is five boxing pointless atm?

[ebony]

hey so am not having fun atm am stuck in av-ioc not capping many conquest (unless its there time) for the fat loot. and doing lots and lot off dayey quests but i just worked out what am i going to do with all my VP points. as am more into pvp. leveled up 17 level 90's changed from horde to ally to horde to ally. whatever to try and find fun.


most off the bg's are ten men all being in the same place can work and can not work sometimes. (blizzard likes ten man) so i feel more will come. 5v5 arena is a full joke atm.

i feel three boxing the game will open more. (was thinking four but seems pointless)

here some the reasons why.

1) less money to spend on wow.
2) taking five into LFR seems to get a lot off QQ. (not as bad now the loot is random.) taking in three hunters two times not one comment!
3) ten man bg's i win 50% more games with three then five. (from testing might just be luck)
4) guild am in a friends guild now they seem to think its fun with me and i always seem to take 2 chars or 3 chars in the other stuff they do.
5) less lag on my pc.
6) scenarios (thanks to my pony friend)

anyone think of anything else why three boxing in wow will be better then five boxing or any reasons why i you think losing 2 chars will make it worse.

think three casters will work better then five.

[EaTCarbS]

You forgot scenarios. I have honestly been tossing this idea around in my head as well.

[ebony]

You forgot scenarios. I have honestly been tossing this idea around in my head as well.

oh ya i how could i forget them.......

but i been playing hunters most of the day x3 and having a lot of fun. bg's just seem more better with 3 then 5

[Chivalrous]

I feel like 5 boxing is worth it but I only pve. My comp is mixed and the names are unique and in LFR nobody has ever said anything. I don't think anyone notices. Doing my dailies and such I get noticed, however. The gold from dungeons is good. Extra money from running old raids, plus they're easier (on most bosses.)

but that's just me, I think this is a question you have to decide the answer for yourself on.

[heyaz]

4-5 box melee works pretty well in 10-15 man BGs for a lot of us but it depends on your comp, gear, competency level, and the group you get. I never got casters/ranged to work reliably in small battlegrounds, certainly not this expansion (elemental shaman), and even back in Wrath when they were very strong, it was hit or miss. Wasn't until I did an all melee group that there was a chance.

But given your goals I think you can easily accomplish them 3 boxing, save the money and get better performance on your machine. You can do scenarios for your VP, do LFR and BGs under the radar, and have less to deal with.

And no, 4, 5, and even 10 boxing is not pointless. Depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

[Fat Tire]

hey so am not having fun atm am stuck in av-ioc not capping many conquest (unless its there time) for the fat loot. and doing lots and lot off dayey quests but i just worked out what am i going to do with all my VP points. as am more into pvp. leveled up 17 level 90's changed from horde to ally to horde to ally. whatever to try and find fun.


most off the bg's are ten men all being in the same place can work and can not work sometimes. (blizzard likes ten man) so i feel more will come. 5v5 arena is a full joke atm.

i feel three boxing the game will open more. (was thinking four but seems pointless)

here some the reasons why.

1) less money to spend on wow.
2) taking five into LFR seems to get a lot off QQ. (not as bad now the loot is random.) taking in three hunters two times not one comment!
3) ten man bg's i win 50% more games with three then five. (from testing might just be luck)
4) guild am in a friends guild now they seem to think its fun with me and i always seem to take 2 chars or 3 chars in the other stuff they do.
5) less lag on my pc.
6) scenarios (thanks to my pony friend)

anyone think of anything else why three boxing in wow will be better then five boxing or any reasons why i you think losing 2 chars will make it worse.

think three casters will work better then five.

Yes.

Been saying this for 2 years(?) now.

Everything you said in the op is true.

5v5 is dead - need top 10 just for challenger since there are so few teams. Heroics - dead they are not needed at all gear progression wise since scenarios/lfr. Random bgs are all objective based games. When you get killed, you rez or kill player and they rez ad nauseum.

There will be people who say 5 is more powerful than 3(+2) in random bgs, but I disagree. If just killing in randoms while just mashing your aoe abilities was the only metric then I could see the value, but then you see why mass boxing in av/ioc is popular.

Only argument I could see is the one about not having to deal with people in heroics/10mans which is fair point.

[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.