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) |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
74
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:40:42 -
[1621] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:No wonder one of my ganker friends laughed at this.
I just tested with a few clients, and at lower settings and a few other small changes, you can cycle through them and activate modules pretty much as quickly as you can hit keys on the keyboard. And the best part is, alt+tab is a windows function, and can seamlessly be combined with any other singular input, such as a hotkey for the module slot that your weapon rack is located in. Works perfectly, too; all of the modules were in the ready state when going back through the clients to check if it worked. Can literally slide by finger across a set of keys, like the F keys, to make this work.
Caveat: windows can't be minimized (have to be active in the background, or side by side).
Congrats, CCP. The only players I see this change affecting more than marginally is those who use multiboxing software in a targeting-critical environment, such as logistics in incursions. For everyone else, you're adding the hassle of having to move each character manually, and that's about it.
Just a question. This was without ISBoxer, right? Just multiboxing the old fashioned way?
The Nosy Gamer - Free Wollari!-á Buy your EVE time codes through Dotlan maps!
|
Bagatur I
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:43:31 -
[1622] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:A little overboard with this change don't you think? Your game is far to slow for most activities.
While I can understand taking down the 30 man IsBoxer fleets, you should consider allowing small groups of 2 or 3 to multi-broadcast.
really? are you that lazy that you cant alt-tab 2 or 3 clients? |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
267
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:43:47 -
[1623] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:And look who is whining now that you just smacked with the back of the hand for precisely that reason. TIL: Calling out a troll is now whining. No, its all the previous posts you've got. You clearly are butt hurt about this change.
TIL: Attempting to inform the masses is being butthurt. |
Skelee VI
Wraithguard. Dirt Nap Squad.
48
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:47:46 -
[1624] - Quote
I for one would love to see isboxer banned, However, the big alliances who pay big money will be in tears. How will they survive without 20 ships in one guys control mining! |
Bagatur I
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 01:50:08 -
[1625] - Quote
Michelle Monteleone wrote:Guess my 12 accounts are done as of January 1, 2015. I had fun while it lasted. First Warcraft removed /follow from pvp because of all the cry babies now CCP has removed multiboxing all together. The Eve universe is going to change quite a bit when all the resources people were pumping out with multiple accounts goes away. Merry Christmas CCP. Thanks for the lump of coal. See you cry babies in the next mmo I multibox in.
another one. who is multiboxing removed??? you should probably go play a simpler game if even this is hard for you to understand. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2457
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:00:04 -
[1626] - Quote
Jared Noan wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Godren Storm wrote:Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought. However, fleet warp isn't using third party software to do so. It's not food for thought at all. It's a disingenuous attempt to derail this. Nope, it's lawayer speak, they use it.
Lawyer speak...disingenuous...dude you are repeating yourself.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
943
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:01:08 -
[1627] - Quote
Capt JJ wrote: But under the new EULA conditions Fleet / Squad / Wing warps are bannable. As they come into navigation of multiple accounts with a single click. Yes its built into the game but it is NOT excluded or has provisions under the EULA changes.
How about you stop telling the people who wrote the EULA how they should interpret the EULA? How about you stop telling the people who designed the game the EULA protects what game mechanics are against the EULA? How about you stop acting like some know it all brat spewing garbage?
How about you just shut up?
To all those who claim they won't be caught after january 1st, I am looking forward to seeing your butt turned into a statistic on one of CCP's 'this is how many morons we caught cheating' slides during Fanfest. I will be sitting in the audience and I will laugh at you
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1277
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:07:07 -
[1628] - Quote
Thinking about it, if we really want to be that technical fleet warp doesn't violate anything because at no point does the fleet warper issue any commands to the clients of the ships being warped. The only command issued is to the server, then the server moves the ships, the other clients only get involved by being told they are warping. The never get any "command."
Since only one "instance of the game" received an input, there is no violation even under a literal interpretation of the rules. Can we put this to bed now? |
Bagatur I
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:07:50 -
[1629] - Quote
Lee Sin Priest wrote:Utari Onzo wrote:The thing that makes me laugh are the ISBoxer users asking for refunds.
