Chilton content to endorse multi-boxing
by Michael Gray 
Aug 26th 2008 at 1:00PM
Belfaire already explained previously that Blizzard's okay with the idea of multi-boxing, whether it's for PvE use or even to compete in the Arena. In the same Eurogamer interview that discusses the new phasing technology, Tom Chilton reinforces that Blizzard is "content to endorse multi-boxing to some reasonable degree."
Eurogamer was focused on the possible abuses of Blizzard's Recruit-a-Friend program, and the speed with which players can create and level new accounts. Chilton says that if someone wants to drop the bucks on a new account -- not only the retail fees, but also the subscription cost -- then Blizzard's okay with that.
J. Allen Brack immediately brings the discussion back to a point I've previously made -- the idea is really to help players get ready for the new expansion. You can bring in a friend or family, and get them to a level where they can play with other friends very quickly. They want new players to be able to "roll a Death Knight and be ready to go."
Now, Chilton did say the endorsement only goes to a "reasonable degree." I suspect if we see vast abuse of multi-boxing in multiple areas of play, the endorsement might quickly be repealed or re-focused. But, for now at least, Chilton has confirmed Belfaire's statement -- Blizzard's okay with multi-boxing.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Blizzard, News items, Interviews
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Liel Aug 26th 2008 1:16PM
I fail to see why Blizzard needs to hurt the many who would benefit from the program(new players) just to go after the ones who might "abuse" it. I fail to see how it is abuse its just complaining from those who think their leveling is some sort of achievement.
Everquest had double XP weekends all the time, I think Blizzard should implement that in the future to aide with leveling of alts without the need to do the two boxing thing.
my2cents Aug 26th 2008 10:33PM
That sounds great. The problem I have is with the new "pay extra for a better game experience" attitude introduced with multi-boxing and the recruit-a-"friend" (friend generally meaning yourself.), and even the TCG loot to a lesser extent (at least those are non-combat items) I pay enough extra fees and taxes in my life. I don't like the idea of people being able to gain an actual advantage in the game because they spent extra money. This is precisely what they have preached SO hard against with gold-selling for so long. They've said themselves it ruins the concept of an even playing field by rewarding those who spend extra money. But suddenly this type of thing is ok when they're the ones profiting from it? I dunno, maybe I'm just mad because I can barely afford the $15/month fee and some guy with spare cash can buy two accounts and level their alts much faster than I can.
gton Aug 26th 2008 1:22PM
blizzard is ok with people spending more money on their game, what a surprise, this policy favors the rich and thats that
gmat Aug 26th 2008 1:31PM
everything in society favors the rich.
Dotixi Aug 26th 2008 1:31PM
Does your hatred for the rich go beyond WoW and Multiboxing? You sound too overly bitter for it to just end at WoW.
here is a thought Aug 26th 2008 1:40PM
i know plenty of people who are not rich and spend at least $30 a month on booze.... so, i really fail to see your point. even spending $60 a month is not such a huge thing, cancel your gym membership ;)
These prices are not out of reach for many people with jobs. Out of reach for kids on allowance, sure, but {shrug} oh well
jbodar Aug 26th 2008 2:47PM
Technically, $60/month is not the only barrier, since you still need two boxes with which to multibox. Granted, WoW doesn't need a gaming beast, but not everyone has 2 machines. Not that I agree that it's unfair, I'm just saying.
Breck Aug 26th 2008 3:39PM
@jbodar
I run two instances of WoW on a sub $500 machine both running at 1920x1200 with all settings at max and both instances maintain around 30fps. Seriously, anyone who has a computer so crappy that it can't run two instances of WoW has bigger issues than not being able to afford two accounts for powerleveling alts.
here is a thought Aug 26th 2008 3:51PM
@jbodar: it works MUCH better if you run on one box, multi-instancing would prolly be a better name. WoW runs in windowed mode ya know ;)
vit Aug 26th 2008 4:05PM
@jbodar
"since you still need two boxes with which to multibox"
What cha talkin' bout Willis?
lilleas Aug 28th 2008 1:51AM
I agree with #6 to also add the argument that say I was a smoker and smoked a pack a day at the most.. I would be spending no less than (i am in canada) $7.00 a pack A DAY! add that up for 30 days then come back and tell me that spending $30 a month with the option to opt out any time for a hobby that I enjoy, that blizzard allows, is a bad thing.
jbodar Aug 28th 2008 4:15AM
OK. I am a master of failurism. :)
Jennifer Aug 26th 2008 1:25PM
You define "abuse" as "multiple areas of gameplay"?
I define "abuse" as "using multiboxing as a tool to break or bend the rules on a more massive scale". By "break the rules" I mean account sale, sharing, RMT, harassment, and other things forbidden in the ToU.
A "normal" multiboxer shouldn't be LIMITED by "multiple areas of gameplay" -- we all pay for access to the same resources and gameplay. Granted, to reach certain areas you need the SKILL to do so (i.e. high end arenas, high end raiding), but everyone has the OPPORTUNITY to reach them.
Are you saying that if multiboxers are SKILLED enough to play at the same level as normal players, that is ABUSE? I see that more as personal bias -- Chilton said nothing about areas of gameplay being forbidden from perfectly legitimate players like multiboxers.
Heilig Aug 26th 2008 2:02PM
"Are you saying that if multiboxers are SKILLED enough to play at the same level as normal players, that is ABUSE?"
No. We're saying that people are taking an unfair advantage of certain class mechanics that make multiboxing incredibly overpowered when you play elemental shamans. People that want to multibox multiple different classes get my respect. People that play 5 of the same class because they can be guaranteed a one-shot every two minutes when EM/NS is up don't get my respect. They are cheating, plain and simple. Just because Blizzard is OK with it doesn't mean it's not cheating, it just means Blizzard won't punish them for cheating.
Don't agree with me? Fine. Let's get the guy who is 4-boxing elemental shammies at the top of his arena bracket and make him play a 2345 instead of 4 ele shammies. Oh wait, he can't do that, because he doesn't have a lot more skill than us, he just has a technological advantage over the rest of us. Using a device that gives an unfair advantage over the other players in the game is pretty much the definition of cheating, and Blizzard endorsing it doesn't change that.
Find me someone 5-boxing something besides elemental shamans and we'll talk.
Manatank Aug 26th 2008 4:48PM
"Find me someone 5-boxing something besides elemental shamans and we'll talk."
Sounds like you have problem with the class rather than the act of multi-boxing. If one person can make five shamans win an arena match, a well co-ordianted team of five people playing five shamans individually could do it too.
If the argument is that most teams of 5 can't coordinate their chain lightnings as well as a single person... Well perhaps those people should practice a little more.
grazwa Aug 26th 2008 5:54PM
"If the argument is that most teams of 5 can't coordinate their chain lightnings as well as a single person... Well perhaps those people should practice a little more."
Getting 5 people to coordinate an attack on one target isn't hard but getting them to cast at precisely the same time with zero latency is virtually impossible. You have to admit that there is a slight advantage on the side of the boxer as actions of several characters can be performed as one through macro's. I'm not saying boxing is cheating, I'm fascinated with it but it's certainly has advantages.
Manatank Aug 26th 2008 5:59PM
I'd agree that latency would prevent exact synchrony, but I think any reasonably practiced team could probably synch up to a fraction of a second through vent or some other sort of communication. Not having them fire at exactly the same moment wouldn't diminish the effectiveness if it was still close enough to prevent any sort of reaction by the opposition.
Jennifer Aug 26th 2008 6:19PM
"getting them to cast at precisely the same time with zero latency is virtually impossible."
Multiboxers can't do this either.
Three druid noob put it very succinctly recently...
http://www.threedruidnoob.com/2008/08/learn2play.html
"One of the comments PVP's make is that Five Individual Players can not react as fast as One Player. This is both true and false. For a start, any target that the "Master" acquires, takes time to reach the slave. For Example, if I have a 250 ms latency, then it will take 250 ms to reach the server and then another 250 ms to get back to my slaves. Half a second may not seem like much, but if you ask anyone playing outside the US "What difference does a couple of hundred ms make?" you will quickly find out."
Like the other posters said -- if you have a problem with stacked shaman groups, have a problem with stacked shaman groups.
Little do you know -- when I first rolled my multibox shamans I was told they "wouldn't be viable" because they "had no aoe".
http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=3060
You want to see more than just shammy groups? This is what I, as a SINGLE multiboxer, have leveled (I'm an altaholic):
4x shaman + 1x paladin (already had a resto shaman at 70)
5x warlocks
4x hunters
5x druids
I also have a holy priest, and I regularly mix and match groups.
Just because you only HEAR, or only "REPORT" about shaman groups on Wowinsider doesn't mean there aren't anything different. When Suvega and I did karazhan, he was running 1x warrior / 3x mage / 1x priest and I was running 1x paladin / 3x ele shammy / 1x resto shammy. Learn your facts.
Jennifer Aug 26th 2008 6:24PM
If you want to see "synchronized casting" that hits in a fraction of a second, follow along with the old GW "spike" teams.
It's a person in vent who goes "3... 2... 1... spike" -- they do latency checks pre-match -- and the damage all hits within a fraction of a second. It's a high pressure team, but has been put out of popularity due to abilities in GW like Protective Spirit and certain ritualist spirits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWuaafXf3kA
It CAN be done, but people in WoW are just too lazy (or perhaps because there are SO FEW elemental shamans dedicated enough to try it ;) We are the lowest pop class hehe)
Jennifer Aug 26th 2008 1:29PM
As an addendum, as I read Chilton's comment, he says nothing about prohibiting multiboxing AT ALL!
Endorsement is, in essence, ENCOURAGEMENT.
Lack of encouragement does not imply discouragement. Multiboxing has been a "non-supported" and completely non-bannable practice since MMOs were in their infancy. Just because a game doesn't endorse us doesn't mean we're breaking any rules nor going to get the boot.
If Blizz wants to ENCOURAGE us to multibox to a reasonable degree, that's fine. But don't go spelling doom and gloom for multiboxers if you think that us "overstepping our bounds" and moving into "normal player" gameplay areas will kick us out of the game entirely. It won't.