Blizzard gets to set the definition of all words in english?
I’m just going to leave these here:
Blizzard ([Source])
“From a certain perspective, the strange thing about this stance is that the multiboxing player has the least advantage in a battleground. A battleground is a closed system, the teams are ideally even, the multiboxer is more prone to disruptive assaults from other players, and the numerical advantage is wholly nullified in this scenario.”
Malkorix, Blizzard Poster
This issue has been discussed to death on the World of Warcraft forums. If we change our stance regarding multi-boxing, you’ll know it.
Daxxarri – Community Manager 12/5/2012
The decision to allow multiboxing has much to do with a person’s ability to be registered to multiple accounts. If we did not allow it, you would only be able to have one World of Warcraft account, ever. That would cause a number of complications that we sometimes still see today, due to a misunderstanding of our policies, but the issue would be exacerbated greatly if we were to limit things to a single license per user.
Once the determination was made the allow a person to have multiple WoW licenses registered to a single Battle.net or even multiple licenses under the same name, how many becomes entirely irrelevant.
Two, ten or thirty, or more, the rules still apply. As long as the person registered to the account is the one in direct control of those characters, it is not against our policies to do so.
Vrakthris – Support Forum Agent 6/29/2012
Tom Chilton: [Laughs] Well, we actually are perfectly content to endorse multi-boxing to some reasonable degree. If a person wants to go out and buy a second account and power-level themselves, we’re okay with that.
Patently false. All accounts should be allowed to be played as they see fit provided that they’re playing within our policies. In cases of mulitboxing, all accounts involved are playing the same as any other account, only simultaneously.
-Belfaire, Blizzard Poster
Semantics issue #3:
Does multiboxing give a player an in-game advantage?
“Yes–and so does grouping.”
Therefore, can multiboxing be considered an exploit?
“No. We consider it be an alternative playstyle; not everyone can do it, but if a person is willing to devote the concentration and capital to such a venture–legitimately–we’re perfectly fine with it. Five multiboxed accounts can be feared and CCed just like five solo accounts.
-Belfaire, Blizzard Poster
“I think I might see your concern, so, please allow me to ask a question.
What is the objective difference between 1 player directing 5 characters to attack a single target, and the leader of a team slapping an assist train on a target and telling his other 4 teammates to attack a target with him?
A slight gain in efficiency for the single player/set of characters at an extreme cost in flexibility to deal with exterior threats compared to the team of players?”
Malkorix, Blizzard Poster
“Instead of World of Warcraft, let’s look at chess to draw a parallel.
What is the factual difference (assuming no time limits on turns) between 5 chess players versus 1 player moving across the boards to play against all 5 of his opponents and 5 players facing across the boards versus another 5? Think of each chess team as a ‘character’.
In both cases, you have 10 ‘characters’. 5 White characters and 5 Black characters, each composed of multiple pieces.
Though, to extend the analogy, the 1 player facing 5 would be forced to make the same move on each board. Not something that 5 individual players would need concern themselves with.
For better or worse, World of Warcraft isn’t quite a chess match, but I think the analogy holds.
That being the case, if player is the ultimate concern, then multi-boxers are at a permanent disadvantage. It would, after all, be ridiculous to assess chess around 5 sets of pieces all attacking 1 set of pieces regardless of how they were controlled, would it not?”
Malkorix, Blizzard Poster
“Players, as individuals matter.
Here is why characters are more important for the purposes of this discussion though.
What happens when 6 players controlling 6 characters join a battleground? 6 character slots are filled. Then 4 others are filled with 4 other players controlling 4 other characters. Why?
Because battlegrounds are filled on a character for character basis. They are a closed system that only recognizes characters, and wherein characters ideally are matched against other characters.
What happens when 5 players and 1 multiboxer join a battleground? 10 character slots are filled. The results are identical to a situation where each character is controlled by a single player. We can run over the relative merits and disadvantages of multiboxing til the bovines return to their abodes, but factually, that’s what we’re dealing with:
10 characters vs. 10 characters. The raw ability of those 10 characters to accomplish their goal (winning the battleground) is identical within reasonable assessment of individual class abilities, gear and skill.”
Malkorix, Blizzard Poster
“Here’s the thing though. That multiboxer queues, and waits, just as a 5-man arena team would (to use an example). They take up the same queue time, and the same number of slots on the opposing team. There is nothing to differentiate them from one of the very common groups of ‘pre-made’ players, aside from slightly more effective focus fire, and less strategic flexibility in dealing with threats, much greater vulnerability to crowd control and that being ‘split’ by resurrection is devastating.
The less organized battle ground participants you describe will typically have a much harder time facing that arena team or pre-made than they would a multi-boxer.
Aside from which, occasionally running up against more organized opposition is simply a fact of the battlegrounds. Just as is facing more skilled or more well equipped foes. Factually, while we do our best to structure the queuing system such that players will meet equivalent opponents, there are limitations on that system if we still want to keep the queues at a reasonable length. As a result, sometimes a team will run up against a ‘superior’ opponent (please note the quotes), and have a greater challenge, whether in the form of a pre-made group, multi-boxer, or merely highly skilled or knowledgeable opponents.
Simply because an opponent is ‘superior’ does not mean that a ‘pug’ team isn’t able to adapt and overcome. Having a pre-made group or a multi-boxer doesn’t even necessarily mean that a given battleground team truly is superior. There are a great many variables to take into account.”
Malkorix, Blizzard Poster
“I will give you a purely anecdotal example that I have experienced personally, (perhaps because I love facing multi-boxers).
I happen to play a rogue – a class that excels at sowing confusion and disrupting opposing teams. I was facing a team in Warsong Gulch, half of which was composed of a multi-boxer controlling five characters. I encountered the Warlocks individually, and proceeded to sap them to break up his formation. This forced him to maneuver around in an effort to retain cohesion – something a normal player would never have to do.
I continually would delay and harass him in this fashion. I would often manage to kill one of his characters by sapping one of his group, cheap shotting one, gouging one, then blinding another. Even if I failed to land a kill, his characters were so scattered and disorganized by my efforts and the occasional fear, sheep or other CC thrown by a teammate, that fully half of their team was disabled for most of the battle. We won that match very swiftly.
I am not exaggerating when I say that this player would leave battlegrounds when they saw my name on the opposing team list, or after our first encounter in the field.
A unique situation? Perhaps, perhaps not. Knowing how to fight a multi-boxer, and having the tools do so, means that one character can effectively cripple 5 or more. After all, one mind is simply not as efficient at running those five characters once cohesion is lost, or if 2 of his group have been slain, leaving him with characters scattered across the field. Of note, this is not much different from learning how to effectively fight a particular character class or spec. Knowledge is power.
All of the above is irrelevant though. Ultimately, this isn’t about what one player can do vs. another (or even 5 others). This is about the number of characters in play. Five characters can defeat 5 characters. 5 player run characters actually have a very substantial advantage over a multi-boxer in most cases. That a single player is controlling them offers limited advantages compared to the disadvantages it can present.
Since battlegrounds are a sealed environment, it is always a question of x players versus x players. How many actual players are behind those characters becomes a non-issue.
Essentially it balances out so well in the end that it functionally isn’t much of an advantage at all, and merely becomes a play style choice. As always, we’ll continue to monitor multi-boxing and other in-game behaviors.
If this practice should ever present a truly exploitative influence you can be sure that we’ll make appropriate policy modifications in response.”
Malkorix, Blizzard Poster
“Think of a single key-press as a lever. You pull the lever, and something happens.
Think of multi-boxing as simply attaching 5 levers to a single handle. You’re still only pulling one lever, it just affects more than one something.
Now, think of automation as a lever attached to a set of gears and pulleys. You pull the lever, and a whole slew of bits and bobs start working, gears whirring, pulleys spinning. You might pull a lever, but it sets a process in motion that would be impossible with an ordinary pull of the lever if those gears and pulleys were not in place. Automation can apply to a single character just as much as it could with multiple characters.
The point is that the ‘something’ that occurs spools out without direct human involvement aside from the initial pull of the lever. That is automation. Even if it’s only a single extra step.
In multi-boxing, every action taken by those characters has its source in a human command. Each individual action. Thus, it is not automation.”
