Close
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Showing results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21
    Member Ughmahedhurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North of The Wall, South of The Line
    Posts
    7169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMilitia View Post
    The point is to recognize the good things multiboxing brings to the table and the bad things so that a reasonable decision can be reached.
    The problem there, as I see it, is two-fold:

    1) You're asking for all parties to the discussion to be rational and logically consistent. There are only two groups that seem to generally meet that criteria: blizzard and multiboxers.

    2) Liability. Blizzard won't ever flat out approve or provide rules for it as that would put them somewhat at the mercy of the whiny tits. Thus the "does not violate policy at this time" mantra. The one thing they have clearly defined is what defines a "bot" but again, the kiddies on the forums (usually PVPers) call multiboxers bots so often that you wonder whether there should be a reading comprehension test and psychological evaluation prior to allowing people to zone into a battleground or post on a forum.
    Now playing: WoW (Garona)

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ughmahedhurtz View Post
    The problem there, as I see it, is two-fold:

    1) You're asking for all parties to the discussion to be rational and logically consistent. There are only two groups that seem to generally meet that criteria: blizzard and multiboxers.

    2) Liability. Blizzard won't ever flat out approve or provide rules for it as that would put them somewhat at the mercy of the whiny tits. Thus the "does not violate policy at this time" mantra. The one thing they have clearly defined is what defines a "bot" but again, the kiddies on the forums (usually PVPers) call multiboxers bots so often that you wonder whether there should be a reading comprehension test and psychological evaluation prior to allowing people to zone into a battleground or post on a forum.
    I believe that not setting an expectation makes that problem worse.

    So long as multiboxing remains in the grey area of their product allowances people will show up on forums and complain about it. Soon as it becomes protected and recognized as legitimate way to play their MMO the complaints will cease for the most part.

    The reason is I think the whiny tits do have a bone to pick here. Not an absolute one mind. Two characters are hardly an advantage anywhere in the world but 40 characters dropping on a quest zone and wiping out anyone that comes close is quite unfair. It's also not fair to a 15 man raid to have 2/3rds their raid a multiboxer who most likely won't contribute to their win.

    There needs to be contrast for us. So that we can one be protected against whiny tits and two, not be lumped in with someone who is really out to destroy the integrity of the game.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMilitia View Post
    They stated that it was held up because multiboxing in BGs was not wanted. According to them. They were alright with breaking our gameplay.

    So my point to them is when is multiboxing ok and when isn't it? Get rid of the grey area and let the ruling stand.

    I play more than one account because playing one account bores me to tears. It has nothing to do with gaining an advantage on anyone. I actually prefer 3s arena for starters, or 5 man dungeon runs on the hardest setting. I do it for the challenge and diversity which so many games sorely lack by design.

    I want for them to set rules on multiboxing so that I know what I can and can't expect. Giving me back /follow and limiting my multiboxing to say, 2 or 3 accounts I'd be alright with that. I guess some would want more so maybe 5 but no more support beyond that.

    There are good things and bad things about multiboxing like anything else that can be done with the game. The point is to recognize the good things multiboxing brings to the table and the bad things so that a reasonable decision can be reached.
    Your asking for to much the only rule they could use is the 5 b.net per name and even then its to hard to force they will not say oh you can with five but not anymore.

    If they tagged follow to b.net or something they might as well take it out. As that's giving boxers only actress to the command
    If they "start" setting rules then they will support us. That they do not want to do.

    The only thing I can see them doing next is removing follow when tagged for PvP - all I can say is I hope they going to move my 100's off chars to pve realms for free. (This could already be true) with new wpvp hubs around ya....


    We been walking on ice for a long time devs say we cool but when we make others life hell its not fair. To be fait solo I never see a boxer much. So I don't feel the problem as big as some make it.


    Go make a new character on a PvP realm and see how many times you get ganked by a boxer. I say 0 and yet am farmed all day by a lvl 100 that I can not kill. This is the darkside of PvP.
    Last edited by ebony : 11-23-2015 at 10:27 PM




  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ebony View Post
    Your asking for to much the only rule they could use is the 5 b.net per name and even then its to hard to force they will not say oh you can with five but not anymore.
    Easily enforced by not supporting anything beyond that. You want to multibox in BGs? Limited to three accounts. There. You have some semblance of balance restored to the experience while still giving some people the option to play multiple accounts in a BG. As stated I would even be fine with 2 IF they officially supported it. We need the contrast.

    If they tagged follow to b.net or something they might as well take it out. As that's giving boxers only actress to the command
    If they "start" setting rules then they will support us. That they do not want to do.
    Actually untrue. It would benefit both multiboxers and any family-orientated battle net accounts. Obviously the largest benefit there is for us but people who play on the same bnet account who may be for example disabled, may want follow back in BGs for this reason.

    Pretty simple. Limit the number in each bnet account and then allow follow only for accounts on that bnet account. That as far as I can see fixes a lot of problems.

    You are also asserting that they do not want to support us. There is no proof of this. All we know is they don't want us going into BGs and in their views, tarnishing the experience by setting up 10+ on 1 encounters.

    The only thing I can see them doing next is removing follow when tagged for PvP - all I can say is I hope they going to move my 100's off chars to pve realms for free. (This could already be true) with new wpvp hubs around ya....


    We been walking on ice for a long time devs say we cool but when we make others life hell its not fair. To be fait solo I never see a boxer much. So I don't feel the problem as big as some make it.


    Go make a new character on a PvP realm and see how many times you get ganked by a boxer. I say 0 and yet am farmed all day by a lvl 100 that I can not kill. This is the darkside of PvP.
    You're taking it down the wrong road here. Asserting that they do not like us or that what we are doing is automatically a problem is the problem. This is why we need to know officially what is ok and what isn't. So that we aren't guesstimating how thin the ice is we're standing on. There is absolutely no way for us to assert anything until they've told us. So far, all we know is they don't want us in BGs. To what extent they haven't said.

    Boxing 100 characters and steamrolling capital cities is apparently fine and being told those of us playing 2 accounts will get hit with the same nerf in battlegrounds bothers me. Obviously if we can see the difference so can Blizzard. All they need to do is step up and define the acceptance criteria.
    Last edited by MadMilitia : 11-24-2015 at 01:18 AM

  5. #25
    Member Ughmahedhurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North of The Wall, South of The Line
    Posts
    7169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMilitia View Post
    The reason is I think the whiny tits do have a bone to pick here. Not an absolute one mind. Two characters are hardly an advantage anywhere in the world but 40 characters dropping on a quest zone and wiping out anyone that comes close is quite unfair. It's also not fair to a 15 man raid to have 2/3rds their raid a multiboxer who most likely won't contribute to their win.
    That's interesting. Why is that any different than a gang of people wiping out all the quest NPCs in the crossroads for hours or some 100s camping noobs in the 20-40 zones?
    Now playing: WoW (Garona)

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ughmahedhurtz View Post
    That's interesting. Why is that any different than a gang of people wiping out all the quest NPCs in the crossroads for hours or some 100s camping noobs in the 20-40 zones?
    Well first it's different because it isn't 100 characters. The largest warspear raid I've seen for example has been about 40 characters spread out. A full raid. The difference between 40 scattered targets and a block of 100 dense targets is enormous for the performance of the game. At 100 in a block the phasing logic starts to act up so that they can phase in and out disrupting gameplay.

    Then you have the logistics of getting even 10 people game for invading a quest hub for giggles. And then even more keeping them entertained long enough to ruin the day for someone else. I think it can be demonstrated in most examples of griefing that as the number of participants has reduced, the amount of time being griefed has increased. This is due to the fact that multiple people are less likely to wake up the same day wanting to do exactly the same thing. A multiboxer breaks that rule in half. So does a feral druid, coincidentally.

    But anyway I think there are clear differences like stated. Not just those two though.

  7. #27
    Member Ughmahedhurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North of The Wall, South of The Line
    Posts
    7169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMilitia View Post
    Then you have the logistics of getting even 10 people game for invading a quest hub for giggles. And then even more keeping them entertained long enough to ruin the day for someone else. I think it can be demonstrated in most examples of griefing that as the number of participants has reduced, the amount of time being griefed has increased. This is due to the fact that multiple people are less likely to wake up the same day wanting to do exactly the same thing. A multiboxer breaks that rule in half. So does a feral druid, coincidentally.

    But anyway I think there are clear differences like stated. Not just those two though.
    Look, I'll grant you the single obvious case of this 80millionboxer on that derp-vs-derp server. (Incidentally, if you see anyone mention "the spirit of the game" or "flagrant douchebaggery" or something similar, just remind them it's a RPVP server and then ask them if they've spent more than an hour in that server's trade chat.) That said, I have yet to meet someone that has played on PVP servers and hasn't had to deal with the exact opposite of your notion; specifically that it takes a lot less coordination to get 10 people to go camp crossroads than it does to get 4 geared 100s to go kick 'em out. Seriously. And this is the norm. Log in to some of the low-pop servers, create a toon on the minority side and turn on world PVP notifications.

    My point, circuitous thought it may be, is that griefing is the norm in WoW and it's widespread; this guy is just a very visible example. Again, sample size of two does not a statistic make.
    Now playing: WoW (Garona)

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ughmahedhurtz View Post
    Look, I'll grant you the single obvious case of this 80millionboxer on that derp-vs-derp server. (Incidentally, if you see anyone mention "the spirit of the game" or "flagrant douchebaggery" or something similar, just remind them it's a RPVP server and then ask them if they've spent more than an hour in that server's trade chat.) That said, I have yet to meet someone that has played on PVP servers and hasn't had to deal with the exact opposite of your notion; specifically that it takes a lot less coordination to get 10 people to go camp crossroads than it does to get 4 geared 100s to go kick 'em out. Seriously. And this is the norm. Log in to some of the low-pop servers, create a toon on the minority side and turn on world PVP notifications.

    My point, circuitous thought it may be, is that griefing is the norm in WoW and it's widespread; this guy is just a very visible example. Again, sample size of two does not a statistic make.
    I'll give you some scenarios from just last night.

    One guy decides to try and bladestorm my 5 man group in Tannan. He got crushed obviously but he tried.

    Another was griefing some others and I think maybe tried to kill me too by DoT porting up on a wall. There was some back and forth but it didn't last more than 10 minutes.

    Then another tried to barrage my team. That didn't end well for him.

    I then wiped due to four of them ganging up on me.

    Mind these are all 1-3 people attempting to PvP me in the open world. Sometimes it happens that there are six or more of them but it isn't common. I'd say most of the time we're talking 1-3 people with the upper end being 5. The same goes for the camps in Volmar, Spires, Nagrand, etc. And those groups have never stuck around for more than an hour.

    I play on Bleeding-Hollow on the Horde side. I've seen the Alliance side so I know how commonplace it is for Alliance players to get stepped on during PvE engagements. That isn't griefing though. Just some casual PvP that ends with a dead ally that comes and loots the corpse when everyone else clears out. It is pretty common for a 20-40 man raid party to have one or two stragglers that want to spend the rest of their day in the zone looking for PvP. What is rare is for the entire raid party to decide to spend the rest of the afternoon doing it.

  9. #29

    Default

    They don't want to support us this is clear and has been for years. If they set rules then we can start asking for better and more helpful changes + they could not do what they did in bg's so easy.


    There is many videos/posts from blizzard saying that mutiboxers go to far and we can lose them a subs. 40+ chars is a joke and with high level chars for £££ levelng them is not even hard like it was. But unreal money and to be fair his been wiped before the lag this xpac has made it worse.

    The follow thing in bg's is like beating a dead horse been there 100's of times.


    I think this topic is going far off topic /follow is in beta so far. CTM works /thraed

    If they remove it kill it for PvP they do. And we can not do anything about it w/o work arounds




  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ebony View Post
    They don't want to support us this is clear and has been for years.
    Based on what exactly?

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •