Input Broadcasting Software Warnings, Shadowlands Beta Build 36512 - New Music

[LemonDemonGirl]

Multiboxing itself isn't bannable, it's the programs people use to do it

Probably causes a lot of lag unless you have a good computer, unlike me lol

[MoFalcon]

this is a GREAT THING!

Cheaters need to be burned to the ground. Take their accounts. delete them! I LOVE IT!!

[Twdft]

Herb/mining nodes will despawn after 60 seconds, no matter who picked it. That is unrelated to multiboxing. Blizzard allowing more than one person it mine/pick it is the problem
You feeling entitled to those nodes when you're not, that is a you problem. Everyone have experienced nodes despawning infront of your eyes.
Yet nobody is whining about that. Amazing, huh? Someone its still mutliboxers problem

When I see a node on the minimap and a multiboxer gets there before me I have no chance at all to get something from it because it'll be sucked dry by 10 chars in an instant. No matter how many players are on a shard, if I see a node I will be able to get it if there is no multiboxer. It absolutely is a multiboxer problem, if you ever tried to solo farm herbs in Nazjatar you'd know this.

[Hellobolis]

Nodes and mobs have always been competitive, the issue stems from multi-boxing with input broadcasting giving an unfair advantage playing the game

I'd agree with that in the pre-token world. but the unfair advantage the token provides completely eclipses the unfair advantage multiboxing generates. sure bob might get a bit more for his herbs now, but bob's income is still just as irrelevant compared to alice who buys tokens and charlie who boosts alice. bobs still not going to be able to afford a brutosaur or w/e the new expensive mount will be.

banning multiboxers is fine and dandy for the ones who use it for pvp and stuff, but it's not going to make a dent in the economy.

[callipygoustp]

Automation software has been banned since day one. This policy changes their stance on input broadcasting software. Input broadcasting =/= automation.

In the bizz input broadcasting software is automation software. I know I know gamers, and hell even Blizzard up till now, like to redefine this stuff to suit their needs. In the real world though, its a method of automation.

Edit:
Note: I'm not trying, or even care to, convince you to change your opinion.

[thunderdragon2]

im amassed this is coming in so fast guessing bans will start coming in for the event

[Synical123]

In the bizz input broadcasting software is automation software. I know I know gamers, and hell even Blizzard up till now, like to redefine this stuff to suit their needs. In the real world though, its a method of automation.

Edit:
Note: I'm not trying, or even care to, convince you to change your opinion.

This is correct. Even macros are a form of automation, but when describing automation in video games it is generally directed toward bots and programs that control your character for you.

[callipygoustp]

This is correct. Even macros are a form of automation, but when describing automation in video games it is generally directed toward bots and programs that control your character for you.

Yep, just like IBS. Some of the first phone based automation testing I saw in use was IBS and it was way back in the early 2000s at Autodesk Software. My team was in charge of building a backend server and front end phone client that would provide meaningful access to the huge stores of GPS data we already had. To test the mobile clients, multiple mobile clients at the same time, on those early phones that had app capability: IBS. What was that team called: The QA automation team. Who worked on that team: automation engineers.

[Spazzix]

Yep, just like IBS. Some of the first phone based automation testing I saw in use was IBS and it was way back in the early 2000s at Autodesk Software. My team was in charge of building a backend server and front end phone client that would provide meaningful access to the huge stores of GPS data we already had. To test the mobile clients, multiple mobile clients at the same time, on those early phones that had app capability: IBS. What was that team called: The QA automation team. Who worked on that team: automation engineers.

Broadcasting is certainly something automation in the real world will deal with a lot, since without it you'd be running far heavier loads of automation programs (e.g. instead of being able to broadcast a single test sequence to 100 clients, you'd need to run 100 instances of the test sequence). And you would want to consider the "broadcast" separately from the "automation" because this will allow you to take your automation and broadcast it to a different set of test clients. But in terms of signaling broadcasting is just blasting out the same thing to all targets (yes I know that there has to be an "automated" logic to tell the device to broadcast the signal, but I'd argue you're then losing what true automation is for the sake of cramming it into the same bin as broadcasting). For example I could split my keyboard cable from a single usb to 5 and provided I give it sufficient driving power, the electrical signal in the cable isn't going to distinguish between one or 5 cables and how many it signals, it's going to flow in all of them; without any attached logic or automation, I can broadcast my signal to 5 machines.

