| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 20 30 40 |
161. Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
KC Kamikaze wrote: You've clearly trained Autism V and I applaud you for actually showing it off. So you can understand I'll make it simple. How does siggy interact with the client (multiple clients really): 1. Shows you where your corp membe...
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.28 22:06:14
|
162. Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Orchid Fury wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: As for the "3rd party programs giving unfair advantage" claims, again, uninstall PYFA and EVEMon, never touch Siggy and Fuzzworks or EVE-Central or any of the manufacturing websites again, and then you c...
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.28 21:29:10
|
163. Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
DaReaper wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Grey enough that there are people not using any form of multiboxing software reportedly being banned.. Only replying to this part: I have been here long enough to say that most of the time someone says ...
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.28 07:29:23
|
164. Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Marsha Mallow wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Guys, you're missing one simple fact of life. If a guy is going to install a botting software such as GûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûê, and the botting software is directly breaking the EULA even with a nice bla...
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.28 03:59:59
|
165. Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Lucas Kell wrote: Abrazzar wrote: CCP have create a clear grey area to discourage people from going into a certain direction. If this isn't a hint, I don't know what is. Of course they don't. that's always been the most ridiculous argument....
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.27 23:22:21
|
166. Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
I'm not surprised as this has been a problem with CCP for as long as I can remember. There is a definite consistency problem with enforcement and interpretation of the rules. Compounding the issue is CCP's desire to not paint themselves into a co...
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.27 10:16:54
|
167. Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: ashley Eoner wrote: Anyone that has played WoW knows that world pvp is very active. Very actively botted, you mean. Bots comprise 40% or higher of their instanced PvP groups. And they do nothing about it either....
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.27 07:54:52
|
168. Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Sugar Smacks wrote: ShadowandLight wrote: WOW has 8m subscribers and allows FULL UI customization, ISBoxer and macros (to an extent as long as your at the keyboard).... EVE might have 500k subs (probably way less, but we cant get any numbers...
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.27 06:15:28
|
169. should CCP get rid of the PLEX system? - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Brainless Bimbo wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Val'Dore wrote: The PLEX system is actually an ISK sink. So no, definitely not wanting to turn it into a fountain. Explain how exactly one player paying another player for an item is ...
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.27 01:55:16
|
170. should CCP get rid of the PLEX system? - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
waflat maplat wrote: should CCP get rid of the PLEX system? I have been thinking, would it not be better if CCP would get rid of the PLEX system and allow players to buy ISK straight from CCP? It would solve some of the issue groups have with ...
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.27 00:21:10
|
171. CSM X (Angrod Losshelin) - New Players, W-Space, and Multiboxing. - in CSM Campaigns [original thread]
Ima Wreckyou wrote: Angrod Losshelin wrote: Multi-boxers are generally extremely worried about keeping their accounts active, which means following the rules. We need these better defined or we risk losing our hard earned accounts. Loopholes...
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.27 00:08:54
|
172. Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Nolak Ataru wrote: Sexy Cakes wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Re-read Flash's link. People who have adapted to the current EULA are getting banned. Charadrass is a known incursions multiboxer. He's the leader of a German community setup to I...
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.27 00:06:38
|
173. Capitals in highsec? Make standings matter then - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Black Pedro wrote: Kain Coorhagen wrote: Recently there was lot of hint that CCP might allow capitals in Highsec again and I'm guessing it's being considered how to pull it off. Here is one idea. Highsec faction are allowing capsulers use...
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.25 20:27:00
|
174. how fast is your connection? - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Lar Tadaruwa wrote: http://www.speedtest.net/ ping 1 m/s d/l 44.36 Mbps u/l 9.96 Mbps 19 M/s d/l 65.67 Mbps u/l 6.37 Mbps With 12 eve clients logged in. EDIT : 99% uptime 40 bucks a month.
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.25 04:12:12
|
175. What if webs only reduced radial velocity? - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Arla Sarain wrote: ashley Eoner wrote: I t's a useless idea that breaks the very foundation of the game and for what ? So things can be turned upside down? From a game design standpoint nothing you said was intelligent . You ...
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.23 20:53:17
|
176. What if webs only reduced radial velocity? - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Sigras wrote: ashley Eoner wrote: Sigras wrote: The item that you're looking for is a tractor beam not a webifier... The whole point of the webifier item is to assist large ships in tracking and hitting smaller ships; now you could make ...
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.23 19:52:22
|
177. What if webs only reduced radial velocity? - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Arla Sarain wrote: ashley Eoner wrote: Arla Sarain wrote: ashley Eoner wrote: Sigras wrote: The item that you're looking for is a tractor beam not a webifier... The whole point of the webifier item is to assist large ships in track...
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.23 03:55:46
|
178. What if webs only reduced radial velocity? - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Arla Sarain wrote: ashley Eoner wrote: Sigras wrote: The item that you're looking for is a tractor beam not a webifier... The whole point of the webifier item is to assist large ships in tracking and hitting smaller ships; now you could ...
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.22 19:48:35
|
179. What if webs only reduced radial velocity? - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Sigras wrote: The item that you're looking for is a tractor beam not a webifier... The whole point of the webifier item is to assist large ships in tracking and hitting smaller ships; now you could make the claim that they're too good at their...
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.22 19:34:39
|
180. Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Dustpuppy wrote: KC Kamikaze wrote: ISBoxers most gameplay affecting feature is and has always been VideoFX not broadcasting. If this would be the case the plex price wouldn't have dropped from 1 billion to 800 million after the announc...
- by ashley Eoner - at 2015.01.20 01:01:32
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 20 30 40 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |