Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 169 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Revman Zim
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
259
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:53:23 -
[811] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:virm pasuul wrote: -snip
From your post it's difficult to work out which side of the fence you sit on. You start off seeming to critcize the change. You then go on to make a load of points illustrating why the change is a good thing for Eve. Could you clarify please?
I'm personally against the change completely. I'm more annoyed at the lack of talk from CCP to the multibox community to see if a compromise could be reached (see: jump drives, bombers, nearly every other change) because I don't believe the current CSM has any multiboxers on it. I would have been willing to accept a ban on using ISBoxer to PVP with the exceptions involving defending oneself from invading forces in a WH / Null site, but CCP doesn't care.
Why would CCP engage in dialog with cheaters and EULA violaters? Their point of view is irrelevant since their actions harm the game.
Kinda like trying to compromise with a pedophile. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
263
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:54:19 -
[812] - Quote
Revman Zim wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:virm pasuul wrote: -snip
From your post it's difficult to work out which side of the fence you sit on. You start off seeming to critcize the change. You then go on to make a load of points illustrating why the change is a good thing for Eve. Could you clarify please?
I'm personally against the change completely. I'm more annoyed at the lack of talk from CCP to the multibox community to see if a compromise could be reached (see: jump drives, bombers, nearly every other change) because I don't believe the current CSM has any multiboxers on it. I would have been willing to accept a ban on using ISBoxer to PVP with the exceptions involving defending oneself from invading forces in a WH / Null site, but CCP doesn't care. Why would CCP engage in dialog with cheaters and EULA violaters? Their point of view is irrelevant since their actions harm the game. Kinda like trying to compromise with a pedophile.
Because it wasn't a violation of the EULA at the time. By your logic, anyone who has ever jumped a carrier any distance over 5 ly was using an illegal method.
Ex Post Facto. Look it up. |
Arkumord Churhee
Bavarian Unstressed Mining Mob Synergy of Steel
21
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:54:37 -
[813] - Quote
Soren Oboro wrote: DEAD EVE !!!!!
All the players in eve have more then two, or 10 accounts do you really think what all of us will go out and buy an computer that had 10 or 20 ******* monitors REALLY!!! **** NO!!!! I will Not
unsubbed will play until the First!!!! GOOD BYE CCP AND ITS DUMM ASS POLITICS
Can i have your stuff? |
Jessica Duranin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
308
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:56:36 -
[814] - Quote
CCP, you guys rock! I never thought that you would ever have the balls to enforce that part of the EULA. Accepting the loss of some subscriptions to make your game better is not something most game companies would do. Huge respect for that!
|
Javajunky
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
106
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:00:31 -
[815] - Quote
Causing people to unsub accounts when CCP is still laying people off periodically, me thinks someone didn't run this by the people who worry about how to make payroll...
Aside from that... Sov Still Broke - Yep POS Still Broke - Yep Single Core / Tidi Problems - Yep
Keep dangling "ooh shiny stuff", next you'll be selling me on Obamacare.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1265
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:01:36 -
[816] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:virm pasuul wrote: -snip
From your post it's difficult to work out which side of the fence you sit on. You start off seeming to critcize the change. You then go on to make a load of points illustrating why the change is a good thing for Eve. Could you clarify please?
I'm personally against the change completely. I'm more annoyed at the lack of talk from CCP to the multibox community to see if a compromise could be reached (see: jump drives, bombers, nearly every other change) because I don't believe the current CSM has any multiboxers on it. I would have been willing to accept a ban on using ISBoxer to PVP with the exceptions involving defending oneself from invading forces in a WH / Null site, but CCP doesn't care. A subjective BAN on isboxer PvP seems like it would open subjectiveness in enforcement on top of being a very unfairly defense centric move. Why should the defender have more options from out of client software? I can't think of any logical reason for this. The change seems centered around the idea that each action a client performs needs an associated input without exception. To be honest that seems fair and this needs to be an all or nothing, preferably all. |
Mina Sebiestar
Mactabilis Simplex Cursus
769
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:05:54 -
[817] - Quote
Javajunky wrote:Causing people to unsub accounts when CCP is still laying people off periodically, me thinks someone didn't run this by the people who worry about how to make payroll...
Aside from that... Sov Still Broke - Yep POS Still Broke - Yep Single Core / Tidi Problems - Yep
Keep dangling "ooh shiny stuff", next you'll be selling me on Obamacare.
