| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
24182
   |
Posted - 2014.11.10 20:27:57 -
[1] - Quote
Support it in the client. By making it native to EVE and available to everyone, providing EVE support is a waste of time for ISBoxer especially when it can be done better.
This would also make fleet leadership something revered, and
Fleet / Wing/ Squad commands you need available to commanders are:
align to
approach
warp (at distance)
keep at range
orbit at range
jump
dock
...lock
activate DPS (another option is tying the fleet / wing / squad's guns to the commander's)
activate mining module (from a command orca or rorqual with survey scanner, this would be beautiful)
and allow fleet members to flag themselves exempt from each control command.
objection from people who don't fleet, incoming.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Carmen Electra
The Scope
Gallente Federation
12720
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 20:31:21 -
[2] - Quote
+1 except keep ISBoxer around.
Bacon makes us stronger
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
24182
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 20:32:41 -
[3] - Quote
don't be cagey. what does it do that EVE could do better
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
1643
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 20:32:56 -
[4] - Quote
So long as Self-destruct can be fleet issued as well. New level for Awoxxing. |
Kaaeliaa
The Vendunari
End of Life
27141
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 20:34:07 -
[5] - Quote
Toasting in a droll bread.
LAGL Cosplayer. Princess of Sibyyl's Pillowfort. Commissar Kate is my spacewife! <3
Come back, Dusettes!
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
24182
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 20:34:47 -
[6] - Quote
target denial can be a thing
and the judean people's front
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Ama Scelesta
100
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 20:41:25 -
[7] - Quote
Why would CCP go out of its way to support AFK gameplay when they're intentionally taking steps to making it less rewarding? If anything fleet combat should be moved in the exact opposite direction by making it more involved and active when possible.
ISBoxer doesn't require CCP to do anything and doesn't cost them anything. All CCP cares about is whether or not it breaks any rules and currently it does not. If you're jealous about its capabilities, feel free to get it for yourself. |
Antillie Sa'Kan
Forging Industries
Silent Infinity
742
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 20:58:00 -
[8] - Quote
Rowells wrote:So long as Self-destruct can be fleet issued as well. New level for Awoxxing.
I like the way this man thinks. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions
Poopstain Removal Team
446
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 21:56:05 -
[9] - Quote
So ask your very own front running woman to ask for you. Do you not communicate with each other?
signature
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
24183
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 23:13:47 -
[10] - Quote
I'm actually pretty serious about this one. I think fleet control should be supported in the client.
solves a bit more of the alpha barrier problem. if your fleet has put forth the effort to field ships, let them synchronize.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Commissar Kate
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
87333
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 23:34:22 -
[11] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:So ask your very own front running woman to ask for you. Do you not communicate with each other?
Who me?
Why can't I wear that? || My Fanclub
|
Commissar Kate
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
87333
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 23:35:40 -
[12] - Quote
FC's could then take control of people who go AFK if this gets implemented 
Why can't I wear that? || My Fanclub
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
24191
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 23:39:31 -
[13] - Quote
yeah that's fine too, imo.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Jessica Duranin
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
293
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 23:51:13 -
[14] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:
align to
approach
warp (at distance)
keep at range
orbit at range
jump
dock
...lock
activate DPS (another option is tying the fleet / wing / squad's guns to the commander's)
So the only thing a nullbear would have to do to "play" the game would be pressing the undock button?
They shouldn't implement any features of iskboxer - on the contrary, they should start enforce their own EULA* and ban people using those features.
*specifically the following sections
"You may not use your own or third-party software to ... change how the Game is played."
"You may not use your own or any third-party software,... that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play."
"You may not rewrite or modify the user interface ... in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game."
We all know that CCP won't do that because... $$$.
At least they should stop being so hypocritical and just delete those sections from the EULA. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
24197
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 23:53:15 -
[15] - Quote
uh. or support it, giving everyone the same capabilities. the keyword is synchronized. and a lot of effort went into each ship being in fleet. SP, ISK, irl commitment.
you'd still have to manage drugs and heat, prop mods, cap, etc. what about more space technology is so hard to accept?
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
236
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 00:38:16 -
[16] - Quote
Jessica Duranin wrote:
They shouldn't implement any features of iskboxer - on the contrary, they should start enforce their own EULA* and ban people using those features.
*specifically the following sections
"You may not use your own or third-party software to ... change how the Game is played."
