Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
saltrock0000
Obsessive Compulsive Disasters
41
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 15:50:00 -
[1] - Quote
So this freezing overview not only freezes when the mouse is over it, but when the mouse is over on another monitor!
Duel boxing people beware. sorting by range multiboxing pvp miiiiiight get ya killed! |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3148
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 15:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
assumes that this guy here ^ found out the hard way.
|
saltrock0000
Obsessive Compulsive Disasters
41
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 15:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
fortunatly not, but if i had there would of defiantly been petitions lol |
IceAero
Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings
12
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 16:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
This has got to be fixed... |
Smokin Cheeba
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 16:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
Does the overview still update on the client that doesn't have mouse focus? ie new targets moved to bottom? |
Liu Ellens
Blame The Bunny The Dark Nation
26
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 16:34:00 -
[6] - Quote
Thinking about it, people with systems such as this one might want to have it the way as it is now. I'm a little freighter - short and stout; This is my cargo, this is my route. When I get a lock-on, I scream and shout: "Light up a cyno!" and jump on out. |
saltrock0000
Obsessive Compulsive Disasters
41
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 16:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
Smokin Cheeba wrote:Does the overview still update on the client that doesn't have mouse focus? ie new targets moved to bottom?
Nope it completely freezes the overview on the monitor/client which doesnt have mouse focus |
Smokin Cheeba
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 16:39:00 -
[8] - Quote
saltrock0000 wrote:Smokin Cheeba wrote:Does the overview still update on the client that doesn't have mouse focus? ie new targets moved to bottom? Nope it completely freezes the overview on the monitor/client which doesnt have mouse focus
Wow. Huge fail on this one. Fix needed asap. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order Villore Accords
83
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 17:57:00 -
[9] - Quote
Not exactly
If you leave you left screen with the pointer in the area of the overview, the client will consider you mouse pointer to be stuck on the right side of the left screen while in reality it is somewhere on the right screen.
If you take care to move your mouse from the left screen to the right screen but make sure you avoid the overview on the left screen when you pass over to the right the left overview will not be frozen.
For example my overview is 2/3 the height of my screen so i can go from one screen to the other in the top 1/3 and the overview on the left is not frozen.
This is tedious and not acceptable. An immediate fix is required to introduce a toggle to freeze overview or to remove overview freezing until a toggle can be coded.
Leaving it as it is for a week or two is completely unacceptable. |
Lin Fatale
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:09:00 -
[10] - Quote
really annoying, fix it plz |
|
Paragon Renegade
Wyvern Operations
272
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:13:00 -
[11] - Quote
No skin off my ass.
I can't believe CCP actually allows multiboxing The pie is a tautology |
Xolve
The Suicide Kings Test Alliance Please Ignore
900
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:20:00 -
[12] - Quote
Paragon Renegade wrote:No skin off my ass.
I can't believe CCP actually allows multiboxing
Couldn't you have just drank the kool-aide with the rest of the cultists.
Your presence here and your posting habits arn't beneficial to anyone.
Also- for dual screens, Overview on the left on the left screen, Overview on the Right on the right screen.. at least this works for me. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Paragon Renegade
Wyvern Operations
272
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:23:00 -
[13] - Quote
Xolve wrote:[quote=Paragon Renegade]
Couldn't you have just drank the kool-aide with the rest of the cultists.
Your presence here and your posting habits arn't beneficial to anyone.
I'm blunt, if you dislike that, too bad.
As far as I'm concerned, multi-boxing is cheating The pie is a tautology |
Orcirk
The Baros Syndicate
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:33:00 -
[14] - Quote
Paragon Renegade wrote:Xolve wrote:[quote=Paragon Renegade]
Couldn't you have just drank the kool-aide with the rest of the cultists.
Your presence here and your posting habits arn't beneficial to anyone.
I'm blunt, if you dislike that, too bad. As far as I'm concerned, multi-boxing is cheating As far as CCP is concerned, it's not. Given that they actively encourage multiboxing through various offers aimed specifically at getting people second/third accounts, I'd have thought this to be fairly obvious. |
Paragon Renegade
Wyvern Operations
272
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:37:00 -
[15] - Quote
Orcirk wrote: As far as CCP is concerned, it's not. Given that they actively encourage multiboxing through various offers aimed specifically at getting people second/third accounts, I'd have thought this to be fairly obvious.
All you've done is confirm that I disagree with CCP.
Paying for multiple accounts and monitors is essntially paying more for a larger advantage, or pay to win. Remember that? It's stupid and goes against both the premise of an MMO (Why play with others when you can do it yourself?) and the spirit of the game. The pie is a tautology |
Hauling Hal
The Black Ops
48
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:40:00 -
[16] - Quote
Paragon Renegade wrote:Orcirk wrote: As far as CCP is concerned, it's not. Given that they actively encourage multiboxing through various offers aimed specifically at getting people second/third accounts, I'd have thought this to be fairly obvious.
All you've done is confirm that I disagree with CCP. Paying for multiple accounts and monitors is essntially paying more for a larger advantage, or pay to win. Remember that? It's stupid and goes against both the premise of an MMO (Why play with others when you can do it yourself?) and the spirit of the game.
When it costs less to play 2 accounts owned by one person versus two accounts that are played by two people, I'll believe you.
There are 2 accounts, who owns them is irrelevant. |
Paragon Renegade
Wyvern Operations
273
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:44:00 -
[17] - Quote
Hauling Hal wrote:
When it costs less to play 2 accounts owned by one person versus two accounts that are played by two people, I'll believe you.
There are 2 accounts, who owns them is irrelevant.
Following that logic, Aurum should be used to buy Faction mods :D The pie is a tautology |
thatboydc
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:48:00 -
[18] - Quote
Paragon Renegade wrote:Hauling Hal wrote:
When it costs less to play 2 accounts owned by one person versus two accounts that are played by two people, I'll believe you.
There are 2 accounts, who owns them is irrelevant.
Following that logic, Aurum should be used to buy Faction mods :D
Your statement has literally nothing to do with his statement. |
Hauling Hal
The Black Ops
48
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:48:00 -
[19] - Quote
Paragon Renegade wrote:Hauling Hal wrote:
When it costs less to play 2 accounts owned by one person versus two accounts that are played by two people, I'll believe you.
There are 2 accounts, who owns them is irrelevant.
Following that logic, Aurum should be used to buy Faction mods :D
No, it's accounts, not in-game items. You have a chip on your shoulder, because you think the game should be fair to solo players. It isn't, it's Eve. Get over it. Whether its one player with 2 accounts or 2 players on 2 accounts is utterly irrelevant, it's 2 accounts. Live with it and make friends. Do you cry over war decs as well? |
Paragon Renegade
Wyvern Operations
273
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:49:00 -
[20] - Quote
thatboydc wrote: Your statement has literally nothing to do with his statement.
Paying for something you wouldn't otherwise have.
It has everything to do with it.
Multiboxing is ******** and should be against the rules The pie is a tautology |
|
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
275
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:50:00 -
[21] - Quote
I personally love the fact CCP allows people to us multiple accounts, so we can invstigate multiple aspects of the game.
Though there is some logic in the arguement if a solo player Wardecs a 10 account multi boxer, we know who is going to win.
But that said if a solo player wardecs a 10 player corp, we also know who's going to win.
Does it follow then that you believe those 10 players are collectively 'paying to win'?
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Hauling Hal
The Black Ops
48
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:51:00 -
[22] - Quote
Paragon Renegade wrote:thatboydc wrote: Your statement has literally nothing to do with his statement.
Paying for something you wouldn't otherwise have. It has everything to do with it. Multiboxing is ******** and should be against the rules
So an alliance with 400 players is 'unfair' when they kill a solo player, because they paid 400x as much?
Your logic sucks. |
Paragon Renegade
Wyvern Operations
273
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:53:00 -
[23] - Quote
Professor Alphane wrote:I personally love the fact CCP allows people to us multiple accounts, so we can invstigate multiple aspects of the game.
Though there is some logic in the arguement if a solo player Wardecs a 10 account multi boxer, we know who is going to win.
But that said if a solo player wardecs a 10 player corp, we also know who's going to win.
Does it follow then that you believe those 10 players are collectively 'paying to win'?
No, all those people need to work together as a team.
Multiboxers need to buy another monitor(s) and learn to multitask, and as a result the ONE person has a truly enormous advantage over any other single player. The pie is a tautology |
Paragon Renegade
Wyvern Operations
273
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:53:00 -
[24] - Quote
Hauling Hal wrote: So an alliance with 400 players is 'unfair' when they kill a solo player, because they paid 400x as much?
Your logic sucks.
That's 400 different people -_- The pie is a tautology |
Sverige Pahis
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
731
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:54:00 -
[25] - Quote
Orcirk wrote:Paragon Renegade wrote:Xolve wrote:[quote=Paragon Renegade]
Couldn't you have just drank the kool-aide with the rest of the cultists.
Your presence here and your posting habits arn't beneficial to anyone.
I'm blunt, if you dislike that, too bad. As far as I'm concerned, multi-boxing is cheating As far as CCP is concerned, it's not. Given that they actively encourage multiboxing through various offers aimed specifically at getting people second/third accounts, I'd have thought this to be fairly obvious.
You should probably quit. That would send a clear message to CCP. |
Hauling Hal
The Black Ops
48
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:57:00 -
[26] - Quote
Paragon Renegade wrote:Hauling Hal wrote: So an alliance with 400 players is 'unfair' when they kill a solo player, because they paid 400x as much?
Your logic sucks.
That's 400 different people -_-
No, it's 400 accounts. You don't know how many are dual or triple boxing. |
Paragon Renegade
Wyvern Operations
273
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:59:00 -
[27] - Quote
Hauling Hal wrote:
No, it's 400 accounts. You don't know how many are dual or triple boxing.
I don't really care either.
You should be able to have multiple paying accounts, but you shouldn't be able to use them simultaneously The pie is a tautology |
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
275
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 22:01:00 -
[28] - Quote
Paragon Renegade wrote:
Multiboxers need to buy another monitor(s) and learn to multitask , and as a result the ONE person has a truly enormous advantage over any other single player.
What you fail to mention is they also need to pay CCP for a sub.
So -ú100 worth of accounts > -ú10 worth of accounts, why should who runs them be of any signifcance.
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Hauling Hal
The Black Ops
48
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 22:03:00 -
[29] - Quote
Paragon Renegade wrote:Hauling Hal wrote:
No, it's 400 accounts. You don't know how many are dual or triple boxing.
I don't really care either. You should be able to have multiple paying accounts, but you shouldn't be able to use them simultaneously
Why?
Please provide a valid reason, not a whinge. |
Paragon Renegade
Wyvern Operations
273
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 22:04:00 -
[30] - Quote
Professor Alphane wrote:
What you fail to mention is they also need to pay CCP for a sub.
So -ú100 worth of accounts > -ú10 worth of accounts, why should who runs them be of any signifcance.
Again, then why should buying modules with real money be against the rules then? After all, paying money to CCP in exchange for an advantage, what's so bad about that?
Of course, I would never advocate that because that's stupid in a player-driven economy, just as multi-boxing is stupid because it goes against the "MMO" part of the "MMORPG"
The pie is a tautology |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |