You can still multibox… you just cant send a signal to multiple accounts at the SAME time.
1 Like
So how does other boxing software do that then if you press 1 on the “host” how does the clients get the command at the same time?
well the oldest form of winning an argument is whoever could bash their opponents head in first, but most people frown upon such as well, you know.
1 Like
They doing the right ding announcing policy update instead of doing it without warning, good riddance.
1 Like
well you know, i used to dislike wearing a mask, and i was suspicious of people wearing a mask… in fact wearing a mask in my country used to be a crime.
now everyone demands i wear a mask everywhere i go… basically; times change.
evolve or stall out.
1 Like
Guess Blizz can’t figure out how to tell a real person with 5 accounts from 5 bots running in sync…
I’m not going to be sad, really; I won’t miss the flocks of druids farming every herb. Just think they’ve used a hammer where a screwdriver was more appropriate.
It just says that you will get a warning if they detect if you are using software that is sending mirror signals to more that one account at the same time. Its possible to use isboxer to only send 1 action per client, per click. Ofcourse this will triple the amount of keypresses you have to do for every single action… if you are playing three accounts. But ye, it will remove anyone boxing more than 3-5 accounts… i forsee.
For the record, you can build a tiny piece of hardware that multiplexes your keyboard as many times as you wish, for about $20.
Since I make my living writing keyboard firmware, I figured I’ll have a go at it: I took a cheap Arduino knock off, an USB Host shield, and knocked up a multiplexer in about 15 minutes.
There’s no software involved, I can program it to send the key events with random delays, even miss some at times, and so on. It’s completely undetectable from the PC side, and can do everything the broadcasting software can.
The policy change will not stop multiboxing, it will merely make it a tiny bit more involved to do. If they want to stop multiboxing, they’ll need to tweak the policy further.
3 Likes
They put malfurion picture and i wonder why haha. Good move blizzard. Late but better than never.
its time to make an El Risitas video about multiboxers complaining that they are no longer allowed to cheat openly and demanding their money back.
unfortunately its late for me and i got a meeting in the morning.
if someone still hasn’t done it when i get home tomorrow afternoon, i’ll get to work.
If we follow the same analogy of the mask in this case players want to deny not wearing a mask was ever been legal and demand punishment for people who is not wearing a mask today or even those who were without mask in the past, when the right think is to change the law and punish anyone who did not wear one since the law it was changed.
Wow never though blizzard would do something against multiboxing, good change!
It is fine to play multiple accounts at the same time but that software was in the grey area for too long.
1 Like
I’ll put it another way to you. The government sells you 10 masks at £50 each and tells you that you’re allowed to wear them as much as you want and gave you a thumbs up to wear them in a certain way. You wake up a month later after paying all that money to find out the same person who sold you the mask is now threatning to take the masks off you for using them in the way you bought them for. That’s mclovins point.
that would be a good analogy if said masks actually guaranteed immunity to the wu flu (like they metaphorically did in WoW-MB terms as you had an advantage most others didn’t)… but alas…
Thank you Blizzard. No doubt they will try to find ways around it… But this is good news because before it seemed you encouraged it.
This gives me more hope for Shadowlands and Classic.
1 Like
I fear you are correct. I hope they can find a good way to word it so it basically just outlaws it in the game in all forms.
Not that it will 100% kill it… but if spotted it would be easy to report and be banned.
1 Like
You’re saying that there is no software involved so how does this really work? by default the OS redirects the input to the active window or foreground process so how your solution changes that? if you have multiple processes running you still need to have something in the middle at the software level to catch the input and redirect that to the processes so as someone who writes software for living professionally I’m having hard time making sense of this, you still need to use process injection to catch the input and then send it to the processes, using hardware to mimic the input wouldn’t get it to the running processes automagically so I’m kinda skeptical.
p.s. Maybe in the context of multiple computers it can work at the hardware level but this is much more expensive.
Oh, it’s very easy: 8 virtual machines, each with their own keyboard. Each of them see only one keyboard, the host doesn’t need to do any routing either, because the hardware will present itself as 8 different keyboards, so all you need to do is bind each to their respective VMs.
It’s doable without a VM too, if you’re running Linux, for example. I can run each wine process in its own namespace, seeing only the keyboard I want them to see. Each and every one of them will think they’re the active window in the foreground, even if they aren’t.
There are a whole lot of other ways to accomplish the same thing, using nothing else but the tools already available on the system, all of which are completely benign, and are in use even when you run a single client.
Fantastic news. Well done Blizzard. This could hit them in the pocket, too, so it’s to their credit that they’ve done this.
1 Like
No sympathy, this is great news.
3 Likes