Re: Big Trouble at the little relief hut

On Aug 1, 1:48 pm, lcpltom <lcpl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 1, 8:23 am, "Mark (newsgroups)" <marknewsgro...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



On Aug 1, 12:33 pm, lcpltom <lcpl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You completely missed the point of what he was saying.  He wasn't
comparing multiboxing to not getting a job.  He was comparing 2
situations in where something did not go the way you intended but you
had no idea what the real underlying cause was.  All he did was give
an example of another situation where you don't know the cause of the
outcome.  The actual context of the example is irrelevant.

I disagree. I'm not siding with "Outsider" but I think the context is
relevant. You can't just link two situations together on one tenuous
fact. The only thing they have in common is that there is a piece of
missing information in both situations, apart from that I can't see
how not getting a job compares to multiboxing. You're also starting
from the assumption that both situations are indeed unfair, and that
has yet to be established in the case of multiboxing, and certainly I
am still on the "fair" side.

The comparison was meant to be abstract.  The context is irrelevant,
only meant to convey another situation where the outcome was
determined by factors unknown to you.  Granted, not getting a job and
getting smacked by a multiboxer/extremely-well-coordinated-5-man-group
are completely different things.  The common thread is there is
relative uncertainty, which was the point of the comparison.

You've lost me I'm afraid. Again, you are starting off with the
assumption that multiboxing is unfair therefore you can compare it to
another unfair situation. You can't do that.

I suppose it's up to you the individual what you perceive as fair, but
from where I'm sitting, you guys are being a little unrealistic. I
come across five characters guarding a strategic node, it matters not
one jot to me if it's one person or five people behind the characters.
All I know is I need to have a decent strategy to beat them,
especially since I can see they're not just random pug members. I will
also need roughly equal numbers of characters, perferably more.

Actually, that is a slight fib, if I work out that it's a multiboxer,
then I would adjust my strategy to disprupt their positioning knowing
they can't recover easily from that. As I said before, you are likely
to have an even harder time against five decent individual players
than you are against a multiboxer.

The only thing I do agree with is that you could argue they are
automating features of the game using key forwarding software. As I
said in another post, this seems at odds with Blizzard's policy of
preventing this in the API. Yet yourself and John disagree on this.

Like I said, stuff like macros and addons do implement a level of
automation into the game.  Its not full automation however.  So long
as they don't have programs running that take control of members of
the multibox group and perform actions without any input from the
player, they are fitting right in with what is already allowed via
macros and addons.  As long as there is a keypress of some sort
generating the action, its not full automation.

For goodness sake this is not a difficult concept. I've already
answered you on this, I don't care two hoots about automating stuff
like buying reagents, I'm *only* talking about controlling multiple
characters at once using the WoW macro api, which Blizzard has made
impossible, for a reason. Why am I repeating this?


I think a better way to look at this is from the perspective that a
multibox group is essentially one player.  Instead of thinking of them
as a 5-man group, think of them as 1 character.  Imagine if instead of
5 shaman, it was only 1 shaman with the power of 5.  Why should any 1
character have that much power at their disposal?

Wait what?! Why would I think of them as one character? That is the
whole problem with your argument, they are not one character they are
five. You can't get 44 players in AV.

 They can effectively, with 1 keypress, 1 shot an equal level player.

I'm flabbergasted. I will leave the argument here I'm afraid. If you
expect to go up against 5 characters by yourself and not die, then
there is no point debating anymore.

We'll just agree to disagree.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Big Trouble at the little relief hut
    ... how not getting a job compares to multiboxing. ... one jot to me if it's one person or five people behind the characters. ... Its not full automation however. ... command to another player, and the addon would automatically decurse ...
    (alt.games.warcraft)
  • Re: Big Trouble at the little relief hut
    ... comparing multiboxing to not getting a job. ... how not getting a job compares to multiboxing. ... one jot to me if it's one person or five people behind the characters. ... multibox group is essentially one player. ...
    (alt.games.warcraft)
  • Re: Big Trouble at the little relief hut
    ... comparing multiboxing to not getting a job. ... how not getting a job compares to multiboxing. ... one jot to me if it's one person or five people behind the characters. ... to have an even harder time against five decent individual players ...
    (alt.games.warcraft)
  • Re: Big Trouble at the little relief hut
    ... comparing multiboxing to not getting a job. ... how not getting a job compares to multiboxing. ... assumption that multiboxing is unfair therefore you can compare it to ... one shotting a player with one character being 5 times as strong one ...
    (alt.games.warcraft)
  • Re: [opensuse] problem with [:graph:] in perl
    ... I'm comparing to how isgraphworks in C, ... interaction of Unicode and Locale. ... Perl uses logically-wide characters to ...
    (SuSE)