wow Changes to Multiboxing in Battle for Azeroth

[Stan 5,240]

The /follow command will not work in combat with War Mode enabled in Battle for Azeroth.

Simply put, if a multiboxer enables War Mode and enters combat, they won't be able to follow you with the /follow macro. The change somewhat cripples the ability of multiboxers to chase players and bring them down in World PvP.

Datamined Global Strings

• ERR_INVALID_FOLLOW_PVP_COMBAT - You can't use follow while engaged in PVP combat.
• ERR_INVALID_FOLLOW_TARGET_PVP_COMBAT - You can't follow a player who is engaged in PVP combat.

What's Multiboxing?

Multiboxing is a term used to denote one user playing multiple accounts simultaneously, with the help of software, macros, and various scripts. Blizzard's stance on multiboxing is pretty clear. They are perfectly fine with that, so long as the player is in direct control of all characters, they consider multiboxing to be an alternative playstyle.

What's your stance on multiboxing? Has a multiboxer ever ruined your gameplay experience or are you a multiboxer yourself? Let us know in the comments!

Finally, here are some blue posts dealing with the subject of multiboxing.

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

(Source)

[tkioz 229]

Well that will put a stop to that one 'person' on my server with 12 Blood DKs that likes to hang out at the PvP WQs... Lots of fun being blood drained by 12 characters at once, really likely to survive it.

[z3rocool 1]

 " They are perfectly fine with that, so long as the player is in direct control of all characters"

 

If this is the case why did Combat Rotations like Soapbox get banned? You still had to drive/have direct control of your character. 

[Stan 5,240]

7 minutes ago, z3rocool said:

 " They are perfectly fine with that, so long as the player is in direct control of all characters"

 

If this is the case why did Combat Rotations like Soapbox get banned? You still had to drive/have direct control of your character. 

Because /as the name implies/ it's an automated bot. Broadcasting keys pressed in real time to all accounts isn't that sort of automation. With a combat rotations bot, you don't have to do anything, whereas multiboxing software like ISBoxer only allows you to issue commands to all accounts.

[z3rocool 1]

5 minutes ago, Stan said:

Because /as the name implies/ it's an automated bot. Broadcasting keys you press to other account isn't that sort of automation.

No, it was an automated rotation, not a bot, a bot simply did tasks while you were AFK which is not player controlled, a combat rotation just did rotations while you drive the character and do all other tasks manually, whats the difference from a person that multi boxes and spams one key?

Honor Buddy was a full out bot

Soapbox was a Combat rotation that automated spellcasting

Multi-box automates other characters while you semi control one of them

GSE Macros allow spamming of spells through macros which is also a semi-form of automation




very different things

Edited July 8, 2018 by z3rocool

[Stan 5,240]

19 minutes ago, z3rocool said:

No, it was an automated rotation, not a bot, a bot simply did tasks while you were AFK which is not player controlled, a combat rotation just did rotations while you drive the character and do all other tasks manually, whats the difference from a person that multi boxes and spams one key?

Honor Buddy was a bot

Soapbox was a Combat rotation

two very different things

You need to adopt a more holistic approach to botting. At the end of the day, it does not matter whether you use a bot that allows you to go fully AFK, or the semi-afk combat rotation that automatically casts your rotation while you still need to move. It's all third-party software that gives unfair advantage, that's why both got cracked down.

Multiboxing is different, profiles for combat rotation bots are programmed to maximize your output even if you suck, whereas multiboxing software is just there to duplicate keystrokes and most of the functionality comes down to in-game macros. As simple as that.

[z3rocool 1]

8 minutes ago, Stan said:

You need to adopt a more holistic approach to botting. At the end of the day, it does not matter whether you use a bot that allows you go fully AFK, or combat rotation that automatically casts your rotation while you still need to move. It's all third-party software that gives unfair advantage, that's why it got targeted.

 

You think Multi-boxing with a 3rd party software doesn't give you advantages when farming or completing tasks? 

Also, I really don't think Soapbox gave an unfair advantage. Player made choices when it comes to rotations are more optimal since all combat is situational something a program that Soapbox couldn't predict. I think programs like that helped people with disabilities play the game, not everyone could be a 19-year rockstar with catlike reflexes and disability-free, does that mean we should shun those people? 

Edited July 8, 2018 by z3rocool

[Stan 5,240]

27 minutes ago, z3rocool said:

You think Multi-boxing with a 3rd party software doesn't give you advantages when farming or completing tasks? 
Also, I really don't think Soapbox gave an unfair advantage and player made choices when it comes to rotations are more optimal since all combat is situational. I think programs like that helped people with disabilities play the game, not everyone could be a 19-year rockstar with catlike reflexes and disability-free, does that mean we should shun those people? 

I can't really think of any significant advantages to multiboxing software in PvE off the top of my head. Sure, you can run your own 5-man dungeons, but how does it differ from being in a regular group? The only advantage you get is in World PvP and that will be a thing of the past in BfA. As with your second question /not really sure if you're trolling, but/ let's apply the same logic globally and leave out players with disabilities. Herb gathering and mining is tedious and frustrating and bots in general help you spend more time with your family? ? So the use of third-party software that automatizes gameplay is justified and you get the best of both worlds?...not.

[z3rocool 1]

13 minutes ago, Stan said:

I can't really think of any advantages to multiboxing software in PvE off the top of my head. Sure, you can run your own 5-man dungeons, but how does it differ from being in a regular group? The only advantage you get is in World PvP and that will be a thing of the past in BfA. As with your second question /not really sure if you're trolling, but/ let's apply the same logic globally and leave out players with disabilities. Herb gathering and mining is tedious and frustrating and bots help you spend more time with your family? ? So the use of third-party software that automatizes gameplay is justified?...not.

The whole bases of WOW are built on 3rd party tools, add-ons, and software to make gameplayer easier and more enjoyable for players... The game is 15 years old and is not destroyed by someone using an automated combat rotation,  Multi-box or Macros. There are different degrees of automation out there it's just a matter of what Blizzard calls the gray area today, who knows what they plan to call it tomorrow. 

I honestly care less about the old Honorbuddy bot, automated rotations, multi-boxing or Macros, those people enjoyed the game the way they liked it and it didn't affect my gameplay any. In fact, I have not seen any change in pace in the game since they have done away with HonorBuddy and Automated Combat Rotations last year. The balance is exactly the same in game and economically in game.  

Edited July 8, 2018 by z3rocool

[Jabberie 2]

@z3rocool soapbox made decisions for you based on it's surroundings/conditions, multiboxing software/macros do not. You can set up very elaborate rotations but they are still stupid. 

[z3rocool 1]

17 minutes ago, Stan said:

 As with your second question /not really sure if you're trolling, but/ let's apply the same logic globally and leave out players with disabilities.

 

It wasn't really a question it was a statement. I could literally out PVP any automated combat rotation simply because I know the automated rotation could never predict my manual rotation towards it, the only thing it could do was counter me with CC instantly, but it could never outplay me. This may not be the case for everyone but this game is not solely based on PVP, its majority PVE based. They could have simply just banned any type of 3rd party software in PVP no matter what it was, should it be Multi-Boxing, Macros, and/or Combat Rotations giving a totally even playing field for the already poor PVP experience. 

[z3rocool 1]

7 minutes ago, Jabberie said:

@z3rocool soapbox made decisions for you based on it's surroundings/conditions, multiboxing software/macros do not. You can set up very elaborate rotations but they are still stupid. 

Right, I know how it works, but you're seeing past the point here.

[Jabberie 2]

1 minute ago, z3rocool said:

Right, I know how it works, but you're seeing past the point here.

No, you're not seeing the point at all. Spamming one button isn't the problem. Having a 3rd party program decide in a combat situation what to do based on information gathered beyond the normal means of the game is. 

 

Maybe give me an example comparing soapbox/similar bots to multiboxing might help me understand you're point of view on this. 

[z3rocool 1]

3 minutes ago, Jabberie said:

No, you're not seeing the point at all. Spamming one button isn't the problem. Having a 3rd party program decide in a combat situation what to do based on information gathered beyond the normal means of the game is. 

 

Maybe give me an example comparing soapbox/similar bots to multiboxing might help me understand you're point of view on this. 

We already know the difference between them, but maybe you need to go over the conversations a few more times to see the point. There is no need to keep retyping the point that is clearly already there. If you can't see if maybe it flew over your head and you should move on from the conversation. 

Edited July 8, 2018 by z3rocool

[Jabberie 2]

If this is the case why did Combat Rotations like Soapbox get banned? You still had to drive/have direct control of your character. 

 

What other point did you have?

Edited July 8, 2018 by Jabberie

[Caeren 44]

Well, I will be a bit cynical about this and say: They simply keep multi-boxing available and allowed because you have to pay for your 5 and more accounts ;-) Revenue, baby :-)

[z3rocool 1]

5 minutes ago, Caeren said:

Well, I will be a bit cynical about this and say: They simply keep multi-boxing available and allowed because you have to pay for your 5 and more accounts ? Revenue, baby ?

Don't think the small handful of multi-boxers makes much of a difference, they probably make up for 0.0000000001% of the wow population. 

[blackstar128 30]

35 minutes ago, z3rocool said:

Don't think the small handful of multi-boxers makes much of a difference, they probably make up for 0.0000000001% of the wow population. 

still its closest u get to a pay to win situation. should be handled well so it wont turn out to be a full on pay to win !

but as others said right now multiboxers dont win much ! nothing that matters really

[jinsu2301 273]

3 hours ago, Stan said:

I can't really think of any significant advantages to multiboxing software in PvE off the top of my head. Sure, you can run your own 5-man dungeons, but how does it differ from being in a regular group?

I've seen Alex and Loz from FatbossTV multibox their daily AP/Leggo grind. I'd say that cutting the time investment for five chars down to one is somewhat significant. That being said, they were WF race mythic raiders, so I guess it's a very niche application.

[multiboxing 71]

 

 

LOL, Actually I really don't care because I don't PVP

Edited July 8, 2018 by multiboxing
more info

[VaraTreledees 138]

11 hours ago, z3rocool said:

 " They are perfectly fine with that, so long as the player is in direct control of all characters"

 

If this is the case why did Combat Rotations like Soapbox get banned? You still had to drive/have direct control of your character. 

