Auto-follow, is it time for a change?

[Hello=)]

Why can't you prohibit just "multiboxing" rather than "auto-follow"? Multiboxing (I define it as "actively playing by more than one character at a time") could/would bring other unfair advantages to multiboxer even without autofollow.

Example: I've seen how some multiboxer uses healer + warrior to make warrior survive in places where it normally couldn't. Then what? Warrior gains unfair advantage in terms of XP, no-cost healing, survival in hard area alone + "alive" healers are less demanded in game. This makes gameplay worse, isn't it? I bet there are other ways to (ab)use multiboxing in unfair/troublesome ways as well. I think that actively playing by more than 1 char at a time have to be prohibited and some special cases (service facilities/friendly bots/etc which do not seek for advantage of owner) have to be approved "on demand".

NB: to make it clear, I don't see problem if player just connects by more than 1 character via different accounts and then only plays by single character at a time, while other character(s) are complerely passive and do not take action in battles. I've seen a good use of such setup which actually adds up some fun to the game without obvious advantages to player(s) doing so (e.g. launching Cindy with a mule and disconnecting it could allow players to have fun and there are quite many players doing this trick, as it really adds up). For me, the problem is when someone actually uses more than 1 character in battle to gain unfair advantage. I'm really hate such "bots".

At the same time autofollow haves good uses - it's a really useful to follow player to get to some new/unknown area. I don't see why such usage of autofollow have to be prohibited. I think that purpose of this rule is to screw up multiboxers who gain some unfair advantage in battle, not just everyone, right?

[Big Crunch]

Why can't you prohibit just "multiboxing" rather than "auto-follow"? Multiboxing (I define it as "actively playing by more than one character at a time") could/would bring other unfair advantages to multiboxer even without autofollow.

Example: I've seen how some multiboxer uses healer + warrior to make warrior survive in places where it normally couldn't. Then what? Warrior gains unfair advantage in terms of XP, no-cost healing, survival in hard area alone + "alive" healers are less demanded in game. This makes gameplay worse, isn't it? I bet there are other ways to (ab)use multiboxing in unfair/troublesome ways as well. I think that actively playing by more than 1 char at a time have to be prohibited and some special cases (service facilities/friendly bots/etc which do not seek for advantage of owner) have to be approved "on demand".

NB: to make it clear, I don't see problem if player just connects by more than 1 character via different accounts and then only plays by single character at a time, while other character(s) are complerely passive and do not take action in battles. I've seen a good use of such setup which actually adds up some fun to the game without obvious advantages to player(s) doing so (e.g. launching Cindy with a mule and disconnecting it could allow players to have fun and there are quite many players doing this trick, as it really adds up). For me, the problem is when someone actually uses more than 1 character in battle to gain unfair advantage. I'm really hate such "bots".

At the same time autofollow haves good uses - it's a really useful to follow player to get to some new/unknown area. I don't see why such usage of autofollow have to be prohibited. I think that purpose of this rule is to screw up multiboxers who gain some unfair advantage in battle, not just everyone, right?

That is an accurate assessment, but in a stack of several characters who are using autofollow, it is impossible to differentiate who is attacking and who is not. The application of such a condition would make enforcing impossible, so I'm afraid the best course of action is to disallow the entire autofollow possibility.

That said, GM's are not morons, nor do we just apply the rules without consideration of circumstances. If someone is using autofollow in town we would ask them to stop, followed by a kick from the server if not heeded. We wouldnt immediately jump to banning without considerable provocation.

BC

[Rill]

The only helpful use I've seen for the follow feature was by players having new players follow them, and showing them the way somewhere, which was actually pretty nice.

[...] I used it many times to drive players who were weaker than me to cindy cage, to explore and recognize the snake mountain caverns and hurnscald mines, to go across the snow hills to blue sage, to get a short sword or simply to drive them to Sagatha...

[...] autofollow haves good uses - it's a really useful to follow player to get to some new/unknown area.

I would just like to add that I agree that the auto-follow feature has been very handy when travelling with others to outlying regions, to prevent players from falling behind and getting lost. I understand the dilemma with multi-boxing, and it is a shame that those who abused the system have caused the prohibition of a really useful tool.

[Chicka-Maria]

People are saying it was helpful for people not to get lost and such and to get newbies to follow them, but theres nothing wrong with them hitting the arrow keys to follow you either. IMO they learn the areas much better that way.

I know there is a lot of lazy players that like to auto follow others, I was one of them when i was going to different parts of the mana world, but its not worth the abuse.

regards,

[straelyn]

Well, I think the rule's stupid. I pretty much never use the feature, but so what. Is the rule absolutely necessary?

[Wombat]

Well, I think the rule's stupid. I pretty much never use the feature, but so what. Is the rule absolutely necessary?

It is necessary until the next better thing comes along to keep multi-boxing from becoming crazy in game. Either that or we play multi-character clients that don't eat up memory, but we'd have to radically change our game content to reflect this reality.

[AnonDuck]

Mana+ supports several follow types, and I believe the default is non-stacked follow. I can't think of an (ab)use case where non-stacked "pet" style follow would be very useful for multiboxing.

Perhaps this type of follow could be allowed and the GMs could report back if the rule modification isn't working out as expected?

[veryape]

I can't think of an (ab)use case where non-stacked "pet" style follow would be very useful for multiboxing.

It could be a way to get lower lever chars thru hard places. It could be used to get a char thru the Yeti maze to cindy etc without any external help.

And i guess that someone who follows with a bit of distance could heal the one he is following too. Even if there has not been this kinds of problems yet I believe that this kind of following would invite that kind of problem.

But to be honest I think that autofollow in it self should not be banned, but go under the afk-activity thing - ie botting.

If i have a foillowing drone that heals me that must surely be afk activity since i can't play both at the same time. So botcheck them and tell them to go in different directions at the same time etc. If this makes the gm's job to hard just keep the ruling as it is.

[straelyn]

The irony is, simply banning auto-follow because some people had used it in their bots, is a very lazy approach.

[Frost]

simply banning auto-follow because some people had used it in their bots, is a very lazy approach.

A few people would run a stack of bots, use some of the bots to autoattack and others to autoheal, and claim that only one or two characters was really doing anything, and the rest were just autofollowing, and there's no real against autofollow so leave me the f--- alone. GMs, like anyone else, cannot see which characters in a stack are actually attacking or casting spells.

I'm not sure it's fair to call the GMs "lazy." This was a tool they needed in order to stop the stacks of bots that used to smash up the graveyard and anyone in their way. It removed the excuse that the botters used to avoid getting in trouble.

[AnonDuck]

But to be honest I think that autofollow in it self should not be banned, but go under the afk-activity thing - ie botting.

If i have a foillowing drone that heals me that must surely be afk activity since i can't play both at the same time. So botcheck them and tell them to go in different directions at the same time etc. If this makes the gm's job to hard just keep the ruling as it is.

Pretty much. If using pet style autofollow the GMs can see who is doing what, unlike a stack.

[Nard]

simply banning auto-follow because some people had used it in their bots, is a very lazy approach.

A few people would run a stack of bots, use some of the bots to autoattack and others to autoheal, and claim that only one or two characters was really doing anything, and the rest were just autofollowing, and there's no real against autofollow so leave me the f--- alone. GMs, like anyone else, cannot see which characters in a stack are actually attacking or casting spells.

I'm not sure it's fair to call the GMs "lazy." This was a tool they needed in order to stop the stacks of bots that used to smash up the graveyard and anyone in their way. It removed the excuse that the botters used to avoid getting in trouble.

Then forbid autofollow in sensitive areas (it is rather useless for other purposes than botting anyway) aor add a directive such as auto-following an attacking stack is considered as botting. In fact the only realreason why auto-follow could forbidden is that GMs have no reason to determine precisely the stack leader or to say he agrees with auto-followers. I will reply that noone is obliged to accept auto-followers; If a player is followed unwillingly by other ones for botting or other purposes, he has the possibility (and the duty in case of obvious botting) to report with @wgm. (maybe this command should be documented in game rules btw). GMs are not for sure the "lazy" ones, because they can only enforce the rules with the tools they have. Rulers are, because they do not defend or refuse to think about nice game features even if they are "small" ones. Note that it would be possible and not very difficult to develop an utility to record positions and actions of selected players to show that they are follow-attacking (and also which is the leader char).

Mana+ supports several follow types, and I believe the default is non-stacked follow. I can't think of an (ab)use case where non-stacked "pet" style follow would be very useful for multiboxing. [...]

Every type of autofollow can be used for botting; the distance to the player you follow doesn't matter. The problem is when it is combined with auto-attack (server feature) and automatic target selection which allows one char to command his "pets". I would not care that much about auto heal if it would not break the balance in PvP (records such as fluffy hunters are, after extensive use rather useless and no more fun). Manaplus (and mana) don't allow player to follow and attack so players who attack-follow necessarily use a hacked client

Perhaps this type of follow could be allowed and the GMs could report back if the rule modification isn't working out as expected?[...]
Pretty much. If using pet style autofollow the GMs can see who is doing what, unlike a stack.

Gms have or can have "@follow"

[Freeyorp101]

As an aside, @follow does nothing except make the client print ["@follow command not available"]:

Code: Select all

int
atcommand_follow (const int fd, struct map_session_data *sd,
                  const char *command, const char *message)
{
#if 0
[...]
#endif

    /*
     * Command disabled - it's incompatible with the TMW
     * client.
     */
    clif_displaymessage (fd, "@follow command not available");

    return 0;

}

---Freeyorp

[Nard]

Code: Select all

/*
     * Command disabled - it's incompatible with the TMW
     * client.
     */
    clif_displaymessage (fd, "@follow command not available");

I know (I tested all GM commands and posted about them a while ago), this is why I wrote "have or can have". Ask why this feature was removed without warning to anyone; GM can use manaplus follow as an incomplete substitute.

[Freeyorp101]

Ask why this feature was removed without warning to anyone

Who should have been warned? bjorn accepted its removal nearly five years ago (2008-10-06), not long after I joined, and with a very clear cut commit at that.

I guess Aethyra was around back then, but they had their own server they were rebuilding on top of a newer version of eAthena, so even they wouldn't have been affected.

See [here] for details.


---Freeyorp