Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
iskflakes
316
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 21:18:00 -
[31] - Quote
This "petition" is so stupid
Multiboxing is a legitimate form of gameplay. It's a human making all the movements, so nothing wrong with that. CCP needs the income from the people who run 10-30 accounts too. - |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
760
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 21:20:00 -
[32] - Quote
this thread isn't going places.
it already is places. now all it needs is a dev to come in and close the door and set off a fire to the building. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Zelda Wei
New Horizon Trade Exchange
217
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 21:20:00 -
[33] - Quote
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:http://technabob.com/blog/2010/04/11/eve-multi-boxing-rig/
Copy and paste the link. With large sums of money or spare equipment, you don't need a program to multi-box. Would you ban the above also simply because you can't do it?
God you are gullible.
An obvious and crude attempt by some botter to escape a ban. |
Lady Ayeipsia
Red Federation
550
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 21:21:00 -
[34] - Quote
Beckie DeLey wrote:EVE needs a hard cap on only one instance of the exe running at the same time to seriously crack down on this. There's way too much automation going on. Yeah, this is going to hurt a few guys with their scout/cyno alts, but then again they can just find a corp to fly with if that bothers them.
but sure, outlawing ISBOxer etc is a fine first step towards actual people playing the actual game with actual other people..
Um... So only those with multiple computers can multi-box? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3538
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 21:22:00 -
[35] - Quote
Google Voices wrote:"3.You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play." Isboxer clearly breaks the EULA by facilitating the ability of a single person to use an army to facilitate the acquisition of items at an accelerated rate. You could not run 20 clients yourself at anywhere near the efficiency that Isboxer allows. I guess the rules only apply when CCP says they apply. Amazingly, the people that make the rules are entitled to make judgement calls when something falls into a grey area.
Funny how that works.
Isboxer has been borderline for a long time, this is nothing new, but CCP are WELL within their rights to decide that since there is a person behind the keyboard inputting all the commands... and that the individual accounts are not earning money any faster than they normally would (still a person clicking the mouse for each action)... it does not fall under the guideline above.
If they choose to change their mind, that would be fine too. It's their rules after all. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Cyerus
Galactic Dominion Eternal Strife
148
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 21:24:00 -
[36] - Quote
So, what exactly is the problem with people using multiboxing software? |
Hammer Borne
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 21:25:00 -
[37] - Quote
There is some serious misconceptions about multi-boxing in this thread. Rather disgusting, actually.
It is one thing to simply run multiple clients on the same (or many) computers and interact with each one.
It is entirely a different matter to use software that accepts a single click of "F1" on one keyboard and forks it to all the clients.
The second example is a clearly defined abuse of the EULA. |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
587
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 21:25:00 -
[38] - Quote
Kal Mindar wrote:With the recent news of the Eve-uni multi box botting scandal, I think it is time to ban multi box programs. Any program that allows 1 player to operate 30 characters, even just for movement, should not be allowed. Why are they allowed to hit 1 button and insta warp 30 characters to safety instead of dealing with the consequences of not being able to manually move them all in time to prevent a gank. A click is a click and any program that duplicates one is not following the spirit of action vs. consequence that this amazing game is based upon.
I, Kal Mindar, deem that multi boxing programs are a EULA breaking form of automation that undermines the integrity of this game. As was pointed out earlier in this thread .. when you are a CCP employee, then we'll start caring.
IB4L
ALSO -- See this post in a another thread (The thread was started from someone that didn't have their shorts all in a bunch about it)...
The GMs have already responded on the issue. It's a closed case. So, deal with it.
As long as CCP promotes multi-accounting, multi-boxers will always be there. The issue isn't the multi-boxing software, it's the botting. Ban botting -- and CCP does work at banning botters. HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go! |
Maya Regyri
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 21:25:00 -
[39] - Quote
Kal Mindar wrote:Lady Ayeipsia wrote:http://technabob.com/blog/2010/04/11/eve-multi-boxing-rig/
Copy and paste the link. With large sums of money or spare equipment, you don't need a program to multi-box. Would you ban the above also simply because you can't do it? Umm. No. My problem is with a program that takes 1 click and duplicates it 30 times. Again, why should they be allowed to warp all 30 hulks let's say, back to a pos with 1 click. How does this reinforce the main theme of action vs. consequence that this game is underpinned by?
let me put it this way. in simple terms, as if you were a five year old.
game designer says "we should not allow people to broadcast hardware inputs to multiple instances of our program", game dev supervisor, writes a memo, and sends it to legal dept. legal dept sends a memo back that reads "you cant ban broadcasting of hardware events, since they are being broadcasted by the OS even if only one instance of the client is open. and even when the memory region where our software runs is legally ours while its assigned (at least in US soil), the interactions between the OS, Hardware and our software is outside of our control. the only way to police the source of the hardware events will require an update not only on the OS EULA, but also an update on over 30 years of PC I/O standards.
there's a much easier way around all this, and it a simple change on our EULA, that would limit our users to running only one instance of the program."
game dev says, "ok, lets do that. from now on only one instance is allowed, anyone found running 2 clients will be banned or warned." on the same day it is announced almost every single EVE player comes into the forums and rage of epic proportions ensues.
the war is over, you lost.
not even companies like blizzard that have won court cases allowing them to take legal ownership of the memory address where WoW is ran cant do anything about broadcasting, because even when they have ownership over that memory block the interactions between their software and the rest of the OS and hardware is way out of their ... jurisdiction?
now, the EULA on a game can prevent automation, that's true and you wont find anyone that disagrees with the necessity of those limitations and the negative effect automation can have on the game. but to prevent automation there's no need to police over hardware events, all you need to do is monitor the actions received by the server and identify behavior patters that serve to tell a machine apart from a human.
the problem you have is that you are thinking Broadcasting=Automation, and that is false. any attempts to prove it otherwise is fools errand, go try to argue that 1+1 is 3. you'll have better luck... |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
280
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 21:28:00 -
[40] - Quote
Kal Mindar wrote:Again, why should they be allowed to warp all 30 hulks let's say, back to a pos with 1 click.
I'm not going to weigh in on either side but you picked a really stupid example to use here. |
|
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
587
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 21:34:00 -
[41] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Kal Mindar wrote:Again, why should they be allowed to warp all 30 hulks let's say, back to a pos with 1 click. I'm not going to weigh in on either side but you picked a really stupid example to use here. Hehehe..
To back you up, Yeep and to show just how crazy that example was ...
Mining Fleet with 100 people in it with different ships ---
Mining FC - Right Click / WARP FLEET to POS / @ 10km ..... HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go! |
Nemesis Factor
Clann Fian Transmission Lost
71
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 21:35:00 -
[42] - Quote
People are correct when they say ISboxer or other similar software isn't necessary for multiboxing. Obviously there are no solutions for people using fifteen mice glued together....
Or CCP could just monitor for two or more clients in the same system that give the same commands at the same time more than 100 times in a row and issue warning and then bans. No collateral damage to honest players. And yes, it IS my opinion that players who multi-box in this manner (one input - multiple outputs) are dishonest. I don't know why, but I'm rather disgusted by people who put so much effort (elusively out of game) toward sating their greed. If you want 100 ships worth of income you need to control them individually.
Edit: Or run a corp and have salaried pilots.
Edit2: Maybe I have somewhat unbalanced morals, but I would also be okay with someone using a sweatshop to earn isk, as long as the workers were playing fair. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
763
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 21:37:00 -
[43] - Quote
Nemesis Factor wrote:People are correct when they say ISboxer or other similar software isn't necessary for multiboxing. Obviously there are no solutions for people using fifteen mice glued together....
Or CCP could just monitor for two or more clients in the same system that give the same commands at the same time more than 100 times in a row and issue warning and then bans. No collateral damage to honest players. And yes, it IS my opinion that players who multi-box in this manner (one input - multiple outputs) are dishonest. I don't know why, but I'm rather disgusted by people who put so much effort (elusively out of game) toward sating their greed. If you want 100 ships worth of income you need to control them individually. ok let's put it this way: how are those 100 ships automated if there's still a user at the commands? granted he's like split over 100 ships, but he's there, unlike botting. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Markku Laaksonen
EVE University Ivy League
65
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 21:44:00 -
[44] - Quote
Kal Mindar wrote:I, Kal Mindar, deem that multi boxing programs are a EULA breaking form of automation that undermines the integrity of this game.
Good thing you don't matter.
Anyway, this is a non issue. AS CCP Sreegs illustrated, the EULA is a very clear easy to read document and says in no uncertain terms that multiboxing is most definitely and without a doubt probably not allowed. Although on the other hand, maybe it it is allowed. However, assuming it's a Tuesday, as in today, the interpretation is up the GM who receives the petition, and they are instructed that maybe they should probably rule one way or another on it. Which is to say that multiboxing is most assuredly and positively, without hesitancy, allowed. Unless of course the GMs ruling doesn't count, which happens both often and infrequently. Therefore, issues of the EULA and multiboxing are quite clear for all to see. Maybe.
But probably not. |
GreenSeed
202
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 21:45:00 -
[45] - Quote
OP wants to ban multiboxing on a game that right now is running an ad offering alt accounts at half the price.
OP you are as hopeless as a newb that comes to the forum asking for PVP to be consensual. this is not the game for you... go back to wow.
oh wait... forgot wow invented multiboxing. |
Nemesis Factor
Clann Fian Transmission Lost
71
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 21:45:00 -
[46] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:Nemesis Factor wrote:People are correct when they say ISboxer or other similar software isn't necessary for multiboxing. Obviously there are no solutions for people using fifteen mice glued together....
Or CCP could just monitor for two or more clients in the same system that give the same commands at the same time more than 100 times in a row and issue warning and then bans. No collateral damage to honest players. And yes, it IS my opinion that players who multi-box in this manner (one input - multiple outputs) are dishonest. I don't know why, but I'm rather disgusted by people who put so much effort (elusively out of game) toward sating their greed. If you want 100 ships worth of income you need to control them individually. ok let's put it this way: how are those 100 ships automated if there's still a user at the commands? granted he's like split over 100 ships, but he's there, unlike botting.
Not suggesting it is automated. I don't feel botting or automation is the only criteria for banning someone. No one should be confusing this for botting or other unattended playing. This is a proposal for a completely new set of standards by which to get rid of 'those people.' |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
764
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 21:50:00 -
[47] - Quote
Nemesis Factor wrote:Grimpak wrote:Nemesis Factor wrote:People are correct when they say ISboxer or other similar software isn't necessary for multiboxing. Obviously there are no solutions for people using fifteen mice glued together....
Or CCP could just monitor for two or more clients in the same system that give the same commands at the same time more than 100 times in a row and issue warning and then bans. No collateral damage to honest players. And yes, it IS my opinion that players who multi-box in this manner (one input - multiple outputs) are dishonest. I don't know why, but I'm rather disgusted by people who put so much effort (elusively out of game) toward sating their greed. If you want 100 ships worth of income you need to control them individually. ok let's put it this way: how are those 100 ships automated if there's still a user at the commands? granted he's like split over 100 ships, but he's there, unlike botting. Not suggesting it is automated. I don't feel botting or automation is the only criteria for banning someone. No one should be confusing this for botting or other unattended playing. This is a proposal for a completely new set of standards by which to get rid of 'those people.' but that's the thing: it's not automated nor there is client modification. banning people over multiboxing like that is equal to banning people over using the G keys on a logitech G15 keyboard to play EVE. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Arduemont
Tempest Legion Corcoran State
1223
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 21:51:00 -
[48] - Quote
I am of two minds about this. Firstly it is obscene... I don't understand why anyone multi-boxes in this fashion anyway, it seems completely pointless.
Second, I don't see that it is of any harm. A 30 man mining fleet that is all being multiboxed may look like it's earning shed loads of ISK... but it isn't. That poor idiot is only getting the same amount per account as he would be if he were only running one account. He has to pay for all those accounts after all, and running 30 miners isn't going to get you the money for 30 plexes per month.
I could easily have overlooked something here. There is probably some obscure way of multiboxing to make obscene ISK, but I can't see it. If someone running 6 multiboxed accounts is running level fours and earning 50m per tick then he's only really getting 8m per account, which is alright... bout standard really. And he/she is paying CCP for all those accounts... So...More fool him really. "In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2395
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 22:06:00 -
[49] - Quote
Kal Mindar wrote:With the recent news of the Eve-uni multi box botting scandal, I think it is time to ban multi box programs. Any program that allows 1 player to operate 30 characters, even just for movement, should not be allowed. Why are they allowed to hit 1 button and insta warp 30 characters to safety instead of dealing with the consequences of not being able to manually move them all in time to prevent a gank. A click is a click and any program that duplicates one is not following the spirit of action vs. consequence that this amazing game is based upon.
I, Kal Mindar, deem that multi boxing programs are a EULA breaking form of automation that undermines the integrity of this game.
He wasn't multiboxing at all, he was flat out botting.
Apparently booking your flight & accomodation to Iceland BEFORE you buy the tickets for the convention which is pretty much the only reason you wanted to go there in the first place is popular. |
Ace Realist
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 22:14:00 -
[50] - Quote
/Signed |
|
Felicity Love
STARKRAFT
242
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 22:23:00 -
[51] - Quote
... burns a bra in protest... a reallly frilly one.
Proud Beta Tester for "Bumping Uglies for Dummies" |
Orlacc
226
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 22:30:00 -
[52] - Quote
Kal Mindar wrote:With the recent news of the Eve-uni multi box botting scandal, I think it is time to ban multi box programs. Any program that allows 1 player to operate 30 characters, even just for movement, should not be allowed. Why are they allowed to hit 1 button and insta warp 30 characters to safety instead of dealing with the consequences of not being able to manually move them all in time to prevent a gank. A click is a click and any program that duplicates one is not following the spirit of action vs. consequence that this amazing game is based upon.
I, Kal Mindar, deem that multi boxing programs are a EULA breaking form of automation that undermines the integrity of this game.
