EVE Search - Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 169 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 223	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:28:25 - [421] - Quote KeeperRus wrote: I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly. Pretty damned easily: do the accounts receive the same command from the same IP at the same time? You're communicating with their server. How hard will it be for them to detect?
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1105	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:29:09 - [422] - Quote Ancy Denaries wrote: Querns wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Big +1 on the decision, but I'm worried it doesn't go far enough. People will just purchase more screens, and manually control multiple accounts. It'll be harder, surely, but it's still viable to manually control a 10 ship tornado gank fleet or procurer mining fleet. The only sure way to get rid of multiboxing, and entitle everyone equally to the actions of one character at a time, is to get rid of multiboxing entirely. This will probably never happen. This game is pretty much impossible to play on any meaningful level without multiboxing. It really is not, but people are not willing to rely on specialised friends to do what you "can easily do with an alt". You and I have differing definitions of "meaningful," I suppose. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Needmore Longcat Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 216	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:30:00 - [423] - Quote Finally.
Ikaika Wahine Khashour Fault Line Industries Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere 0	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:30:10 - [424] - Quote Capri Sun KraftFoods wrote: As someone who actually ISBox's bombers I'm a little upset. The problem isn't ISBoxer. The problem is that bombs as they currently stand are completely broken Sure isboxer exacerbates the problem significantly, but you can still get 30 dudes into a fleet easily and go kill anything with 4 waves that isn't a T3 or a faction battleship. I'd be happy to see my bomber accounts become useless and de-sub them if it meant I didn't have to worry about getting hell bombed every other fleet. With IsBoxer there is pretty much Zero chance to screw up as long as you are good. with 30 dudes there are chances to accidental De-cloaks and bad bomb runs.. plus in all due honesty.. Isboxer gave WAY to much power to 1 person. I knew someone in my old Corp who use to 5 box tengues and Ospreys. Honestly 1 person able to command 5 ships without having to worry about human error imput. Sorry, Isboxer has been a thorn in Eve's side for a long time. I use a Preview program that allows me to run my 3 accounts fairly well.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 316	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:30:28 - [425] - Quote Querns wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Big +1 on the decision, but I'm worried it doesn't go far enough. People will just purchase more screens, and manually control multiple accounts. It'll be harder, surely, but it's still viable to manually control a 10 ship tornado gank fleet or procurer mining fleet. The only sure way to get rid of multiboxing, and entitle everyone equally to the actions of one character at a time, is to get rid of multiboxing entirely. This will probably never happen. This game is pretty much impossible to play on any meaningful level without multiboxing. Nonsense....I've always played single account at a time and done fine. Either do solo stuff or get friends. 10 man nado fleets controlled by a single player are ridiculous, whether using ISBoxer or not.
Danalee Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective 978	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:31:17 - [426] - Quote CCP Falcon wrote: An eerily clear description of certain rules Wow... Good to see you aren't thinking about your customers searching for the grey areas and/or testing the limits of these clear boundaries. Can you now do the same for the big grey area that is hurting feelings, asking people to sing songs, stupids being stupid on teamspeak et all (a.k.a.: Bonus room shenanigans) please? D. Psychotic Monk: I see nothing in a bonus room that hasn't been an accepted and celebrated part of eve online basically forever and I see no reason that we should fundamentally harm the uniqueness of this game for some people who seem to have forgotten that.
KeeperRus Exanimo Inc Gentlemen's.Club 1	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:32:23 - [427] - Quote Dustpuppy wrote: KeeperRus wrote: I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly. Easy. Multiple accounts, multtiple clients, all logged in from the same machine / IP address, all payed with plex, using the same fitting, following the same commands without delays, sitting in the same system and in a lot of cases running more than 2-3 clients at the same time. It's like spotting a fish swarm within an area where only individual/single fish float around. I guess, but that's not proof of anything.
stalkker matty Kamekazie mofos 2	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:32:25 - [428] - Quote YES YES YES best thing to happen ever good riddance to isboxer scum well done CCP.
Alekseyev Karrde Noir. Suddenly Spaceships. 1682	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:32:40 - [429] - Quote Will be a hard transition for some but make no mistake this will benefit the vast majority of players and keep our game in a healthier place. I give CCP major props for this much needed rules update. Cheers mates! "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 259	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:32:55 - [430] - Quote Astroyka wrote: I think this is great news for EvE as a whole. I really don't think the unsubs will hit CCP that hard since most of the multiboxers were probably "paying" for their accounts with PLEX anyway. Stop being dumb. It irritates me the amount of people here who still seem to have no clue what PLEX does or how it works. Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
Stird Aideron Interstellar Teacups 0	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:33:03 - [431] - Quote Baibai eve was fun as long it lasted
Shirolayyn Nordgoetter Viking Empire 4	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:33:04 - [432] - Quote Ok, so using ISBoxer to manipulate multiple accounts (e.g. mining ships) is now illegal. Result: - all tasks that can be performed simultaneously in parallel with multiple accounts (e.g. mining) must now be performed fully manually (which will not happen). Most "industrial scale" mining has been performed this way. - result: mineral prices will explode - result: general prices will explode - people doing "industrial scale" tasks using multiboxing will not continue their accounts subscriptions, resulting in a loss of plex throughput, resulting in long term financial loss for CCP. Note that the typical multiboxer supported 10-70 accounts (I myself had 12 accounts running, now reduced to 4). I am very curious on which impact this change ("clarification") in policy will have on the game. And how CCP will cope with the very real life loss in player subscriptions. I still remember the times when regularly 50k players were online in Eve. Now we are at 30k players. Where will be, when this policy is enforced and players act accordingly on it? My guess is: Voting with the wallet has been successful in the past. It will be successful in future as well.
Corey Lean GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 18	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:33:07 - [433] - Quote Dustpuppy wrote: KeeperRus wrote: I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly. Easy. Multiple accounts, multtiple clients, all logged in from the same machine / IP address, all payed with plex, using the same fitting, following the same commands without delays, sitting in the same system and in a lot of cases running more than 2-3 clients at the same time. It's like spotting a fish swarm within an area where only individual/single fish float around. People can easily spot these guys with the naked eye, its probably even easier to detect server side.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1105	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:33:16 - [434] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Querns wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Big +1 on the decision, but I'm worried it doesn't go far enough. People will just purchase more screens, and manually control multiple accounts. It'll be harder, surely, but it's still viable to manually control a 10 ship tornado gank fleet or procurer mining fleet. The only sure way to get rid of multiboxing, and entitle everyone equally to the actions of one character at a time, is to get rid of multiboxing entirely. This will probably never happen. This game is pretty much impossible to play on any meaningful level without multiboxing. Nonsense....I've always played single account at a time and done fine. Either do solo stuff or get friends. 10 man nado fleets controlled by a single player are ridiculous, whether using ISBoxer or not. You can multibox in this game without operating a 10 man fleet. Adding as little as one account to your repertoire radically transforms your game experience. I highly recommend it. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Adrie Atticus Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion 572	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:33:24 - [435] - Quote I love it how half of the people in this thread think that PLEXes take away from CCP's bottom line. You should go biomass (in game).
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 604	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:33:42 - [436] - Quote Wow, ballsy move, I knew I loved you guys for some reason
Utari Onzo united system's commonwealth 30	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:33:43 - [437] - Quote Lets get some realness of this whole CCP losing money here. I can't speak for loss of subs as I don't have the figures for those, but I feel I casn comment on those ISBoxers that pay with plex. Looking at the market data for plex, anyone can see that supply of plexes has been steady for some considerable time. People who purchase plex to sell generally sell an amount of plex to reach a given isk 'goal'. Demand for plex, however, has skyrocketed of late, allowing these regular plex resellers to sell less, offset my speculative plex resellers cashing in on the increased plex isk cost. This does not majorly affect CCP's wallet, as plex resellers continue to provide a steady amount of supply, therefore putting in general the same amount of cash in their pocket as if those accounts were subbed (likely with some give or take) What a major loss of plexed ISBoxed alts, if they are mass unsubed, will cause is a reduction in the ISK value of plex (reduced demand). If anything, it will cause those who buy plex for isk to have to buy more to reach their isk goal, potentially increasing revenue for CCP. This is, of course pure speculation and only looks at one aspect of the PLEX market, but the fact is the market data is pretty consistent. Plex cash sales going by the amount of plex on the market has been pretty stable for year, plex ISK price is what has been fluctuating widly (recent big increases) TL;DR I don't think a mass unsub of plexed accounts will hurt CCP's wallet too much.
Xenuria The Scope Gallente Federation 960	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:33:48 - [438] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Fonac wrote: So is-boxer is banned? edit: I Honestly dont care about is-boxer or what it can do, since i've never used it, or met anyone who uses it. But the OP is not very clear on it. isboxer isn't banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned. I see no problem with this. It should be allowed but it shouldn't be a cake walk like it is before this policy. CSM 10 Candidate
Swiftstrike1 Swiftstrike Incorporated 832	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:33:56 - [439] - Quote Danalee wrote: CCP Falcon wrote: An eerily clear description of certain rules Wow... Good to see you aren't thinking about your customers searching for the grey areas and/or testing the limits of these clear boundaries. Can you now do the same for the big grey area that is hurting feelings, asking people to sing songs, stupids being stupid on teamspeak et all (a.k.a.: Bonus room shenanigans) please? D. What happens on TS3 is none of CCP's concern or responsibility. That much should be obvious. Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 318	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:34:28 - [440] - Quote Makhpella wrote: Hi CPP if I warp squad do I get banned? Stop being deliberately obtuse. Tool. A bitter vet trying to start anew.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 259	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:34:56 - [441] - Quote Zechariah Jericho wrote: Guys the toxic is getting high Was in the middle of showing a friend this game, got to general discussion "what's that?" >>> 6 minutes later he decides he doesn't want to play because of our community and how badly we're reacting to the news that people cannot play the way they want to. last words of the discussion were (and I quote) "Some sandbox, lets just go play LoL" Your friend doesn't have thick enough skin for this game. Nobody's shedding any tears for him. Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
Neurotox Brave Operations - Lollipop Division Brave Collective 0	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:35:12 - [442] - Quote Seandals wrote: Soooo... What if we used wooden dowels: https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/_/rsrc/1300193073723/home/closeup2.jpg ? from https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/oldrigs Haha that's the saddest thing I seen all day. Thank you for the laughs.
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 318	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:35:49 - [443] - Quote Arrendis wrote: CCP Falcon wrote: Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience: GÇóEVE Online client settings GÇóWindow positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment) GÇóThe login process [/i] Emphasis added. I'm confused by why this would be something you would ever have to expressly say you're not trying to control, unless you're simultaneously of the opinion that you could. Is CCP actually claiming they have the right to police where I put my client window on my desktop? No dumbass, they're making it expressly clear that they aren't banning any one product or service (i.e. ISBoxer, which allows for client window position control), but rather a particular set of functionality. I swear the amount of sideways, bent ass thinking going on in this thread is astounding. A bitter vet trying to start anew.
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 319	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:37:27 - [444] - Quote Zishy Linaris wrote: goodbye ccp. 12 accounts unsubbed as of now. i feel bullshitted for my time i invested but **** happens Stuff. Yours. Geif. A bitter vet trying to start anew.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 259	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:37:27 - [445] - Quote Astroyka wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Astroyka wrote: I think this is great news for EvE as a whole. I really don't think the unsubs will hit CCP that hard since most of the multiboxers were probably "paying" for their accounts with PLEX anyway. Stop being dumb. It irritates me the amount of people here who still seem to have no clue what PLEX does or how it works. Enlighten me, great one. Here's a hint: PLEX does not take subscription money away from CCP. Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
Amely Miles Exiled Tech Space Monkey Protectorate 39	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:37:43 - [446] - Quote Powers Sa wrote: It sounds like I can still use it for what i've always used it for: window management. At most I've run 4 accounts with isboxer managing all my windows. In very very rare occasions I've used it to repeat, but that was a long time ago when naga ratting was a thing. I've mainly used it to manage windows when fcing or scouting. there are other programs that allow for window management such as this one created by a eve player https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5241742#post5241742 Favorite Quotes: In Space No one flings Poo!! Yes that is a Banana in my Pocket http://spacemp.net
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 4378	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:37:46 - [447] - Quote CCP, could we PLEASE get a definition of "broadcasting" and "multiplexing" added to the notice. I can only guess, and I'm not sure what is meant by the latter. Example: * "Broadcasting" = sending the same keyboard or mouse events to multiple clients. * "Multiplexing" = ? [I have no idea in this context.] Keep in mind that I'm an embedded realtime operating system developer with decades of technical experience, and even I am unclear on what it meant. Thank you.
TheMercenaryKing StarFleet Enterprises Almost Awesome. 313	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:38:03 - [448] - Quote And here I was about to give CCP more of my money by reactiving a few accounts. There has never been a problem with ISBoxing and input multiplication. It is people who do not want to put the effort in to buy plexs or spend money, It it not the boxers fault. People did not understand that someone is still making the commands at the PC to mine or smart bomb or whatever. Well, mineral prices are going to shoot up, CCP will probably lose a few hundred thousand dollars in revenue. ******* dumb decision by CCP. Hate on my all you want.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 259	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:38:15 - [449] - Quote Hopelesshobo wrote: So, because broadcasting is being banned as of 01 Jan 2015, does that mean on 01 Jan 2015, cloaks will be reverted again to not decloaking each other while cloaked since the main reason this was changed back was to nerf broadcasting bombers together? No, because this change was never actually made. Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1112	Posted - 2014.11.25 18:38:18 - [450] - Quote Hopelesshobo wrote: So, because broadcasting is being banned as of 01 Jan 2015, does that mean on 01 Jan 2015, cloaks will be reverted again to not decloaking each other while cloaked since the main reason this was changed back was to nerf broadcasting bombers together? Doubtful. If anything, it'll cement the current mechanics. AFAICT, the original intention was to nerf ISBoxered bombers. When they started speaking up and telling CCP that it wouldn't, they backed off on it. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 169 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.