Is multiboxing allowed in SAB normal mode?

[TallBarr.2184]

anyone knows?

[Haleydawn.3764]

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/65546/policy-dual-or-multi-boxing#latest

[Klowdy.3126]

So, no point to multi boxing in this game.

[Khisanth.2948]

The policy says it is okay for PvE and since SAB is PvE so yes.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> The policy says it is okay for PvE and since SAB is PvE so yes.

 

The policy says it's okay in pve areas IF:

> - Each account must be attended at all times.

> - Each account must be operated independently of each other.

> - Accounts must not be operated simultaneously using macros or bots.

> - One keystroke should translate to one action on one account.

 

The later mention of this only being allowed in PvE areas does not invalidate these points. As such, multiboxing as many people would likely want to run (aka multiple accounts which are controlled by one person simultaneously via macros and multiplication of inputs to control all accounts) is definitely NOT allowed.

[Genuinetheo.6591]

I think the saying goes that you cannot use macros or bots to move these characters when you are multiboxing. Basically you can multibox as long as everything you do is manual input.

[Linken.6345]

I remember seeing a gm saying it wasent ok to have 4 account at start of dungeon just becouse you could solo them on your main to reap the rewards 5 times.

[Shikigami.4013]

> @"Linken.6345" said:

> I remember seeing a gm saying it wasent ok to have 4 account at start of dungeon just becouse you could solo them on your main to reap the rewards 5 times.

 

That is not accurate, because the context and circumstances are missing. The statement was in the context of characters being afk/not actively played.

A character counts as not being actively played if he is unresponsive to a GM, that means if you log in 5 clients on your pc, form a group to reap dungeons rewards and then minimize 4 of them and play on the 5th, it would be against the rules because the 4 minimized characters are not being actively played (unresponsive to a GM because of being minimized and the player not paying attention to them).

 

If you are actively monitor all of the characters that are in use and benefit from the activity they participate in (in this case a dungeon run) nothing will happen to you as long as you are not using "tricks" to control several characters at once.

[TallBarr.2184]

> @"Shikigami.4013" said:

> > @"Linken.6345" said:

> > I remember seeing a gm saying it wasent ok to have 4 account at start of dungeon just becouse you could solo them on your main to reap the rewards 5 times.

>

> That is not accurate, because the context and circumstances are missing. The statement was in the context of characters being afk/not actively played.

> A character counts as not being actively played if he is unresponsive to a GM, that means if you log in 5 clients on your pc, form a group to reap dungeons rewards and then minimize 4 of them and play on the 5th, it would be against the rules because the 4 minimized characters are not being actively played (unresponsive to a GM because of being minimized and the player not paying attention to them).

>

> If you are actively monitor all of the characters that are in use and benefit from the activity they participate in (in this case a dungeon run) nothing will happen to you as long as you are not using "tricks" to control several characters at once.

 

This is what i thought aswell, do you know if Anet has explicitly stated what they mean when they use the word "actively" i always thought it meant you need to be responsive and not be afk but i always hear conflicting explanations.

[mercury ranique.2170]

Someone was kind enough to quote the rules. I think they are clear. I do not think that assuming that the OP wants to brake those rules (or bend) is helpfull. All we know, he wants his second account in to keep the instance open while he visits the bank.

[Glider.5792]

I dont think it is, otherwise you could easily leach 5x reward from SAB while only actualy playing on one character. Due to how checkpoints and /gg works, this could easily be exploitable. Heck, i aint even sure if i should have this posted here.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"TallBarr.2184" said:

> This is what i thought aswell, do you know if Anet has explicitly stated what they mean when they use the word "actively" i always thought it meant you need to be responsive and not be afk but i always hear conflicting explanations.

 

We see "conflicting explanations" because some people don't like the policy. Some want ANet to be stricter, so they see less wiggle room in the official statements. Some want ANet to be more relaxed, so they see loopholes. Some want a list of specifics, so they can more easily get away with skirting the edge of the rules; some want specifics to be extra sure they aren't going to accidentally jam themselves up. Consequently, I try to focus on what ANet actually says, rather than what others claim they said.

 

They aren't going to explicitly define "actively" or "away from keyboard" if for no other reason than they can't possibly cover all reasonable exceptions or all unreasonable behaviors. They trust that the vast majority of multiboxers aren't going to run into these rules in the first place, so it's moot for them.

 

If your goal is min-maxing your earnings per time and/or having some fun trying to make it all work, then all you really need to know is: play all the accounts, do not use automation, & be able to respond to whispers from a GM. The rest is just details on how they have verified what someone is (or is not) doing. And, again, most of us don't have to worry about it, not at all.

 

 

[TallBarr.2184]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"TallBarr.2184" said:

> > This is what i thought aswell, do you know if Anet has explicitly stated what they mean when they use the word "actively" i always thought it meant you need to be responsive and not be afk but i always hear conflicting explanations.

>

> We see "conflicting explanations" because some people don't like the policy. Some want ANet to be stricter, so they see less wiggle room in the official statements. Some want ANet to be more relaxed, so they see loopholes. Some want a list of specifics, so they can more easily get away with skirting the edge of the rules; some want specifics to be extra sure they aren't going to accidentally jam themselves up. Consequently, I try to focus on what ANet actually says, rather than what others claim they said.

>

> They aren't going to explicitly define "actively" or "away from keyboard" if for no other reason than they can't possibly cover all reasonable exceptions or all unreasonable behaviors. They trust that the vast majority of multiboxers aren't going to run into these rules in the first place, so it's moot for them.

>

> If your goal is min-maxing your earnings per time and/or having some fun trying to make it all work, then all you really need to know is: play all the accounts, do not use automation, & be able to respond to whispers from a GM. The rest is just details on how they have verified what someone is (or is not) doing. And, again, most of us don't have to worry about it, not at all.

>

>

 

I mean there is no offical explanation of what the wording contain so there will always be conflicting explanations, even on GM level.

 

Dungeon selling is now a thing of the past i suppose? and of my knowledge dungeon selling has never been prohibited and people paid for a service that they otherwise wouldnt succeed in or they just wanted the contents of the clear fast.

 

Raid selling is explicity allowed by anet in their policy.

 

I dont see why boosting your own characters in instanced content where players normally would sell the clear is not allowed. You are not taking others gold for the service but instead use the service for yourself, you still need to run through the content like you normally would. Granted you are responsive like Shikigami said.

 

My point is, if "boosting" your own characters in any instanced content where u solo the content first is not allowed, any form of selling of content should not be allowed either. And i believe thats a fair point.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"TallBarr.2184" said:

> I mean there is no offical explanation of what the wording contain so there will always be conflicting explanations, even on GM level.

That's the sort of logical leap that isn't worth making. There is an official explanation; it can't be explicit or it undermines ANet's ability to enforce their rule set. You can be sure that the support leads have very clear ideas of where to draw the line and what situations are worthy of an exception; they just won't be sharing it with us.

 

 

> Dungeon selling is now a thing of the past i suppose? and of my knowledge dungeon selling has never been prohibited and people paid for a service that they otherwise wouldnt succeed in or they just wanted the contents of the clear fast.

>

> Raid selling is explicity allowed by anet in their policy.

Sure.

 

>

> I dont see why boosting your own characters in instanced content where players normally would sell the clear is not allowed. You are not taking others gold for the service but instead use the service for yourself, you still need to run through the content like you normally would. Granted you are responsive like Shikigami said.

I'm not sure why you're having trouble seeing that the two aren't the same. When someone buys a raid, they are controlling their character; when someone leaches kills on their alt account, they might or might not be controlling their alt account.

 

 

> My point is, if "boosting" your own characters in any instanced content where u solo the content first is not allowed, any form of selling of content should not be allowed either. And i believe thats a fair point.

You seem to be focused on the "earn" part and not on the mechanics of how the benefits are accrued.

 

Some multiboxers do not actively play all of their accounts. They use automations or short cuts of various sorts. Most multiboxers do play, which is why ANet doesn't have a problem with the principle.

 

****

 

Rather than go back and forth on the topic, the easier rule of thumb is:

> If the distinction isn't clear between "active" and "passive," don't multibox.

 

[mercury ranique.2170]

> @"TallBarr.2184" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > @"TallBarr.2184" said:

> > > This is what i thought aswell, do you know if Anet has explicitly stated what they mean when they use the word "actively" i always thought it meant you need to be responsive and not be afk but i always hear conflicting explanations.

> >

> > We see "conflicting explanations" because some people don't like the policy. Some want ANet to be stricter, so they see less wiggle room in the official statements. Some want ANet to be more relaxed, so they see loopholes. Some want a list of specifics, so they can more easily get away with skirting the edge of the rules; some want specifics to be extra sure they aren't going to accidentally jam themselves up. Consequently, I try to focus on what ANet actually says, rather than what others claim they said.

> >

> > They aren't going to explicitly define "actively" or "away from keyboard" if for no other reason than they can't possibly cover all reasonable exceptions or all unreasonable behaviors. They trust that the vast majority of multiboxers aren't going to run into these rules in the first place, so it's moot for them.

> >

> > If your goal is min-maxing your earnings per time and/or having some fun trying to make it all work, then all you really need to know is: play all the accounts, do not use automation, & be able to respond to whispers from a GM. The rest is just details on how they have verified what someone is (or is not) doing. And, again, most of us don't have to worry about it, not at all.

> >

> >

>

> I mean there is no offical explanation of what the wording contain so there will always be conflicting explanations, even on GM level.

>

> Dungeon selling is now a thing of the past i suppose? and of my knowledge dungeon selling has never been prohibited and people paid for a service that they otherwise wouldnt succeed in or they just wanted the contents of the clear fast.

>

> Raid selling is explicity allowed by anet in their policy.

>

> I dont see why boosting your own characters in instanced content where players normally would sell the clear is not allowed. You are not taking others gold for the service but instead use the service for yourself, you still need to run through the content like you normally would. Granted you are responsive like Shikigami said.

>

> My point is, if "boosting" your own characters in any instanced content where u solo the content first is not allowed, any form of selling of content should not be allowed either. And i believe thats a fair point.

 

Dungeon selling was never stopped by Arenanet, it just died out, most like dungeons themselfes.

There are no conflciting explanations on the GM level. Simply, because they do not need to have explainations. They just ban you if you did wrong. Wether you did or not is up to them. That is also an integral part of the rulebook. Arenanet can stop the access to their service whenever they want. In fact, it is the most important rule. When you disbehave, you get out. The statement about multiboxing is only a guideline. If you truly want to know what the exact bounderies are, go ahead and try them out and you'll find out. Just do not complain that you got banned.

[TallBarr.2184]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"TallBarr.2184" said:

> > I mean there is no offical explanation of what the wording contain so there will always be conflicting explanations, even on GM level.

> That's the sort of logical leap that isn't worth making. There is an official explanation; it can't be explicit or it undermines ANet's ability to enforce their rule set. You can be sure that the support leads have very clear ideas of where to draw the line and what situations are worthy of an exception; they just won't be sharing it with us.

>

>

> > Dungeon selling is now a thing of the past i suppose? and of my knowledge dungeon selling has never been prohibited and people paid for a service that they otherwise wouldnt succeed in or they just wanted the contents of the clear fast.

> >

> > Raid selling is explicity allowed by anet in their policy.

> Sure.

>

> >

> > I dont see why boosting your own characters in instanced content where players normally would sell the clear is not allowed. You are not taking others gold for the service but instead use the service for yourself, you still need to run through the content like you normally would. Granted you are responsive like Shikigami said.

> I'm not sure why you're having trouble seeing that the two aren't the same. When someone buys a raid, they are controlling their character; when someone leaches kills on their alt account, they might or might not be controlling their alt account.

>

>

> > My point is, if "boosting" your own characters in any instanced content where u solo the content first is not allowed, any form of selling of content should not be allowed either. And i believe thats a fair point.

> You seem to be focused on the "earn" part and not on the mechanics of how the benefits are accrued.

>

> Some multiboxers do not actively play all of their accounts. They use automations or short cuts of various sorts. Most multiboxers do play, which is why ANet doesn't have a problem with the principle.

>

> ****

>

> Rather than go back and forth on the topic, the easier rule of thumb is:

> > If the distinction isn't clear between "active" and "passive," don't multibox.

>

 

"Some multiboxers do not actively play all of their accounts. They use automations or short cuts of various sorts. Most multiboxers do play, which is why ANet doesn't have a problem with the principle."

Personally what is your definition of "actively play"

 

There is no difference if i manually collect the chest on my characters or if a random people paying me gold collects it, i have still run through the content and have a choice to offer a service for gold or for msyelf. If the person controls all accounts seperately using no macros, with all clients visible at all time, both chat and surroundings you believe Anet has no problem boosting their characters.

 

This is what one of the Lead GM's said couple months ago.

"You need to be actively playing your game accounts. If you minimize accounts, if you AFK, if you run bots, if you are, in short, not in full control of it"

 

So if you dont:

1. use macros or programs to control your account - you are not running bots

2. play on minilized screens alt tabbing between accs - you are not at risk of missing messages

3. afk for rewards - you are at your keyboard controlling your accounts.

 

If you do this you would be in control of your accounts and by this GM's explanation actively playing your account.

 

------------

 

"I'm not sure why you're having trouble seeing that the two aren't the same. When someone buys a raid, they are controlling their character; when someone leaches kills on their alt account, they might or might not be controlling their alt account."

 

Are you confident in Anets ability to see wether the person is controlling that alt character manually or not.

 

Do you believe all cases should be handled individually and that the majority of multiboxers dont want to lose their accounts and do their best in following the policies. Or do you believe Anet should and do let 1 in a thousand rotten apples dictate wether it to be allowed or not.

[Genuinetheo.6591]

If you want to risk it for a biscuit, then run macros or bots on your other characters to see how profitable it can be, and for how long. Don't ask me what the repercussions for this are because I don't multibox and surely don't run any macros just to play the game.

 

Also, you forgot one thing, and that's that Arenanet has always stuck by their "one input = one action" policy where, if I type in the letter "i", it opens my inventory. That is one action. If there's any other action, of any kind, tied to that letter, it is technically already against their policy for macro/bot use.

[TallBarr.2184]

> @"Genuinetheo.6591" said:

> If you want to risk it for a biscuit, then run macros or bots on your other characters to see how profitable it can be, and for how long. Don't ask me what the repercussions for this are because I don't multibox and surely don't run any macros just to play the game.

>

> Also, you forgot one thing, and that's that Arenanet has always stuck by their "one input = one action" policy where, if I type in the letter "i", it opens my inventory. That is one action. If there's any other action, of any kind, tied to that letter, it is technically already against their policy for macro/bot use.

 

Little bit out of context, but i dont use macros and i never have, i'm fully aware all accounts needs to be controlled seperately with 1 key 1 action. Without going into details, boosting anyone or yourself in SAB or any instanced content do not require macros.

 

 

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"TallBarr.2184" said:

> Personally what is your definition of "actively play"

My definition is irrelevant. It's entirely up to ANet.

 

> If you do [as stated above] you would be in control of your accounts and by this GM's explanation actively playing your account.

Correct. Since you understand that, I'm not sure where the confusion lies.

 

> Are you confident in Anets ability to see wether the person is controlling that alt character manually or not.

Also irrelevant. It's their job to be able to distinguish, to be able to respond to appeals in case of mistakes. They either are doing that successfully...or they aren't. Nothing I write is going to change that.

 

>

> Do you believe all cases should be handled individually and that the majority of multiboxers dont want to lose their accounts and do their best in following the policies. Or do you believe Anet should and do let 1 in a thousand rotten apples dictate wether it to be allowed or not.

I believe it's in ANet's business interests to set a policy that benefits their game the best for the cost of "policing" their policies. It's irrelevant what I believe.

 

As a general matter of enforcement:

* Some people always break the rules

* Some people never do.

* Policies are therefore best aimed at reducing the middle group: those who might sometimes break the rules, in the right circumstances.

[Shikigami.4013]

The closest we get to a "definition" of "actively playing" is something the Head GM said on Reddit. He told us that he can not go into detail, but that they "**check people if they are actively playing**" every day and that there is "**never a problem if they respond**".

 

Most people will draw the conlusion, that "actively playing" thus means "responding to a GM when needed". It's just common sense.

[Blude.6812]

Just try it and see what happens.

[Charrbeque.8729]

Actually, a dev posted on Reddit a few days ago. (it had to do with multi-boxing Pve)

 

>Dornsinger wrote: Please note that "auto attack", while in the game, is not in the game to AFK farm or similar. That still goes against the rules. We want players to actively play. The word of focus being "actively". If you can do that with more than one account, please feel free. However, if you cannot, and you use macros, shortcuts, auto-attacks or 'parking' characters to gain benefits, you may get actioned.

 

 

>Dornsinger wrote: ................What you are doing, is pretty much **AFKing these accounts to get a reward without participation. That isn't okay and can get actioned.**

 

 

>Dornsinger wrote: ...............The rules are, I have to repeat, clear. You must be playing actively. If you are unable to do so on several accounts, then you cannot play several accounts. If you are able to do so, then go ahead. I cannot provide 'wiggle room' to let folks find loopholes or exceptions to this.

 

In short, what Dornsinger is saying is this: you cannot have multiple accounts benefiting from events or whatever at the same time, unless you can find a way to "actively" play all of those accounts at the same time (without violating the Tos).

 

But it isn't possible to play multiple accounts simultaneously without using macros/bots which would be in violation of the rules. In short, there really isn't any legal way to actively play multiple accounts at the same time.

 

Edit: I could be misinterpreting what Dornsigner had said. You should look through that Reddit thread to see all his responses on the subject.

 

Edit: One thing note that he said when someone asked about parked characters at jumping puzzles:

 

>That is correct! The limit is a direct benefit, such as parking your hoard of alts at a looping map event to harvest Karma by just sitting around. Parking a character at, say, gathering nodes to hop in now and again and harvest - provided you're doing it manually ;3 - isn't the issue!

[TallBarr.2184]

Thanks for linking that thread had not seen that one

[Arya.3841]

From what I read... There is no way you can click in several games at the same time so there is 0 chance you can be actively playing on several accounts on the same time.

So you can start several games but you can't play on several accounts without being banned in the end. Unless you make money in custom arena which is authorized. ;)

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Arya.3841" said:

> From what I read... There is no way you can click in several games at the same time so there is 0 chance you can be actively playing on several accounts on the same time.

You don't have to "click in several games at the same time." You just have to have a sufficiently fast processor that you can alt tab, have multiple keyboards (or a keyboard 'switch') for virtual desktops or use multiple computers.

 

> So you can start several games but you can't play on several accounts without being banned in the end. Unless you make money in custom arena which is authorized. ;)

I assure you that plenty of people can start multiple games at once. Some even enjoy the challenge of trying to get all the accounts contributing.