Myth and Fact page.

I've started a new wiki page that I hope will be useful as an addon to the various GM Conversations and other sources we use frequently. I intended it to be a conglomeration of all citations on a given subject that can be used as a quickly reply for any purpose (chat, email, forums, etc). The basic idea behind the Myth and Fact page (http://www.dual-boxing.com/wiki/index.php/Myth_and_Fact) is that any common rumors / lies can be easily answered with as many citations to Blue posts and other resources (i.e. Vyndree's economic analysis of account selling).

My purposes for creating this page (as opposed to simply expanding other pages) was that pages such as the GM Conversations page are just that - GM Conversations. This page is an assembling of content in such a way that we are not duplicating effort or misusing existing pages.

Right now, I'm still cleaning it up from the original forum-speak I first wrote it in. Also, I'm looking for a couple more citations. For example, I recall that there was a blue post which mentioned an internal study at Blizzard wherein Multiboxing was deemed equal with grouping. I'd really love that link.

I've placed a link for this page on the Main page. If that bothers anyone, please feel free to relocate it.

Also, if anyone runs into material which has not been addressed, please add it as is considered good wiki practice.

Nice compilation - kudos.

*opens the cookie jar* Help yourself Basilikos ;)

Very nice.

+1 Reputation

Concise and to teh point. Great post Basilikos!

/looks in the cookie jar

What the hell happened to all the cookies??!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Yamio',index.php?page=Thread&postID=84583#post845 83

What the hell happened to all the cookies??!!

---

I happened to all the cookies. Sorry :(

It's good to see some effort in the wiki, but to me this appears much like clutter. It's a reworked version of already existing content. In the end, it 's because many pages like this exist that the wiki is difficult to maintain and that it's difficult to find information.
I don't want to put the blame to you, I'm just pointing out an already existing problem.

And ontopic:

"Myth: I lost to a Multiboxer. I've been violated."
I suggest rephrasing that last sentence.

"Blizzard cannot track Multiboxers and that's why they don't get banned. "
It's good to explain that multiboxers are more likely to get investigated by GMs because of false acusations. Therefor they are more likely to get banned if they do something illegal.

"Myth: Multiboxing makes a single player more powerful than a singleboxing player."
That's a very general point because 'more powerful' can mean virtually anything. I wouldn't discuss that. But if you do feel like discussing it, you could mention the synchronous targetting/casting as a benefit and then mention some of the counterbenefits of playing as a solo team.

"Blizzard won't listen to me whine. "
Do you think being disrespectful to your readers is going to help?

" Mutliboxing only uses software to replicate keystrokes "
Not necessarily. Multiboxing can be done hardware-wise. Although you hint that, you don't mention it, while it's a vital part in the discussion. No software is *needed* to multibox effectively.

This article is way too subjective to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Ken',index.php?page=Thread&postID=84650#post84650

This article is way too subjective to me.

---

<humor>
To me, saying, "To me" is way too subjective to me.
</humor>

Kidding, kidding...

I've taken a lot of that into consideration and have reworked most of the material. What I'm still working on is the section on 'Overpowered Single-player mode' and the mention I made of the study of multiboxing done at Blizzard. I need a link to the blue that said that, I think it would go a long way with what I'm trying to do here.

Anyone? I know I've seen it a thousand times. Now that I need it? Gone.

EDIT:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Ken',index.php?page=Thread&postID=84650#post84650

... but to me this appears much like clutter. It's a reworked version of already existing content.

---

I understand your concern and in response to it, I have re-analyzed my intentions with this page as well as the content on it and I continue to disagree. For example, I was able to find the quote about the data Blizzard uses to judge the effects of MBing on the GM Conversations page, but it took quite a bit of work (and that page is actually pretty decent). The GM Conversations page is good for someone looking to see what GMs have said about multiboxing. The Myth and Fact page is good for dispelling common misconceptions and outright lies, especially to hostiles. Many of the linked conversations deal with a number of issues pertaining to the myth being debunked and this information is readily presented to the reader. The GM Conversation page, while being excellent in and of itself, does not do this NOR SHOULD IT.

Anyhow, I'm going to agree with you that the material on the Myth and Fact page could use a bit of work and I will continue to make progress with it.

FURTHER EDIT:

I'm hoping that with the addition of more citations, this wiki page becomes far less subjective than it first was. I'm still collecting and evaluating what needs to go where, so some section remain unattended right now.

I have to agree with Ken. This page indeed seems to be a reworked version of the FAQ for non-multiboxers and the GM conversations page and having multiple pages that touch the same subject does indeed clutter the wiki as a whole. Note that I'm not criticizing the content of your page or your intentions with that page, but I am criticizing that there's a seperate page for your content. It would be clearer to either:

- have one faq that answers all questions (including general info, myth&facts and gm conversations)

or

- two pages: one for the faq and the other for myths, facts and gm conversations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'KvdM',index.php?page=Thread&postID=86406#post8640 6

... two pages: one for the faq and the other for myths, facts and gm conversations.

---

That sounds like a better idea. To avoid these situations in the future, does anyone have anything to add to this planning phase?

[quote='KvdM',index.php?page=Thread&postID=86406#po st86406]- two pages: one for the faq and the other for myths, facts and gm conversations.[/quote]

Keep in mind, the FAQ [url='http://www.dual-boxing.com/wiki/index.php/FAQ_for_Non-Multiboxers#Still.2C_this_has_GOT_to_be_against_th e_rules.']does actually link to the GM conversations page[/url], and has a small sample of GM links in its own text for those who are too lazy to click to another page.

The FAQ was written some time ago to answer the common forum troll arguments at the time. The arguments have changed slightly since I wrote that (it's actually amusing to see much more 'it's against the spirit of the game' arguments now), but its purpose was to shut down the common anti-boxer arguments of the time.

Personally, I think the GM conversations wiki should remain as it is -- right now it's an excellent reference to BLUE-ONLY posts. It contains none of our opinions and can't be refuted as "biased" because nothing exists in that page that is written by any of us -- it's all just reference material.

I think a "multiboxing myths" page needs to be around -- but also tailored to the common misconceptions people bring with them when they start multiboxing -- such as "multiboxing is easy" or "multiboxers play on private servers" or "multiboxers are all rich from dailies" or "multibox leveling is 5x as fast"