They have paid for subscription time, and been given that time. CCP was under no obligation to 'garauntee' to customers that their intentions for the characters use would still be applicable in the future. CCP didn't explicitely state that my training for a sentry drone Dominix for PVP last year would be a garaunteed OK and my 'playstyle' wouldn't get nerfed.
These characters could all be retrained into market alts, scouts, fleet boosters, or heavens forbid the ISboxers could just manually operate them, but no. Instead they demand a refund when they have recieved exactly what CCP promised them. A set amount of time to play in the sandbox. Please take your entitled attitude elsewhere. 35 days notice on 180degree turnaround on their own policy is not okay It's downright extortion Example: If you pay me money to go to theme park for a specific ride, you like the rollercoasters cause of the pretty lights n stuff I say of course you may enter, I have a policy that dictates how I must behave and such, what you want to do is legal and hundreds of other people have been doing it for years You grin, pay over your moneyzzzz and enter 3 feet in Miley comes in like a wrecking ball and bye bye the rollercoasters Sad right?
35 days more than enough! what do you want? a year? if you cant play without ISboxing your multiple accounts, you will quit after 35 days or 1 year no matter what. if you can adapt, you wont. |
Yi Hyori
University of Caille Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:15:00 -
[1630] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Capt JJ wrote: But under the new EULA conditions Fleet / Squad / Wing warps are bannable. As they come into navigation of multiple accounts with a single click. Yes its built into the game but it is NOT excluded or has provisions under the EULA changes.
How about you stop telling the people who wrote the EULA how they should interpret the EULA? How about you stop telling the people who designed the game the EULA protects what game mechanics are against the EULA? How about you stop acting like some know it all brat spewing garbage? How about you just shut up? To all those who claim they won't be caught after january 1st, I am looking forward to seeing your butt turned into a statistic on one of CCP's 'this is how many morons we caught cheating' slides during Fanfest. I will be sitting in the audience and I will laugh at you
Rather than not being caught, majority of the posts from multiboxer stems from, "i will continue my playstyle as this only limits a METHOD that is used in my playstyle."
what CCP is trying to do is prevent a METHOD multiboxers have been using to multibox, rather than banning the act itself. Eve online is a complex game that relies on alts to get a majority of things accomplished without wanting to rip your hair out.
@Teckos Pech
You are partially correct in saying that the whole point of multiboxing is to remove the multi part of multiplayer online. I personally prefer to play multiple accounts because indeed getting people to do what I want to do at a drop of a dime is rather like herding cats. This does not only include mining fleets, but it also includes pvp fleets. Any pvp group will inform you of the amount of rage pings an FC will send trying to get people into fleet to get something accomplished. Multiboxing for me helps to alleviate the issue a bit by bringing numbers.
Another reason for my multiboxing is that I do not have the same play time as other people. I do not have the time to dedicate as many hours to this game as some other players and my play time can sometimes be cut short or interrupted abruptly. In that case you run into player friction as parts of the fleet need to go afk and a group cannot continue with parts of it AFK.
I guess this point actually reinforces your point of view as to the advantages of multiboxing. But these are advantages. You are trading the benefits of flying a single ship competently for the benefit of not having to deal with player friction.
I do not think it is up to the player base for force players to deal with player friction merely because the title incorporates the genre of MMO. Single playstyles should also be embraced as long as it does not violate the EULA. Forcing people into groups would be similar to forcing people to roleplay because the full wording of MMO is actually MMORPG.
Pigeon holing a playerbase into playing the game that is the way an individual views the game is an error, I believe.
All sorts of people play this game and embrace different types of gameplay. As long as these methods are to be in line with the EULA, I don't see any reason argue against it merely for the sake of arguing.
As for whether the usage of ISBoxer is considered botting or not is not up to me. I have my opinions but the final word belongs to CCP, and I will stand by their decision. The entire topic is too sticky to really deal with anyway with everyone and their strong opinions on the matter.
|
|
Bagatur I
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:22:06 -
[1631] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Big +1 on the decision, but I'm worried it doesn't go far enough. People will just purchase more screens, and manually control multiple accounts. It'll be harder, surely, but it's still viable to manually control a 10 ship tornado gank fleet or procurer mining fleet. The only sure way to get rid of multiboxing, and entitle everyone equally to the actions of one character at a time, is to get rid of multiboxing entirely.
why would they want to get rid of multiboxing completely? if someone can manually control 10 accounts - that is a SKILL! why punish him? controlling just one account and have a dozen more do the same thing without any additional effort is cheating! |
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7323
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:25:31 -
[1632] - Quote
This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb.
Gÿ+
The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'Hodor'.
|
Rhalina Sedai
Notice Has Been Served
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:41:34 -
[1633] - Quote
Looks like notice has been served, good job CCP: |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2457
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 02:55:38 -
[1634] - Quote
Yi Hyori wrote: @Teckos Pech
You are partially correct in saying that the whole point of multiboxing is to remove the multi part of multiplayer online. I personally prefer to play multiple accounts because indeed getting people to do what I want to do at a drop of a dime is rather like herding cats. This does not only include mining fleets, but it also includes pvp fleets. Any pvp group will inform you of the amount of rage pings an FC will send trying to get people into fleet to get something accomplished. Multiboxing for me helps to alleviate the issue a bit by bringing numbers.
Another reason for my multiboxing is that I do not have the same play time as other people. I do not have the time to dedicate as many hours to this game as some other players and my play time can sometimes be cut short or interrupted abruptly. In that case you run into player friction as parts of the fleet need to go afk and a group cannot continue with parts of it AFK.
I guess this point actually reinforces your point of view as to the advantages of multiboxing. But these are advantages. You are trading the benefits of flying a single ship competently for the benefit of not having to deal with player friction.
I do not think it is up to the player base for force players to deal with player friction merely because the title incorporates the genre of MMO. Single playstyles should also be embraced as long as it does not violate the EULA. Forcing people into groups would be similar to forcing people to roleplay because the full wording of MMO is actually MMORPG.
Pigeon holing a playerbase into playing the game that is the way an individual views the game is an error, I believe.
All sorts of people play this game and embrace different types of gameplay. As long as these methods are to be in line with the EULA, I don't see any reason argue against it merely for the sake of arguing.
As for whether the usage of ISBoxer is considered botting or not is not up to me. I have my opinions but the final word belongs to CCP, and I will stand by their decision. The entire topic is too sticky to really deal with anyway with everyone and their strong opinions on the matter.
I don't have an issue with multi-boxing. In fact, I multi-box myself. Part of the reason I multi-box is the limitations of Eve itself. That is there is now way to over come the incentive problem with regards to industry. If I were to try and do my industry stuff with 10 other actual players I'd be robbed blind in short order. So to do industry, given the current mechanics of the game, I have to either multi-box or just not do industry. Since I prefer industry to other forms of making isk, I multi-box. I'm fine with this.
Just wanted to be clear on this.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1753
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 03:24:47 -
[1635] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. are we going to just assume it was for their head hair? |
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7325
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 03:31:57 -
[1636] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Doc Fury wrote:This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. are we going to just assume it was for their head hair?
I'm really hoping you mean neckbeards.
Gÿ+
The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'Hodor'.
|
Kristen Andelare
Abacus Industries Group Aerodyne Collective
29
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 03:43:00 -
[1637] - Quote
100% in support of this change!
Thank You CCP!
I run multiple accounts for mining, PvE, etc, But have never been tempted to use ISBOXER and don't even have my macro keys on my keyboard set for anything related to Eve. I don't need it. It pollutes our great game.
To all the unsubbers, you knew you were cheating all along, you knew you were playing with an unfair advantage. Get thee gone. We won't miss you one iota, not even a scintilla.
I won't even ask for your stuff. I'll earn my own, one rock at a time. |
Hausser0815
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 03:54:18 -
[1638] - Quote
What about using ISboxer in such a away: Pressing F1 sends F1 to Client 1 Pressing F2 sends F1 to Client 2 Pressing F3 sends F1 to Client 3
Or use ISboxer to build your own, multy-char control panels.
Thats not multiplexing, so it should be fine regarding the rules, but its still multiboxing way faster than by switching trough actual game clients. |
Masao Kurata
Z List
163
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:18:49 -
[1639] - Quote
Hausser0815 wrote:What about using ISboxer in such a away: Pressing F1 sends F1 to Client 1 Pressing F2 sends F1 to Client 2 Pressing F3 sends F1 to Client 3
Or use ISboxer to build your own, multy-char control panels.
Thats not multiplexing, so it should be fine regarding the rules, but its still multiboxing way faster than by switching trough actual game clients.
Pretty sure that's precisely what multiplexing is as opposed to broadcasting actually. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:21:02 -
[1640] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Hausser0815 wrote:What about using ISboxer in such a away: Pressing F1 sends F1 to Client 1 Pressing F2 sends F1 to Client 2 Pressing F3 sends F1 to Client 3
Or use ISboxer to build your own, multy-char control panels.
Thats not multiplexing, so it should be fine regarding the rules, but its still multiboxing way faster than by switching trough actual game clients. Pretty sure that's precisely what multiplexing is as opposed to broadcasting actually. No actually as stated here.
Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game.
There is no actions/inputs etc to multiple instances of the game. Only one input to one client at a time. |
|
Masao Kurata
Z List
163
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:23:07 -
[1641] - Quote
Then I have no damn clue what the difference is meant to be. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:26:05 -
[1642] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Then I have no damn clue what the difference is meant to be. Yeah that's a big problem with this action. I have no damned clue if I'll be banned for using multiple computers with multilple keyboards/mouse to move/attack/whatever too fast. Like what kind of delay is CCP expecting between clients/computers.
I'm going to let my accounts expire till I see this in action. I might be back in February once this is more concrete. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
268
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:36:25 -
[1643] - Quote
Is it true that during Fanfest, CCP Seagull, you were telling people that multiboxers had nothing to worry about?
And during EVE Vegas, that other devs were telling people that multiboxing was "ok", even if they personally disagreed with it? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1279
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:37:36 -
[1644] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Then I have no damn clue what the difference is meant to be. The difference between what and what? Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing were both explicitly defined in this context as being the same thing.
As far as creating a non-broadcasting multi-client control center, strict reading says it's ok, but common sense says file a petition to be sure. Uncertainty says file a petition to be sure. Really any specific situation which you think is borderline or may trigger a false positive says file a petition.
This rule was made with multiboxers in mind as well as the fact that people will continue doing it without software assistance. It also means they intend on some level to enforce it but really discussing methods would be foolish on their part as that just facilitates circumvention, so I'm not sure what good asking how they plan to detect it is, either directly of veiled, like asking what sort of delays between commands will keep one from getting banned.
Nolak Ataru wrote:Is it true that during Fanfest, CCP Seagull, you were telling people that multiboxers had nothing to worry about?
And during EVE Vegas, that other devs were telling people that multiboxing was "ok", even if they personally disagreed with it? Not sure how this is relevant as multiboxing has not been banned. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:42:20 -
[1645] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Then I have no damn clue what the difference is meant to be. The difference between what and what? Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing were both explicitly defined in this context as being the same thing. As far as creating a non-broadcasting multi-client control center, strict reading says it's ok, but common sense says file a petition to be sure. Uncertainty says file a petition to be sure. Really any specific situation which you think is borderline or may trigger a false positive says file a petition. This rule was made with multiboxers in mind as well as the fact that people will continue doing it without software assistance. It also means they intend on some level to enforce it but really discussing methods would be foolish on their part as that just facilitates circumvention, so I'm not sure what good asking how they plan to detect it is, either directly of veiled, like asking what sort of delays between commands will keep one from getting banned. Nolak Ataru wrote:Is it true that during Fanfest, CCP Seagull, you were telling people that multiboxers had nothing to worry about?
And during EVE Vegas, that other devs were telling people that multiboxing was "ok", even if they personally disagreed with it? Not sure how this is relevant as multiboxing has not been banned. Well depending on how strict they are about timing multiboxing could be effectively bannable at any time. I've always used multiple machines with monitors/keyboards/mouse.. Now I'm worried I'll be just quick enough to be banned. |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
2035
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:46:29 -
[1646] - Quote
Whew, caught up again.
I disagree with some things, agree with others but I have no wish to hunt and search and copy blocks of text most of us skip reading anyways.
so
1) I want to thank Nolak and Yi and Shadow(something or other) You wrote well and for the most part kept above the petty name calling or pouting. Well done and I tried to make sure I read your posts carefully.
2) Posts I skipped usually contained the words unsub or tears. They contributed very little to the discussion. I also tended to laugh at ones that involve parrots, chopsticks or images of a juryrigged computer from years ago.
3) Yes there are workarounds, some using ISBoxer, others using scripted mice or keyboard. Some are fair game others skate close enough to the edge that they risk a ban. Basically it comes down to a question of economics. Are you willing to risk ALL your accounts (and assets) being banned by skating on the thin ice knowingly? Risk vs reward in the metagame.
4) Someone posted that ISBoxer and such were discussed in the summer summit. Yup, and perhaps in more detail than the edited (or redacted) minutes show. Think that one through, please.
5) What I want to see. PLAYERS, not accounts, people. If there is a bomber wing (come on boys . . . wooohoohoo) I want to know it is eight guys working in unison. I like watching a football match (soccer) but I get far less enjoyment watching foosball.
6) Multiple accounts are still fair usage. Scouts, self boosting (for those 'solo' players), neutral logi? All good to go. So no smoke screens in that direction. Same for fleet and squad warp. Although I HAVE argued for the latter to be changed before . . . ask me some other time about why.
that's it for now. a few more posts have appeared while I was writing this.
I'll keep reading and listening because that is what I said I would do.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1279
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:46:53 -
[1647] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Well depending on how strict they are about timing multiboxing could be effectively bannable at any time. I've always used multiple machines with monitors/keyboards/mouse.. Now I'm worried I'll be just quick enough to be banned. As someone with only single machine multiboxing experience I must ask, how many clients are you issuing commands to within a single server tick? |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
268
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:57:44 -
[1648] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Is it true that during Fanfest, CCP Seagull, you were telling people that multiboxers had nothing to worry about?
And during EVE Vegas, that other devs were telling people that multiboxing was "ok", even if they personally disagreed with it? Not sure how this is relevant as multiboxing has not been banned.
Saying something isn't banned and saying they have nothing to worry about are two VERY different things. That's like the president / prime minister / king of your country saying "Do not fear! Gun owners have nothing to fear!" and then a month later, everything except .22 revolver handguns are banned.
Sure, you can still do it. But why? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1279
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 05:02:23 -
[1649] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Is it true that during Fanfest, CCP Seagull, you were telling people that multiboxers had nothing to worry about?
And during EVE Vegas, that other devs were telling people that multiboxing was "ok", even if they personally disagreed with it? Not sure how this is relevant as multiboxing has not been banned. Saying something isn't banned and saying they have nothing to worry about are two VERY different things. That's like the president / prime minister / king of your country saying "Do not fear! Gun owners have nothing to fear!" and then a month later, everything except .22 revolver handguns are banned. Sure, you can still do it. But why? Why not, 2 accounts in a lot of activities will still provide considerable benefit. It's more comparable to illegalizing tying 2 guns together so you can pull both triggers with the same finger than any restriction on caliber. |
Masao Kurata
Z List
163
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 05:03:31 -
[1650] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Then I have no damn clue what the difference is meant to be. The difference between what and what? Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing were both explicitly defined in this context as being the same thing..
It isn't clear to me at all that CCP consider them to be the same thing, and at least to me with a little electronics background it is very confusing if input multiplexing were to mean the same thing as input broadcasting as a multiplexer is a circuit which connects (at any given time) one of multiple inputs to a single output. |
|
|
|
|
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 |