"You may not use your own or any third-party software,... that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play."
"You may not rewrite or modify the user interface ... in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game."
We all know that CCP won't do that because... $$$.
At least they should stop being so hypocritical and just delete those sections from the EULA.
So, because an ISboxer can work as a perfect communism internally, and can do most things about as well as a well trained fleet (if the ISboxer is good) of the same size, this is the fault of the ISboxer, rather than the people who can't field the same investment of SP and isk as real people, or those too lazy to train pilots to synch their volleys, etc?
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
24215
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 00:43:38 -
[17] - Quote
lol. there's that, and those certain individuals whose killboards reveal they spend their time shooting notprimaries.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust
The Bastion
357
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 01:04:05 -
[18] - Quote
I would support this, but only if it can be limited to mining fleets. Otherwise, this becomes P2W in PvP. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
24219
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 01:12:25 -
[19] - Quote
you mean because of multiboxing? which isn't a thing. can you multibox 250 accounts? I can't.
things like the stealth nerf wouldn't become a giant tinfoil party, of 'us vs them.' in fact 'us' would do it better.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Gawain Edmond
Angry Mustellid
The Periphery
104
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 01:35:53 -
[20] - Quote
but didn't ccp just make it so that each character could only control a limited number of drones to basically stop exactly what you're asking for? |
Eldwinn
SomeWhat SophiSticateD
Shadow Cartel
55
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 02:35:10 -
[21] - Quote
This troll is unreal. |
Arctic Estidal
Harbingers of Chaos Inc
Gentlemen's.Club
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 02:36:12 -
[22] - Quote
Jessica Duranin wrote:
*specifically the following sections
"You may not use your own or third-party software to ... change how the Game is played."
"You may not use your own or any third-party software,... that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play."
"You may not rewrite or modify the user interface ... in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game."
We all know that CCP won't do that because... $$$.
At least they should stop being so hypocritical and just delete those sections from the EULA.
ISBoxer does not contravene the above EULA rules and this is the reason CCP has not banned the software, and they shouldn't.
"You may not use your own or third-party software to ... change how the Game is played."
The game mechanics have not changed. The fact I can control multiple game clients is not changing how the game is played. I can load multiple game clients without ISBoxer.
"You may not use your own or any third-party software,... that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play."
Running multiple clients does not accelerate the acquisition of items. Each pilot is collecting items at the same rate as everyone else. The fact I have multiple pilots working together is no different to any other team working together towards a common goal.
"You may not rewrite or modify the user interface ... in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game."
Again nothing is modified to acquire items or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the game. ISBoxer provides the control of multiple clients, but it doesn't modify the EVE user interface to acquire more items, currency etc.
Nothing you have stated about ISBoxer is in contravention with the EULA. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
24250
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 04:29:57 -
[23] - Quote
Gawain Edmond wrote:but didn't ccp just make it so that each character could only control a limited number of drones to basically stop exactly what you're asking for?
no, that had to do with server load. drones are handled like individual ships, or something.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Jessica Duranin
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
295
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 08:30:56 -
[24] - Quote
Arctic Estidal wrote:
"You may not use your own or third-party software to ... change how the Game is played."
The game mechanics have not changed. The fact I can control multiple game clients is not changing how the game is played. I can load multiple game clients without ISBoxer.
Yes, they have changed.
Try multiboxing 20+ ships without ISKboxer and e.g. execute a perfect alpha strike with them. Good luck with that. Doing it with 20+ actual people gets even more impossible due to different latency.
ISKboxer lets you do things that you wouldn't otherwise be able to do nearly as perfect.
Your argument is like saying "aimbots in FPS games are ok, because you can aim without them too".
The only reason why ISKboxer still exists is because CCP makes crazy amounts of money from all those accounts. |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
513
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 09:54:20 -
[25] - Quote
Jessica Duranin wrote:Arctic Estidal wrote:
"You may not use your own or third-party software to ... change how the Game is played."
The game mechanics have not changed. The fact I can control multiple game clients is not changing how the game is played. I can load multiple game clients without ISBoxer.
Yes, they have changed. Try multiboxing 20+ ships without ISKboxer and e.g. execute a perfect alpha strike with them. Good luck with that. Doing it with 20+ actual people gets even more impossible due to different latency. ISKboxer lets you do things that you wouldn't otherwise be able to do nearly as perfect. Your argument is like saying "aimbots in FPS games are ok, because you can aim without them too". Arctic Estidal wrote:"You may not rewrite or modify the user interface ... in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game."
