| 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) |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
6040
   |
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:28:06 -
[841] - Quote
Robert Caldera 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. its obvious. CCP doesnt need a proof, its enough if they see you're doing it.
All they have to look for are patterns of simultaneous synchronized commands being given in proximity to each other.
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2446
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:31:23 -
[842] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Robert Caldera 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. its obvious. CCP doesnt need a proof, its enough if they see you're doing it. All they have to look for are patterns of simultaneous synchronized commands being given in proximity to each other.
Exactly, when 10 guys in a belt turn on their mining lasers virtually simultaneously, it is most likely ISBoxer. Especially when it is 10 accounts all owned by the same guy. Could it be a fleet with different people all waiting for the FC to say, "Go"? Sure, but then that might be a case of account sharing...whooops another EULA violation. Or we can go with the principle of parsimony and say....ISBoxer or a similar program.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Ocih
Space Mermaids
Somethin Awfull Forums
822
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:32:56 -
[843] - Quote
I support the regulation.
I'd like to think that the nerf bat doctrine you guys employ is the result of little choice. That we might see buffs to content volume outside level 4 missions if the result wasn't feeding farm teams controlled by very select groups of people. Multiplying the size of an Asteroid belt was never a consideration because it just meant piling on 5 more accounts to the ISBox account. It's now possible to adjust up, the needs of the game and have some hope it benefits the masses more than it does the easy button few.
I watched -A- implode after Ti-Di was introduced and I'd make the unsubstantiated claim that they did so because what ever free version of ISBotter they were using failed to match up to the new theater. I will now sit back and laugh at any Alliance that crumbles because they only have a hundred guys and were cheating to hold large belts of space.
I won't sugar coat this. EVE has burned a lot of bridges and has a reputation for coddling douche bags. It's old enough it might never live that down. It still doesn't mean you shouldn't try. |
Forgotten N Forsaken
Dei-Telum Holdings
35
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:32:57 -
[844] - Quote
THANK YOU CCP. ABOUT TIME I.S BOXERS GOT BANNED. WOOOTT!!!!!! |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:33:31 -
[845] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Angela Daemonic wrote:Ohh when all these is boxers rage quit and plex prices drop... I will be in heaven. Indeed, very quickly the volume on PLEX sales will increase again sharply due to the lower prices... however this time it will not be fueled by people that don't care if the price is too high.
Keep dreaming. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1267
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:33:38 -
[846] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Well no. CCP is using words and phrases that we aren't used to in regards to multiboxing. I have offered my services to help CCP attempt to fix these issues as nobody on the CSM team has any experience with the "Multibox Dictionary", so to say. CCP clearly defined what we are and aren't allowed to do. They also specified that the method used to do it is irrelevant, what is prohibited is prohibited through any means it is done.
It is also stated that those same tools have legitimate use cases and what those cases are.
The terms they used they took the time to define and as such it's irrelevant that they may not have been the most common usages of those terms.
Quote:I think we're trying to say the same thing but doing it two different ways. I support banning auto-bots that do not need human interction, and I wouldn't mind banning direct PVP using ISBoxer. I realize and admit this would be strange, but WoW did something similar, and I had hoped CCP could as well.
At the very least, I had hoped CCP would come to us to talk about ideas and whatnot. I don't think we are talking about the same thing. You mention botting, but I was in no way referring to that. If you have multiple clients that are vulnerable there is no justifiable reason to have a single touch escape when the aggressor cannot have a single touch attack for multiple clients. A comparison to a game with a different PvP landscape altogether does not allow direct equivalencies. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:38:03 -
[847] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Technical question.. If I train 10 parrots to repeat by voice the commands I give and each one is interpretated by a voice recognition software controlling one computer.. how would that classify? I mean.. besides "sick"
Under CCP's broad ruling that would be illegal too.. Apparently it would also be illegal for you to use multiple computers and keyboards to tell your fleet to do the same thing.
So what happens when CCP's connections is being DDoSed or doing it's usual lag at random late hours and all my commands arrive at the server at the same time? From the server's perspective it'd look like I'm using a repeater but in reality all I did was alt tab through a bunch of windows quickly. |
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
478
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:38:41 -
[848] - Quote
Revman Zim wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:virm pasuul wrote:
-snip
From your post it's difficult to work out which side of the fence you sit on.
