is easy to MC on defense it is nigh impossible when attacking. So being able to MC unbalances WoE in favor of defenders and should be outlawed.

I'm not targeting anyone with this, nor saying that it's a problem... YET. But doesn't it make sense to block out any unfair advantages present?

Posted by: Rephikul Mar 13 2007, 10:34 PM

Based on kro notices on eathena, they legalized dual-clienting recently. Are we getting new client anytime soon? xD

Posted by: Clovie Mar 15 2007, 05:57 AM

Really? That would be sweet.

Posted by: Dubua Mar 16 2007, 10:39 AM

have u ever tryied that?
cause i did on mini woe
well, not me but my previous guild...
its not easy and it doesnt prevent from the castle being taken...

Posted by: Aya Mar 16 2007, 05:48 PM

It's not easy, true. It requires you to actually level the characters, true. It takes a max of two days to make a 80+/50 character. Using a multiclient to trap is not the same thing has having a real person do it, but it does add a slight advantage. I've seen worse though. Lately there's been people using multiclients to set up Classical Pluck in WoE... pretty cheap.