| 02:25.10 | *** join/#riftuidev seebs (~seebs@home.seebs.net) |
| 02:25.10 | *** mode/#riftuidev [+o seebs] by ChanServ |
| 02:37.43 | *** join/#riftuidev seebs (~seebs@home.seebs.net) |
| 02:37.44 | *** mode/#riftuidev [+o seebs] by ChanServ |
| 02:44.41 | *** join/#riftuidev Cairenn (~Owner@MMOI/Administratrix/Cairenn) |
| 02:44.55 | *** mode/#riftuidev [+o Cairenn] by ChanServ |
| 03:22.55 | *** join/#riftuidev seebs (~seebs@home.seebs.net) |
| 03:22.56 | *** mode/#riftuidev [+o seebs] by ChanServ |
| 03:48.11 | *** join/#riftuidev aboutGod (~aboutGod@static-72-66-66-50.washdc.fios.verizon.net) |
| 03:53.19 | *** part/#riftuidev aboutGod (~aboutGod@static-72-66-66-50.washdc.fios.verizon.net) |
| 06:25.11 | Ivnedar | interesting, wildstar's multiboxing rules don't allow single keypress being sent to multiple clients |
| 06:48.47 | seebs | Well, that's one MORE reason for me to not play it. :P |
| 06:52.11 | Thorarin | Pretty good rule imo :P |
| 06:52.31 | Thorarin | Learn some skills if you want to multibox :) |
| 06:53.18 | seebs | I am sort of inferring you've not done it. Trust me, it is *plenty* hard already. |
| 06:53.52 | seebs | I can play two characters at, I'd guess, nearly 60-70% of the efficiency they'd have with two players, and that's with their entire builds customized around knowing they play together, and their spell selection and hotbars arranged specifically to make it work. |
| 06:56.41 | Ivnedar | back to the old days of multiboxing with multiple keyboards and rigged up things hitting the same key on multiple keyboards at once |
| 06:58.16 | seebs | I basically don't object to anything that doesn't have the software making decisions based on game state. As long as the software's just cloning events according to rules independent of the game state, it's purely a question of convenience. |
| 07:17.00 | *** join/#riftuidev Imhothar (~Imhothar@ppp-93-104-167-252.dynamic.mnet-online.de) |
| 08:25.30 | *** join/#riftuidev Imhothar (~Adium@p4FC547B0.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) |
| 08:32.34 | *** join/#riftuidev Fisker (~ballmer@2a01:4f8:d12:1104:d1e:d1e:d1e:d1e) |
| 13:02.26 | *** join/#riftuidev Imhothar (~Adium@p4FC55880.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) |
| 13:05.09 | *** join/#riftuidev Imhothar1 (~Adium@p4FC55880.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) |
| 13:17.25 | *** join/#riftuidev Noshei (~quassel@c-24-9-171-99.hsd1.co.comcast.net) |
| 14:03.07 | Thorarin | I've not really multiboxed in Rift no. If you cannot play them effectively, maybe that's not the way it was meant to be played *shrug* |
| 14:04.57 | Ivnedar | the way many people do it is have a program that sends any keystroke you do to multiple clients at once |
| 14:05.15 | Ivnedar | so if you press 1, every copy of rift sees you press 1 and does what you have 1 keybound to |
| 14:05.26 | Ivnedar | then the interesting bit comes in |
| 14:05.39 | Ivnedar | working out what you want each character to do when you press each button |
| 14:08.03 | Ivnedar | also working out what class/spec composition you want to use |
| 14:08.17 | seebs | "Meant" to be played is, I think, not the relevant question. |
| 14:09.02 | seebs | Your statement implied quite strongly that it is absolutely and totally skill-free to multibox using key cloners. I think you should not say that something requires no skill if you haven't got the experience to demonstrate how utterly trivial it is. |
| 15:28.56 | *** join/#riftuidev seebs (~seebs@home.seebs.net) |
| 15:28.57 | *** mode/#riftuidev [+o seebs] by ChanServ |
| 16:20.17 | Thorarin | *sigh* it's just f'ing lame :P |
| 16:42.15 | seebs | I've gone through a bunch of debates on the multiboxing topic, and I've concluded that the problem is that there's a hidden premise somewhere which people don't share, that makes people view things entirely differently. |
| 16:42.50 | seebs | I tend to view multiboxing as one of the ways people make games more interesting, and don't really see the big deal. I've had people who were complaining about it tell me that multiboxers are just like rapists. Clearly, there's some kind of massive disconnect. |
| 16:43.22 | seebs | My guess is that there's a disagreement about the implicit social contract, and some players consider it a Rule Of The Game that each player corresponds to exactly one avatar, and other players don't have that rule. |
| 16:43.57 | seebs | So if you have that rule, people multiboxing seem to be cheating in some very fundamental way, and if you don't, then it doesn't even look like a thing at all, let alone a thing to object to or care about either way. |
| 16:44.27 | seebs | I tend to put it in the same category as things like playing a roguelike ironman, or not-ironman. |
| 17:26.24 | Thorarin | I have no problem with people playing more avatars, but using extra software to do it just seems wrong |
| 17:44.06 | *** join/#riftuidev Imhothar (~Imhothar@ppp-93-104-167-252.dynamic.mnet-online.de) |
| 17:58.26 | seebs | See, my intuition draws the line at "using software which makes decisions". |
| 17:59.15 | seebs | As long as the actual actions are all directly selected by player actions, I really don't care whether someone's got five keyboards, or five keyboards and a stick with little flanges on it to push buttons on five keyboards, or software, or what. As long as the actual decision-making is all the player. |
| 18:26.30 | Imhothar | why do people in papers use "we" even if there's only one author? |
| 18:26.39 | Imhothar | is that an english thing? |
| 18:50.09 | seebs | Oh, man. |
| 18:50.25 | seebs | Long story short: There's a lot of idioms for "formal" writing, and different people have different expectations for what is appropriate in writing. |
| 18:50.59 | seebs | For instance, do you refer to the reader as "you" or as "one"? I actually knew a guy who walked away from a good paying writing job over the fact that he felt it was *unacceptably* informal to use "you", but the employer's style guide mandated it. |
| 18:51.34 | seebs | It's not so much the language, or the country (if you meant English like Britain-area England), as just a matter of there being a lot of different "standards" in the field. |
| 18:58.06 | Imhothar | addressing the reader is one thing, talking about oneself another |
| 19:06.42 | Torhal | Oxford Comma or GTFO. |
| 19:07.50 | Imhothar | I know no other language that uses it |
| 20:05.20 | ZorbaBeta | imhothar, it's the "royal we", but it's really used to imply the beliefs of an organization |
| 20:05.39 | ZorbaBeta | for example, the CEO of Microsoft might say "we don't believe we're infringing on your patent" |
| 20:05.51 | ZorbaBeta | the weird part shows up when it's referring to an "organization" of one person |
| 20:06.17 | ZorbaBeta | at which point it's still "we" because it's referring to the organization as a whole, but it's kind of strange because the organization as a whole is still a single person |
| 21:01.19 | seebs | Yeah. |
| 21:01.31 | seebs | Note that there's lots of quirks about this. I think it's a US/UK thing whether a corporation is singular or plural. |
| 22:43.12 | *** join/#riftuidev Noshei (~quassel@c-24-9-171-99.hsd1.co.comcast.net) |