I assume somewhere in the connection process Blizz does or can track our IP address.
If so, why not have it so mineral/herb nodes can only be hit once per IP address?
This still allows nodes to be multi-use for regular players, and prevents boxers from having an undue advantage.
They don’t see mine because I use a VPN.
My wife and kid play the game and live in my house.
Thanks for caring
Brought to you by NordVPN!
Then MAC address.
See how easy that was?
Blizzard supports multiboxing.
Multiple characters on separate accounts gathering from the same node is not an exploit. They last for like 20 seconds after being gathered by anyone, or something like that.
No need for this arbitrary limitation that would hurt the experience of households with multiple players on separate accounts.
I do support banning multiboxxing. But not for this reason, and I don’t think we need stopgap solutions like this in the meantime.
To them they don’t believe multiboxing to be cheating, despite it needing a 3rd party program to imitate keypresses across multiple clients. Might be because of their subscription model, but every other game I’ve played would consider this botting because while they are playing one client, the other x amount of clients are being controlled by the program that duplicates their inputs and sends it to each one of those clients. Basically, they wouldn’t do what you’re suggesting because they don’t view these players as cheating or gaining an unfair advantage.
I don’t think that actually fixes the problem they’re having.
Actually I muse ExpressVPN it works better for things like Hulu and Netflix.
Yeah the only flaw in the idea is:
1> The VPN idea is weak because MOST people aren’t going to go to that trouble just to multi-tap nodes…
2> … except of that small percentage, the people that would do it… are the people that would multi-tap nodes.
So I admit that issue.
One, Blizzard having access to your IP address doesn’t necessarily mean WoW has access to your IP address, at least in a way that could be tied to using nodes.
Two, IP addresses aren’t the precision tools people believe them to be. People can have the same IP address (sharing an internet connection or using the same VPN) and they’re pretty easily changed by people actually looking to exploit.
They track way more indentifiers than IP address, which is why arena pilots on peoples own accounts dont happen anymore. More than just MAC addresses too.
Whether theyd use them for something like that is a different story.
I would argue that almost all players going out of their way to multibox and multi tap nodes would be willing to throw on a free or cheap VPN to continue doing it if that’s all it took.
It’s not just that “of the people who would do it, most would be multi-tappers”, it’s that “almost all multi-tappers would be doing it”.
Remember that they’re already paying for multiple accounts and running 3rd party software to multibox. Throwing a VPN on top doesn’t do much.
I still contend that the reason they don’t OFFICIALL ban it… is they don’t have the tools to PROVE it.
I mean, if each “bot” is being used by a keypress… how do you PROVE that?
Keeping in mind that most people seem to think “I sent him a message and he never responded!” is how 90% of people think they proved someone was botting.
That’s not proof.
REAL PROOF… I think is what’s lacking on Blizzard’s end and that’s truly why they let it go. Because you can’t have the money argument both ways: if boxxing isn’t enough to “matter”, then losing them isn’t enough to matter, either.
What’s $10,000 when you’re making $500 MILLION a month? It’s a rounding error. I don’t believe it’s the money, it’s solely because they can’t PROVE it.
Can’t you spoof MAC anyway
they allow it.
they don’t support it.
those are quite different things.
IP address ?
They can hardware ban your computer. All that Blizzard software running on there isn’t just for show.
afaik, the only way to do that would be through MAC address. Everything else is dynamic is various capacities.
I think this is a fantastic idea, I don’t know how easily something like this could be implemented though.
Fair enough, but that distinction doesn’t really change the statement in this case.