No need to change my mind, no need to change yours; they both fall on the same side of the line and since neither of us is responsible for enacting or creating Blizzard's policies it doesn't really have any consequence.
Bottom line for me is that by keeping distinct terms you have more granularity to describe things. Some people want to call everything in a certain color range 'red', others may find benefit in distinguishing 'scarlet', 'maroon', 'burgundry' etc.

[callipygoustp]

Broadcasting is certainly something automation in the real world will deal with a lot, since without it you'd be running far heavier loads of automation programs (e.g. instead of being able to broadcast a single test sequence to 100 clients, you'd need to run 100 instances of the test sequence). And you would want to consider the "broadcast" separately from the "automation" because this will allow you to take your automation and broadcast it to a different set of test clients. But in terms of signaling broadcasting is just blasting out the same thing to all targets (yes I know that there has to be an "automated" logic to tell the device to broadcast the signal, but I'd argue you're then losing what true automation is for the sake of cramming it into the same bin as broadcasting). For example I could split my keyboard cable from a single usb to 5 and provided I give it sufficient driving power, the electrical signal in the cable isn't going to distinguish between one or 5 cables and how many it signals, it's going to flow in all of them; without any attached logic or automation, I can broadcast my signal to 5 machines.

No need to change my mind, no need to change yours; they both fall on the same side of the line and since neither of us is responsible for enacting or creating Blizzard's policies it doesn't really have any consequence.
Bottom line for me is that by keeping distinct terms you have more granularity to describe things. Some people want to call everything in a certain color range 'red', others may find benefit in distinguishing 'scarlet', 'maroon', 'burgundry' etc.

If you have to redefine terms from their distinct well defined definitions, then there is a problem with your argument. Period.

[Spazzix]

If you have to redefine terms from their distinct well defined definitions, then there is a problem with your argument. Period.

Oh sorry, I forgot to look the definition up in Callipygoustp's authoritative dictionary. You basically said this one time a team with the word 'automation' in its title worked on a project that involved tasks with 'broadcasting' in their descriptions => 'automation' = 'broadcasting' and then followed up by implying you have an authoritative or universally true definition to the terms. Not sure how a radio tower's broadcast or my example of splitting a signal cable fails to meet what 'broadcasting' is to you, but neither one needs automation to achieve the broadcast.

How's this: you win, post whatever you want, but dude...try to stay away from the "because I said so" proofs and facts in the future. Go find a singular definition that fits what you want and post it smugly. (I promise I won't reply, so be as smug as you want!)

[callipygoustp]

Oh sorry, I forgot to look the definition up in Callipygoustp's authoritative dictionary.

"Distinct well defined definition" in no way implies its MY definition. What it does imply is that there exists, out in the world a distinct well defined definition; a definition on which my comments are based on.

You basically said this one time a team with the word 'automation' in its title worked on a project that involved tasks with 'broadcasting' in their descriptions => 'automation' = 'broadcasting' and then followed up by implying you have an authoritative or universally true definition to the terms.

If you don't get it, you don't get it. And you are most certainly not getting it.

Not sure how a radio tower's broadcast or my example of splitting a signal cable fails to meet what 'broadcasting' is to you, but neither one needs automation to achieve the broadcast.

I never spoke to this type of broadcasting cause its off topic and, essentially, moving goal posts. "But this is broadcasting too!!!!" Yeah, if you can't tell the difference...

How's this: you win, post whatever you want, but dude...try to stay away from the "because I said so" proofs and facts in the future. Go find a singular definition that fits what you want and post it smugly. (I promise I won't reply, so be as smug as you want!)

Never said, or implied, that it was my definition.

[Tharkkun]

Broadcasting is certainly something automation in the real world will deal with a lot, since without it you'd be running far heavier loads of automation programs (e.g. instead of being able to broadcast a single test sequence to 100 clients, you'd need to run 100 instances of the test sequence). And you would want to consider the "broadcast" separately from the "automation" because this will allow you to take your automation and broadcast it to a different set of test clients. But in terms of signaling broadcasting is just blasting out the same thing to all targets (yes I know that there has to be an "automated" logic to tell the device to broadcast the signal, but I'd argue you're then losing what true automation is for the sake of cramming it into the same bin as broadcasting). For example I could split my keyboard cable from a single usb to 5 and provided I give it sufficient driving power, the electrical signal in the cable isn't going to distinguish between one or 5 cables and how many it signals, it's going to flow in all of them; without any attached logic or automation, I can broadcast my signal to 5 machines.

No need to change my mind, no need to change yours; they both fall on the same side of the line and since neither of us is responsible for enacting or creating Blizzard's policies it doesn't really have any consequence.
Bottom line for me is that by keeping distinct terms you have more granularity to describe things. Some people want to call everything in a certain color range 'red', others may find benefit in distinguishing 'scarlet', 'maroon', 'burgundry' etc.

Blizzard never had a problem using the hardware solution via a multiplexer. Like your example would be fine. They have a problem with using software to drive it. The original multiplexer setups had 5 computers, 5 keyboards and mice which received the same input from your primary one.

[Drusin]

Multiboxing itself isn't bannable, it's the programs people use to do it

Probably causes a lot of lag unless you have a good computer, unlike me lol

Depends on what you do, You can set your other clients to run at lower settings than your primary client so it has less of a performance impact

[WinningOne]

None of this matters because the bot players the new policy was supposed to target have already developed a workaround. One guy actually posted it on the thread which was created by the announcement. Blizzard launched their nuke and managed to hit everyone except their target.

[GUZ]

this is a GREAT THING!

Cheaters need to be burned to the ground. Take their accounts. delete them! I LOVE IT!!

Its not cheating. It’s just having the skill to play 2 accounts at once. So now If I wanna play 2 toons at once I will just have to not use a key input but I can still use /follow which when Qing for a dung now instead of 2 characters doing damage it will just be one. I feel like this is too little too late the damage has been done to the economy just like in wod the people that didn’t do it suffer. I wish they did this before removing the brontosaurus mount.

[Zan15]

so what stops me from pulling out the old 3 port kms switch and using one keyboard to 3 computers?

[Kagthul]

so what stops me from pulling out the old 3 port kms switch and using one keyboard to 3 computers?

Nothing.

Or just running multiple clients in VMs.

Or just getting a hardware multiplexer to make one single hardware keyboard broadcast 5 signals (would require a hub to plug them all in).

This is seriously such a non-issue.

- - - Updated - - -

this is a GREAT THING!

Cheaters need to be burned to the ground. Take their accounts. delete them! I LOVE IT!!

Man, not too smart, are you?

Even Blizz said Multi-boxing is still totally legit.

You just cant use key-broadcast software to control all the clients at once (apparently because said software was being used by Bot developers to allow them to skip doing a lot of work.... but the bot devs already showed that all they had to do was like.... do that work instead of using the key broadcast software as a crutch).

But you can use a hardware multiplexer.

If you were good with a soldering iron (and patient) you could legit build a keyboard where each key had 5 separate leads and 5 USB control boards, and would therefore be seen as 5 keyboards.

You can still use multiple machines if you want.

Hell, you could even stil use the key broadcast software, if you want... you'd just have to run all 5 clients in VMs. Warden is never running on your core OS install, so it cant take exception to the software, because that software isn't on the VMs. That'd take you about an hour to set up, tops. Itll hurt performance (only one VM will be able to use the dGPU), but the other 4 you're going to have minimized anyway. If they run at 10fps, who cares.

Multiboxing wasn't banned, and it isnt cheating, despite your spasms.

[PingPong]

wonder what change in blizzard,while boxing been going on for 16 years and suddenly they suddenly decided to do this

[Darkeon]

wonder what change in blizzard,while boxing been going on for 16 years and suddenly they suddenly decided to do this

Bad PR.

A bigger influence, with a sprinkle of conspiracy flavour, in my opinion, is that pre-token era these accounts were entirely purchased and covered with actual subscriptions, therefore from a business perspective it wouldn't be the best to cut them loose, even they Multiboxers have always rather been a stain in the general eyes of the playerbase.

Nowadays multiboxing easily generates enough gold to cover the fees with using gold instead of actual money. Those tokens were already purchased by someone else, regardless of whether they are bought by a multiboxer or a regular player. So it definitely doesn't hurt as much as before to try to cull as many as possible.