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) |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising Executive Outcomes
36
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:15:55 -
[961] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:Just wanna throw this out there to start, I am always amazed how players can support actions taken to shrink their player base. That actually like seeing people quit and their game shrivel. I laugh every time. With that said...
This seems like a far more harmful action to be taking without concurrent buffs within the game. I personally do not ISBox, yet can see it's necessity within a game with a shrinking player base for market stability. Think about it's primary use: Mining. Can you tell me that you think that when this starts being enforced that mineral prices will not begin to skyrocket? Do you believe that ship, module, ammo, and drone prices will not go up in turn? Simple case of supply and demand people. This will not cut off your supply entirely, but it will completely remove a large percentage of your suppliers. I would assume most players who make use of this program are strongly contemplating unloading their characters and leaving entirely.
While most of us can say that the multiboxing suicide ganks and bombers are annoying.. and may be glad to see their frequency decline (they will NEVER stop unless ccp wants to kill this game entirely).. this action is too broad without a patch hitting concurrently increasing the mineral payouts of refining modules and ore. CCP is removing a large portion of the game supply without supplementing it with anything. More players will not start mining until the prices are already increasing making the profits worth their time to change their professions. By that time the damage has been done and while the market will stabilize it will be much higher than what we currently see.
CCP this is too broad an action. Some people are upset about the pvp related actions of that segment of the player base. Those you see crying now about multiboxing miners don't seem to understand what they actually contribute to the game or are simply bandwagoning trolls who do understand but just like to watch the world burn.
I'll end with this I really have no horse in this game. Just wanted to throw that out there and maybe open some eyes.
See it from this side ... we just try to get a lot of rookies into the game. do we really want to tell them "oh and you can run in 10-20 people controlled by isboxer to kill you" or "you have to compete with 20 isboxed miners, and most of the time they will clear out the ice belt that you are happy you get one load of ice before it is gone"
is that really the message you want to tell them? |
Good Apollo BS4
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
65
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:16:25 -
[962] - Quote
Replicator tears best tears!! |
Steppa Musana
Republic University Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:17:02 -
[963] - Quote
I don't understand why this has to apply to mining or ratting. You're going to lose hundreds of subscriptions over this CCP. What a terrible decision this is.
Please place an exception where broadcasting commands to mine rocks, shoot rats, jettison cargo, etc. is all permitted. |
Hurtado Soneka
Balls to the Walls Brawls Deep
243
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:17:10 -
[964] - Quote
Well played CCP, get those damn cheaters the hell outta here! |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2450
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:17:39 -
[965] - Quote
Hott Pocket wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking. That would figure. First thing I did when I saw this post was switch training to stealth bombers/cyno V.
It is only the "logical" next step if you have failed to engage your brain. Does AFK cloaking utilize third party software? No. End discussion.
I believe that CCP also indicated they will look at AFK cloaking in the context of a major Sov overhaul.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Dazamin
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:19:08 -
[966] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Dazamin wrote:Doc Fury wrote:Dazamin wrote:Can we remove squad / wing / fleet warps too? Why would they remove an in-game feature when they are addressing out of game issues? You mad bro? Well its the behaviour that's the problem surely? Not sure how its achieved is really an issue. But I do think rid of in game fleet warps would be genuinely good for the same reasons as getting rid of out of game methods of key / mouse broadcasting would be. Make each character take their own actions, make their own mistakes, etc. Oh for crying out loud.... How it is achieved IS the issue. Which is why the EULA specifically mentions 3rd party software. If it is in the client, then everyone has it, CCP has implicitly approved it (they designed it), and thus no unfair advantage.
I could be wrong, but my understanding is this isn't about unfair advantage because not everyone has ISBoxer, its about being able to get multiple characters doing the exact same thing at the exact same time being a bad thing. Specifically people talk about ISBoxed Bomber fleets being more effective than a bomber fleet with seven individuals running one character each. I don't see whats unreasonable about applying that principle to fleet warps, in fact its the same reason that drone assign was heavily nerfed, because it involved the whole fleets actions being handed over to one player. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
239
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:19:18 -
[967] - Quote
Good Apollo BS4 wrote:Replicator tears best tears!!
CONDI corps and their recruiting policies, sigh |
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
3968
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:19:19 -
[968] - Quote
The tears of unfathomable sadness.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1267
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:19:20 -
[969] - Quote
Hott Pocket wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking. That would figure. First thing I did when I saw this post was switch training to stealth bombers/cyno V. I still don't see the logic there. One is a duplication of commands to allow activity beyond player capability, the other a purely player fear driven effect from complete inactivity. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:22:03 -
[970] - Quote
Airi Cho wrote:
See it from this side ... we just try to get a lot of rookies into the game. do we really want to tell them "oh and you can run in 10-20 people controlled by isboxer to kill you" or "you have to compete with 20 isboxed miners, and most of the time they will clear out the ice belt that you are happy you get one load of ice before it is gone"
is that really the message you want to tell them?