Again nothing is modified to acquire items or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the game. ISBoxer provides the control of multiple clients, but it doesn't modify the EVE user interface to acquire more items, currency etc. It does modify the interface - that's the whole point of ISKboxer. (Or does this look like a normal EVE interface to you?) It doesn't matter how it achieves that. The only reason why ISKboxer still exists is because CCP makes crazy amounts of money from all those accounts.
Game mechanics are not changed. You don't seem to be able to grasp the point here: if multiboxing turned your cruise missiles into large artillery, game mechanics would be changed. But alas, they're still cruise missiles no matter how they are launched.
What is not normal about that interface? All of the elements shown on the image are exactly the same elements as you have on your client, they are just displayed differently. Looking different doesn't mean they function differently. |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders
Spaceship Bebop
2030
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 10:30:17 -
[26] - Quote
Don't really care about ISBoxer,
but having the FC in total control of a fleet is pretty bad imo.
A well-trained fleet (people following the FC's commands quickly and accurately) can easily take down a more powerful, but undisciplined, fleet. That's a nice chunk of what makes fleet PVP compelling and makes it worthwhile to organize and train capable PVPers... instead of 'undockers' that might as well go have dinner while the FC does everything.
Make space glamorous!
Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
513
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 10:35:31 -
[27] - Quote
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:Don't really care about ISBoxer,
but having the FC in total control of a fleet is pretty bad imo.
A well-trained fleet (people following the FC's commands quickly and accurately) can easily take down a more powerful, but undisciplined, fleet. That's a nice chunk of what makes fleet PVP compelling and makes it worthwhile to organize and train capable PVPers... instead of 'undockers' that might as well go have dinner while the FC does everything.
Not to mention if you end up in a tight fight and have to actually perform positive actions yourself while flying a support role. |
Steppa Musana
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 10:42:44 -
[28] - Quote
Sorry I have to disagree on two fronts
One is that multiboxing is the real 'power projection' in the game, Goons even admit to running several caps/supercaps at once each in those big fights because of how easy it is with cap warfare/TIDI combo. So no, anything to make it easier should be avoided
The other is that you cant detect multibox software if the user is savvy enough. Maybe you can ditch ISBoxer, but people can just make scripts (via delayed and point on screen randomization of clicks by X pixels) that are very hard to distinguish from a guy just going to each screen and quickly hitting each command. Then there is the solutions of running many clients through something like sandboxie and other softwares where it wouldnt even appear as the same computer on CCPS end, not mentioning multiple cheap towers.
They should be adjusting the game mechanics so multiboxing is a lot more difficult. For anyone saying we shouldnt change combat mechanics for those, no we shouldnt, because multiboxing isnt a problem in PVP. just learn their weakness, there are several things you can do to ruin a multibox pvpers day besides smartbombers on highsec gates in low |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
779
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 11:19:18 -
[29] - Quote
no to both.
isbotter should be completely banned.
Neither should eve replicate isbotters function in any way.
|
Arctic Estidal
Harbingers of Chaos Inc
Gentlemen's.Club
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 11:23:39 -
[30] - Quote
Jessica Duranin wrote: Your argument is like saying "aimbots in FPS games are ok, because you can aim without them too".
You are clearly not understanding the difference in the points of the argument. What you have stated above is a change to the game mechanic. You have implemented software which improves and alters the aiming mechanic in the game, so you can aim with greater accuracy than other players. ISBoxer does not do this.
ISBoxer does not alter the game mechanics, it allows the coordination of multiple client accounts at the same time. Nothing in the game is altered or improved. It only assists in the coordination of commands which you control.
Jessica Duranin wrote: It does modify the interface - that's the whole point of ISKboxer. (Or does this look like a normal EVE interface to you?) It doesn't matter how it achieves that.
The screenshot is only showing the blackscreen setup for ISBoxer which provides viewing windows of sections of open client accounts running on another screen. Nothing is changed or altered. Again it is only assisting with how the information is presented and coordination of actions.
If you are going to quote the EULA then you need to correctly interpret the language and intention of the statement and stop coming to conclusions which are not stated in the EULA. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |