Talk:Multiboxing

For multibox a direct download link could be beneficial, but I think linking to the current forum post on Dual-Boxing.com would be a little better. If the software is updated the download link will change, which would require a re-edit of the page here.

Also, if Ellay is watching this page, do you mind if we link to your forum? I linked and suggest linking to it as it's a wonderful resource. Shockbeta 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It might just be me, but...

...this sounds pretty darn "illegal" by Blizzard's EULA/TUA standards. User:Lessthan1337/Sig 23:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as i can see, they are against the Blizzard EULA/ToS. _└^Fisker_┘^┌_t/c^┐  18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't. Jeoh talk · stalk  17:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing illegal about it. User:Sharlin/Sig 11:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse there isn't aslong as you pay Blizzard, Blizzard isn't going to stop you. Unless ofcourse it will cost them other paying costumers. It is a bit like that new lvling system, where as you get a second account or friend to join you lvl three times faster and get a free mount. In a way you could also call that cheating but you pay Blizzard so it is fine. Blizzard decides what is legal and they decided this is legal because they get cash from it. I don't agree with the practise but there is nothing we can do about it if we have concerns.--Dehnus (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Multi-boxing is perfectly legal so long as you don't use illegal 3rd paty applications - http://forums.wow-europe.com/thread.html?topicId=268157261&sid=1&pageNo=4 (look for the "blue" post). There are many other references out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bel (talk · contr).

---

Most recent post on WOW forums from officials

[ http://forums.wow-europe.com/thread.html?topicId=3111662873&sid=1&pageNo=3 'Was just about to post a link to this thread, but I guess there's no need now since you already did it :-) Multi-boxing is allowed as long as no kind of automated software is being used to control characters. A player who has paid for 5 accounts is allowed to access those 5 accounts simultaneously.]

User:Sharlin/Sig 14:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Additions

• Section on setting up Autokey
• Section on setting up Synergy/Multibox
• Section on good macros for two characters and then 3+ characters. To allow control from one session
• Section on Tactics. How do you control the multiple characters without causing in game issues (like aggro ranges etc)

User:Sharlin/Sig 11:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleaup on Isle 3

I am going to clean up this article. I will split this page into the following sections.

• Definition of what multi-boxing/dual-boxing is about
• Hardware requirements
• Software requirements
• Useful macros
• etc...

Removed Clean Up Tag

I want to know, suggestions for further cleaning and wikifying? I am going through the pages, this one and the ones I spun off, trying to remove the personalization done by the original author except where I find it appropriate. I do still want suggestions.

Yes I multibox, actually up to 5 accounts on my iMac. Its flawless and makes the game unreal at times, even when the majority of my play is just two characters it is such fun its like having a new game to play. I want to get where I can run 3 flawlessly and then try to work 5 all the time. I don't know if I will get there but I know my machine can handle it. Don't knock it, I tried to provide some good examples of why in the main article - hint look for the Why section. User:Sharlin/Sig 20:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The split pages need to be named correctly by WW:MOS off the top of my head. The links to PC on the other pages should be changed to [[wikipedia:Personal computer|PC]], as that's a much better link. Probably an issue with the split articles is that WW:MOS says that the headers should be decapsed, like the edit I just made. It's very possible that many of the subsections can be gotten rid of; I just cleaned up the External links area today. Otherwise, looking good. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Threadlock warning=

I added the para about the threadlock warning, because rarely a day goes by without people asking whether MB's OK or not. Adding this para here saves CSF regulars from having to reference a Blue sticky, two other threads and then this article. We can now just point people here, and if GMs want to say anything else, or lock the OP's request, that's their business. I hope no one from the MB community feels I'm treading on their toes by ninja-editing this in, and further hope you can appreciate the frustration that regulars have with the constant question and multiple sources we've previously had to cite. Normal (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)