Because with combat rotation bots you are not in direct control.  The bot did some of the work, pressed some of the buttons.  With mutliboxing you do all of the work, every button press you direct, albeit over multiple accounts at once.

[Misuteri 26]

I wonder what the guy who spent $80,000 on his server shutdown PVP setup is feeling right about now.

[MadMilitia 0]

14 hours ago, z3rocool said:

No, it was an automated rotation, not a bot, a bot simply did tasks while you were AFK which is not player controlled, a combat rotation just did rotations while you drive the character and do all other tasks manually, whats the difference from a person that multi boxes and spams one key?

Honor Buddy was a full out bot

Soapbox was a Combat rotation that automated spellcasting

Multi-box automates other characters while you semi control one of them

GSE Macros allow spamming of spells through macros which is also a semi-form of automation




very different things

 

I've been following this for awhile and I want to clear things up. Let's go with an example of why GSE is NOT in the same league as Soapbox. We'll consider how a spec is played optimally. To start we'll go with elemental shamans.

Elemental shamans have a rather simple but strict priority system. Cast earth shock at max maelstrom. Very simple right?

Well how does GSE deal with something like this?

GSE simply casts whatever you include, in a specific always-the-same order. You can tell it to cast 1-n lightning bolts before earth shock but it's going to be the same 1-n you specified regardless of the circumstances. 9/10 times when earth shock does get cast it won't be at max maelstrom or worse, it will have been at max maelstrom for a minute losing huge amounts of DPS.

Obviously GSE makes it possible to play a spec if you just started playing it but that's where it ends. It's training wheels for new players or a crutch for multiboxing but is in no way optimal. Soapbox on the other hand was used by high end guilds for its efficiency. 

 

Oh and nothing in multiboxing traditional tools equate to automation. Me pressing 'forward' on one client and having it repeat to three other clients isn't automation. This is like saying if we're playing a game of horseshoes I throw 2 instead of one that somehow I automated something. It's an illogical way of looking at this.

[Lawrenz 105]

20 hours ago, Stan said:

Because /as the name implies/ it's an automated bot. Broadcasting keys pressed in real time to all accounts isn't that sort of automation. With a combat rotations bot, you don't have to do anything, whereas multiboxing software like ISBoxer only allows you to issue commands to all accounts.

Thank you for clarifying how exactly multiboxing is different to botting, in this and your following discussion.

But even though i now fully understand how different they are, they dont feel different to me personally.
In my eyes when it comes to PvP it is a fight of "PLAYER" against "PLAYER". So when there is a multiboxer attacking someone it is a 1v1, just the multiboxer has a serious advantage of more character doing his commands. Getting a group of 5 together to defend against one of those people, controlling 5 charcters, makes it obviously easy to overcome him, since he spams the same shit on all. But it is still One player. You just needed to get people together and coordinate, to oppose one guy. I think that is not fair.

And in my previous experience with multiboxers, they ALWAYS played as trolls that annoy single players. By the time you get a group to fight that troll, he is gone. Annoying someone else somewhere else.

My honest opinion is, a Person should always just be able what he himself can control. if he presses a key, it is a command to control one character. Software shouldnt be able to broadcast it. Instead he should press a key for EACH COMMAND that is executed in game.

I know broadcasting is not directly botting, but still, even if it is not the execution of automated behavior, it's still automating the keypress in real-time for additional characters. hence making it still a "form of botting" in my eyes, automation is automation.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Lawrenz

[MadMilitia 0]

5 hours ago, Lawrenz said:

I know broadcasting is not directly botting, but still, even if it is not the execution of automated behavior, it's still automating the keypress in real-time for additional characters. hence making it still a "form of botting" in my eyes, automation is automation.

I know it's your opinion and I'm being gentle when I tell you that mental gymnastics are being performed to reach this conclusion. Really apply the same logic to anything else. Is a singer broadcasting to two locations automating his singing? If I have one person on the phone and invite another via conference am I only talking to the first and automating my voice to the second? If I go to a forum and tag something to land in two threads am I automating my posts?

You want that broadcasting be seen as a form of automation for reasons obvious to your post. You hate multiboxers because one or more of them trolled you in game. I get that and maybe something should be hands off policy for multiboxers in the world (unless attacked because that would be bullshit). I'd rather that then painting with wide and miscalculated brush strokes such as this sweeping follow restriction in wPvP. 

PS: I've been on board with PvP restrictions in wPvP for multiboxers long before the 30-40 man boxer was a thing. I stated as such years and years ago on the general forums about how they could flag concurrent accounts on an IP to disable wPvP. So Blizzard could have fixed this years ago but chose not to. Instead we get this late and bad change to the game that required no thinking. 

And if you want to know why it's a bad idea wPvP is a give and usually take contest. Disabling follow is going to be an abused mechanic in the coming months. To the extent anyone who uses /follow or commands like that are going to have to turn off wPvP because people will just continue to abuse the mechanic. Thinking someone who routinely smacks you and vanishes for giggles.