Dear Blizzard,
in addition to the #nochanges argument (that multiboxing and using follow in BGs was quite the thing back in vanilla) I’d like to make the following proposal; to alleviate the disruption, botting / afk farming concerns which I believed cause the removal of /follow in BG back in 2013:
- Allow /follow only to someone in your party (at the time of queuing)
- Allow /follow only to party members that are in the same BNET umbrella account (no power leveling honor by sellers, no afk leeching)
- Limit the maximum multiboxing size to something that doesn’t disrupt the BG balance (either direction): for instance
- Max 5 in AV
- Max 4 in AB
- Max 3 in WSG
And yes I brace for multiboxing haters responding to this, but I think the above would be fantastic (and avoid abuses)
3 Likes
You can’t really “limit” multiboxing though, how are they supposed to know it’s a multiboxed account?
And man who actually multiboxes bgs? you’re at such a disadvantage.
How about this compromise:
Open a new realm and make it the multiboxer realm, where only multiboxers play and make it a rule that multiboxing would not be allowed outside of that realm.
3 Likes
I’d love to have follow back in battlegrounds.
how about stop spamming the forums with nonsense
2 Likes
It is nonsense to suggest that people wanting that “playstyle” be paired of against the same playstyle? How is that nonsense? I would think that multiboxers would welcome the opportunity to be pitted against one another. There is no advantage they would be missing out on by not fighting non multiboxers, right?
2 Likes
its nonsense to suggest you think you can somehow distinguish or control multiboxing behavoir
1 Like
“I want to afk in battlegrounds.”
3 Likes
There used to be a problem with auto followers, abusing the fact that following players from the GY would lead them to combat and unflag them of AFK status. Blizzard’s stance on multiboxers is that they just let them be. They don’t target them or give them support. They probably won’t ever go out of their way to fix a multiboxers issue that resulted from fixing the AFK issue, even if there were a reasonable solution.
Etna,
I disagree with adding the following command back into Battlegrounds.
- In Battlegrounds, there are a limited number of slots per side. The area is confined. There are objectives that people are trying to achieve. Making it easy for “large” groups of “boxers” that require “follow” to operate, interferes with “Battlegrounds”. This statement also applies to multiple smaller boxer groups.
- I disagree of keeping boxers from trying or playing in “Battlegrounds”. If a boxer feels that they can navigate and operate and coordinate multiple toons (without follow); then, I think that they may be skilled enough to “flow” into the play.
Hey now, it may someones “preferred style of gameplay”.
2 Likes
I like that you suggested an alternative instead of the normal “ban” boxers. However, it is almost equivalent since it exiles “boxers”: Segregation but Equality Senselessness
Use click to move and interact with target? Not sure if that works with friendly players. Maybe use bandage on your lead to initiate click to move. Surely there is a work around, I’ve seen people pvping as multiboxers so there is obviously a way to manage.
Multiboxxers can suffer all day long as far as i’m concerned. Make it worse for them IMO.
2 Likes
A single player playing multiple characters vie keycloning 3rd party mechanics is not “equal” to a single player playing one.
Sounds like you are afraid to actually be pit against the same “playstyle”. Why is that?
1 Like
Why do we want to make it easier to multibox in bgs?
1 Like
Off topic reply:
Both of us are active posters; especially, on the multi-boxing topics. There is no reason into rehashing everything said on those posts.
To summarize those posts: We disagree with each other’s point of view.
Can we not degrade this “follow” command topic into a general “boxing” topic?