Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Batelle
Tymast Industries 150th
2347
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 18:11:00 -
[211] - Quote
Nidal Fervor wrote:
I would argue that many of the giant multi boxed mining fleets would disappear. 20 or 40 mining characters without software to send the clicks to all of the accounts at once? Yeah they may try, they would soon tire of it. 40 accounts? Forget it.
So your solution is to discourage gameplay you don't like by making it more annoying to do (even though said discouraged gameplay is arguably "optimal?) ? Maybe the fleets get smaller, maybe a bit less prevalent. But they're not going anywhere.
LordOfDespair wrote: Go ahead and multibox a 20 man incursion fleet (successfully) without ISbox.
Yeah, thought so.
So he does vanguards instead, big f-ing deal. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
746
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 18:11:00 -
[212] - Quote
Tippia wrote:You didn't demonstrate any acceleration of gameplay. I thought I explained it very clearly.
Tippia wrote:Let's make it simple, just for you: how does a 5-man fleet earning as much as a 5-man fleet does constitute earning more than a 5-man fleet does? yes, lets make it simple. 1 dude playing 10 accounts would not earn as much ISK as 1 dude isboxing 10 accounts - you still say there is no acceleration? |
LordOfDespair
Capsuleer Combat Training Services
11
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 18:12:00 -
[213] - Quote
Batelle wrote:Nidal Fervor wrote:
I would argue that many of the giant multi boxed mining fleets would disappear. 20 or 40 mining characters without software to send the clicks to all of the accounts at once? Yeah they may try, they would soon tire of it. 40 accounts? Forget it.
So your solution is to discourage gameplay you don't like by making it more annoying to do (even though said discouraged gameplay is arguably "optimal?) ? Maybe the fleets get smaller, maybe a bit less prevalent. But they're not going anywhere.
There is nothing backing up what you just said, it doesn't even make sense. |
Batelle
Tymast Industries 150th
2347
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 18:19:00 -
[214] - Quote
LordOfDespair wrote:Batelle wrote:Nidal Fervor wrote:
I would argue that many of the giant multi boxed mining fleets would disappear. 20 or 40 mining characters without software to send the clicks to all of the accounts at once? Yeah they may try, they would soon tire of it. 40 accounts? Forget it.
So your solution is to discourage gameplay you don't like by making it more annoying to do (even though said discouraged gameplay is arguably "optimal?) ? Maybe the fleets get smaller, maybe a bit less prevalent. But they're not going anywhere. There is nothing backing up what you just said, it doesn't even make sense.
Let me clarify.
People complain about isboxer because they don't like seeing isboxed miners, isboxed gankers, or isboxed incursions. IMO Eliminating isbox will not eliminate or even severely hamper the use of multiboxing in those areas of gameplay. Some people will be discouraged perhaps, but others will continue doing what they are doing, simply with more difficulty/annoyance.
Robert Caldera wrote:Batelle wrote: except for the "huge amount of clicking." You picked a really really bad example of something that requires isboxer to do effectively.
which example and why is it wrong?
Because its a really good example of something that can be done without ISboxer. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
LordOfDespair
Capsuleer Combat Training Services
11
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 18:25:00 -
[215] - Quote
Batelle wrote: Let me clarify.
People complain about isboxer because they don't like seeing isboxed miners, isboxed gankers, or isboxed incursions. IMO Eliminating isbox will not eliminate or even severely hamper the use of multiboxing in those areas of gameplay. Some people will be discouraged perhaps, but others will continue doing what they are doing, simply with more difficulty/annoyance.
Only mining can be still done without ISboxer, and even then it will be much much slower and harder. |
Batelle
Tymast Industries 150th
2347
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 18:27:00 -
[216] - Quote
LordOfDespair wrote: Only mining can be still done without ISboxer, and even then it will be much much slower and harder.
I've got bad news for you.... "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Nidal Fervor
State War Academy Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 18:28:00 -
[217] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Nidal Fervor wrote:Define what you mean when you say it does not accelerate game play. I mean what it says in the EULA: the GÇ£acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play.GÇ¥ It is pretty much impossible for multiboxig, or any other method that relies on 1:1 input, to do that barring outright exploitation of bugs (in which case the multiboxing method used is irrelevant anyway).
