is five boxing pointless atm?

[Owltoid]

Five boxing is more viable today than it was pre expansion if for no other reason than challenge modes. I've argued a few times the taking five into a BG is too much (excluding the 40 mans where it doesn't matter). However, 4 seems to be a good balance and I use the fifth to queue dodge. Through queue dodging I can very regularly get AV or IOC which helps me cap conquest for the week (still takes a while but very doable). Once you have gear 4 can truly contribute to all BGs, even 10 mans. At the moment I feel that if we lose a BG it's not necessarily my fault - once I get PvP weapons I know it won't be my fault.

If PvE is your thing than 5 boxing is better than 3 or 4. If PvP is your thing like me, then I still like having the fifth account, though I only BG with four. 3 boxing loses a lot of advantages that come with multiboxing while still suffering from the same disadvantages. With that said, 3 boxing with best gear in PvP will probably still wreak havoc.

[Fat Tire]

Five boxing is more viable today than it was pre expansion if for no other reason than challenge modes.

3 boxing loses a lot of advantages that come with multiboxing while still suffering from the same disadvantages.

I couldn't disagree more. I would be curious on what advantages I lose with only boxing 3 compared to 4 or 5. Given that the other +1 or +2 are not bots.

Top challenge mode rewards are only cosmetic in nature.

[Owltoid]

I couldn't disagree more. I would be curious on what advantages I lose with only boxing 3 compared to 4 or 5. Given that the other +1 or +2 are not bots.

Top challenge mode rewards are only cosmetic in nature.

With 4-5 toons you have significant burst. With 3 toons that advantage is less while you still have the issue of controlling multiple toons. If your argument is that a 3 boxer plus two solo players is better than a competent 5 boxer, then I'm indifferent. If you think 4 random solo players (not bots) are better than a competent 4 boxer then I disagree. If you're arguing that a three boxer is better than three solo players then I hugely disagree. In other words, 4 toons give you enough focused power to outweigh the many disadvantages of boxing. Three boxing doesn't give you enough and often just being there is a harm to the BG - they would have been better off with three solo players.

With all that said, if one of your three toons is a healer then I switch my stance. A three boxer that has 2 dps and 1 healer may be more helpful than three random players, but that's mostly because the odds are fairly low that one of those random players would be a healer.

Its really hard to make a non rambling argument on an iPhone - sorry

[Fat Tire]

With 4-5 toons you have significant burst. With 3 toons that advantage is less while you still have the issue of controlling multiple toons. If your argument is that a 3 boxer plus two solo players is better than a competent 5 boxer, then I'm indifferent. If you think 4 random solo players (not bots) are better than a competent 4 boxer then I disagree. If you're arguing that a three boxer is better than three solo players then I hugely disagree. In other words, 4 toons give you enough focused power to outweigh the many disadvantages of boxing. Three boxing doesn't give you enough and often just being there is a harm to the BG - they would have been better off with three solo players.

With all that said, if one of your three toons is a healer then I switch my stance. A three boxer that has 2 dps and 1 healer may be more helpful than three random players, but that's mostly because the odds are fairly low that one of those random players would be a healer.

Its really hard to make a non rambling argument on an iPhone - sorry

I could burst one player down with 3 just as easily as 4-5, so I fail to see the point of using extra accounts as overkill. However, most decent players(non random) will use their defensive's or cc anyways to negate the burst.

If you think 4 random solo players (not bots) are better than a competent 4 boxer then I disagree.

Seriously? I think you need to have variables in that statement. What if there 4 solo glad pvpers? There are too many variables in random bgs to determine if having 4-5 is better than 3. No one will convince me otherwise. Not really sure why anyone would argue about if 4-5 is better than 3 in random bgs, when most players look at randoms as part of the journey and not end game.

I was stating that anyone can achieve everything a 4-5 man can do with only 3, including in both pvp and pve and I stated some of the perks associated with only playing three.

[heyaz]

I could burst one player down with 3 just as easily as 4-5, so I fail to see the point of using extra accounts as overkill. However, most decent players will use their defensive's or cc anyways to negate the burst.

What class are you running where you can burst down a player with 3 just as easily as 4-5? And what about when they use defensive CC's or have a healer?

I run 5x DK and there are people who still take 3-4 globals to kill. When I go up against 5 or more enemies I definitely need that extra burst to quickly eliminate one or more of them or to land a kill despite healing, if killing a healer isn't an immediate option. The other problem is losing a DPS which against as few as 2 other competent dps is often inevitable, a lot of fights I finish off with only 3 DKs left or have to battle rez one or more of them. If you only have 3 dps and one drops in a few seconds due to massive burst, what then? 2 dps is going to kill anything?

[Fat Tire]

What class are you running where you can burst down a player with 3 just as easily as 4-5? And what about when they use defensive CC's or have a healer?

I play alot of classes in different combos, its in my profile. If you are referring to randoms then I would say it doesnt matter, randoms are an objective oriented game minus AV/ioc it seems. For example, I would take a fresh lvl 90 in green that guards the node opposed to a fully geared 10x r1 glad who fights on the road.

Then play three

Thanks I have been playing just 3 for over a year now.

[Lyonheart]

I couldn't disagree more. I would be curious on what advantages I lose with only boxing 3 compared to 4 or 5. Given that the other +1 or +2 are not bots.

Top challenge mode rewards are only cosmetic in nature.

Challenge modes give the most valor as well. IF at some point, farming valor is something a person needs.. there is no faster way to get it then CMs.. IF you can get at least silver.. but even bronze is better than heroics valor.

Remember.. Valor can upgrade any epic you have 2 times.. so I think its always going to be valuable..even if you raid.

[ebony]

Five boxing is more viable today than it was pre expansion if for no other reason than challenge modes. I've argued a few times the taking five into a BG is too much (excluding the 40 mans where it doesn't matter). However, 4 seems to be a good balance and I use the fifth to queue dodge. Through queue dodging I can very regularly get AV or IOC which helps me cap conquest for the week (still takes a while but very doable). Once you have gear 4 can truly contribute to all BGs, even 10 mans. At the moment I feel that if we lose a BG it's not necessarily my fault - once I get PvP weapons I know it won't be my fault.

If PvE is your thing than 5 boxing is better than 3 or 4. If PvP is your thing like me, then I still like having the fifth account, though I only BG with four. 3 boxing loses a lot of advantages that come with multiboxing while still suffering from the same disadvantages. With that said, 3 boxing with best gear in PvP will probably still wreak havoc.

i can not see doing challenge modes i can not really see doing HC's to be fair. the blue gear u get from hc you can get with day quests/3 man dungons.

to do a challenge mode you going to need a mixed or a good group anyway and to be fair my friends list is kinda strong (would i like to do them? hell ya! but i can not do hc's to well) and it would not be hard to find a healer/tank for it. i was thinking about a 4/5th but from my playing today am doing very strong in every game i play even not winning theres not many games i fail on.

as for 4 boxing i don't see the point i feel ill lose out on to much with that extra one.

saying that the only games am failing on is ofc when the other side is a pemade and even then my deathkights in cata used to fail. if there in good gear. and working as a group better. i win or i lose bad with 3.

and to be fair i got 2 places i can bring friends with me. But been in all kinda bg's today and to be fair not much QQ from the other side. won 8/2 games saying with five i was losing 8/2 (anything form av-wsg) i can still about burst down a target.

i work so i don't have a killer lot off time to raid/dungeons (a 2nd mixed group) and still doing them all and pvp its just to much and this cloud be why am stating to hate wow. i do miss av games where five chars would be stronger then only 3 but theres only two bg's in the hole game like this. saying that i just find all my five chars get locked down anyway. (but now we can not que at the same time to play with ten or other pemades to nuke players has ended)


thanks for the stuff i did miss on though.

[Fat Tire]

thanks for the stuff i did miss on though.

Saving that 30 bucks a month from not needing two extra accounts means that your really only paying for one account now.

Also, now that you see that boxing 3 characters works just as well in randoms, you can even do 2v2 and 3v3 to your hearts content or grab a healer for 2+1 for conquest points. Same as 4+1 but constant games and can be easier, imo (I have alot of practice) ymmv.