Malkorix, Blizzard Poster
“We have drawn a line. You’re talking about automated behavior. Multiboxing is not automated. There is no automation. There is no great advantage, there is no illicit behavior, there is no overwhelming benefit, there is no automation.”
Belfaire, Blizzard Poster
“Allow me to set your argument to rest. This:
Add in a 3rd party program. You press ONE button and all 5 screens react. How exactly is that fair/legit? It’s not. The ability to control 5 computers at once with 1 single keyboard and 1 single press of a button is automation. The ability to make your characters cast their individual spells and skills at once by pressing 1 button is automation.
Is not automation by our standards. This is why multi-boxing is just fine.
The moment that single keypress initiates a string of actions not normally possible via our base macro system for an individual character, then that is a different matter. It is also a separate offense.
Multi-boxing, currently, is not a violation of our policies.
That is all.”
Malkatorix, Blizzard Poster
1 Like
No it isn’t. My discussion of other software was relevant in establishing that one key press equating to one action on multiple clients would be considered multiple actions for most people and software companies. Blizzard’s ruling (and coding) is contrary to how software typically operates.
As I stated earlier, I don’t care about multi-boxing either way. I only care about clarity and consistency. The EULA implying “per client” when plain usage would lead the reader to infer a different meaning is problematic.
1 Like
Yes. That is my implication. The concept that I would be referring to just their opinion on the topic of 'boxing in their game is a huge leap in logic. Go big or go home as they say. Activision is buying Oxford tomorrow! >.<
Nope.
So kow that your argument has fallen flat again… what’s the next goal post?
Approved programs are ok?
3 Likes
I need more <3s to give! You’ve saved me from digging through my own files on the matter. 
1 Like
Yeah at the end of the day they can decide what behavior is acceptable and what isn’t
Some addons have been removed over the years for falling into one or more of these categories. Especially in terms of automation obviously some is not as harmful as others. Like TSM for instance.
That’s all well and good. But a million Blizzard employees statements to the contrary do not change the words in the EULA that you are forced to accept…
Completely 100% irrelevant.
They really didn’t kill it all that quickly.
They also specifically stated that they killed it because they didn’t like what it was doing, not because it was against the rules. Which is why they didn’t ban anyone for having used it.
The rules didn’t prevent it --> They changed the rules --> No one gets banned.
1 Like
Blizzard says multi boxing not illegal end of story
/drops mic and walks away
1 Like
You’re entirely entitled to the right to only care about Blizzard’s take. 
1 Like
How did it fall flat? If the addon violated the eula why were there no bans? Addons are expressly allowed provided they follow the rules set forth.
Thank you very kindly for posting that. Are those the quotes from the source someone else linked to earlier?
Capitalism is at work.
Have any proof of that assumption?
Basically you are upset people multibox and blizz has said an official response to this many many times. Get over it, you aren’t really impacted majorly by it.
Completely, 100% not an argument.
You made no argument whatsoever for why it is irrelevant.
Blizzard using legalese that relies on a different meaning of the words than is commonly accepted is relevant. Unless you have something to dispute that statement, you lose this one.
1 Like
They are, Draconem. They are the meat of that link’s content.
1 Like
It didn’t… and they still axed it because they didn’t like what it was doing. So from that we can assume that if Blizzard didn’t like what is happening, they would do something.
Combine that basic logic with…
And you are left with what everyone has been telling you… but you refuse to accept.
3 Likes
Blizzard also wrote the following:
Cheating: Create, use, offer, promote, advertise, make available and/or distribute the following or assist therein:
- any code and/or software, not expressly authorized by Blizzard, that can be used in connection with the Platform and/or any component or feature thereof which changes and/or facilitates the gameplay or other functionality;
Which blizzard employee should you believe? The ones doing the interviews, or the lawyer writing the eula?
When those words are part of their own rules, yes.
In legal cases the intent behind wording trumps the dictionary definition of that wording.
This becomes further enshrined for any particular area of litigation by the importance of precedent, and is cemented by case law.
So it’s pointless to ague that you were driving on the right of the white line because there was a queue of Norwegians on your left. Your definition of the terms is irrelevant when intent, precedent and case law all agree on what “white line” actually means in that case.