Rumours of Click To Move being removed.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

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.

[MadMilitia]

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.

[ebony]

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.

[MadMilitia]

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.

[ebony]

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

[MadMilitia]

They don't want to support us this is clear and has been for years.

Based on what exactly?