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) |
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
27
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:28:35 -
[1411] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
This is a joke, right? A troll? This can't be real life. Please tell me there's a hidden camera here somewhere.
No, I am asking questions, simple questions. Show me the correlation between isboxing guys running their accounts with plexes payed with isk and the amount of plexes purchased from CCP.
If it's so obvious, so easy to explain - why are you speechless?
|
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
27
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:35:16 -
[1412] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:1) it might happen that less people buy PLEX due to isbot nerf.
2) Prices will most likely drop. If they drop too low because of reduced demand, people might stop selling them in order to acquire ingame money, because they are getting less ISK for the buck.
OR
3) prices wont drop all too low because legit players start plexing accounts again, who couldnt afford inflated PLEX prices anymore -> sellers receive less ISK for their PLEX and CCP wont notice anything at all.
or 4) people willing to buy plexes to have additional isk purchase more plexes from CCP to compensate the reduced amount of isk when selling them on the market.
What won't happen is that plexes won't be sold any longer because there will always be someone who needs short term isk for a shiny bunch of ingame pixels.
On the ingame market beginning with next year we will see less people being able to pay high prices. The price for plex will go down until a point were the regular players can jump in and afford a plex without tools for income increase. At this point the plex price will stop |
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra Gallente Federation
153
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:39:46 -
[1413] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:
Yes, It applies if said mappings affect multiple instances of the client simultaneously and that involves anything other than login, window management or client settings.
See condition #4 of flowchart.
If you still don't get it, you are either being deliberately obtuse or do not understand what "multiple instances" means.
Quote: Input Automation
Input Automation refers to actions that are commonly also referred to as botting or macroing. This term is used to describe, but is not limited to, the automation of actions which have consequences in the EVE universe.
Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy.
This has nothing to do with multiple instances, it forbids this kind of thing on single instances too, and always has AFAIK.
It's a VERY broad defintion too, even hotkeys that just do stuff like copy-paste-select or something like that for managing your market orders are technicaly 'automation'. Though I doubt this is actively policed.
Binding your tank modules or any other group of modules on a single key fall under 'automation' too. Again, I doubt that this is actively policed and it's something that should be possible in the EVE client itself to begin with imho. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2289
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:42:22 -
[1414] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: Congrats, CCP. The only players I see this change affecting more than marginally is those who use multiboxing software in a targeting-critical environment, such as logistics in incursions. For everyone else, you're adding the hassle of having to move each character manually, and that's about it.
And that's all they were trying to do. I'd like to think that, but I can't, because in my eyes, it's highly unlikely that they were merely trying to nerf incursion/wormhole income. If they wanted to do that, then they could just adjust incursions and wormholes. Sure, some people would complain, but no major shift would take place. However, they've nerfed high-sec pvp so much in the past few years that they're running out of ways to nerf things like suicide-ganking without having the community question whether they're still willing to keep EVE a harsh universe, so they're resorting to underhanded tactics like this in order to sneak by changes while riding a wave of populist support. Much like the way governments attach unpopular bills to necessary ones, so no one will notice. That's my take on this, at least.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
835
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:42:56 -
[1415] - Quote
this graph is not telling the whole truth, the demand isnt taking such a huge hit, it will more likely shift from isbotters to real players being able to afford PLEX at lower prices again. |
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:43:08 -
[1416] - Quote
I love the people that comment that they haven't used ISboxer yet like the change. Umm how would you know if it is good or bad then?
To the ISboxers that are quitting.. don't be suck weenies. This doesn't change the game that much for us.
Example: fly in fleet and fleet warp to...
Remap your DXNothing page to that all your mods are handy and are click able within fractions of a second of each other.
It is just a simple work around. Sure you can't broadcast anymore boo hoo.. you'll learn to work without that.
I understand it is a pain in the assteroid but change comes and we have to deal with it.
And for those that call us botters... they really need to get a clue. |
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
28
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:45:53 -
[1417] - Quote
This figure doesn't apply here. If you would have read some more info you would know that the amount of plexes purchased from CCP didn't change much in the past months and was pretty independent from the amount of isk people got on the ingame market.
Removing some isbotters won't change anything again. The supply (which is the limiting factor here) will stay the same, only the price will go down until the lost consumers (willing to pay high prices) are replaced by regular people.
Your figure only works on a market which is saturated which is not the case in EVE. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2289
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:49:27 -
[1418] - Quote
No, look, I get that you're trolling, but let's do this anyway:
Robert Caldera wrote:this graph is not telling the whole truth, the demand isnt taking such a huge hit, it will more likely shift from isbotters to real players being able to afford PLEX at lower prices again. The graph is unlabeled, and only presents the concept of the relationship, as opposed to presenting the relationship between concrete sets of data.
Robert Caldera wrote:and yeah, btw, the demand and supply graphs should be the other way around, switch the labels. The graph is 100% accurate. I suggest you pick up an economics 101 textbook and read the first few pages of the first chapter.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
835
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:51:01 -
[1419] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: The graph is 100% accurate. I suggest you pick up an economics 101 textbook and read the first few pages of the first chapter.
so, in your internet economics, price is rising with increased supply? |
Elisha Habah
Shattered Stars Holding
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:51:28 -
[1420] - Quote
Well looks like CCP are ruining the game for a good amount of people. Now before all the troll's come out and strart saying that this is another botters/boxers tears what ever you want to call it. it's not! For the simple fact that I will continue to use Isboxer. But just in a different way.
What I ask is that everyone who is here should at least try it before it's mouse repeat function is banned and you would see why people use it. Now my story with it is for running four characters in W-space. I have ran 12man incursion fleets before I've used it to make a lot of isk.
Now you are probably asking why is he even bothering posting. The point of this is simple ISBOXER is a tool to add content. People who use it myself included feel that eve is starting to die. I've played for 8 years I've done most things. Using/multi boxing just adds an extra level of excitement/diffulcty to the game. It allows you to do things different adding video feeds and controlling Clients graphics demandsv all of which isn't possible without it.
What's the point in having more than 3/4 accounts if you can't play them all. At the same time. Now here's to my next point.....
Now I'd say a good 80% of the people that play eve use a mouse/ keyboard which is able to either make a key bind(pressing one button on a mouse which equates to you pressing two or three buttons simultaniously on the key board) or a pressing one button and it activates f1-f8 for instance if you were smart bombing apposed today pressing it manually.
What's the difference???????
Now yes I use ISBOXER but I dont understand why people have an issue with it.. What is it doing that's so wrong that it effects the game. And all the people that are moaning about it clearly haven't. For the people that haven the mouse repeat function is only ever active for attract 10% of the time you are actually using ISBOXER
So the honest outcome from this is I will still be using it...... So feel free to troll run locator agents to try and tank me... All of which adds content to the game which is honestly what's missing.
in the process of thinking of a witty signature, get back to me
|
|
Ginger Barbarella
2044
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:55:17 -
[1421] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:[quote=Digger Nolm]Keep in mind that jan 1 2015 I will cancel 5 accounts as I will not be able to grind enough isk to run those accounts with the new ban on key broadcasting. That's atleast $100 US less you wont get from me.
Something is wrong in your comment. If you do "grinding for isk" then you don't pay 100 USD/month, you play for free.
It is someone else who pays the 100 USD and this person is not connected to you. Without connection there is no link and no influence between your actions and his actions. /quote]
WTF is wrong with you?!?!?! Quit being logical! This is EveO! We can only have knee-jerk reactions here and pointless high-sec wardecs!!
Get with it, man... Like 4chan, we have standards to maintain here!!
[ / sarcasm ]
"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
|
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
28
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:57:35 -
[1422] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: The graph is 100% accurate. I suggest you pick up an economics 101 textbook and read the first few pages of the first chapter.
Don't use a book, use your brain. your figure doesn't take a simple detail into account: the amount of people willing to buy a plex doesn't change, the demand stays the same. The only change is the amount of isk which can be spent to buy the plex.
Your figure doesn't apply, sorry.
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
350
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:02:38 -
[1423] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: I'd like to think that, but I can't, because in my eyes, it's highly unlikely that they were merely trying to nerf incursion/wormhole income. If they wanted to do that, then they could just adjust incursions and wormholes. Sure, some people would complain, but no major shift would take place. However, they've nerfed high-sec pvp so much in the past few years that they're running out of ways to nerf things like suicide-ganking without having the community question whether they're still willing to keep EVE a harsh universe, so they're resorting to underhanded tactics like this in order to sneak by changes while riding a wave of populist support. Much like the way governments attach unpopular bills to necessary ones, so no one will notice. That's my take on this, at least.
And yet, according to the CODE members that have posted in this thread, this change will have very little impact on their suicide ganking operations.
So either they are lying or you are wrong about this being a ganking nerf.
Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
|
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1300
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:03:09 -
[1424] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:
Doubling down m8:) upped it from 4 to 8 doing 2 teams of smartbombing now since you can mirror it 100% because its always the same process warp to ring heaven at zero approach gate with AB on (click A) start all smartbombs (click S) starting all smartbombs.
This also does not take into account the 10/10s I get from doing this... on average 5-8 10/10 escalations a day per team which I hand of to a corp mate he runs em with 2 paladins and we split profit from em 40/60 (me getting 40%). That adds a few bill extra per day as well. Its really really good isk:)
Well, if you can pull it off and really make that much, why not I guess =P |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1300
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:04:05 -
[1425] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: I'd like to think that, but I can't, because in my eyes, it's highly unlikely that they were merely trying to nerf incursion/wormhole income. If they wanted to do that, then they could just adjust incursions and wormholes. Sure, some people would complain, but no major shift would take place. However, they've nerfed high-sec pvp so much in the past few years that they're running out of ways to nerf things like suicide-ganking without having the community question whether they're still willing to keep EVE a harsh universe, so they're resorting to underhanded tactics like this in order to sneak by changes while riding a wave of populist support. Much like the way governments attach unpopular bills to necessary ones, so no one will notice. That's my take on this, at least.
And yet, according to the CODE members that have posted in this thread, this change will have very little impact on their suicide ganking operations. So either they are lying or you are wrong about this being a ganking nerf.
CODE lying? Noooo. That would never happen. Membergroups of the CFC are always fair and honest and straightforward, especially CODE. lol |
Clancy Davis
Promethean Laboratories The Methodical Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:04:31 -
[1426] - Quote
It takes some degree of intelligence to train up multiple accounts to effectively run Skiffs/stealth bombers/incursion ships, and then set up multi-boxing software to control them all. It puzzles me that some of these people are then having difficulty understanding this new update and the difference between what they are doing and the in-game Fleet Warp feature. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2289
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:05:57 -
[1427] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:And yet, according to the CODE members that have posted in this thread, this change will have very little impact on their suicide ganking operations.
So either they are lying or you are wrong about this being a ganking nerf.
No, I get it. Like a page or two ago I looked into this some more, and realized that the actual impact will be marginal. However, the fact that CCP is doing this to target (and this is just my own hypothesis) suicide-ganking is troubling.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Thoregon Aubaris
Very Drunken Eve Flying Instructors Brotherhood Of Silent Space
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:07:42 -
[1428] - Quote
@ all multiboxers:
If you're leaving EVE then...
1. carry all your stuff to a tradehub near you 2. sell everything 3. buy as much plex as you can 4. donate plex to "CCPplexforgood" 5. don't let the door hit your bot on the way out 6. have a nice day :)
Thanks CCP, best change ever. |
Elisha Habah
Shattered Stars Holding
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:09:09 -
[1429] - Quote
Now am I missing something here but what has tanking and pled prices got to do with ISBOXER..........
in the process of thinking of a witty signature, get back to me
|
Ginger Barbarella
2044
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:10:38 -
[1430] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:And yet, according to the CODE members that have posted in this thread, this change will have very little impact on their suicide ganking operations.
So either they are lying or you are wrong about this being a ganking nerf.
No, I get it. Like a page or two ago I looked into this some more, and realized that the actual impact will be marginal. However, the fact that CCP is doing this to target (and this is just my own hypothesis) suicide-ganking is troubling.
The only group being "targeted" is botters. This only changes ganking for those that can't or won't work with others or don't know how to do it right and have to resort to blob mentality for their lulz. Gankers that use botting software to do their deed are no better than losers who user roofies to drug women to get into their pants. Same kind of person, same mental issues.
"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
|
|
Elisha Habah
Shattered Stars Holding
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:10:41 -
[1431] - Quote
Thoregon Aubaris wrote:@ all multiboxers:
If you're leaving EVE then...
1. carry all your stuff to a tradehub near you 2. sell everything 3. buy as much plex as you can 4. donate plex to "CCPplexforgood" 5. don't let the door hit your bot on the way out 6. have a nice day :)
Thanks CCP, best change ever.
Oh look another useless comment.... How long did it take tor u to come up with that(plex for good thing was ok:-) )
in the process of thinking of a witty signature, get back to me
|
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra Gallente Federation
153
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:13:52 -
[1432] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: I'd like to think that, but I can't, because in my eyes, it's highly unlikely that they were merely trying to nerf incursion/wormhole income. If they wanted to do that, then they could just adjust incursions and wormholes. Sure, some people would complain, but no major shift would take place. However, they've nerfed high-sec pvp so much in the past few years that they're running out of ways to nerf things like suicide-ganking without having the community question whether they're still willing to keep EVE a harsh universe, so they're resorting to underhanded tactics like this in order to sneak by changes while riding a wave of populist support. Much like the way governments attach unpopular bills to necessary ones, so no one will notice. That's my take on this, at least.
And yet, according to the CODE members that have posted in this thread, this change will have very little impact on their suicide ganking operations. So either they are lying or you are wrong about this being a ganking nerf. Isboxer is used in ganking but as far as I can tell it's really rare. The Code. freighter ganking kills I see are almost always a group of individual players, some with multiple chars as it's easy to push F1 a few tiimes.
Miner ganking, well, Skiff ganking might be easier with multiboxing software but for most targets a few catalysts or even just one will do just fine. Fleetwarp and a few F1 pushes, that requires no multiboxing software really... |
Ssabat Thraxx
Dominion Tenebrarum
1038
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:13:53 -
[1433] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:All this means is that CCP will have to find another subversive way to get rid of suicide-ganking when people get around this change, and they will. However, the precedent of bias toward various forms of alt usage will be set by then.
Edit: and now I realize that this could easily be done in a way that only requires one key press for each client, which can be the same key, while still being 100% within the confines of the new rules. GG CCP.
Edit #2: I can tab through 10 EVE clients in just slightly over 1 second without any lag whatsoever.
I see youre still in denial today. Youve now moved on to "well this wasnt really about us, it was about suicide ganking..."
Apparently you never read CCP's stance on suicide ganking:
Why should CCP provide protection for your haulage in high sec?
CONCORD offer a level of deterrent just the same as any law enforcement agency, but as with any police for they're reactive and punitive rather than proactive.
If you want your haulage to be safer, bring the guns. If you don't have any guns, sacrifice some of your profit margin and hire someone who has them to escort you.
Welcome to New Eden, you just learned a very valuable lesson in being prepared and covering your back.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4958992#post4958992
That's not the only post we've seen Falcon make about suicide ganking, but I CBA to find the rest. I'm sure you get the point.
Thank you. Try again.
\m/ O.o \m/
"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2290
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:15:55 -
[1434] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:The only group being "targeted" is botters. This only changes ganking for those that can't or won't work with others or don't know how to do it right and have to resort to blob mentality for their lulz. Gankers that use botting software to do their deed are no better than losers who user roofies to drug women to get into their pants. Same kind of person, same mental issues. Being at the helm of your PC and controlling input to multiple accounts at the same time and watching an episode of Jersey Shore in another room while your computer magically puts ore into your hangar and NPC bounties into your wallet are two different things. Even if CCP decides that the former shouldn't be allowed, which they have the right to do, it's still not botting. Yours is a tired, weak, old argument without any merit.
By the way, CCP doesn't target botters. I still see the same ones mining today that I've reported years ago.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:15:57 -
[1435] - Quote
Elisha Habah wrote:Now am I missing something here but what has tanking and pled prices got to do with ISBOXER..........
you run a ten man fleet and make enough isk to buy the plex off the market for each account.
Tanking... that is a term that I believe was used incorrectly |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
836
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:16:25 -
[1436] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:However, the fact that CCP is doing this to target (and this is just my own hypothesis) suicide-ganking is troubling.
they are not targetting suicide ganking specifically but all activities involving isbotter, because the balance was getting out of whack completely. If you multibox do it on yourself, not some 3rd party automating tool reducing your workload and chances to **** up. Thats the whole intention of policy change and its totally right. |
Big Lynx
Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno.
782
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:18:10 -
[1437] - Quote
This is a message to all ISBOXERs: Click |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2290
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:20:07 -
[1438] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:However, the fact that CCP is doing this to target (and this is just my own hypothesis) suicide-ganking is troubling. they are not targetting suicide ganking specifically but all activities involving isbotter, because the balance was getting out of whack completely. If you multibox do it on yourself, not some 3rd party automating tool reducing your workload and chances to **** up. Suicide-ganking is the only new activity being targeted by these rules. Mining and ratting, the two activities that benefit from ISBoxer, were already being illegally botted most of the time when ISBoxer was in the picture. Since botting is illegal (and very much punishable), introducing this change would be meaningless unless suicide-ganking (and fringe cases like multi-bombing) are being targeted.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2290
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:22:33 -
[1439] - Quote
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:Apparently you never read CCP's stance on suicide ganking Apparently you've never seen CCP's stance on something change overnight.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
836
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:23:57 -
[1440] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:However, the fact that CCP is doing this to target (and this is just my own hypothesis) suicide-ganking is troubling. they are not targetting suicide ganking specifically but all activities involving isbotter, because the balance was getting out of whack completely. If you multibox do it on yourself, not some 3rd party automating tool reducing your workload and chances to **** up. Suicide-ganking is the only new activity being targeted by these rules. Mining and ratting, the two activities that benefit from iSBoxer, were already being illegally botted most of the time when ISBoxer was in the picture. Since botting is illegal (and very much punishable), introducing this change would be meaningless unless suicide-ganking (and fringe cases like multi-bombing) are being targeted.
can you back up your statement regarding botting? With isbotter you can easily smartbomb ratting, doing regular ratting with a multiboxed fleet (alliance mate used isbotted fleet of tengus for plexing), there are isbotted incursion fleets, you forget about bombing as a popular use of isbotter - all those things are affected by recent policy change, for good. |
|
|
|
|
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 |