Multiboxing, rules, and semantics

#2 - March 12, 2008, 6:58 a.m.

Q u o t e:

Semantics issue #1:
Is using one keyboard to send signals to multiple instances of WoW automation? In other words, what is the definition of automation as it applies to WoW?

Q u o t e:
Semantics issue #2:
Software (such as Keyclone, Octopus, etc) to emulate a keyboard multiboxing solution is, by nature, "3rd party". Is "3rd party software" synonymous with "bot" or "automation"? Are all types of "3rd party software" bannable?
Likewise, hardware, by nature, is "3rd party". What kinds (or uses) of 3rd party hardware are bannable?

Q u o t e:
Semantics issue #3:
Does multiboxing give a player an in-game advantage?

Q u o t e:
Therefore, can multiboxing be considered an exploit?

Q u o t e:
Semantics issue #4:
Multiboxing can be considered by some as "against the spirit of the game" or, at least, "against the spirit of the game the way I want to play it". Is multiboxing against the "spirit of the game"?

Q u o t e:
Semantics issue #5:
Multiboxers provide Blizzard with a significant amount of extra income, and that, and only that, is the reason why is it currently allowed. True/false?

Q u o t e:
Semantics issue #6:
Multiboxing is only allowed because there is no reliable way for Blizzard to find, identify, and catch them. True/false?

Q u o t e:
Unrelated issue #7:
Cake or death?

#23 - March 12, 2008, 7:21 a.m.

Q u o t e:

If the signal is identical but you have a different keybinding for the signal is that automation. Eg. If I push a button and one character moves left and another moves right.

#32 - March 12, 2008, 7:37 a.m.

Q u o t e:
One of the threads regarding this issue in which two multi-boxers who each run 5 characters at a time chimed in had them making plans to 2-man (with 10 characters between them) a 10man raid.

While I can see the potential issues inherent, surely you, Blizzard and everyone else can see the huge advantages in this as well.

Otherwise the question of multi-boxing wouldn't even be an issue... ever.

#36 - March 12, 2008, 7:42 a.m.

Q u o t e:


*shakes Belfaire's hand*

;)

http://v-boxing.net/blog/videos.php/videos/pve/outland/kara/

#65 - March 12, 2008, 9:03 a.m.

Q u o t e:


I appreciate having a post to link to that contains all of the answers to common questions and misinformation answered in pretty blue texts. :)

Though.... how do you feel about Cake or Death?

#68 - March 12, 2008, 11:20 a.m.

Q u o t e:
{Majordomo Executus has come online}
{EliteGuard has come online}
{EliteGuard has come online}
{EliteGuard has come online}
{EliteGuard has come online}
{Healer has come online}
{Healer has come online}
{Healer has come online}
{Healer has come online}
{Majordomo Executus} : hey
{EliteGuard} hey
{EliteGuard} hey
{EliteGuard} hey
{EliteGuard} hey
{Healer} hey
{Healer} hey
{Healer} hey
{Healer} hey

#81 - March 12, 2008, 6:33 p.m.

Q u o t e:
...Boptart...

#107 - March 12, 2008, 11:55 p.m.

Q u o t e:

Uh no. What will happen is that as more mutli boxers come in, others will leave. And your In your face style post will create further impetus for people do so.

Now don't get me wrong, I understand the issues perfectly and have before WoW was on the drawing board. MMO's have a fairly predictable life course. Generally you want to get in early, run for about three years and get out. Typically (with some exceptions) at about three years in, things start going down hill in a number of ways (and no, I am not talking from a subscription number vantage point.) that to someone like myself matter.

Multi boxing and it's acceptance is a harbinger that experienced MMORPG players will recognize as another contributor to a down trend in over all community. I am completely unsurprised by blue commentary here BTW.

I started in Dec of 2004. My account ends tomorrow. I'm not leaving because of Multi boxing, it doesn't affect me at this time. I'm leaving for a host of game play and community related reasons. Multi boxing is just another marker for pointing me in the right direction.

Best wishes all.

#168 - March 16, 2008, 3:18 a.m.

Q u o t e:



I have a question on the "legitimately" part. I have a situation recently where my cousin and her husband are getting divorced, and they have 3 accounts between them, and I have 2 accounts myself. I've been considering trying a 5 box shaman team, being a shaman since day 1 anyways, but want to clarify this before I venture forward and risk getting banned on my own accounts too.

Would Blizzard consider my using my own 2 accounts, with 2 of my cousins accounts and her soon to be ex's account (they both have stopped playing because of the recent split and will let me resume the subscriptions) to be a violation of the EULA and be a bannable offense? I would of course be paying the monthly fee on all 5 accounts going forward, as well as purchasing 5x Wrath of the Lich Kings upgrades eventually :)

Would love an answer if anyone from Blizz is still looking, thanks :D

#175 - March 17, 2008, 5:08 a.m.

Q u o t e:


Semantic #1- What if the keystrokes passed are to ingame macros to attack-IE /assist,/cast <spellname> would that be automation or not?

#200 - March 17, 2008, 9:04 p.m.

Q u o t e:
My account expires 3/23 (early a.m.)

Amazingly blind to the obvious. Well, only obvious to us non-computer geeks I guess.

Too bad, you've ruined a work of genius and are making it continually worse. Its still better than most games in many ways but I won't fund you any more.

I'll settle for less and go play elsewhere.

These guys are looters and being defended. Are you sure the development team isn't part of a conspiracy here? Because I'm not.

Not after this.

Every gold farmer and e-bay toon seller in the world probably multi-boxes. Weigh that against the (likely) few high-end geeks who can do this within the tortuous bounds you're rationalizing in its defense.

Not very credible of you.

#278 - April 4, 2008, 9:50 p.m.

Q u o t e:
Add in a 3rd party program. You press ONE button and all 5 screens react. How exactly is that fair/legit? It's not. The ability to control 5 computers at once with 1 single keyboard and 1 single press of a button is automation. The ability to make your characters cast their individual spells and skills at once by pressing 1 button is automation.

#319 - April 24, 2008, 8:58 p.m.

Q u o t e:
WTB Sticky.

#329 - May 5, 2008, 6:51 a.m.

Q u o t e:


This is a case of requiring 3rd-party hardware to accomplish keycloning and automated keypressing. It's still third-party.

#334 - May 5, 2008, 7:26 a.m.

Q u o t e:

What I don't like is the double standard where a multiboxer can press 1 key and make 5 things happen, and I press 1 key and only am allowed to make 1 thing happen. That is a double standard that I'm sure Blizzard did not mean to have in the design of the game. Otherwise, quite clearly, the game belongs to multiboxers. When I bought the game, I didn't realize I'd have to buy 4 other copies of it and additional hardware and software in order to be able to compete against other players. I refuse to accept that owning more copies of WoW = higher chance of winning is the design decision originally intended for this game.

#337 - May 5, 2008, 7:30 a.m.

Q u o t e:


Yes, that's a quite clear explanation of the current ToS.

The double standard is that the 'per Player' is nowhere in there. So a player who has more than one account has a severe advantage over a player who does not have more than one account.

Saying "Buy more accounts = win" because 'per player' is not a part of the formula is...well I'm trying to stay away from accusing Blizzard of greed, but seriously. "Pay more to win" is not an acceptable design formula.

The suggestion is to add 'Per Player' to that formula. One Input per Action Per Player Per Account, and we're all set.

The lack of a "Per Player" creates a double standard between those who have more than one account and those who do not. As it currently stands: "A person who has more than one account is allowed more than one action per input. A person who does not have more than one account gets screwed."

Double standard. I really can't make it any clearer. Allow one input per action per player limit, or don't. But basing it on account instead of by player opens the door to exploitation of a technicality where the only one who benefits is Blizzard, via the money from the extra accounts. The multiboxer has to pay more for it and go through the hassle of setting it up, and the solo person gets screwed over by the multiboxer, because the multiboxer's allowed more than one action per input, and the soloist is not. The only winner here is Blizzard, because the multiboxer's paying them more.

I'm really quite clear on the current status of the ToS, thanks. I'm saying that it shouldn't be this way, that there's a double standard, and usually Blizzard's better than this. It's an oversight in the ToS, an exploitable loophole (that has the side effect of garnering more money for Blizzard), and isn't in the spirit of the game.

One input per action per player. Fair. Equal. And, one would hope, Intended. That is all.

#346 - May 5, 2008, 8:06 p.m.

Q u o t e:
As a soloist, I push a key and 1 thing happens. As a multiboxer, I push a key and 5 things happen.

If that's not automation, what is?

#437 - May 14, 2008, 2:49 a.m.

Q u o t e:
Question: There is yet another "multiboxing is wrong!" thread on the Suggestions forum. Is it permitted to link this thread in that one, and direct them to the Blue posts specifically addressing the issue?

#440 - May 14, 2008, 2:54 a.m.

Q u o t e:


Occasionally.... your syntax reminds me of Brit and Oz friends....

#442 - May 14, 2008, 2:56 a.m.

Q u o t e:


Some of my Aussie friends use it, yes. As some of my Canadian friends use "eh". I use both, and am neither....

It was the "arsed" term that lit the bulb....

#444 - May 14, 2008, 2:58 a.m.

Q u o t e:


And she's Brit or Oz'ian? I didn't *think* so, but then I do miss many things.... tunnel vision....

#448 - May 14, 2008, 3:05 a.m.

Q u o t e:


Ah. Well.... I do, simply by "contamination"? (I don't mean anything by that, specifically, now!) My Irish friends do use that construct too though.