this is my setup for this and eve. works well for dual box. MOre clients you need to be more agile with window switch to make them active. I could do this better 10 years ago. Now 2 is enough.
1 Like
I am not a rules lawyer (or any kind of lawyer), but I think the question really comes down to âis my 1 button press giving commands to more than 1 characterâ. Spin it however you want, use hardware emulation, software emulation, pray to a cosmic force to manipulate time and space to where your button press affects 2 realities at onceâŚit really doesnât matter. If you want 5 characters to do something, you better be somehow manually activating each instance and pressing the respective button for each one. No other fancy tricks or trying to twist logic around to play gotcha with the devs.
Spirit of the rules vs rules as writtenâŚgo with the spirit interpretation.
Per the above, I think the short answer is âNoâ. Anything that mirrors the commands is now against the rules.
I have 4 accounts, and have done this. My main character runs on my PC, and the other three on a laptop. The laptop gets a bit hot, though. The reason I even started the 4th account is, I ran ICC with three characters (Mage, Druid, Shaman), and the amount of plate that dropped was disgusting. It outdropped all other armor types for that session combined. (also, I had nearly capped the character limits on the original three, and needed room for allied races. lol)
This doesnât really work, as you have families playing from the same IP, often paying with the same card. You would end up discouraging families from playing together.
There will be reports as usual. Once determined those accounts are multiboxing accounts the flagging would kick in and apply the penalties.
Families playing from the same account would be unaffected as itâs unlikely they would be reported for multiboxing. If say someone decides to play them all at once periodically then they should be flagged as multiboxing anyway.
And it should work off of concurrency. Meaning if I normally have 5 accounts online, those five would be hit with the BoA penalty so long as more than say 2 of them are online.
It could be more intricate. For example, if the characters from that IP are all doing very similar activities, rather than just questing, dungeons, whatever. One of the key factors would be when they have the same professions across all of the characters, seeing that they are mostly the same class/spec, or even just moving in the same exact direction 90% of the time. If there were software to track these algorithms, I think they could catch the bots, input mirroring, and mass gatherers, and might not even need the IP.
Well the way it works today is fine. If Iâm 5 boxing and players suspect Iâm multiboxing they can report it. The GM can see that all 5 are on the same battle net account. Flag them at that point as multiboxing accounts and let the system start automatically applying the penalties.
It doesnât need an IP check or if the characters have specific professions. The only thing it needs is reporting and GM investigation to see what the nature of the multiboxing is.
If itâs found for example 5 characters are multiboxed from multiple battle net accounts the characters should be suspended and an action should be given to merge the accounts to one battle net account. Once done they should be unlocked.
This way everyone who wants to MB is funneled into the system and the appropriate penalties are applied.
Yeah, mine are all under the same bnet as well.
I multibox on a daily basis ever since they implemented the changes and have never once been banned or questioned by Blizzard. As long as you are doing it manually, they canât do anything about it.
Iâm sure there are people that report me, but I do everything manually, never going to stop multiboxing, way too easy to do even manually.
3 Likes
The problem with the ruling as it stands is it destroyed the M+ MB community.
Key replication was fine for 15 years. The only reason this stupid ruling was added was to deal with 2x4 farmers and miners. You eliminate both of those problems with the solution I provided.
ISBoxer should be allowed again as well. If youâre punishing concurrency which makes far more sense then key replication should be fine again.
2 Likes
My advice is donât do it. My husband was punished even though he didnât use any third party software or hardware to streamline mb.
1 Like
bold to admit to submitting false reports right here on the official forums
5 Likes
They can verify it, or canât.
by that logic i should call the local PD and report a murder at every house in the city. since it costs no resources to verify my reports and thereâs a chance they might actually uncover a crime, itâs justified!
4 Likes
Good thing this is a game with verifiable documentation for nearly everything and not an in real life murder case.
you forgot to address the part where youâre taking up finite resources that could be used to address real problems
3 Likes
You forgot the part where I said they can or can NOT verify it.
who verifies it? how long does it take them to confirm or reject that report?
unless you think the answers are ânobodyâ and â0 secondsâ youâre missing the point
3 Likes
Why, why at 9 AM. Leave me alone.
In other words: â$2.2B annual revenue company loses âtens of thousands of dollarsâ implementing policy well received by fanbase.â
1 Like
Death by a 1000 cuts. Enjoy those P2W mechanics in your new, wholly mudwhimped game.
2 Likes