I get what you're saying. But I see the reality of it being that single new player will likely never contribute as much to the economy as that single ISBoxer. And will be several months before he can even mine as much as one of his alts. That's assuming he's willing to put in the same amount of time.
I see this best for the new players, I just am fearful about how many we will lose compared to how many we will gain. I'm not going anywhere either way, CCP obviously thinks this is for the best so we will have to sit, wait, and see. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1267
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:22:35 -
[971] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:The behavior, fleet warping, is NOT the issue. Fleet warping is a feature built into the game by CCP. Since the portion of the EULA relating to ISBoxer refers SPECIFICALLY to 3rd party software and modifying the client, fleet warping, drone assist and other IN GAME features (features designed in game by CCP) are irrelevant.
It is just that simple. Maybe I made some mistake in phrasing but my point was that CCP has decided certain things are allowable and has provided the capability to do them with limitations under their control via the client, fully justifying being able to do x within the client but not with a 3rd party tool.
I never said fleet warping WAS an issue, I said CCP decided fleet warping was NOT an issue as they built it. |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising Executive Outcomes
38
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:23:37 -
[972] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:Airi Cho wrote:
See it from this side ... we just try to get a lot of rookies into the game. do we really want to tell them "oh and you can run in 10-20 people controlled by isboxer to kill you" or "you have to compete with 20 isboxed miners, and most of the time they will clear out the ice belt that you are happy you get one load of ice before it is gone"
is that really the message you want to tell them?
I get what you're saying. But I see the reality of it being that single new player will likely never contribute as much to the economy as that single ISBoxer. And will be several months before he can even mine as much as one of his alts. That's assuming he's willing to put in the same amount of time. I see this best for the new players, I just am fearful about how many we will lose compared to how many we will gain. I'm not going anywhere either way, CCP obviously thinks this is for the best so we will have to sit, wait, and see.
right but i would rather have 20 newbies become profitable miners instead of 1 guy with 20 accounts. |
Villtora Aldurald
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:23:47 -
[973] - Quote
This is actually quite easy to check. 1 ip adres sending the exact same data to multiple clients at the same speed. They could even write a program to monitor the specific commands sent and sway the banhammer. It would require some decent hardware to keep up with all the packets. |
Steppa Musana
Republic University Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:24:22 -
[974] - Quote
CCP can save almost the entirety of their mining alt ISBox subscriptions by allowing us to jettison cargo or move cargo to an Orca using broadcasting.
Without that ability it's too much of a hassle to mine and I personally will be retiring my entire fleet over it.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25644
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:25:13 -
[975] - Quote
don't worry about detection. I'm sure automatic broadcasting has a robotic signature over a time span, that isn't human.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2450
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:26:19 -
[976] - Quote
Dazamin wrote:
I could be wrong, but my understanding is this isn't about unfair advantage because not everyone has ISBoxer, its about being able to get multiple characters doing the exact same thing at the exact same time being a bad thing. Specifically people talk about ISBoxed Bomber fleets being more effective than a bomber fleet with seven individuals running one character each. I don't see whats unreasonable about applying that principle to fleet warps, in fact its the same reason that drone assign was heavily nerfed, because it involved the whole fleets actions being handed over to one player.
For the love of...
It is about using 3rd party software....to get characters to do stuff in the game. Really, read the OP it is quite clear. See, when CCP Falcon wrote:
Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation.
He was referring to this passage in the EULA:
Quote:A. Specifically Restricted Conduct Your continued access to the System and license to play the Game is subject to proper conduct. Without limiting CCP's rights to control the Game environment, and the conduct of the players within that environment, CCP prohibits the following practices that CCP has determined detract from the overall user experience of the users playing the Game.
- You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System.
- You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
- 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. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.
- You may not use the Software, or any information accessible through the System, to bypass the System login architecture or create or provide any other means through which the System may be accessed and/or the Game may be played by others, as, for example, through server emulators.
- You may not submit any content to any chat room or other public forum within the Game that is harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, libelous or defamatory, encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liabilities, or is unlawful in any other way, including without limitation the submission of content that infringes on a third-partyGÇÖs intellectual property rights.
- You may not engage in any conduct that results in an Account containing items, objects, currency, character attributes, rank, or status that are inappropriate for the level or rank of the character contained in the Account, including without limitation arranging, making or accepting transfers of items to a character without adequate consideration, thereby augmenting or aggregating items in an Account and increasing its value for an Account sale.
