The only change i could see them doing is to disable /follow in battlegrounds so that multi boxing is broken there for most multi boxers.
1 Like
Coming from the guy asking for extra paywalls, exclusive servers, and paid classic headstarts?
Youâve been trying to give Blizz more money because retail has cooties. LOL.
People who want Vanilla and multi box are kind of hypocrites. They want the journey, the grind, blah blah blah. But then theyâll multi box to make things easier.
5 Likes
Isnât that what people did in Vanilla to make it easier? ![:thinking:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/thinking.png?v=6" ":thinking:")
1 Like
Haha. The natural way is to take the path of least resistance. Otherwise, people would be having a fit over 1.12.
1 Like
Multiboxxing is devastating to EQ; a heavily group centric game. WoW is significantly less group focused and therefore suffers far less. Solo players are already a huge segment, so little real concern.
I highly recommend pairing a druid with a warrior. In BC, I bound lifebloom and shield block to the same key and went around training fel reavers to shattrath.
1 Like
Multiboxing wasnât devastating to EQ, in fact, in EQ currently, almost all clerics are boxed because the class is ridiculously one dimensional and boring. It required some rules tweaking when technology advanced to the point that someone could run 72 instances of EQ at once and kill anything with 72 mage pets, but they did that. True box servers (boxing allowed, but each needs its own PC) and capping the number of pets that could attack a target.
I see no contradiction whatsoever. I am willing to give slightly more money to protect server health and community overall. Blizzard is willing to accept money in exchange for damaged gameplay via multiboxing.
Seriously, what is the point of your hot take?
Many of us are strongly against 1.12 for a variety of reasons, watered down gameplay being one of the main reasons. So yeah, âpeopleâ are having a âfitâ, but blizzard doesnât seem to be on the same page. At least we have had no feedback to think they care.
1 Like
Multiboxing has always been, and will always be an exploit that only functions with heavy automation.
It takes a special kind of stupid to ignore that the multi boxer isnât moving each character individually and is pushing only one button per however many spells that get casted (typically, but not always, one per character depending on the composition)
Blizzard has always been a bunch of money grubbing [ladies of the evening] on this issue, so I unfortunately expect that to continue in Classic as well.
4 Likes
Ofc you donât.
You are willin to pay the way you feel entitled to play yet multiboxers canât?
Uh huhâŚ
1 Like
I really hope not. Every now and again some dude with no friends and 40 accounts is just controlling and and completely destroying an area and without CRZ you are just at the mercy of this idiot.
Donât allow this cancer.
3 Likes
I agree the servers and clients can handle it. I mean the community of EQ is devastated by it. And thatâs a huge part of the game.
Nothing wrong with running your own server and playing solo. But thatâs not EQ.
1 Like
Iâm not talking about the ability of servers to handle it. Iâm talking about game play. EQ is very, very group dependent, to the point that the vast majority of classes (On progression servers, at least), cannot gain any meaningful xp while solo past level 10 or so. Dropping populations, class imbalance with required classes for grouping, etc were problems that were helped by boxing, not hindered. The only problem came from people abusing the system by running dozens of accounts. Most of the problems in EQ about boxing came about as a result of Krono (tokens). Paying for 40 accounts with with tokens you earn in game is easy if youâre getting hundreds per month by solo farming raid content on progression servers and selling them, or the loot, on the grey market. Thatâs why EQ prog servers are true box. It allows someone to make the game playable solo without allowing the abuse caused by running dozens of accounts simultaneously.
Honestly, tokens cause more problems than they solve. Theyâre instituted to combat gold farmers, but in reality all they do is give the MMO a cut from the gold farmers. EQ and WoW with Krono and Tokens have effectively invented bitcoin for their fantasy worlds.
1 Like
I have always been against multi-boxing. Nothing is worse than getting melted by four elemental shaman at the same time played by the same person. I donât see it going anywhere since it has been around forever, but Iâd be supportive of their decision to remove it. I rarely see it any more, though.
2 Likes
I share your opinion. Also a reminder to others: the thread asks if there SHOULD be multiboxing. Not if there was, will be, or blizzards reasons for allowing it.
Funny, because those are some of the reasons multi-boxing SHOULD be allowed in Classicâ˘.
1 Like
See, hereâs the thing. When in the stone age they were inventing and fleshing out the classes. Each player would be limited to the class/toon they were currently playing, and the content was built with that in mind. I doubt VERY much that when doing so they intended each player to have the âplay styleâ of multiplying their power by however many subscriptions they could afford and one-button nuke their foes.
It is lame, it is unethical, it is not fair play. But yeah, it scrapes a few more pennies into blizzardvision coffers. Even private servers frown on the practice. Why? Because they do not get paid per account. People who pretend that it is something legitimate are not fooling anyone.
1 Like
Gnomes are lame. See? I can do it too.
I never understood this âargumentâ. As if, somehow, something was being stolen from someoneâŚ
Why not? Everyone can do it.
It is a multiplayer game and one should be limited to one toon at a time. Fair Play is and should be a thing when playing multiplayer games.
Really? You are going to attempt to justify it because âanyone can do itâ? Letâs see what else we can apply that toâŚ
2 Likes