No grrrr plz. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1266
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:07:38 -
[818] - Quote
Javajunky wrote:Causing people to unsub accounts when CCP is still laying people off periodically, me thinks someone didn't run this by the people who worry about how to make payroll...
Aside from that... Sov Still Broke - Yep POS Still Broke - Yep Single Core / Tidi Problems - Yep
Keep dangling "ooh shiny stuff", next you'll be selling me on Obamacare. How is this related to SOV, POS's or Tidi? Or is there some expectation that they shouldn't do anything before those are done despite being far more intensive than anything related to this policy change and presenting no reason to delay it once the decision was made?
|
Jon Hellguard
X-COM
20
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:08:03 -
[819] - Quote
Zappity wrote:The new CCP - drastic action for strengthening game play even at the cost of current accounts. Good stuff.
players demanded the old CCP that does not fear. - there we go. hope to see more decisions like that on open topics. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
264
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:08:40 -
[820] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:virm pasuul wrote: -snip
From your post it's difficult to work out which side of the fence you sit on. You start off seeming to critcize the change. You then go on to make a load of points illustrating why the change is a good thing for Eve. Could you clarify please?
I'm personally against the change completely. I'm more annoyed at the lack of talk from CCP to the multibox community to see if a compromise could be reached (see: jump drives, bombers, nearly every other change) because I don't believe the current CSM has any multiboxers on it. I would have been willing to accept a ban on using ISBoxer to PVP with the exceptions involving defending oneself from invading forces in a WH / Null site, but CCP doesn't care. A subjective BAN on isboxer PvP seems like it would open subjectiveness in enforcement on top of being a very unfairly defense centric move. Why should the defender have more options from out of client software? I can't think of any logical reason for this. The change seems centered around the idea that each action a client performs needs an associated input without exception. To be honest that seems fair and this needs to be an all or nothing, preferably all.
Except they already have a massive amount of subjectiveness with their current wording. Just look at how many pages of argument this has spawned.
As to the defender thing, I merely mentioned that because if i didn't, what would happen if someone in a site gets dropped? WOuld he have to take the losses without trying to defend himself? |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1894
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:09:05 -
[821] - Quote
Javajunky wrote:Causing people to unsub accounts when CCP is still laying people off periodically, me thinks someone didn't run this by the people who worry about how to make payroll...
Aside from that... Sov Still Broke - Yep POS Still Broke - Yep Single Core / Tidi Problems - Yep
Keep dangling "ooh shiny stuff", next you'll be selling me on Obamacare.
The current course ccp was headign was bleedign player for years. THey needed to steer of drastically or they woudl eventually die. Bleedign now to stop the hemorraging due to what the game was becommign is a wise choice.
Id o nto know what happened with CCP this year, but they are surely on their best shape since Trinity.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1149
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:10:03 -
[822] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Javajunky wrote:Causing people to unsub accounts when CCP is still laying people off periodically, me thinks someone didn't run this by the people who worry about how to make payroll...
Aside from that... Sov Still Broke - Yep POS Still Broke - Yep Single Core / Tidi Problems - Yep
Keep dangling "ooh shiny stuff", next you'll be selling me on Obamacare. How is this related to SOV, POS's or Tidi? Or is there some expectation that they shouldn't do anything before those are done despite being far more intensive than anything related to this policy change and presenting no reason to delay it once the decision was made? It's not. He's one of those types that thinks all CCP employee time is fully fungible between all potential issues with the game, and that any time spent in one area comes at complete detriment to another, despite things like this change being strictly about internal policy towards game actions and is being brought about by non-programming CCP staff.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Jedediah Arndtz
Jedediah Arndtz Corporation
34
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:10:07 -
[823] - Quote
More isk inflation, just in time for Christmas. Thanks CCP! /s
Though plex are *currently* on the down slope, which will be nice if it keeps up. |
Sentenced 1989
Data Venia
126
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:11:07 -
[824] - Quote
All in all
Players who are unsubing and leaving because of this are players you most likely don't have any interaction with. They use ISBoxer to do stuff "solo". So not a loss for community.
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyzer
Incursion Layout Builder
|
Jessica Duranin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
308
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:11:35 -
[825] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:I would have been willing to accept a ban on using ISBoxer to PVP Everything you do involves some sort of PvP in EVE. Even if you just "peacfully" slaughter incursion rats you commit PvP. The LP you farm makes the LP I farm worth less - the sites you cleared can't be cleared by my fleet,etc... That's the beauty of EVE: everything you do effects someone else in some way, but that's also why there can never be any exceptions to the ban. |
Josef Djugashvilis
2700
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:12:44 -
[826] - Quote
So long as the Isboxer folk who are going to rage quit with their zilion accounts are the same folk who are going to rage quit with their zillion Carrier accounts because they can no longer pretty much insta hot-drop cruisers on the other side of the universe, Eve will not see much of a net loss of players.
This is not a signature.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1894
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:14:07 -
[827] - Quote
Jedediah Arndtz wrote:More isk inflation, just in time for Christmas. Thanks CCP! /s
Though plex are *currently* on the down slope, which will be nice if it keeps up.
RIP Din-Flotten \o/
RIP that one guy who 40-boxes nightmares in HQs
The effects willb e more complicated.
Mineral prices will raise since most miners used ISBOXer. But quite some ratters did as well so less money into the system.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Ming Vue
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:14:22 -
[828] - Quote
Sentenced 1989 wrote:All in all
Players who are unsubing and leaving because of this are players you most likely don't have any interaction with. They use ISBoxer to do stuff "solo". So not a loss for community.
i don't really play solo to be honest i use my indy power to pay for rental space and invite new and young corps to come live in null for free i provide them with ships and handle all their pos fuel needs... so i'd say i have a community mining is what i did ... gonna have to try and find something else now i plan on just moving to highsec and doing incursions or whatever people do up there |
Xavi Bastanold
Parallax Shift The Periphery
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:18:47 -
[829] - Quote
Contract Wench wrote:Makhpella wrote:Hi CPP if I warp squad do I get banned? CCP technically this is input broadcasting. Please remove fleet based warps.
Now you guys are starting to sound like my teenager son having a surge.
Good hunting,
Xavi
|
Josef Djugashvilis
2700
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:18:53 -
[830] - Quote
Jedediah Arndtz wrote:Balder Verdandi wrote:
We're grown ups, we can handle it.
What? We're adults? SINCE WHEN? WHY DIDN'T ANYONE TELL ME?!?!
Because you are too young to handle it
This is not a signature.
|
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6038
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:19:20 -
[831] - Quote
Contract Wench wrote:Makhpella wrote:Hi CPP if I warp squad do I get banned? CCP technically this is input broadcasting. Please remove fleet based warps. Within the client, controlled/limited by CCP. It is not 3rd party software.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Angela Daemonic
Jaded. The Natural Order
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:20:21 -
[832] - Quote
Ohh when all these is boxers rage quit and plex prices drop... I will be in heaven. |
sample2501
sample's playground
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:21:24 -
[833] - Quote
nice, good work CCP |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6038
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:22:45 -
[834] - Quote
Angela Daemonic wrote:Ohh when all these is boxers rage quit and plex prices drop... I will be in heaven. Indeed, very quickly the volume on PLEX sales will increase again sharply due to the lower prices... however this time it will not be fueled by people that don't care if the price is too high.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
264
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:22:46 -
[835] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Except they already have a massive amount of subjectiveness with their current wording. Just look at how many pages of argument this has spawned. Most of that seems like comprehension failure. There is only one question which I haven't been able to answer by referring back to the op and that is not the most commonly asked question by far. the number of people who are answering questions and coming to the same conclusions would evidence that the fault of the failure to comprehend doesn't really fall on CCP. Well no. CCP is using words and phrases that we aren't used to in regards to multiboxing. I have offered my services to help CCP attempt to fix these issues as nobody on the CSM team has any experience with the "Multibox Dictionary", so to say.
Quote:Nolak Ataru wrote:As to the defender thing, I merely mentioned that because if i didn't, what would happen if someone in a site gets dropped? WOuld he have to take the losses without trying to defend himself? Yes, if you cannot control a ship in an attack you should lose it. It's fundamentally no different than asking if you should be immune to attack while AFK. If a client can't individually respond to an aggressor then the ship being controlled by that client should be lost per the attackers ability to destroy it.
I think we're trying to say the same thing but doing it two different ways. I support banning auto-bots that do not need human interction, and I wouldn't mind banning direct PVP using ISBoxer. I realize and admit this would be strange, but WoW did something similar, and I had hoped CCP could as well.
At the very least, I had hoped CCP would come to us to talk about ideas and whatnot. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2446
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:23:20 -
[836] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Revman Zim wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:virm pasuul wrote: -snip
From your post it's difficult to work out which side of the fence you sit on. You start off seeming to critcize the change. You then go on to make a load of points illustrating why the change is a good thing for Eve. Could you clarify please?
I'm personally against the change completely. I'm more annoyed at the lack of talk from CCP to the multibox community to see if a compromise could be reached (see: jump drives, bombers, nearly every other change) because I don't believe the current CSM has any multiboxers on it. I would have been willing to accept a ban on using ISBoxer to PVP with the exceptions involving defending oneself from invading forces in a WH / Null site, but CCP doesn't care. Why would CCP engage in dialog with cheaters and EULA violaters? Their point of view is irrelevant since their actions harm the game. Kinda like trying to compromise with a pedophile. Because it wasn't a violation of the EULA at the time. By your logic, anyone who has ever jumped a carrier any distance over 5 ly was using an illegal method. Ex Post Facto. Look it up.
It can be argued that ISBoxer always was a EULA violation, and that CCP just did nothing about it. Now they have. Its pretty clear that ISBoxer can be used to acquire in game assets, income, etc. at a faster rate than "normal" game play. The plain language of the EULA is quite clear on this.
The section of the EULA that hits most bots/macros/etc. actually says NOTHING about being AFK or not AFK. It says you cannot use another program to speed up...i.e. make the process more efficient...for gaining items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status.
So telling others to look up the definitions of a phrase given your own obstinate refusal to consider the plain language of the EULA makes your position quite laughable.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Prisoner11213
iMmortal Wings Most Valuable Player
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:23:52 -
[837] - Quote
Revman Zim wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:virm pasuul wrote: -snip
From your post it's difficult to work out which side of the fence you sit on. You start off seeming to critcize the change. You then go on to make a load of points illustrating why the change is a good thing for Eve. Could you clarify please?
I'm personally against the change completely. I'm more annoyed at the lack of talk from CCP to the multibox community to see if a compromise could be reached (see: jump drives, bombers, nearly every other change) because I don't believe the current CSM has any multiboxers on it. I would have been willing to accept a ban on using ISBoxer to PVP with the exceptions involving defending oneself from invading forces in a WH / Null site, but CCP doesn't care. Why would CCP engage in dialog with cheaters and EULA violaters? Their point of view is irrelevant since their actions harm the game. Kinda like trying to compromise with a pedophile.
I kind of like it how u set one thing clr Software Multiboxer = Pedophile
back to topic
CCP-¦s GM (depend wich one u ask german or english one) said once it is allowed and it isnt. Look the forum for the GM-¦s post. Some ppl reported themself " Hi im using isboxer and do X, is that a eula break or not ?" Most of the time the answer for those PPL was it isnt either allowed or forbidden. Legal limbo i would say. They dint cheat or break the eula. They used a tool what they either payed for or programmed themself. What u could aslo have done.
I would have liked if CCP would have talked to the PPL. Start a diskussion to explain stuff. For myself i dont see only the bad side of Multiboxing.
Some good sides are Incursion runners who multibox some boxes so that they can at least start the Fleet and the opposide of it are the Solo SoftwareMultiboxer who do theyr own Incursion Fleets. Same whit mining good part: more minerals, cheaper ships. Bad part solo miners isk/h is less much less.
In Apocrypta (or sooner or later) CCP banned China and the isk farmers. U can look the Market Price for now but lets say i payed only 50 mill for one hull. Something like that is going to happen soon too.
I think CCP should make some exceptions in the rule. " We dont want PPL to Software Multibox in PVP but the PVE part doesnt matter " or something like that. FInding the Middle solution for all, thats the hard part.
|
dark heartt
507
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:24:37 -
[838] - Quote
DragonHelm III wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:RIP ISBoxer? ISBoxer has some great uses outside of it's broadcasting functions. So maybe, but probably not. For god's sake CCP stop all the bluster and give a straight answer ISBOXER banned or not? It just needs a yes or no All this crap about terms like Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing mean squat to me as I have no idea what they are.
ISBoxer isn't the only program that can do it. So they can't just say ISBoxer, they need to be more vague.
http://tetrisisunrealistic.blogspot.com.au/
Just an Aussie with a mining laser and too much time.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
821
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:25:34 -
[839] - Quote
KeeperRus wrote:I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly.
its obvious. CCP doesnt need a proof, its enough if they see you're doing it. |
Contract Wench
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:27:18 -
[840] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Never establish a rule that you cannot enforce with considerable accuracy. Do You have any idea how trivial it is to detect? with nothing less than 100% accuracy?
100% accuracy haha I see someone is not an engineer. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 169 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |