How badly did thief mules affect the game?

good and bad are subjective

that said, buff me

 

I'm in favor of any change that specifically targets Clam, Fartsy or Nightz! Our own little Musk/Bezos/Gates boys

 

Eat Pasta.

 

I really don't understand this. Oldschool maple is fundamentally badly designed and unbalanced. It's not really BT's job to "fix" pre-BB Maple. A fixed, balance version already exists: GMS. Unless there's some issue in terms of how it's affecting the economy, the integrity of the game, or the economy, it shouldn't be balanced.

 

I think this is a very personal take that you're phrasing as a fact and a lot of people will disagree with. To me personally, you just beautifully described exactly what Balance Team's job is

 

There's no way to make v62 MS conform to modern ideas about game design and balance without fundamentally altering it in massive ways. The whole gameplay loop, the way classes are designed, the controls, etc etc all don't fit modern standards.

 

I noticed a couple of contradictions in your post. You ask why the balance team treats multiclient as a problem, but then you also point out that multiclienting makes the game less social. Since Maple is fundamentally a social game, isn’t that a valid concern for the balance team to address? It seems like the very problem you’re identifying is the one they’re trying to solve.

Additionally, you mention that most of the community engages in some form of multiclient play, but then say that nerfs to multiclienting only affect a small handful of players. Is multiclient use actually widespread, or is it just a small group of people using it frequently, making it seem more common than it is?

 

That's why old school maple was garbage, and people confuse nostalgia with emotional memories, not to mention that: 90% of the people who speak badly of the balances here didn't reach lv 50 in version 0.62

 

I'd say multiclienting is pretty common. It ranges from basic mules to duo-attacking to full solo armies. New players are often taught to vote on multiple accounts and make mules, which can later become full multiclient setups. I don't see an issue with sharing these strategies, people who prefer old-school play can still stick to that.

As for the thief avoid nerf, even from a single-client perspective, I think it's reasonable.
It brings Night Lords down from S+ to more of an S- tier. Still strong, nothing really to complain about.

 

whether it’s simple FM mule trading, drop trading to yourself, bringing a buff mule into a fight, or running an entire HT or even PB squad solo. These are very different in terms of their impact on the game. Lumping together saying most people does it doesn't really captue the nuance, since the impact on game greatly differs, especially the social aspect.

So, I think it’s a bit of a stretch, from that post, to say they’re targeting the entire community. When in reality, their changes seem aimed at specific

 

Yeah, the impact varies. This change does raise the bar, making solo bossing more challenging, which I think is a good step for game balance.
I also meant that players' playstyles can change as they slowly build more characters.

 

1. My point is that the devs and the community treat multi-client as basically acceptable, but then balance it like it's unacceptable and prima facie problematic. It causes problems from my perspective, but the permissiveness of the rules indicate that (at least) the staff don't see it as an issue. So why is it always treated as an issue?
2. The most common form of multi-client is using a 2nd character as an item storage. After that, the most common is probably HS mules. The nerfs that we see are usually aimed at much much rarer forms of multi-client play.

 

If it's garbage then why are you playing it? I quit Maple for a private server right after Big Bang dropped and I've been playing on v62 and v83 pservers since then. I enjoy the gameplay, it's not based on sentimentality or nostalgia.

 

I believe we should avoid grouping all forms of multiclient gameplay together, such as:
a) FM mule trading or drop trading to yourself,
b) bringing a buff mule into a fight, and
c) soloing an entire HT or even PB squad. These activities are quite different in nature and impact.

Additionally, from my perspective, Kimmy stance is to not restrict multiclienting, for various reasons that I won’t elaborate on here since it was stated in many other posts. However, isn’t the social aspect supposed to be the core of Maple? In my opinion, soloing bosses like HT or PB undermines that social aspect. A more relatable example is multiclienting for attacking purposes damages the social aspect even more than simply using mules for buffs.

 

I talk about the vanilla server being garbage, I play here because it's a better server, in fact, my comment goes along with yours, just emphasizing how much better ML is than vanilla in the same version

 

tbh idk why we're even having this discussion. While i agree multiattack deserved to be toned down a bit, I don't think that was even the main point of the thief changes.

 

I agree that people have different views on what “social” means in the game. However, a key point you seem to miss, or perhaps misunderstand, is the concept of agency within a community.

When players exclusively use multiclient setups with others who do the same, they effectively create a separate micro-community with limited interaction outside that group. While this is their choice and an exercise of agency, it doesn’t replace or fulfill the broader social experience the game was designed to encourage. Unless the balance team’s perspective is that having two parallel communities, a single-client players and a multi-setup players, is acceptable, even though both share and compete in the same resources.

Social aspects thrive on diverse interaction and mutual dependence, much like how individuals in a community rely on one another to build relationships and achieve common goals. When players operate on a single-client basis, it encourages cooperation across a broad player base. This is similar to how independent individuals collaborate in a neighborhood or small business, each bringing unique strengths and relying on others to succeed. This dynamic fosters communication, trust, and meaningful connections.

In contrast, multiclient gameplay often functions like a corporation, where a single entity controls multiple roles and resources internally, minimizing the need to interact or depend on others outside the group. While this can be efficient, it reduces the interpersonal dependencies that create social bonds in the wider community. This “corporate” style of play can lead to fragmentation where smaller groups become isolated silos rather than parts of an interconnected whole. Thus limiting opportunities for genuine social interaction and shared experiences.

So yes, agency is important and everyone chooses how they want to play. But when not all choices equally support the game’s social fabric. The difference lies in how those choices affect the community’s interconnectedness and shared experience.

To illustrate: imagine a town with a tradition that everyone drinks water from the same lake, and anyone who refuses is exiled. You do have the agency to refuse drinking the water, but the consequence is exile. If you say it’s fine not to join the village, that’s effectively the same as being unwelcome—an outcome created by exercising that agency.

Your example of an individual is not an inappropriate generalization meant to conclude the entire population, but rather a way to highlight how individual choices can impact community belonging.

 

*insert pseudo intelligent reply*

 

it was probably a really big deal to hardcore players and their friend groups