Isboxer accelerates game play by allowing a player to farm with far more accounts than he could normally handle. Try mining with 20 barges for several hours a day and see if you could handle doing that every day. Without isboxer, not a chance. |
Nidal Fervor
State War Academy Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 18:31:00 -
[218] - Quote
Batelle wrote:LordOfDespair wrote:Batelle wrote:Nidal Fervor wrote:
I would argue that many of the giant multi boxed mining fleets would disappear. 20 or 40 mining characters without software to send the clicks to all of the accounts at once? Yeah they may try, they would soon tire of it. 40 accounts? Forget it.
So your solution is to discourage gameplay you don't like by making it more annoying to do (even though said discouraged gameplay is arguably "optimal?) ? Maybe the fleets get smaller, maybe a bit less prevalent. But they're not going anywhere. There is nothing backing up what you just said, it doesn't even make sense. Let me clarify. People complain about isboxer because they don't like seeing isboxed miners, isboxed gankers, or isboxed incursions. IMO Eliminating isbox will not eliminate or even severely hamper the use of multiboxing in those areas of gameplay. Some people will be discouraged perhaps, but others will continue doing what they are doing, simply with more difficulty/annoyance. .
Those who try to continue without isboxer will indeed have a great deal more difficulty and annoyance and once gankers and bumpers start to interfere with them, it's over. They won't be able to cope. |
Batelle
Tymast Industries 150th
2347
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 18:35:00 -
[219] - Quote
Nidal Fervor wrote: Those who try to continue without isboxer will indeed have a great deal more difficulty and annoyance and once gankers and bumpers start to interfere with them, it's over. They won't be able to cope.
Gankers and bumpers have nothing to do with anything, really. Plus you never needed isboxer for fleet warp. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
681
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 18:38:00 -
[220] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:Monkeys arguing over the correct way to peel a banana; The input of one player on one account then is certainly different than the input of one player instantly on 20 accounts (That, regardless of definition, requires some form of automation), Is that game breaking? I don't think so. Might be a little immersion breaking, but not game breaking.
Is it demoralizing to someone that does not (Or can/will not) use the same? Probably.
It still boils down to; Is allowing one guy to run 20 accounts good for EVE? It's probably not.
Is allowing one guy to pay for 20 accounts good for CCP? Without a doubt, yes.
So should CCP hamstring themselves by stopping one guy from cashing in 20 PLEX a month? Not if everyone else, not using ISB, wants to keep playing the game. You have to put up with some dirt if you want to play in the mud, sorry.
While I disagree with your conclusion: +1 for the best post I've read in this thread so far. Remove insurance. |
|
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
681
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 18:39:00 -
[221] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:IIRC, the last time this subject came up and attracted CCP comment, the ruling was that ISboxer was legitimate, although I admit I can't find it. This was a couple of years ago. Does anyone with better goggle-fu than me have the link?
I won't deny that there are implications of ISboxer that make me deeply uneasy.
On the other hand, it's difficult to penalise your customers for using a program that you have publically affirmed is allowed, and which does at least obey the letter of the law by having the player directly and immediately control the actions of every account.
My preferred long term solution would be for CCP to make as much of EVE's gameplay as possible to be more challenging and unpredictable, and less about grinding and more about skill, thus doing an end run around the issue by making groups of ISboxed characters much less useful. Probably the only thing they can do by now. Remove insurance. |
ashley Eoner
299
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 18:46:00 -
[222] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Some of our corp members are trying isboxer and i assure you its not that simple. Its pretty funny when they come back with tails of killing their own ships, or trying to spider tank tengu's.
If its such a win, with plexing accounts to boot. Just use it yourself already. Yeah setting up isboxer can be a nightmare as the little things keep screwing you. The biggest issue is that eve like to do funky things with the UI boxes for no reason which then throws everything or only one thing off. Eve will even chuck a pop up box across the screen for no reason. If not for the green safety I would of blasted my own ships many times over. Once you get it working it does work well though until you screw one of the UI positions up by a slight amount.
PVP with isboxer is a joke though and if you lose to someone using it they either had way more ships then you in a hopeless situation for your or you just failed to mess with his primary ship..
Even if they did ban isboxer there'd be issues as people can create a hardware based repeater systems or just straight duct tape and dowel rods..
https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/oldrigs
The MINMATAR WAY`!@!! |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
746
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 18:48:00 -
[223] - Quote
Batelle wrote:Because its a really good example of something that can be done without ISboxer. theoretically everything can be done without isboxer, point is it makes it a lot more efficient and in many cases realistic.
|
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
2068
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 19:17:00 -
[224] - Quote
If somebody is crazy enough to IS Box a fleet of mining ships, CCP is smart enough to let them. This is not a signature. |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
2068
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 19:20:00 -
[225] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Nidal Fervor wrote: Someone with 40 accounts who pays them nothing isn't good for CCP. You need a good ratio of people buying plex for real money to people who buy plex for isk.
Are you being deliberately dense? There is no ratio. The people who buy PLEX for ISK are buying a PLEX that has already been paid for by someone else. CCP gets the exact same amount of money. 40 accounts paid directly: $15,- x 40 = $600,- 40 account paid with a $15,- PLEX: $15,- x 40 = $600,- There is literally no difference. In fact, PLEXing an account might give CCP more money compared to traditional methods.
An annual sub is far cheaper than paying by PLEX. This is not a signature. |
ashley Eoner
299
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 19:21:00 -
[226] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Batelle wrote:Because its a really good example of something that can be done without ISboxer. theoretically everything can be done without isboxer, point is it makes it a lot more efficient and in many cases realistic. - you can warp your suicide gank catalysts manually to the freighter you plan to gank but it will be a hell of pain in the butt and you would maybe not even manage to gank it because concord would appear on scenery and spoil your show while you're cycling through your clients and firing manually. - you could smartbomb ratting manually but noone does that, you know why? Because its as well pain in the butt, activating fire on each client individually while rats are spreading and drifting out of your smart bomb range, you screw and loose ships. - you could fly incursions with 10 clients manually. noone does that, because its too much work coordinating and the slightest mistake will get your nightmare pulverized and so on,.. ashley Eoner wrote: PVP with isboxer is a joke though and if you lose to someone using it they either had way more ships then you in a hopeless situation for your or you just failed to mess with his primary ship..
let me tell you the story about isboxed fleets of cheap suicide ganking catalysts and how the freighter failed to mess with primary ship. Warp squad to.. That's your friend. IF you don't have an alt already sitting in optimal or at least a bookmark then you're doing it wrong.
One minor lag spike or one socket reset will screw the incursion runner potentially so hard as to result in a catastrophic fleet destruction. Meanwhile that lag spike would of been a minor inconvenience to a fleet of players. Players with the same ships quality and skill level of the isboxer will always finish quicker.
Do not forget that internet quality extends well beyond the boxer's ISP. My isp is 99% uptime easily and I even consider it a minor miracle if none of my clients are socket reseted or something during a night of serious play.
I could easily run a fleet of gankalysts without isboxer. If you're doing it right you only really have to click two buttons at the same time per catalyst. You should be preheated before the target even appears. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
746
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 19:28:00 -
[227] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Warp squad to.. That's your friend. IF you don't have an alt already sitting in optimal or at least a bookmark then you're doing it wrong. warping isnt even primary reason, its simultaneous fire. cus, once you shoot first round concord timer starts ticking.
ashley Eoner wrote: One minor lag spike or one socket reset will screw the incursion runner potentially so hard as to result in a catastrophic fleet destruction.
I dont know much about incursion but obviously its not that bad, otherwise people wouldnt do it, would they? People with bad internet connection wouldnt do it either.
ashley Eoner wrote:Meanwhile that lag spike would of been a minor inconvenience to a fleet of players. Players with the same ships quality and skill level of the isboxer will always finish quicker. but group of people splits the rewards, isboxer is alone.
ashley Eoner wrote: I could easily run a fleet of gankalysts without isboxer. If you're doing it right you only really have to click two buttons at the same time per catalyst. You should be preheated before the target even appears. Failing that just run a smaller fleet of Tornados which is generally preferred for freighter ganking.
well then, we can ban isbox and similar automating tools as noone really needs and uses them anyways, right? |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
432
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 19:28:00 -
[228] - Quote
All my mega-wats.
Thanks for this. |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1533
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 19:30:00 -
[229] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote: well then, we can ban isbox and similar automating tools as noone really needs and uses them anyways, right?
oh to be young a na+»ve again
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
ashley Eoner
300
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 19:32:00 -
[230] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Warp squad to.. That's your friend. IF you don't have an alt already sitting in optimal or at least a bookmark then you're doing it wrong. warping isnt even primary reason, its simultaneous fire. cus, once you shoot first round concord timer starts ticking. ashley Eoner wrote: One minor lag spike or one socket reset will screw the incursion runner potentially so hard as to result in a catastrophic fleet destruction.
I dont know much about incursion but obviously its not that bad, otherwise people wouldnt do it, would they? People with bad internet connection wouldnt do it either. ashley Eoner wrote:Meanwhile that lag spike would of been a minor inconvenience to a fleet of players. Players with the same ships quality and skill level of the isboxer will always finish quicker. but group of people splits the rewards, isboxer is alone. ashley Eoner wrote: I could easily run a fleet of gankalysts without isboxer. If you're doing it right you only really have to click two buttons at the same time per catalyst. You should be preheated before the target even appears. Failing that just run a smaller fleet of Tornados which is generally preferred for freighter ganking.
well then, we can ban isbox and similar automating tools as noone really needs and uses them anyways, right?
You are a bad player then if you can't quickly cycle through your catalysts. Most ganks only require four at most. If you're ganking freighters then it doesn't matter as you should be using nados and they don't tend to fire off multiple rounds before concord appears. In that scenario you could take your time and still get the freighter.
I have multiboxed VGs extensively and I've lost many many billions off of CCP's nodes being unstable at some hours. IT's the nature of the beast and some people are willing to take the losses because it is fun. Taken the other way if it was so easy then everyone would be multiboxing VGs.
Your rewards comment is irrelevant as there are many safer ways to make more isk with minimal to no exposure to loss.
|
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
746
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 19:32:00 -
[231] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:Robert Caldera wrote: well then, we can ban isbox and similar automating tools as noone really needs and uses them anyways, right?
oh to be young a na+»ve again
no its just hilariously funny when people argument for something saying they actually dont need it. |
Batelle
Tymast Industries 150th
2348
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 19:39:00 -
[232] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Batelle wrote:Because its a really good example of something that can be done without ISboxer. theoretically everything can be done without isboxer, point is it makes it a lot more efficient and in many cases realistic.
So its a good thing? If gameplay is going to be allowed, it may as well be fun/pleasant.
Quote:- you can warp your suicide gank catalysts manually to the freighter you plan to gank but it will be a hell of pain in the butt and you would maybe not even manage to gank it because concord would appear on scenery and spoil your show while you're cycling through your clients and firing manually.
- you could smartbomb ratting manually but noone does that, you know why? Because its as well pain in the butt, activating fire on each client individually while rats are spreading and drifting out of your smart bomb range, you screw and loose ships.
- you could fly incursions with 10 clients manually. noone does that, because its too much work coordinating and the slightest mistake will get your nightmare pulverized
Right, but "noone does that" because its way easier to do with isboxer, not because its impossible to do without. With a few adjustments to tactics/setups, it all works perfectly fine without isboxer. With ganking you can stick with alpha ships, rendering concord irrelevant, or you could use fewer heavier ships to minimize the effect of the delay in switching clients. Smartbomb ratting? still would work. And I'm sure 10man vanguards are doable without isboxer for certain setups. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
ashley Eoner
300
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 19:43:00 -
[233] - Quote
Batelle wrote: Right, but "noone does that" because its way easier to do with isboxer, not because its impossible to do without. With a few adjustments to tactics/setups, it all works perfectly fine without isboxer. With ganking you can stick with alpha ships, rendering concord irrelevant, or you could use fewer heavier ships to minimize the effect of the delay in switching clients. Smartbomb ratting? still would work. And I'm sure 10man vanguards are doable without isboxer for certain setups.
I will concede that kill rate would decline some due to the longer initial setup time. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
746
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 19:44:00 -
[234] - Quote
Batelle wrote: So its a good thing? If gameplay is going to be allowed, it may as well be fun/pleasant.
no its not - because CCP's greed allows botted 20 man fleets, its not good.
Batelle wrote: Right, but "noone does that" because its way easier to do with isboxer, not because its impossible to do without. With a few adjustments to tactics/setups, it all works perfectly fine without isboxer. With ganking you can stick with alpha ships, rendering concord irrelevant, or you could use fewer heavier ships to minimize the effect of the delay in switching clients. Smartbomb ratting? still would work. And I'm sure 10man vanguards are doable without isboxer for certain setups.
what is your argument here? Many countries have gun laws forbidding firearms for regular citizens. I wonder why - you could go stab people with your kitchen knife after all, correct? |
I Riven I
Hedion University Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:08:00 -
[235] - Quote
4 accounts = 8 catalysts or 12 catalysts every 21 days of the month isboxer + 8/12 catalysts = epic pvp/ganks |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
547
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:10:00 -
[236] - Quote
Because what's fair and what makes CCP more money doesn't always intersect. CCP Punkturis-á "I want to get in on the goodposter circle jerk!"
|
Lady Areola Fappington
New Order Logistics CODE.
1366
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:42:00 -
[237] - Quote
I think a huge part of this debate comes about because people have different definitions of what a single entity in EVE is.
The majority of pro-ISBoxer (and CCP) holds that definition as per account/logged in character. Each one is a separate entity regardless of behaviour, and as long as the means employed do not bust the "unfair acceleration" bit of the EULA per character, it's OK
The anti-ISBoxer crowd defines an EVE entity as the person sitting behind the keyboard, regardless of the number of characters logged in. Looked at from that perspective, ISBoxer is giving an unfair advantage to the person sitting behind the keyboard. Six accounts doing X at the same time is 6 times the income stream/DPS/what have you.
Personally, I don't like ISBoxer, but there are huge benefits to using character/account as the "separate entity" defining line in EVE. I'd rather keep those benefits and deal with ISBoxer, than lose said benefits to do away with it.
I'd also be careful with saying that CCP has approved/accepted/allows ISBoxer. IIRC, the stance has always been "It's a third party program, we neither confirm nor deny it's acceptance under EULA, use at own risk". The risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP). |
ashley Eoner
300
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 02:21:00 -
[238] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:The anti-ISBoxer crowd defines an EVE entity as the person sitting behind the keyboard, regardless of the number of characters logged in. Looked at from that perspective, ISBoxer is giving an unfair advantage to the person sitting behind the keyboard. Six accounts doing X at the same time is 6 times the income stream/DPS/what have you. Downside being everything costs 6x as much. An "oops" moment can be quite catastrophic and hilarious.
I don't know if you can really decouple some of these complaints about isboxer from the ability to have alts in general. |
Divine Entervention
The Advent of Faith Against ALL Anomalies
232
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 02:28:00 -
[239] - Quote
So if it's going to be argued that someone is allowed to use a 3rd party automation program to more efficiently control multiple accounts at the same time, then I should be allowed to use an automated mining bot.
Turn it on, take a nap. If we're arguing about efficiency as the defining quality that makes it allowable, then being able to have the game perform actions on it's own while you do something else entirely unrelated is more efficient than one person using multiple accounts.
If you want to control multiple accounts, then alt tab and control them individually. If not, if you want to use 3rd party software to control multiple accounts so you can be more "efficient" with your time, then I should be allowed to do the same.
In fact, lets make it so one can use a mining bot to control a fleet of miners WITH isboxer. Now THAT will be efficiency. Proof of lying in thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4349703#post4349703 |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
3361
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 02:34:00 -
[240] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote:So if it's going to be argued that someone is allowed to use a 3rd party automation program to more efficiently control multiple accounts at the same time, then I should be allowed to use an automated mining bot.
Turn it on, take a nap. If we're arguing about efficiency as the defining quality that makes it allowable....
No one is arguing that, you just can't read.
"Automation" refers to actions that should be being taken by the player, instead being taken by the program.
Mouse clicks, and the number thereof. If you have a program that lets you lock red crosses and shoot them one after another with the player only having made one click, that is illegal.
If you have a program that lets you tell multiple accounts, with one click, to lock those crosses, and then with one more click to fire on them, that is legal.
The accounts are not taking more actions with the use of ISBoxer than the number of clicks you made. You're simply letting more accounts use the same number of clicks.
Note, btw, that although I understand the reasoning behind it, I do not necessarily agree with it. I personally think ISBoxer should be banned, if only that I can enjoy the laments of those who use it. But I am fully capable of understanding the reasoning behind it being allowed. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á
Psychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |