1. Hello!

    First of all, welcome to MapleLegends! You are currently viewing the forums as a guest, so you can only view the first post of every topic. We highly recommend registering so you can be part of our community.

    By registering to our forums you can introduce yourself and make your first friends, talk in the shoutbox, contribute, and much more!

    This process only takes a few minutes and you can always decide to lurk even after!

    - MapleLegends Administration-
  2. Experiencing disconnecting after inserting your login info? Make sure you are on the latest MapleLegends version. The current latest version is found by clicking here.
    Dismiss Notice

Multimage Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by akashsky, Sep 30, 2022.

Is multimaging bad?

  1. yes

    98 vote(s)
    55.7%
  2. no

    32 vote(s)
    18.2%
  3. neutral (not good or bad)

    46 vote(s)
    26.1%
  1. Kimmy
    Online

    Kimmy Administrator Staff Member Administrator Game Moderator

    10,957
    10,986
    551
    Sep 9, 2014
    The Netherlands
    7:45 PM
    Moderator Post
    I just want to clarify this bit in particular

    The primary reason it was reverted was because it was full of loop holes and problems

    For one, it became pay2win because the multiclient check doesn't and can't work for people using multiple machines. Wanted block that too? Then we had to block siblings from playing the game, which is a major loss.

    Secondly, it had problems where WINE users (MAC users) could sometimes no longer play at all because we also had a VM block in place (WINE is essentially an emulated Windows).

    Third, VM blocks can and were bypassed and abused within (although this was extremely minimal).

    EDIT: Fourth, the game refused to boot if someone was using a hard drive that was "Virtualized" (I forgot the actual term).

    Letting "some" people go through blocks is just not the way to go, especially if it has false positives. This is also why Multiclient support was added in late 2016, because it was loopholed by a few users at the time, and it was loopholed now again. It wasn't removed because it was "unpopular" it was removed because it was more flawed than working.
     
    • Informative Informative x 5
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Great Work Great Work x 1
  2. Soblet
    Offline

    Soblet Zakum

    1,343
    1,338
    491
    Sep 14, 2015
    7:45 PM
    Soblet
    Bandit
    200
    Pasta
    Well I'm not sure how staff would detect these things but I'd guess they can, same way they can deal with botting and rwt. The threat of a ban would deter the majority I suppose.
     
  3. beegoratto
    Online

    beegoratto Skelosaurus

    1,214
    344
    426
    Sep 22, 2021
    Male
    10:45 AM
    leetoratto
    Bowmaster
    1
    Nimbus
    alas I think kimmy’s post says otherwise
     
  4. Soblet
    Offline

    Soblet Zakum

    1,343
    1,338
    491
    Sep 14, 2015
    7:45 PM
    Soblet
    Bandit
    200
    Pasta
    Hmm I don't think it does. There's a difference between choosing not to disallow multiclienting because the method to enforce it is flawed and decreasing the use of multiclient by making it a bannable offense.

    I'm not advocating either way btw because I enjoy multiclienting myself but also see how it negatively affects the game.
     
  5. beegoratto
    Online

    beegoratto Skelosaurus

    1,214
    344
    426
    Sep 22, 2021
    Male
    10:45 AM
    leetoratto
    Bowmaster
    1
    Nimbus
    I think if staff has already tried and failed to stop it before, there’s little chance it can happen successfully now. Either way there’s no putting the cat back in the bag at this point short of a server wipe
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. fartsy
    Online

    fartsy Skelosaurus

    1,278
    690
    442
    Jun 29, 2017
    Male
    12:45 PM
    Fartsy
    F/P Wizard
    Pasta
    i thought multivote was the culprit as nx requirement for multimaging is too high without vote abuse. before multivote our mules were more or less either unwashed or bloodwashed since nx was always funneled to attackers.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  7. Daydreamer
    Offline

    Daydreamer Nightshadow

    689
    241
    350
    Jul 8, 2017
    Male
    10:45 AM
    I/L Arch Mage
    I understand your argument as follows: if removing something from the game upsets the "eco-system" (meta, economy, etc.) of the game, it should not be removed. Multi-clienting has long been established in the game, and as a result, banning it would upset the "eco-system" of the game. Therefore it should not be removed.

    To support this you give decisions about washing as an example. This isn't really a new argument, it comes up every time washing is discussed on the forums. I remember back when Monster Book Ring was released people were making the same argument to say that the ring shouldn't be added to the game. This case is a little different, because it's in regards to something being removed. But the argument is essentially the same.

    My objection to this line of reason is that it is inherently conservative and is so broad that it can be applied to virtually any change that affects class balance. It can be used against the removal of HP wash, against changes to NLC pot prices, against the shadow star bug fix, etc. It makes sense that players of a nostalgic server would be against change, but this sort of thinking doesn't exactly paint a good picture of what the server should be. Should any sort of bug, balance issue, or bad behavior be allowed simply because removing it would upset how the game is played?

    About the idea that a change is bad if it changes how players approach the game on a fundamental level: Royals has (or had, last I checked) a public ban appeal section. I remember there were tons of appeals for account sharing that went something like this: I always account shared on GMS/SEA/KMS/whatever so I assumed it was OK to do so here as well. Obviously the assumption that they could share buff mules and even geared bossing/farming characters greatly influenced how they planned to play the game. Similarly, I've heard new players on Legends complain that the map owner system is unintuitive-- and if you played GMS back in the day you know that being KSed definitely made people consider rerolling mage. But this is not a good argument to allow account sharing or KSing.

    There are loads of things which have changed in Legends which have affected how people approach the game. HP washing has had its ups and downs, becoming more "optional" with stuff like monster book ring and then becoming more necessary due to PB and Aufhaven release. Certain classes have become more or less relevant due to new content releases or skills getting changed. Gearing has changed because of Timeless items, Facestompers, and CWKPQ being released. Maps have come in and out of the meta due to changes to drop table, map layout, and mob hitboxes. Certain items, like agent equips and expiring event items, have been removed. Do you think none of this content should have been added and no changes should have been made?

    Ultimately I think that for the server to thrive long term, certain issues have to be addressed. Yes, it will upset people, but it's better to upset people in the short term than to leave serious issues to fester longterm. I think a good compromise would be to put forward a timeline for big changes. Something like: we plan to remove multi-client some time in late 2023, so plan accordingly and enjoy your buff mules and multimage setups while they last.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  8. Nightz
    Online

    Nightz Supervisor Staff Member Supervisor Game Moderator

    1,760
    1,024
    490
    Oct 22, 2020
    Male
    7:45 PM
    Nightz
    I/L Arch Mage
    200
    Funk & Pasta
    Moderator Post
    It's not impossible but it all comes down to manual work otherwise you'd run into the same issues as Kimmy mentioned before. It's not realistic to expect a server wide multiclient ban and have staff go around checking in on people on such a large scale. It sounds like the workload would be way too much even if the staff team would upscale to realistically get this done.

    Of course the fear of a ban alone would deter most people from abusing it but actively hunting those who do sounds very tiring for something what is done voluntarily in our free time
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  9. TORONTOTOKYO
    Offline

    TORONTOTOKYO Windraider

    434
    42
    291
    Oct 16, 2021
    2:45 AM
    time to realise that free economy doesnt work with the population size. time to cap p coins at X mesos and not shift goalposts.
    Ppl wanna multimage to reach that end game faster, by all means do it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. Alyosha
    Online

    Alyosha Skelegon Retired Staff

    919
    598
    413
    Mar 9, 2017
    10:45 AM
    Dostoevsky
    Dark Knight
    200
    Spirit
    My core argument isn't about whether or not to remove anything(though, to be fair I find that adding more options to explore to be better game design, while removing agency from players to be bad game design), but rather against the sort of subjective nature of moralizing gameplay. It's looking through a personal lens at a problem and failing to see the broader scope of impact. One can say "I think the game would be better with X" about any number of subjects, and all potential statements are equally valid according to personal experience. It's simply the nature of opinion and I don't see much of an argument that doesn't revolve around that. Some people enjoy running multiple clients, so to argue that the game would be more enjoyable if those people were enjoying the game less is just odd. I just fail to see any argument that isn't backed up by anything other than personal preference, nor statements that are backed up by solid reasoning or data, to me it just looks like moral grandstanding and shortsighted solutions that throw the baby out with the bathwater while underselling the impact it would have on any detractors.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  11. Daydreamer
    Offline

    Daydreamer Nightshadow

    689
    241
    350
    Jul 8, 2017
    Male
    10:45 AM
    I/L Arch Mage
    I wouldn't say I "moralize" multi-client. It's not good or evil or something like that. I don't think people who multi-client are griefing or ruining the game the way, say, scammers, are. It's weird to dismiss it as personal preference.
    "Some people enjoy running multiple clients, so to argue that the game would be more enjoyable if those people were enjoying the game less is just odd."
    Some people enjoy pay2win, believe it or not. Doesn't mean RWT should be allowed. There's a lot of stuff that people enjoy that aren't particularly good for the game or the community.
     
  12. Tarnished
    Offline

    Tarnished Mixed Golem

    169
    88
    173
    Jun 13, 2022
    Male
    10:45 AM
    Confessor, Tarnished, Hawthorn
    Hero
    188
    Removing multi-clienting will not be some magic bullet to "fix" the economy - because there is no answer to what a perfect economy looks like.

    For all we know, single-client would disproportionately hurt new/casual players because there's simply less stuff being generated. Yes, multi-maging causes inflation, but that inflation is all on end-game gear - trickledown economy actually works here because sweaty players don't seem motivated to hoard their hand-me-down equips. Imagine instead if Z-helms, MoN, HTP, MW20, (insert all the services provided by the multi-client economy) were much harder to get because everyone is just farming on their 1 mage instead of trying to wrangle together an expedition without mules on a server with <1000 concurrent players.

    Every change has its risks and unintended consequences, and I'm not convinced that the existence of multi-magers has been negative for my enjoyment of ML, therefore I'm also not convinced anything needs to be done about multi-maging.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. thesis
    Offline

    thesis Red Snail

    7
    0
    15
    Aug 6, 2021
    Male
    2:45 AM
    thesis
    Shadower
    169
    what?
    I agree with what bienfu said above, you DON'T HATE THE PLAYER, HATE THE GAME. The frustrations with a system or activity should be blamed on its weaknesses, rather than on the individuals who operate within it. Here's a more pragmatic example, if you play on 1 client strictly magestory and multimagers make far more progress than you or sort of ruin the economy and make it harder for other players to effort stuff, then it is not the fault of the multimagers and it is not ‘unfair’. It is just that the simple root/rule of the game favor more clients/ higher efficiency. Eventually as the server progresses, there will def be more multimagers join the force.


    Multimage is not a problem, it's just a survival adaptation from the players as the player base progresses into late game gaming and frankly speaking, the server is just not ready to deal with these late game issues.
     
  14. ooShawnyoo
    Offline

    ooShawnyoo Dark Stone Golem

    134
    76
    161
    Sep 17, 2021
    Male
    Montreal
    1:45 PM
    Frenzied
    I believe if multi-clienting became a bannable offense, we cannot go through a change like that with the mindset that all the multi-clienters would get caught, or have to be caught. It would be like people who account share, some get caught, but some still do it without being caught, at least for now.

    Stopping MapleLegends being opened more than once in the code and making it a bannable offense would probably stop the majority of people to multi-client, in my opinion.

    To me, multimaging is not really the worst problem, even though it doesn't feel nostalgic to me, but I don't like muling and of course the whole washing problem.

    Classes that offer good support and utility are often muled for their lack of dpm. We try to bring balance changes that help but at some point some classes that were great because of their utility, become heavily modified so they can compete with other classes that outshines them damage-wise. We don't rely as much on others in some group content.

    And HP/MP washing made it so that we rely a lot more on leech than we would usually do, also making hyperbody become obsolete in a lot of cases, and warriors no longer have that cool advantage of being more tanky (though it's true they are easier to wash at least).

    Removing multi-clienting (and fixing things like HP/MP washing) wouldn't fix everything that is currently hurting the server. But I believe it would help lessen the need for leech (and to some extent mages), encourage people to play the class they want to play without feeling like they are penalizing themselves for doing so (because of muling), and even if there would be less characters standing around in the game, at least the characters online would be actively being played instead of serving as mules.

    I play on this server because I do believe it's fun. But when I started to play, a big turn off for me was seeing that most characters online are just afk mules, or PQing with some people but having 33% of the party standing on ropes because they are PQ mules. It's not always like this of course, but I'm sure these issues can make some new players find somewhere else to play at times.

    Some would say if we didn't have multi-clienting, we wouldn't be able to do some content because there wouldn't be enough people, and that could be true, at first. But if these tools we use drive-off new players, we would actually have more people in the longrun if we fixed the issues at their source instead of providing a bandaid fix to an issue.

    As I said, I don't believe that the removal of multi-clienting would fix everything. But, of course, it would help the server feel more alive and cooperative in the long run. But we should try to look at why new players stop playing on this server, or never start playing to begin with.
     
  15. beegoratto
    Online

    beegoratto Skelosaurus

    1,214
    344
    426
    Sep 22, 2021
    Male
    10:45 AM
    leetoratto
    Bowmaster
    1
    Nimbus
    Even if it were manually enforced, which is, like you said, not even remotely feasible, there’s a lot of situations where an account being multi-machined looks exactly like an ordinary player with no way to tell the difference. A lot of jobs and content can easily be played with a single hand, if not a single finger. How do you separate a potentially multi-machining character from another character who is actively being played by a single, possibly bad or laggy, player?
     
  16. twing1
    Offline

    twing1 Pink Teddy

    77
    48
    81
    Aug 10, 2020
    Male
    10:45 AM
    twing1
    Beginner
    4
    Another good way of enforcing this would be relying on the good old fashioned report system.

    If multi-clienting became against the ToS and became unavailable by means of clicking open the game as many times as you want, and people instead had to rely on running multiple machines or operating systems, the number of multi-clienters would drop dramatically.

    There would absolutely be those extremists who still multi-client in other ways, such as multiple machines, but they would be far and few between. Not everybody who multi clients currently is going to go out and buy another computer for that purpose.

    Relying on other players to report these offenders (as it is extremely easy to discern if someone is mulling/multi-maging) could serve as a big lead to the staff as to specific offenders.

    No, this method wouldn't catch each and every multi-cliebter out there, but as was mentioned earlier, not every multi-cliebter has to be caught to make an impact full difference on the server.

    Of course in this hypothetical it would be ideal if all of the offenders were caught, but as is the case for anything else against the ToS, it's simply not possible.

    The argument that because it's impossible to restrict all multi-clienters, it shouldn't be against the ToS doesn't make sense to me, because it's also impossible to restrict absolutely every other violation of the ToS, yet this doesn't stop the ToS from restricting other certain activities. It will never be perfect, regardless of the violation (multi-clienting included).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. beegoratto
    Online

    beegoratto Skelosaurus

    1,214
    344
    426
    Sep 22, 2021
    Male
    10:45 AM
    leetoratto
    Bowmaster
    1
    Nimbus
    This would only result in an inundation of false positives that an already overburdened staff has to sort through (since every report would have to be manually verified). Again, how do you tell the difference between someone multi-machining and two legitimate players? In a lot of content, their gameplay will look exactly identical. Attacking in the majority of content only requires a single finger to hold down the primary attacking button, with occasional repositions and rebuffs that can be put on the same macro. None of this requires more than a single finger most of the time.
     
  18. twing1
    Offline

    twing1 Pink Teddy

    77
    48
    81
    Aug 10, 2020
    Male
    10:45 AM
    twing1
    Beginner
    4
    You're right that there are situations where it is extremely difficult to tell the difference, but in the vast majority of cases multi-clienting is very easily discernable.

    Multi-mage setups are a dead give away, 4+ mages standing perfectly still taking turns dumping their ultimates.

    Mules in bossing scenarios typically just stand there until buff timers are running out, at which point they will share their utility buffs with the rest of the party and then return to being idle.

    During pqs, the mule will likely hold onto a rope or ladder for the vast majority of the time, except for transitioning to the next stage.

    These three cases of multi-clienting are extremely discernable from single-client play, and they also happen to be the three use-cases with probably the largest impact on game balance as well.

    Have you personally had issue in the past discerning multi-clienting from single-client play?

    As mentioned above, of course some multi-clienters will slip through the cracks, as do some of all other violations of the ToS. "Because its hard" to me isn't a valid reason, because nothing is easy. The only influence on whether or not it should be done, in my opinion, should be game balance.
     
  19. beegoratto
    Online

    beegoratto Skelosaurus

    1,214
    344
    426
    Sep 22, 2021
    Male
    10:45 AM
    leetoratto
    Bowmaster
    1
    Nimbus
    I multi machine BM and Bishop. I hold Hurricane in Zak like any other BM would, and heal, dispel, and shield on my Bishop like any other Bishop would. How does staff tell the difference between either of these characters and active players?

    I watched 2 players duo Horntail yesterday. The Bishop DH and cast Gen like a normal Bishop would. The Bucc held Demo during ST like a normal Bucc would. The Paladin held down Blast like a normal Paladin would. The Sair held down Cannon/Rapid Fire like a normal Sair would. How does staff determine that any of these are not normal players?

    It's incredibly easy to just play the game normally on multiple characters at once and not "stand there until buff timers are running out" and there's visually no indicator that these are not multiple players other than possibly a few moments of inaction here and there that can easily be attributed to something like, lag, or taking a drink of water.

    It's even easier in things like area bosses like Bigfoot, or bosses like Ravana that have literally no attacks that can move you. I can stand completely still on my Bish and BM and just hold AR and Hurricane until they die and not have to take any other action at all. This is exactly what two normal players would be doing.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Feeed
    Offline

    Feeed Mr. Anchor

    274
    171
    256
    Aug 4, 2020
    Male
    1:45 PM
    Feeed
    Corsair
    Remove / nerf pet loot. Multimage would be absolutely gutted without affecting multiclient. It's mildly annoying but it's a small price to pay
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Creative Creative x 1

Share This Page