Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tabyll Altol
Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two
42
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 12:32:37 -
[31] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Support it in the client. By making it native to EVE and available to everyone, providing EVE support is a waste of time for ISBoxer especially when it can be done better.
This would also make fleet leadership something revered, and
Fleet / Wing/ Squad commands you need available to commanders are:
align to approach warp (at distance) keep at range orbit at range jump dock
...lock activate DPS (another option is tying the fleet / wing / squad's guns to the commander's)
activate mining module (from a command orca or rorqual with survey scanner, this would be beautiful)
and allow fleet members to flag themselves exempt from each control command.
objection from people who don't fleet, incoming.
So you wanna eliminate ISBoxer by implementing this feature in the game. But in the EULA say its illegal. I would rather see a harder punishment for ISBoxer.
-1 |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
779
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 12:55:45 -
[32] - Quote
Arctic Estidal wrote: You are clearly not understanding the difference in the points of the argument. What you have stated above is a change to the game mechanic. You have implemented software which improves and alters the aiming mechanic in the game, so you can aim with greater accuracy than other players. ISBoxer does not do this.
there is no difference.
Aimbot does not change game mechanics either, it just does something faster than real player, right? exactly as isbotter multiboxes x clients in a manner a human would never come even close to. |
Haywoud Jablomi
The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 13:24:33 -
[33] - Quote
I use isboxer and I love it. I only have one account but I use it so I can feel special.
We cant ban it. That would make me sad.
/sarcasm |
Gawain Edmond
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
106
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 14:13:51 -
[34] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Gawain Edmond wrote:but didn't ccp just make it so that each character could only control a limited number of drones to basically stop exactly what you're asking for? no, that had to do with server load. drones are handled like individual ships, or something.
well fine then make me go and find the dev post for it i don't mind;
CCP RISE wrote:We feel that drone assist, at a large scale, leads to passive gameplay that most players do not enjoy. Assist places too much control in the hands of a single person and leaves the majority of the fleet with little to do. note: we spent a lot of time considering the value in delegation of ship systems and navigation overall (why not have assisted turrets? why have fleet warp? etc) and while this discussion will likely continue, we feel it depends heavily on the amount of delegation taking place. Amount might refer to the time something is delegated or the importance of the system being delegated (is it a primary system or a secondary one). Moral of the story: while some cases of drone assist can be fun, large fleets based on assist are not.
So i'll ask again didn't ccp just limit the number of drones that people can control to basically stop exactly what you're asking for? |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
24322
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 23:08:55 -
[35] - Quote
If you believe things people say at face value, as the complete truth, why should I have this discussion with you. There's no way for me to refute the fact that a thing was said. In fact I don't want to disturb your belief that CCP cares about you.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Giribaldi
PH0ENIX COMPANY Absolution Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 23:11:23 -
[36] - Quote
-1 , makeing a 250 man fleet of indivudals become 1 large account controled by the FC. Yah im sensing an over powering ability of OP! |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
24322
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 23:12:41 -
[37] - Quote
what's an FC of a 250 player fleet right now?
no, really, make your point. FCs might have a lot of players in their command, but at least there's things like human error and miscommunication that makes the fleet less effective to balance them out.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
24341
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 02:15:15 -
[38] - Quote
do you know what else this would enable?
ultra thin clients on mobile devices with a very basic interface. the worst part about the full UI is how easy it is to fatfinger things on a compact screen. if the FC is taking care of it, logging in can happen from anywhere the fleet members have their tablet, or even phone.
individual ship responsiveness is varied through skills. align times, locks, cycle times. this is not a perfectly synchronized outcome like you might think. just consider those things for a bit.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Voxinian
81
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 02:44:25 -
[39] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:no to both. isbotter should be completely banned. Neither should eve replicate isbotters function in any way.
+1
It's an exploitation of the normal game mechanics using 3rd party software. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
24341
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 02:50:46 -
[40] - Quote
I was also going to say this would make leadership skills mean something, other than just a red x in the top of the fleet window saying you won't receive bonuses. what if having the skills meant you could really command your squad / wing / fleet.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
|
Arctic Estidal
Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.17 11:10:15 -
[41] - Quote
Wow Rain6637 I have never seen someone troll their own post so it appears there is a consensus to your initial argument.
It would be better to state your point and then allow other people to agree/disagree with your points, instead of trolling everyone who disagrees out of the post, and trying to keep your idea at the top of the forum. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1367
|
Posted - 2014.11.17 11:24:15 -
[42] - Quote
So explain please how CCP make money out of isoboxer, other than the simplistic more accounts must equal more money?
With the exception of pure combat oriented play, IE bombing runs, the ability to run multiple synced accounts gives the opportunity to rat, mine, incursion play, mission and many other ISK generating activities at a rate that produces ISK at a higher rate than it takes to play for the plex too run them.
Otherwise there is little or no reason, the lack of engagement is certainly not the reason, and they are giving up fun to lose money.
There are few who are that intellectually challenged, so clearly it is about the isk.
Now these players are clearly not paying RL $ for these plex, so they give CCP no income directly whatsoever.
Plex are being purchased, but we can see by the relentless increase in the plex price, that these activities are not being funded by additional plexes being absorbed by the market.
The only people paying for ISOboxers and botting, are the players through increased plex prices. The Plex they are consuming is being sourced from the market pool.
So with that in mind, I fall back on my original question.
So explain please how CCP make money out of isoboxer,
[u]_There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE _[/u]
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25122
|
Posted - 2014.11.17 15:20:41 -
[43] - Quote
guys, it's none of those things. you're reading too far into it. It's just a thing I think would make sense.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
191
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:15:37 -
[44] - Quote
no, learn to pilot your ships |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25673
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 03:48:23 -
[45] - Quote
Nobody cares about PL anymore
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
421
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 03:55:46 -
[46] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I'm actually pretty serious about this one. I think fleet control should be supported in the client.
solves a bit more of the alpha barrier problem. if your fleet has put forth the effort to field ships, let them synchronize.
Seems to me that the lesson of drone assign went right over your head.
There iis a precedent for why this should not be in the game.
Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25673
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 03:59:03 -
[47] - Quote
Ok, what is your version of the reason why drone assign was changed.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
422
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:15:57 -
[48] - Quote
Because it was too passive. Massive fleets mostly afk while one ship did all the work. This is from what real people told me not simply my imagination.
Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25673
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:59:24 -
[49] - Quote
Are you aware that a drone's damage is calculated as if it is a separate ship, distinct from the player's ship, and that drones were used as a way to crash nodes intentionally using the temporary bloating. Do you really believe that CCP would make a change like that for the sake of being too passive? Did the drone change eliminate the effectiveness of drone assign, in your opinion? And why would they give ships a bonus to drone HP and damage, so that two drones are effectively 11 in a ship like the gila and rattlesnake?
These actions are not explained by the quaint reason that it was too passive.
The reason was server load. one ship plus five drones = 6 ships to the server. One carrier plus 10 drones = 11 ships to the server. Making one ship synchronize with another does not present the same problem as drones.
If you believe the convenient reasons that CCP gives for things, I'm envious of you for still believing in fairy tales.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
423
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 06:21:23 -
[50] - Quote
And when this fleet you seek is a fleet of ishtars? I'm not sure I see your point as huge fleets of carriers are still possible? Infact as far as that goes the only change in the last year to any of it has been a nerf to jump ranges necessitating localized forces on each front.
The claims of server lag wasn't just an issue of drones.
Join channel Aussies in space to chat with AU/NZ players
|
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25673
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 06:38:39 -
[51] - Quote
I was thinking it should not include drone control, actually. Drones are already fairly well-automated.
My point about the drone bit, to contradict your comment about the drone thing going over my head, is drone assist was broken-up but they were also buffed in some ships. This maybe reduces drone assist into smaller chunks, but it's still there.
You realize your tone in post #46 was basically an insult, right.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Samillian
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
657
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 08:55:22 -
[52] - Quote
I can understand you want to make fleets more efficient I just think that removing the player from the equation (except as a means of getting his/her ship to the right system) in part or in whole is to high a price to pay in what is supposed to be a MMO.
Not supported.
NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
|
Suran Parr
Os Terriveis
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 09:02:52 -
[53] - Quote
"Expand leadership commands, eliminate players and replace ISBoxer" would be a better title for this thread. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25676
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 10:54:39 -
[54] - Quote
Samillian wrote:I can understand you want to make fleets more efficient I just think that removing the player from the equation (except as a means of getting his/her ship to the right system) in part or in whole is to high a price to pay in what is supposed to be a MMO.
Not supported. That "massively" part is already convoluted in EVE. 30,000 logins and 200,000 subscriptions is not as many people. If an MMO is supposed to be one character per person, EVE fails.
There are several ways to look at it: EVE is not fun with just one character. Soloboxing in EVE is ineffective. Coordination between players is too clunky. Game mechanics are imbalanced in favor of remote modules. PVP is imbalanced in favor of offense.
If I'm wrong, please clarify your personal definition of an MMO.
EVE is an MMO, but not bound to some definition of the word "MMO". You may think or feel that an MMO should be certain things, in various aspects like multiboxing, but you know multiboxing is not going away any time soon, right.
Suran Parr wrote:"Expand leadership commands, eliminate players and replace ISBoxer" would be a better title for this thread. I'm suggesting a way to make it easier to play with assets that I maintain. Eliminating players would be more like a mining or missioning AI that will complete tasks for me. That is far more extreme than this suggestion, that characters execute actions that I command them.
What I'm suggesting is far more powerful than ISBoxer could ever be. It is ship coordination at the server. Which, by the way, would make interceptors catch-able. If characters begin fighting and defending themselves during disconnects, there would be more survivability and a fighting chance that you would log back in to find an alive ship.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
562
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 03:42:27 -
[55] - Quote
ISBoxer wasn't built on twenty-year-old programming language. It takes full advantage of Aero and the recent advances in CPU threading, CPU Core assignation, FPS limiting, and DirectX management. When EVE can do that, call me.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
28904
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 03:46:11 -
[56] - Quote
I'm not saying put ISBoxer in the client. I'm talking about things like leadership commands (warp, regroup).
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
562
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 04:11:02 -
[57] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I'm not saying put ISBoxer in the client. I'm talking about things like leadership commands (warp, regroup).
Squad/Wing/Fleet Warp, Regroup commands, broadcast targets, broadcasting for reps, and broadcast align all exist already. Being able to issue a dock command as an FC/WC/SC probably will never be added, as it'd probably go against some basic tenet of EVE of punishing AFKers or something like that.
Never forget: CCP Seagull and other Devs LIED to everyone during Fanfest and EVE Vegas: "Multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and "Nothing's changing regarding multiboxing".
If CCP is willing to lie about that, what's next?
|
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
835
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 07:35:14 -
[58] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Are you aware that a drone's damage is calculated as if it is a separate ship, distinct from the player's ship, and that drones were used as a way to crash nodes intentionally using the temporary bloating. Do you really believe that CCP would make a change like that for the sake of being too passive? Did the drone change eliminate the effectiveness of drone assign, in your opinion? And why would they give ships a bonus to drone HP and damage, so that two drones are effectively 11 in a ship like the gila and rattlesnake?
These actions are not explained by the quaint reason that it was too passive.
The reason was server load. one ship plus five drones = 6 ships to the server. One carrier plus 10 drones = 11 ships to the server. Making one ship synchronize with another does not present the same problem as drones.
If you believe the convenient reasons that CCP gives for things, I'm envious of you for still believing in fairy tales. It's exactly the same right now though, amount of drones per ship in a fleet didn't change and they are still calculated separately. The only change that took place I'm aware of is that you cannot synchronize entire fleet worth of drones anymore.
That's except Guristas ships ofc which actually have taken a hit to drone bandwidth. |
Ratchet Conway
Aliastra Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 12:18:49 -
[59] - Quote
Rain - I going to have to disagree with your premise partially.
Giving FCs the ability to ISBox their friends is really lazy FCing, IMO. It takes someone with a certain perspective to lead real people and communicate effectively. That should never change, its a Real Life skill bordering on a talent and takes Real Life practice to do well.
As far as implementing better communication tools, I do agree with you here. But it doesn't have to be done with complete control. WOW created ways to mark the battlefield , focus targets, and assist target commands that made communication easier, but it still required the player to actually target, assist, then hit the attack button and run around the mob. ---The current watch list could be modified with similar commands IMO.
(awaiting hate messages for mentioning something WOW does better than Eve) |
Sentenced 1989
156
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 12:54:35 -
[60] - Quote
Maybe tentatively I would agree with proposal, but those command should only be available to accounts linked by email address. So you can only control characters you own in that manner, otherwise yea, FC's would take control of whole fleets, you need isk find incursion fc to take control of your ship and make you money or in 0.0 fights FC's taking control of whole fleets is also OP.
All in all, if it gets implemented so you can control JUST your own characters I wouldn't object nor I would be over joyed about it, but otherwise would be terrible idea
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyzer
Incursion Layout Builder
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |