Either make multi-computer boss multiclienting bannable, or revert the multiclienting restrictions

reffering to dexbuccs / lukpallys

 

My problem with this though is that it seems like Kimmy and the rest of staffs goal was to include newer/lower leveled players by removing muling in bosses. Cwk is probably the best option of “bossing” a player can get until they get to HT. Except the problem is that if you’re a new player you likely have 0 mules and like law said previously if you’re a shad/warrior/mage (yes mages can be viable in cwk bishops not so much) with 0 mules good luck getting into a cwk run. People smega all the time R> x job with y signs and it’s all over discord as well. NT is higher leveled so it’s probably not as important for low leveled players yet but it’s completely overrun with mules. People will frequently bring multiple characters just for the coin reward on completion. Toad is much less important but coming from the viewpoint of a DK I’ve seen many people just fill the slot with an hb mule because it’s easier to fill that way. I’ve never done BGA myself but i don’t see why a couple NLs couldn’t just bring an SE mule instead of finding an archer. I’m sure somebody else can provide more info on BGA all i know is people bring max holy shield bishops to avoid the stuns. This to me goes against what I believe was staffs intention of including all players because anytime a mule is used that’s one less player included.

 

How many parties do you think go through expeditions every day? Not very hard to find patterns in expedition lists that would then get monitored for suspicious activity, to which the strict enforcement would be enacted across all accounts involved. It's not like someone's making secret mules every day. The people who are multiclienting in bosses are known. Their mules are known. Don't act like this is hard to track and verify.

You don't need a perfect, immutable system for preventative policy to be effective. GMs are there to look over the activity and it's in their ultimate judgment whether to enforce it or not. This uncertainty alone is enough to drive 99% of the (small) population away from the risk of overstepping and trying to 'cheat' the system.

 

I take it you've never had an account falsely banned on this server?

EDIT: Even if GMs decide to ban players based on their projected likelihood of running a particular boss with their friend, I think about the only thing that's going to do for some people is get them to try to dissociate themselves from their friends, or avoid bossing perhaps. Oh, and stop most(!) multi-clienters, presumably. At least, the not-so-determined or already-compromised ones.

 

That's entirely the point. If the policy at its current states prevents 99% of the population from behaving in an unfavorable way, then it has been proven successful. There's only so much that Kimmy and the team can do to run the server in line with their vision. If some bad actors manage to slip through the cracks by playing in extremely unconventional ways with hidden identities, then so be it. The goal isn't perfection, and that's not the problem being questioned in this thread.

 

That is the problem being questioned in this thread, though. Allow me, for the second time now, to quote the last part of the OP's original post:

And in light of this, I find it unacceptable that you are just willing to put up with any number of false positives, so long as the number of (detected or undetected) positives decreases somewhat. C.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_ratio. Even in this kind of self-admitted imperfection (mostly talking about false positives here, but also false negatives as well), you are willing to use this strategy to somewhat act as a crutch for what is actually the fault of poor game mechanics...

 

How so? The only way to actually detect MCing is by correlating boss runs. So PCs that do bosses with one another often enough are suspicious, and that's it. You don't see how that leads to false positives? My entire point of commenting on this thread was to say that this is the only method, because technological enforcement is hopeless (and indeed, actually counterproductive by making the game more P2W).

 

Lol. This isn't civil law. This is a private server. Kimmy could ban somebody/an account without any reason, and they'd have no choice but to accept it as that. As much as you want to believe otherwise, this is an autocratic state, not a democratic one.

And this is contained to a population of about 2000 active players.
You're speaking with hyperbolic assumptions in hypothetical situations that don't really apply to this server.

Edit: With your questions above, it's becoming obvious that you've never run mules in a boss.

 

I realize all of those things and I'm merely suggesting what they should do. You are doing the exact same thing: making suggestions to a dictatorship.

Is that so? Because I've played at least two other MS private servers that I know of that consisted of a population that was, in significant part, refugees that had been falsely banned/punished by this server.

 

Again, I never said that there is no one out there that is sufficiently stupid to get caught. But I would also point out that multicontrollers are not exactly difficult to come by (I've even made one myself, albeit not for the purpose of playing MS; it comes down to basically just teeing controller inputs and dumbly automating a few things here and there)... so anyone that is used to using one, is not so likely to be "painfully obvious"! These are basic techniques I'm talking about here!

 

What do you mean? Haven't you seen the video of the guy multiclienting sweeper muling with his toes?

 

You misread everything I just said. My statement was specifically to state that this is basic stuff; you need to be the opposite of a mastermind to figure it out (although all the more power to you if you are a mastermind...). I'm specifically talking about servers of "2003 mushroom games" and other MMOs like it, in which Joe Schmoe is already adept at these sorts of things. Take Toontown (also 2003), for example. Multiclienting is commonplace there, and the most advanced of them control 8 PCs at once (although more typically, average players are only on 2 or 3, of course).

 

I don't know what to tell you other than: many people who don't know what "graphics drivers" is in reference to, and who cannot troubleshoot their most basic technical issues, are still the ones using these programs. If that's my word against yours, then fine. There's nothing complicated about any of this, and if the people arguing with me in this thread are representative of MapleLegends's playerbase as a whole, then I admit that I am wrong, and they are all imbeciles. So be it --- my original point still stands.

 

To me the funny part here is you are someone with no experience in multiclienting and doesn't really have a stake in the fight but wants to show up to prove your intellectual superiority for some reason.

I'll just say that the GMs have demonstrated before they have the ability and capacity to link who is using multiple characters and which characters they are. Back in the days when vote abuse was a thing it was abundantly clear, as is the fact that account sharing can be detected and accordingly punished. And those are much more subtle methods of "cheating", multiclienting in bosses is very transparently obvious. If false positives from such bans show up- so what, there are ban appeal channels which are constantly monitored and followed up with quickly.

I don't even get why this argument is worth pursuing for 1 and a half forum pages, it's barely relevant to the issue at hand

 

I'm now formally requesting a temporary lift on the multiclienting ban because I now want to see a 1-man HT by someone running 6 clients concurrently. How many graphics drivers and RGBs would one need to accomplish this task?

 

if we want to help out new players can we get 12 hour timer back for ht