You start off seeming to critcize the change.
You then go on to make a load of points illustrating why the change is a good thing for Eve.
Could you clarify please?
I'm personally against the change completely. I'm more annoyed at the lack of talk from CCP to the multibox community to see if a compromise could be reached (see: jump drives, bombers, nearly every other change) because I don't believe the current CSM has any multiboxers on it. I would have been willing to accept a ban on using ISBoxer to PVP with the exceptions involving defending oneself from invading forces in a WH / Null site, but CCP doesn't care. Why would CCP engage in dialog with cheaters and EULA violaters? Their point of view is irrelevant since their actions harm the game. Kinda like trying to compromise with a pedophile.
You didn't just go there did you. Oh wait. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
1894
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:39:59 -
[849] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Technical question.. If I train 10 parrots to repeat by voice the commands I give and each one is interpretated by a voice recognition software controlling one computer.. how would that classify? I mean.. besides "sick" Under CCP's broad ruling that would be illegal too.. Apparently it would also be illegal for you to use multiple computers and keyboards to tell your fleet to do the same thing.
Somehow I dobut the parrots would be so precise to be detectable :P
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
184
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:40:17 -
[850] - Quote
I'm very pleased with this.
I'm very impressed.
I'm very surprised. I'd love to know the math behind the decision and how much the math impacted the decision. We all know that while it certainly wasn't doom and gloom, CCP's financials weren't the greatest last year. With competition on the horizon, and with the Phoebe changes likely resulting in fewer cyno alts, I was sure that CCP was listening to the community's complaining about ISBoxer, but would not be able to afford to risk a sudden drop in subscriptions due to lost ISBoxer alts.
I figured the day would come for ISBoxer to go away, but I was certain the day would not come particularly soon.
I really wonder what made them up and do it. Was it seriously just a reaction to community concerns? Did they just up and decide to take a financial hit to make the game better? Or is there some complex math involving drop in PLEX prices creating more alts that would offset lost ISBoxer accounts yada yada?
I'm just really curious. But in any event, bravo CCP. Good riddance ISBoxers. |
|
|
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
5683
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:40:50 -
[851] - Quote
Am I too late to drink in the tears or are they all gone?
The Paradox
|
ShadowandLight
DeathWatch Milita
Soviet-Union
282
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:41:59 -
[852] - Quote
Dear CCP, Multiboxing is a huge challenge and time investment, taken on by those who live your game. Don't hurt the dedicated players who have poured countless hours into EVE by banning multiboxing.
Edit: a clarification for those trying to walk the line between multiboxing and input duplication. I realize ccp is banning input duplication, but I think that the other capabilities of isboxer and similar software, as soon as the mob gets worked up over it, will ensure that owning 2 accounts is "unfair". The main purpose of isboxer is input duplication, allowing you to control multiple accounts as if one person. Removing that feature is a huge blow and on the path to a complete removal of management of alts with any efficiency.
1st let me say that I have multiboxed in EVE for as long as I can remember, probably it's one of the main reasons I've stayed interested in the same game outside of the increasing diminishing larger scale PVP fights.
Please read the probably too long letter below. I love Eve and all its challenges. There are many dedicated people like myself who love the game and that's why we have multiple accounts and have spent countless hours trying to become competent in multiboxing.
To me, Multiboxing is an end game level content. I spend hours.. weeks learning about the various task I'm going to undertake (recently it's been incursions or bombing), designing and testing fits, dying in horrible fire's while adapting to try and overcome the challenge.
Unlike some, I choose to pay for my accounts with cash. Yes, all my alts I pay for with cash and have never plexed my accounts. Eve is a hobby of mine, like RC planes, model training sets, golfing or any other hobby. I've designed, built and continue to upgrade 2 very high end computers so that my multi boxing experience is smoother and faster, especially as Eve's clients get better graphics or I engage in content with more and more people.
This policy doesn't just hurt the people with dozens of miners, the guy with 50 proteus accounts in wormhole space, the multi boxing haulers or any specific niche. It hurts everyone in EVE.
If this policy is enforced to appease the vocal minority, toy hurt everyone. If you wanted an alt to help you salvage or run missions faster, if you wanted a 2nd hauler to get your minerals moved around the ever larger New Eden... The example are nearly endless.
Mineral pricing, ship and module costs, invention success all will get more expensive, hurting the already fragile industry.
Yes, I am sure to the average player seeing someone with 10 mining accounts when you can barely afford one hulk is annoying and frustrating. However that is part of the same reason that the person your being angry at starred another account and learned how to run 2 accounts at once, then learned how to afford that account. They saw someone else with "more" and instead of pounding on the desk declaring how unfair the world is, they decided to adapt and become better, faster and more efficient themselves.
You see I can't help but detect some level of "it's not fair" attitude among some here who are against multi boxing. I see a thread of complaints bordering on "if I can't do it because of x, y or z you can't do it either."
Star Citizen is an example. I'm not going to spend thousands of dollars in that game, for many reasons, but I appreciate those who do. They are paying the company for better ships and items, helping that company and in turn improving their game experience. Except like Eve and multiboxing it's a fair playing field. Anyone could start a 2nd or 10 alts, all that's stopping them is money and learning the skill to control them effectively.
I feel this policy is extremely short sited. It will cost the players a tremendous amount, it will hurt the bottom line of CCP needlessly and instead placates a group of people who will surely move on to the next pitch fork issue like how unfair of an advantage officer modules are because they can't afford them.
But all that aside, your hurting the dedicated players like myself who aim to be better and more challenged in EVE. We are all extremely dedicated and loyal players, who have stayed in EVE because we love the challenge of the game and want to be ever improving in it. We've spent way more time invested into EVE partly because of our ability to multi box, have spent an enormous amount of money on our hobby which we didn't spend with another game (even the people with only 1 or 2 mining alts or ratters are vital to your game).
The call for people to remove "input duplication" (soon multiboxing all together im sure) is a case of mob mentality from people who don't understand the benefits they are gaining from it, the effort and time people put into it or how much it has helped keep CCP afloat all these years.
http://eveservers.info/index.php?topic=123.msg126#new
A fully functional Server platform dedicated to your Corp / Alliances IT needs!
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2446
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:42:53 -
[853] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Angela Daemonic wrote:Ohh when all these is boxers rage quit and plex prices drop... I will be in heaven. Indeed, very quickly the volume on PLEX sales will increase again sharply due to the lower prices... however this time it will not be fueled by people that don't care if the price is too high. Keep dreaming. Forgotten N Forsaken wrote:THANK YOU CCP. ABOUT TIME I.S BOXERS GOT BANNED. WOOOTT!!!!!! You're dreaming. There's so many ways to hide it from CCP's eyes it'll still be abused. Hell Blizzard with their millions spent on warden can't even stop basic hackers and multibox programs. If you really want them stopped then I hope you're prepared to have your system compromised by CCP so they can scan every aspect and control what you can and cannot run.
Actually, PLEX prices have already dropped. Prices are now around 880 million down from well north of 950 million. Will it stay low? Or resume its upwards trend...hard to say, I'm inclined to think the trend will resume.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Orzsebet
Critical Error. Terminating Application
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:43:05 -
[854] - Quote
Looks like CCP is fixing the plex prices,  |
Mendeli Vium
Off shore Investments
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:43:09 -
[855] - Quote
so if i understand correctly i can use IS Boxer to tile clients on my comp but not activate mods or navigate with it ? |
Jared Noan
Harbingers of Chaos Inc
Gentlemen's.Club
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:43:33 -
[856] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters
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:
Reading into this, fleet warping could be considered a banable offence.
You want to take out the lawyer talk, so will I. |
Jessica Duranin
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
308
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:43:38 -
[857] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Technical question.. If I train 10 parrots to repeat by voice the commands I give and each one is interpretated by a voice recognition software controlling one computer.. how would that classify? I mean.. besides "sick"
It doesn't matter HOW you break the EULA.... 
You could also tape together a bunch of computer mouses (mice?) - the result would be the same.
|
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
183
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:44:10 -
[858] - Quote
While I can't say I agree with CCP's decision in this regards, I do understand it and I do respect it.
I will miss the ice mining, but it appears to be time to lay off my "employees" and go find something else worthwhile to do within New Eden. |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
36
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:44:41 -
[859] - Quote
Eugene Kerner wrote:
You should have hust changed the the way cloaking works back to how it used to be.
IS-boxing Battleship is a totally different thing as IS boxing stealth bombers that do not decloak each other.
I genuinly do not care about 30 man Skiff fleets that are operated by one guy tbh. They harm noone and should not have a
1. X battleships doing the same is just as powerful. maybe not as safe as bombers but still
2. 30miners *definitely* have an impact on the ore/mineral prices for others. market is demand and supply. and those isboxed miners can fill a lot of demand. |
Angeal MacNova
The Scope
Gallente Federation
261
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:45:33 -
[860] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5112525#post5112525
How do you translate butthurt? This thread!
http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/
CCP's true, butthurt, colors.
|
|
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
821
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:47:02 -
[861] - Quote
seeing how many people "will unsub their isbotter accounts", the problem got out of whack on a more serious level than I've thought.
Good on getting rid of all those botters, CCP. |
Martin Corwin
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
20
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:47:28 -
[862] - Quote
Finally. Thank you for this <3 |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:48:36 -
[863] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Angela Daemonic wrote:Ohh when all these is boxers rage quit and plex prices drop... I will be in heaven. Indeed, very quickly the volume on PLEX sales will increase again sharply due to the lower prices... however this time it will not be fueled by people that don't care if the price is too high. Keep dreaming. Forgotten N Forsaken wrote:THANK YOU CCP. ABOUT TIME I.S BOXERS GOT BANNED. WOOOTT!!!!!! You're dreaming. There's so many ways to hide it from CCP's eyes it'll still be abused. Hell Blizzard with their millions spent on warden can't even stop basic hackers and multibox programs. If you really want them stopped then I hope you're prepared to have your system compromised by CCP so they can scan every aspect and control what you can and cannot run. Actually, PLEX prices have already dropped. Prices are now around 880 million down from well north of 950 million. Will it stay low? Or resume its upwards trend...hard to say, I'm inclined to think the trend will resume.
PLex prices have dropped many times over the last few months. When people were complaining about plex being +900 I was still buying them for 830 (bought 4 the day of one thread).
I personally haven't paid more then 900m for a plex even when people were trying to push the prices higher. Right now I see most areas are still +920. The reality is there's a small group of really rich people who are pushing the market up and the constant complainers are only helping them...
|
Godren Storm
Stainless Enterprises
Molten Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:49:18 -
[864] - Quote
Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:49:36 -
[865] - Quote
Jared Noan wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters
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:
Reading into this, fleet warping could be considered a banable offence. You want to take out the lawyer talk, so will I.
Yes fleet warp and more will be technically bannable under this rule change.
This is illegal too right?
https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/home
He is using hardware to duplicate an input. Hell at this point of definition it could be considered illegal to use alt tab to rapidly issue commands. |
Moonlit Raid
State War Academy
Caldari State
228
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:50:55 -
[866] - Quote
Excellent decision CCP for the betterment of EVE.
If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
821
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:50:59 -
[867] - Quote
Godren Storm wrote:Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought.
using 3rd party software for input broadcast is now bannable, no drone assign, no fleet warp no other ingame mechanic. CCP was clear about what they ban for. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4281
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:51:39 -
[868] - Quote
Godren Storm wrote:Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought.
However, fleet warp isn't using third party software to do so.
It's not food for thought at all. It's a disingenuous attempt to derail this.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
1896
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:52:30 -
[869] - Quote
Jared Noan wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules
GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe
GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe
GÇóInteraction with other characters
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:
Reading into this, fleet warping could be considered a banable offence. You want to take out the lawyer talk, so will I.
The major poitn you miss is that he is not a lawyer.. he is the JUDGE.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Executive Outcomes
36
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:52:36 -
[870] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:virm pasuul wrote:
-snip
From your post it's difficult to work out which side of the fence you sit on.
You start off seeming to critcize the change.
You then go on to make a load of points illustrating why the change is a good thing for Eve.
Could you clarify please?
I'm personally against the change completely. I'm more annoyed at the lack of talk from CCP to the multibox community to see if a compromise could be reached (see: jump drives, bombers, nearly every other change) because I don't believe the current CSM has any multiboxers on it. I would have been willing to accept a ban on using ISBoxer to PVP with the exceptions involving defending oneself from invading forces in a WH / Null site, but CCP doesn't care.
yes leaving that loop hole^wgate open wouldnt cause a lot of "fun" for all the GMs. Totally not. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |