| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 |
41. Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Either CCP enforces their EULA and Policy for every program, or they don't enforce it at all. Nope. CCP can enforce their EULA and Policy however they please. You don't get to tell CCP...
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.11 17:25:14
|
42. Sticky:[Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance Part 2 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
MeBiatch wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: MeBiatch wrote: lets say every ihub/tcu/outpost in the RFY constellation in deklein gets reinforced. how would the CFC defend up to 370 capture annoms over 13 systems? and this is just one constellation ...
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.11 16:50:29
|
43. Sticky:[Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance Part 2 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
MeBiatch wrote: lets say every ihub/tcu/outpost in the RFY constellation in deklein gets reinforced. how would the CFC defend up to 370 capture annoms over 13 systems? and this is just one constellation lets say that the entire deklein region g...
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.11 16:13:10
|
44. Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: ISBoxer violates 6A2 ( 4078 ) You've already admitted that ISBoxer can be used to break Eve's EULA/TOS & policies. Why are your here arguing with yourself? Edit: Still waiting for th...
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.11 15:34:18
|
45. Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: We already went over this ten times before, but I shall do it again: No one is listening to your excuses and your wild attempts at deflection. Proof or stfu. Nobody's listening to your moving...
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.11 14:31:28
|
46. Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: You choose to believe everyone on the multibox forums is telling lies, I'm not prepared to call them liars without proof. It's not without cause. The fact that the video showing someone doing "not...
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.11 14:15:00
|
47. Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Trakow wrote: I can't believe how many times this thread goes full circle... To those who say that ISBoxer has no advantages over using multiple clients or boxes and manually switching clients/boxes to play, then what are you complaining about...
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.10 20:42:54
|
48. EVE-O preview - multi-client preview / switcher - v1.15 - in EVE Technology Lab [original thread]
6. CONDUCT A. Specifically Restricted Conduct 2. 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.
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.10 20:33:18
|
49. Sticky:[Scylla] Skynet - Removing fighter assist for carriers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: OGB is the same cancer that will be dealt with shortly. There are/were no technical solutions for either of them. Wrong. Boosters are no longer unscannable, and can no longer boost from inside a shield. Just add i...
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.10 16:51:25
|
50. Sticky:[Scylla] Skynet - Removing fighter assist for carriers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
1) Off Grid Boosters. 2) If they were going to re-purpose them, they should have either a) given us some hint or b) held off until they were going to enact the actual change.
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.10 16:14:13
|
51. Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: So now you are saying ISBoxer does violate the EULA. What on earth have you been moaning about for the past 200 pages for then?. Just so you know, you are wrong about them violating the EULA, they can be used t...
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.10 15:21:30
|
52. Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: Thank you for admitting you have been lying and that you are unwilling or unable to provide any proof as to your claims, especially about your claim CCP Falcon has lied to you. Bzzt, wrong. But good job atte...
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.10 14:42:06
|
53. Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: You're conflating ISBoxing and botting. Stop it. You're only underlining your own ignorance of both. They're extremely similar, that's why you want to avoid the comparison. A Corvette is simila...
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.10 14:39:19
|
54. Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: And being told that you can't automate twenty plus accounts simultaneously with the precision of a machine is not "forcing" you to play with others. It's simply taking a grossly unfair advantage out of your hands, finall...
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.10 14:31:51
|
55. Sticky:[Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance Part 2 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
MoA telling GSF how to hold sov....... On topic: We don't have to always deploy multiple 255man fleets for every system and timer. All we need is one inty scout to tell us how many people are invading, form up a suitable response fleet, and bridg...
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.10 13:41:35
|
56. Sticky:[Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance Part 2 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Kagura Nikon wrote: because otherwise you will have fleets of 1 t3 and 50 logis ignoring the defenders and simply drilling trough the capture points. What is "Coordinated Alpha Strike" for 800, Alex?
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.10 12:24:12
|
57. Sticky:[Scylla] Skynet - Removing fighter assist for carriers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Nevyn Auscent wrote: The fact you have to make such a convoluted mechanic simply to even attempt to stop skynetting should be telling you things. Convoluted mechanics are bad. Mechanics that require being exactly x distance from things are also...
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.10 12:23:25
|
58. Sticky:[Scylla] Skynet - Removing fighter assist for carriers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Rroff wrote: ^^ Yup bumping a carrier in triage takes some effort - and really needs either out of control mass from another capital or something like a machariel with a good run up. Though if your sitting 1m from safety its doable - I've seen ...
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.09 22:28:26
|
59. Sticky:[Scylla] Skynet - Removing fighter assist for carriers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Frostys Virpio wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: 2 things: 1) Garage Door Cynos are being or have been patched out. And I mentioned 50km or so from the *tower*, not the shield. 2) An anchor-type module that consumed no fuel coupled with a simple ch...
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.09 21:43:42
|
60. Sticky:[Scylla] Skynet - Removing fighter assist for carriers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
2 things: 1) Garage Door Cynos are being or have been patched out. And I mentioned 50km or so from the *tower*, not the shield. 2) An anchor-type module that consumed no fuel coupled with a simple check every second / cycle would do it for the mo...
- by Nolak Ataru - at 2015.04.09 21:12:26
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |