Talk:Multibox
From WoWWiki
Multiboxing is not an exploit
∙ Zurr Talk ∙ Contr 21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Some discussion went on here - WoWWiki_talk:Village_pump#Uncategorized_pages. Multiboxing isn't an exploit, but I'd say this program comes pretty close. Kirkburn talk contr 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well as far as i remember Multibox is basically a program that enables you to send keystrokes to one or more apps at the same time, this is a problem in accordance with the Blizzard policies because it enables unattended gameplay, as it's sending keystrokes it's indirectly or directly manipulating the WoW client. It might be hard to get any qualified answer from Blizzard, they'll just usually say "Well it says this in the policy, so you decide if it's against the rules". └Fisker┘┌t/c┐ 07:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't even come remotely close to violating the TOS. First it cannot send commands to the client without intervention, as such there is no unattended play. Second, it cannot react to events that happen in any applicaiton it is feeding commands too. Third, XZin regularly posts to their boards and is well know by Blizzard posters. Since he usually provides links so others can follow suit you would think Blizzard would either nuke his posts or him.
- Don't make comments on what constitutes unattended game play unless you have experience with such programs. Asheron's Call was famous for UCM and had many programs available to do it with. Transmitting keystrokes is not even close. SharlinTalk / Did 16:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Unless Blizzard wants to specify what "Unattended" means in their license agreement, then i will use the correct definition of "Unattended". Xzin you are referring to is not using Multibox, he is using several pieces of hardware to put them together. Unattended pretty much means when something is not spectated, viewed, or whatever, multibox allows you to send commands to several programs thus the rest of the clients could run unattended. And datamining/datastream manipulation does not nessecarily apply to what comes OUT of the game, but also what goes IN the game, and since Windows per design does not allow keystrokes to happen globally, then you are infact, directly or indirectly, telling the application to press a button, regardless of this is done by hand or by script. But as i already said we're not likely to get any qualified answer, because our comments are NOT qualified answer, but we have to decide how we want to interpret the EULA and ToS on this matter └Fisker┘┌t/c┐ 11:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't make comments on what constitutes unattended game play unless you have experience with such programs. Asheron's Call was famous for UCM and had many programs available to do it with. Transmitting keystrokes is not even close. SharlinTalk / Did 16:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- haha, what a load of hooey Fisker. You have the correct definition of "unattended"? hahah. Since your obviously computer ILLITERATE let me explain something to you. What XZin does with hardware is no different than how multibox/synergy work. Both only forward keystrokes destined for one session to any number of other sessions. As such all are attended. There is no datamining and datastream manipulation. There is zero, nada, nil, zilch, effect to the traffic sent to the servers by the client or the traffic going to the client from the servers. As for your comment as to what Windows allows and doesn't, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Ask Blizzard on their forums. At least they won't be talking out their assSharlinTalk / Did 12:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- The impression I've had from what I've seen Xzin say and some people speculate on, is that he has something like a wireless keyboard with five receivers, so they all get the same command, but the accounts are set up to do different things with a keypress. Frex he hits A, and on the priest Xzin (the brains) it does holy nova, but on the mages Azin, Bzin, Czin and Dzin, it does arcane explosion. Wowinsider has a link to an interview describing his setup a bit here [1]. He mentions "I designed all of the hardware (3 custom keyboards, 5 regular keyboards, 6 flat panels, 5 computers, 6 mice, some keyboard multicasters and a kvm switch) and set up all of the custom in game macros and keybinds." Personally, I think it's unsportsmanlike and against the spirit of the game, but don't think anything else is wrong with it, and it does happen often enough in the game to deserve a mention, although I wouldn't think 'how to' directions would be. --Azaram 04:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
That's one of the workarounds that can be used to multibox. However, he does not take that path. Instead, he uses Vetra Multicasters, which essentially broadcast input to any connected computers (or even other multicasters, which multiply the amount of computers that can be connected to a single keyboard exponentially). —Pzychotix (talk · contr) 09:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Unforunately there is no way to detect it nor prohibit it as he both Windows and WoW wise is using a keyboard for each controlled computer, so technically he is still controlling all 5 clients and he is attending them all as well └Fisker┘┌t/c┐ 09:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Grrr this discussion is going in circles. Fisker in arguing that is an exploit has basically shown that the software is not an exploit. The software is just a software version of the same hardware that is being used. Each computer has its own keyboard, and has to be attended otherwise there would be no way to react to anything going on. Well unless the person is psychic. The fact is that even with this software, someone has to be paying attention to the game to respond to events. Unattended really refers to the fact that the character can react to the world and events without any human interaction. With this software, a human has to be there to react. It just happens to be that the key stroke comes from a different machine than the one on which the game is running.
If what Xzin does with hardware is not an exploit then neither is this, but if this is an exploit then even the hardware solution is an exploit. The mistake being made is confusing the fact that the function being handled by hardware in one case is being handled by software running on the game pc's instead.
Other than this, there is no difference in the situations.
So whoever can make a final decisions, needs to just consider this. Is what Xzin doing with hardware an exploit? If it isn't, then why would replacing a hardware box with some software that does just the same thing, be an exploit? --Tazmeister 06:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- The way I would understand it, multibox is a program (similar to a normal mod) that creates a macro key binding that communicates with multiple machines but is NOT unattended and therefore is not in viloation and would not be considered a Bot. If it were used for unattended gameplay I would agree with you. And it's already been stated many times before, multiboxing is not illegal. Noordianatalk&contr 17:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Can we please have the notice removed from the page? It is obvious this is not an exploit. If it were Warden and the likes would have flagged it SharlinTalk / Did 15:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
