GreenSeed
672
   |
Posted - 2013.08.31 01:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
if they ban one program, well they could just change the name of it... 
what the op is really asking for is to ban software to broadcast hardware events. banning something, means policing its use. how do you pretend to police a hardware event? specially when the original event is indistinguishable from the broadcasted one, and according to the very same OS the software runs in, they are all the same event!
imagine a box. inside the box you have the EVE client, outside the box you have the rest of the OS and the walls of the box, are made of the EULA. the hardware inputs fall into the box, and whether there are other boxes around receiving the same input means nothing, given that they are each individual users, and the EULA restricts them into their memory region as a means of safekeeping its own integrity, they cant legally "know" that the same input fell on a nearby box. unless they want to undermine the very same legal precedent that made modern EULAs possible. which is also the reason all EULAs look alike... what, did you really think they were all alike because the companies are cheap and lazy? please don't be so naive. 
i mean, does everyone here know that we are not players? i guess that's the starting point to any discussion on this matter. we are not players, we are users. if you get killed on a gate by 20 people, you got killed by 20 users, if you get killed by one guy controlling 20 ships, you got killed by 20 users. if you cannot understand this, then this discussion and its complexities escape you and you should just avoid joining the conversation.
that said, multiboxing is the biggest cash cow eve has ever seen. the power of any multiboxing fleet is dismal when compared to any real fleet, or even gang. and the drive and interest of the player base on it is so high, that CCP needs to make their own multiboxing software and sell it, now.
if there's future on the eve business model, its there. having players paying 200usd a month only to play as targets for pirates? whats not to like?
the only things that need changing are the mindset of the pirates... stop flying "solo pvp" fits please. webs and point are a waste of midslots. and fly in fleets please... if you refuse to, then don't engage fleets and expect your 1337 space pirate flying skills to save you.
any complaint are just complaints about the way eve works. did you get blapped on a lowsec gate? well. what does multiboxing have to do with it? its a design flaw on the game. did your ship get obliterated by 10 ships? well, welcome to eve. if they dropped on you, you should have kept an eye on dscan, if they didn't, then why did you engage?
and above all, the biggest problem when people discuss multiboxing is this false belief that "CCP allows it", they don't need to allow it. why? well because multiboxing doesn't do anything that would require authorization.
multiboxing software does not read memory regions or modifies them, multiboxing software doesn't monitor cache or disk activity, multiboxing software does not make decisions for the player based on feedback from the game. (for example it wont overload your hardeners if you take damage) and multiboxing software doesn't increase the damage, extraction rate, speed, or any other stat on any particular USER outside of whats allowed by the game rules.
there's nothing to allow, and there's nothing to ban.
and the bottom line is always this: do you NOT like "it"? can you NOT do something about "it"? is this not a SANDBOX? then go out there and shoot them, stop being risk adverse. |