Technological advancement of the PC hardware is making PC’s cheaper and more powerful so more people can run more accounts and at the same time.
Nope: Blizzard’s logic is crystal-clear and 100% consistent.
I explained above Blizzard’s logic towards automation and by that logic multiboxing is allowed. It’s in no way contradictory with the logic Blizzard follows.
The problem is that you are conflating Blizzard’s logic with what you personally wish the logic should be, but it’s not.
1 Like
You can run WoW on a potato since ages.
Easy fix , Unfair (or disloyal ) competition in commercial law is a deceptive business practice that causes economic harm to other businesses or to consumers , is fined by european authorities .
What is “unfair” is often quite open to debate though.
I’m sure many who found themselves out-competed might claim the competition was “unfair” whereas it was instead just smarter or more efficient, or willing to go to greater lengths to perform better.
The decision that something is bannable or not because “we said so” is not crystal-clear nor 100% consistent. It’s just broken behaviour based on lack of logic to excuse actions taken by the company.
There is no logical explanation why automation in botting is bad and why automation in multi-boxing is ok even tho those both examples lead to the same issues in the game.
Actually it’s 100% consistent. How else do you think the catch phrase “Exploit early, exploit often” was born?
[edit]
To clarify: It’s consistent with Blizzard being inconsistent.
2 Likes
There is no “we said so” going against the fundamental logic Blizzard uses to define not allowed automation.
Blizzard’s logic is crystal-clear and explicitly stated by blue-post: they consider not allowed automation as controlling one or more characters without the actions of the characters being a direct consequence of the input of the player.
You might disagree with said logic, but that’s the logic Blizzard applies and under that logic there is nothing special prohibiting multiboxing.
Your claim that Blizzard is not consistent is rooted in either ignorance of Blizzard’s logic or confusing Blizzard’s logic with what you personally believe should apply.
1 Like
The outcome of this logic is not consistant becasue it’s being decided ona whim what is good or bad.
Yet it’s specifically mentioned in CoC:
Take note that acceptable names are determined by player reports and Blizzard’s decision, and role-playing servers may have distinct standards for using game-appropriate names.
Acceptable behaviour is determined by player reports and Blizzard’s decision, and violating these guidelines will result in account and gameplay restrictions.
Basically acceptable is what we decide.
No one says it goes against the Blizzard logic tho
You are either being dishonest on purpose or just confused.
No, the statement is crystal clear, the logic of that statement is broken because they make an arbitrary decision on what is allowed or not even tho both botting and multi-boxing is using some level of automation and both do same damage to the game.
Blue post doesn’t really mean anything. What’s important is the CoC and thereit’s explicitly stated that:
Cheating in any fashion will result in immediate action. Using third-party programs to automate any facet of the game, exploiting bugs, or engaging in any activity that grants an unfair advantage is considered cheating.
1 Like
And this is what multi-boxers are doing.
Yes, but multiboxing brings them money, so they won’t do anything about it.
1 Like
I’m glad we agree that multiboxing is automation and it should be banned.
Blizzard does’t consider input multiplexing as “automation” though, arguably correctly: “automation” by definition requires a certain degree of autonomy from input which us simply not there in multiplexing.
I’m well aware of that. It’s their game and their rules. I was just pointing the vague rules they have, and the inconsistent way they’ve been enforcing them.
And that autonomy happens in 3rd party software which is programmed to do a series of processes without user direct control which allows one person to control multiple characters at the same time.
Again, it’s not. Just check a dictionary if you don’t believe me:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/automation
the technique, method, or system of operating or controlling a process by highly means, as by electronic devices, reducing human intervention to a minimum.
And under “automatic”, which is referenced by the above definition:
having the capability of starting, operating, moving, etc., independently
Multiplexing doesn’t allow any of such: each character only acts according to the input from the player, without any capability of operating independently.
Automation requires some degree of autonomy which simply doesn’t apply to input multiplexing.
2 Likes
Nope: “autonomy” would literally require the characters to act… well… in autonomy, meaning independently from input. Such thing just doesn’t apply to multiboxing.