I have bolded, italicized and highlighted the relevant section.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
239
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:26:39 -
[977] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Hott Pocket wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:This is ironic but the logical change next to be made is to nerf afk cloaking. That would figure. First thing I did when I saw this post was switch training to stealth bombers/cyno V. I still don't see the logic there. One is a duplication of commands to allow activity beyond player capability, the other a purely player fear driven effect from complete inactivity.
To reiterate what I've said a few times- we are in favor of this broadcast change- it sucks for a few of us, but it's an overall good change for the game.
The reason for the change isn't "they're using 3rd party software or not". It's being able to unreasonably project the power that one player has in Eve.
It doesn't matter if someone is sitting in a system cloaked all day, personally. Jump fatigue and range nerfs really limited the effect of AFK cloaking. If CCP is going with the route of putting more power into the individual player rather than how many accounts that player controls (which is what this nerf is), then AFK cloaking would be a logical next step. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
319
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:30:58 -
[978] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote: To reiterate what I've said a few times- we are in favor of this broadcast change- it sucks for a few of us, but it's an overall good change for the game.
The reason for the change isn't "they're using 3rd party software or not". It's being able to unreasonably project the power that one player has in Eve.
It doesn't matter if someone is sitting in a system cloaked all day, personally. Jump fatigue and range nerfs really limited the effect of AFK cloaking. If CCP is going with the route of putting more power into the individual player rather than how many accounts that player controls (which is what this nerf is), then AFK cloaking would be a logical next step.
Edit: I explained the similarity on the previous page, check there, not retyping that **** again.
also that's the last time I troll about afk cloaking and get caught up in an actual argument about it
AFK cloaking is a perfectly fine and normal mechanic. Either ignore the guy and hope that he is AFK, or take defensive measures. Problem solved. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2450
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:33:17 -
[979] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote: To reiterate what I've said a few times- we are in favor of this broadcast change- it sucks for a few of us, but it's an overall good change for the game.
The reason for the change isn't "they're using 3rd party software or not". It's being able to unreasonably project the power that one player has in Eve.
It doesn't matter if someone is sitting in a system cloaked all day, personally. Jump fatigue and range nerfs really limited the effect of AFK cloaking. If CCP is going with the route of putting more power into the individual player rather than how many accounts that player controls (which is what this nerf is), then AFK cloaking would be a logical next step.
Edit: I explained the similarity on the previous page, check there, not retyping that **** again.
also that's the last time I troll about afk cloaking and get caught up in an actual argument about it
AFK cloaking is a perfectly fine and normal mechanic. Either ignore the guy and hope that he is AFK, or take defensive measures. Problem solved.
It is totally irrelevant to this discussion as well. Does AFK cloaking make use of 3rd party software? No. No EULA violation even remotely possible. Discussion over (as far as this thread is concerned--i.e. take it elsewhere).
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
240
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:35:42 -
[980] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:AFK cloaking is a perfectly fine and normal mechanic. Either ignore the guy and hope that he is AFK, or take defensive measures. Problem solved.
No.
Look at the trillions of isk worth of damage that one man (Replicator) with tens of accounts did to goons, according to Gevlon Goblin-statistician extraordinaire |
|
Dazamin
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
41
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:36:49 -
[981] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Dazamin wrote:
I could be wrong, but my understanding is this isn't about unfair advantage because not everyone has ISBoxer, its about being able to get multiple characters doing the exact same thing at the exact same time being a bad thing. Specifically people talk about ISBoxed Bomber fleets being more effective than a bomber fleet with seven individuals running one character each. I don't see whats unreasonable about applying that principle to fleet warps, in fact its the same reason that drone assign was heavily nerfed, because it involved the whole fleets actions being handed over to one player.
For the love of... It is about using 3rd party software....to get characters to do stuff in the game. Really, read the OP it is quite clear. See, when CCP Falcon wrote: Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation. He was referring to this passage in the EULA: Quote:A. Specifically Restricted Conduct Your continued access to the System and license to play the Game is subject to proper conduct. Without limiting CCP's rights to control the Game environment, and the conduct of the players within that environment, CCP prohibits the following practices that CCP has determined detract from the overall user experience of the users playing the Game.
- You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System.
- You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
- 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. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.
- You may not use the Software, or any information accessible through the System, to bypass the System login architecture or create or provide any other means through which the System may be accessed and/or the Game may be played by others, as, for example, through server emulators.
- You may not submit any content to any chat room or other public forum within the Game that is harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, libelous or defamatory, encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liabilities, or is unlawful in any other way, including without limitation the submission of content that infringes on a third-partyGÇÖs intellectual property rights.
- You may not engage in any conduct that results in an Account containing items, objects, currency, character attributes, rank, or status that are inappropriate for the level or rank of the character contained in the Account, including without limitation arranging, making or accepting transfers of items to a character without adequate consideration, thereby augmenting or aggregating items in an Account and increasing its value for an Account sale.
I have bolded, italicized and highlighted the relevant section.
This would make sense if I suggested CCP should ban people who use fleet warp, since I never mentioned the EULA and it has no relevance to what I said, I'm not sure why you're quoting it.
I was just wondering if, while we're on the subject of automation, things in game that allow one person to control the actions of a number of pilots (like fleet warps) could be looked at, like other similar in game mechanics have been (like drone assign). |
RoAnnon
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
16074
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:37:47 -
[982] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:I'm a Mac user, and to be perfectly honest it would never have occurred to me to control EVE clients through AppleScript--though, granted, that's because I usually control one, and at most two, accounts at once on a single monitor, and those two accounts are usually doing distinctly different things. That's my case. I've used Applescript in other apps, but never even thought about trying to multibox EVE with it. Most accounts I've ever run at once was 3. I have two displays, and I had one miner, one hauler and a scout going. Only did that once though. And haven't run 2 for a long time.
Frankly, if someone thinks they MUST multibox to play EVE, they're doing it wrong.
So, you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1268
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:39:05 -
[983] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:To reiterate what I've said a few times- we are in favor of this broadcast change- it sucks for a few of us, but it's an overall good change for the game.
The reason for the change isn't "they're using 3rd party software or not". It's being able to unreasonably project the power that one player has in Eve.
It doesn't matter if someone is sitting in a system cloaked all day, personally. Jump fatigue and range nerfs really limited the effect of AFK cloaking. If CCP is going with the route of putting more power into the individual player rather than how many accounts that player controls (which is what this nerf is), then AFK cloaking would be a logical next step.
Edit: I explained the similarity on the previous page, check there, not retyping that **** again.
also that's the last time I troll about afk cloaking and get caught up in an actual argument about it I guess I'm not seeing the link between that and this. Specifically the conflation of the power of a single player and that of a single character. This relates to the former while AFK cloaking relates to the latter. There may arguably be an issue with cloaking, but this doesn't necessarily support that notion in any direct way I can discern.
As you noted the "issue" lies with the lack of need for interaction, which, being so low, isn't notably changed by the line of thinking for banning command broadcasting software.
I guess this is an agree to disagree thing, actual thoughts on AFK cloaking aside. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6483
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:40:36 -
[984] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:also that's the last time I troll about afk cloaking and get caught up in an actual argument about it No way is this the last time.
You know it will happen again . Hey at least you can log in all your afk cloakers at once, though then you must hurriedly get them to cloak (since you can't broadcast the cloak command).
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Arla Sarain
140
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:42:26 -
[985] - Quote
I imagine the online counter will drop on Tranquility. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
240
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:42:37 -
[986] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:also that's the last time I troll about afk cloaking and get caught up in an actual argument about it No way is this the last time. You know it will happen again . Hey at least you can log in all your afk cloakers at once, though then you must hurriedly get them to cloak (since you can't broadcast the cloak command).
Thank goodness I can automate the cloak to run for 23 hours on my 17 afk cloakers. Otherwise I'd actually have to play this game |
Ssabat Thraxx
Dominion Tenebrarum Reverberation Project
1027
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:43:51 -
[987] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote:CCP can save almost the entirety of their mining alt ISBox subscriptions by allowing us to jettison cargo or move cargo to an Orca using broadcasting. Without that ability it's too much of a hassle to mine and I personally will be retiring my entire fleet over it.
Awesome! Dont let the door hit ya in the arse on the way out!
\m/ O.o \m/
"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
241
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:45:30 -
[988] - Quote
I give it 4 megathreads before this guy and others saying the same thing start making threads in Eve Industry about the rising prices of all t1 items made from minerals, because all of these cheating multibox miners are quitting |
Paranoid Loyd
2800
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:48:50 -
[989] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote:CCP can save almost the entirety of their mining alt ISBox subscriptions by allowing us to jettison cargo or move cargo to an Orca using broadcasting. Without that ability it's too much of a hassle to mine and I personally will be retiring my entire fleet over it. ROFL
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
|
Firestorm Delta
Aphotic Machina
42
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:49:09 -
[990] - Quote
Dazamin wrote:
This would make sense if I suggested CCP should ban people who use fleet warp, since I never mentioned the EULA and it has no relevance to what I said, I'm not sure why you're quoting it.
I was just wondering if, while we're on the subject of automation, things in game that allow one person to control the actions of a number of pilots (like fleet warps) could be looked at, like other similar in game mechanics have been (like drone assign).
Fleet warp is entirely different as its intended to let a fleet actually travel as one. Larger ships already suffer from being slower in warp, making fleet warp any different will just make it harder to do things as a fleet.
We want things that allow for groups of players to work together, not one guy with 30 accounts. Warp fleet is there for the former. |
|
|
|
|
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 |