This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
The /Follow command disabled in Battlegrounds
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Azrile
Exactly, Blizzard clearly learned that an easy way to get rid of a bunch of the less tech-savy BG botters was to remove /follow. Yes, there are probably more sophisticated methods, but Blizzard must have thought this was worth doing.
And to be honest, I do this often, especially in AV when I need a pee break.
But I really wonder how many accounts Blizzard lost because of this. There were obviously a lot of people above the trial account levels who were multiboxing.
Well they certainly knew they were essentially crippling multi-boxers and still went ahead and did it.
In my opinion many of the threats will turn out to be just piss and wind. So many people get irate about changes that don't suit them, then throw their toys out of the stroller because of course the world should revolve around them.
"I'm cancelling my 10 accounts right now ! " is done for dramatic impact.
When all said and done the sincerity of their quitting is lacking, They'll still play.
I think this is different though. For many multiboxers, the ONLY reason they had to have accounts 2-5 was for multiboxing.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
To be honest, this seems like a change that is specifically aimed at disabling multi-boxers, and may be how they're phasing in a policy change about the practice.
How'd you figure? If it was aimed at them why not simply disable follow and not reimburse the MB's? I cannot catch the train of thoughts that leads from one to the other. It's like the company that makes panliners would reimburse you for buying that one pack of they're product that doesn't fit you coffee machine anymore would reimburse you. I am convinced that they would reimburse you anyhow if you just returned that product, but not specifically because you can't use the product they sell as coffee filters.
IMO Blizz'z move to reimburse some of the transactions MB's did is just some sort of solace. It's like saying 'we are sorry your setup don't work anymore and here is what is fair for you to have back from the money you gave us'.
Actually, it was specifically the money back that led me to think that it WAS a policy change. When a company changes the nature of a service or a product, and knows that there are going to be unhappy customers, and they often will try and mitigate the PR damage and customer loss by trying to appease them. A lot of times this equates to discounts, rebates, free trials of the new versions of the service, or refunds of monies paid in anticipation of a service that is no longer provided.
If the disruption of multi-boxers was something that they hadn't anticipated, I doubt they'd already have had a blanket policy in place to refund multi-boxers, because pay-out policies like those take time to pass by all of the people who need to approve them. If they were planning on fixing it so that multi-boxers would be up and running fairly soon, then they wouldn't be refunding people at all- why give people back money they spent on a service that you plan on continuing to provide and is just bugged for a little while? Why offer character transfer refunds if they are going to be able to use that character the way they intended when they transferred it?
If they had never had an official policy regarding multi-boxers, then they most likely would have done as you said- just cut off the command and not refunded anything. But because they at one point said it was alright, any reversal of the policy would have to take into account that monies were paid out in good faith based on a stated policy, and return them if the policy changes to disallow the it. In my earlier example, if I set up an ordering contract with the panliner company, for the purpose of using them as coffee filters, and they had stated somewhere in their sales literature that they think it's fine if people use them that way, they'd most likely offer me way to break the contract, or refund pre-paid funds, if the contract was made for a use of the product they were deciding to change.
Besides that, who else will taking follow away affect in a BG? As many people have said most bots these days have programmed paths they're running, and don't just /follow. Someone who did it and afk'd would find themself quickly without someone to follow when one of them died, and would be marked as such. Who else could this be targeting but multiboxers?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
Croco
I see it now. I failed to sum it up in my head. It was all the bickering and fighting over it, I think. Thank you very much.
Only raises more questions now. Why change the service? Why not keep MB's? What do they have in store for you .
p.s.: here's top hoping that those questions weren't addressed already
Post by
ElhonnaDS
It may be that some people have changed out, and with some new eyes at the top, they don't think that letting 1 player 5-box their way through current PvP and PvE content is in the spirit of an MMO. Old content is fine to solo because it's outdated and more about vanity items, transmog, old achievements, old mats, etc. But for current stuff, it may be that they want people to not have a way to skip out on interacting with the community for group activities. After all, that's what they said the reason for CRZ was- to make people interact with each other more.
It could also be that they have had a large number of complaints from the part of the community that IS bothered by it, and have decided that it's a better community relations move to phase it out rather than allow it, if one side is considerable larger than the other. It could be that they have some future redesigns of battlegrounds, or future new battlegrounds planned that they feel would be too easily exploited by multi-boxing, or they may feel that the practice restricts them in what they will be able to do in the future because they have to make sure that it won't be unbalanced by it.
There are a lot of reasons why they could have decided to do it.
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Croco
Well thank you for all of this, and let me say I have noticed your signature for a while now and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you for it.
And on that note I am gonna go cook diner.
Bye.
Post by
Apodictic
So multi-boxing with Warrio (tank), Priest (healer), Mage (dps), Warlock (dps), Rogue (dps) doesnt need skills at all? I have seen group like this once.
Actually not really at all.
You use the 3rd party program, and set up your keybinds accordingly. It's no more complicated than using one toon with modifier macros.
*Edit*
For example You'd just set your 3rd party program to activate the button you use for your AoE HoT spell on the client you use for your healer, so doing so you could on a very basic level have:-
Key 1:- Primary single target attack all open clients.
Key 2:- AoE attack All open clients
Key 3:- Root/Slow client 1, Dot Client 2, AoE HoT Client 3
You've never multiboxed. It's complicated to do 3-5 of the same class. I doubt you'd even be able to do it that, let alone the 5 different classes in the mentioned setup.
Whoever runs that 5-man is awesome if they can pull it off.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.