Guy was botting. Big difference. I take it you think he wrongly booted. |
Kal Mindar
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 22:31:00 -
[53] - Quote
May of you are having a hard time comprehending what this petition is about. It is about 1 click doing the job of 30. Yes i know a person is present and at the controls, but this is a form of automation. This petition is to show that there is a large number of people who believe that this level of automation detracts from the main theme of the game. Risk vs reward and action vs consequence.
One click should never move multiple characters unless CCP has specifically designed that into the game. Ie. Fleet warp.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12866
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 22:37:00 -
[54] - Quote
Kal Mindar wrote:One click should never move multiple characters unless CCP has specifically designed that into the game. Ie. Fleet warp. Why not?
What impact does it have on risk vs. reward and action vs. consequence (apart from making the risks that much higher since a multiboxed fleet is that much easier to kill)?
Vote Malcanis for CSM8. |
Lfod Shi
Lfod's Ratting and Salvage
80
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 22:46:00 -
[55] - Quote
Perhaps it's up to the sandbox? GÖ¬ They'll always be bloodclaws to me GÖ½ ...end transmission... |
Kal Mindar
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 23:03:00 -
[56] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kal Mindar wrote:One click should never move multiple characters unless CCP has specifically designed that into the game. Ie. Fleet warp. Why not? What impact does it have on risk vs. reward and action vs. consequence (apart from making the risks that much higher since a multiboxed fleet is that much easier to kill)?
That is the point. A mining fleet that can move in complete synchronicity is harder to kill them a mining fleet that requires individual clicks. The multi box programs do more than fleet warp. They can engage, disengage asteroids, move ore to holds or cans, anything you do om one screen can be duplicated. This is not how I want eve to be hence the petition.
I am but one person and a healthy discussion is always beneficial to the game as a whole.
So far 1 in 7 people who have viewed this thread agree. That is a fairly high percentage compares to other community driven initiatives.
I love this game, I love this community and my motivation is to help strengthen the core values that I feel set this game apart.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12868
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 23:11:00 -
[57] - Quote
Kal Mindar wrote:That is the point. A mining fleet that can move in complete synchronicity is harder to kill them a mining fleet that requires individual clicks. Not really, no. Since they all behave exactly the same, they cannot respond to individual threats and they all fall into the exact same trap at the exact same time.
Quote:The multi box programs do more than fleet warp. They can engage, disengage asteroids, move ore to holds or cans, anything you do om one screen can be duplicated. GǪand in doing so be a whole lot less efficient than fleets that can spread out among the rocks properly; respond to variations in the environment; and act on a per-need basis rather than on a one-fits-all template. What you're describing is exactly why there's an upper limit to how much you can multibox. 30 ships sucking on the same asteroid means you've wasted 20 shipsGǪ
The only thing multiboxing really helps you with is not having to engage in teamspeak banter. Then again, that might be an unfair advantage in and of itselfGǪ Vote Malcanis for CSM8. |
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
782
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 23:21:00 -
[58] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:I am of two minds about this. Firstly it is obscene... I don't understand why anyone multi-boxes in this fashion anyway, it seems completely pointless.
Second, I don't see that it is of any harm. A 30 man mining fleet that is all being multiboxed may look like it's earning shed loads of ISK... but it isn't. That poor idiot is only getting the same amount per account as he would be if he were only running one account. He has to pay for all those accounts after all, and running 30 miners isn't going to get you the money for 30 plexes per month.
I could easily have overlooked something here. There is probably some obscure way of multiboxing to make obscene ISK, but I can't see it. If someone running 6 multiboxed accounts is running level fours and earning 50m per tick then he's only really getting 8m per account, which is alright... bout standard really. And he/she is paying CCP for all those accounts... So...More fool him really. for a mining fleet you have fixed costs in terms of the orca/rorqual booster and very slowly scaling costs in terms of a freighter or another orca to haul your minerals to the nearest station.
the orca booster is a great example for a mechanic that maxes multiboxing profitable: it's boost applies in full to each new miner you add while the impact of its cost becomes lower and lower the more accounts you add.
I haven't done any maths on this (and quite frankly can't be bothered to do so) but from talking to industrialists it seems that if you are solo mining then you should use at least 5-6 accounts. I'm a NPC corp alt, any argument I make is invalid. |
Kal Mindar
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 23:22:00 -
[59] - Quote
Without that piece of software, no one could control a 30 man mining fleet on their own and have a great deal of efficiency or lack of risk. These programs minimalize risk and facilitate unnatural game play. If this is what eve is about so be it. But I don't believe this is the vision CCP is after. I don't own the game and am but one character starting a petition. I don't think running a 30 man fleet with an outside piece of automation software should be allowed. |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
7747
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 23:23:00 -
[60] - Quote
I multibox all the goons at once "Little ginger moron" ~David Hasselhoff-á |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |