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) |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
281
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:17:28 -
[2101] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:ccp promotes more than one account
ThatsThePoint.JPG
Lady Rift wrote:which is why they banned hardware modifications from being able to mulitbroadcast also
That picture was taken around the same time that ISBoxer and input broadcasting came into the light. It was made in direct response to GM's declaring ISBoxer against the EULA until they could discuss it in depth. CCP's attempts to police out-of-game spaces and hardware is laughable. Next, we will be forced to limit our clients to 15fps and have a 500ms ping to even the playing field for those with substandard hardware or a poor ISP. |
Pain Time
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:22:27 -
[2102] - Quote
As I view it, even multiboxing will be penalized I'n the future, and as such have jumped ship away from eve. Agreed,you'll Only fix multiboxing by only allowing one sub per meat shield.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25731
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:24:32 -
[2103] - Quote
It jives with the stipulations in the OP. only allowing one client at a time means you won't be affecting -anything- in an adverse or imbalanced way. So multiple accounts would be limited to people who do industry or research chains, and such. It seems to be the pure game people want. I'll be honest with you, fleeting with 8k DPS in subcaps including logi is kind of broken, don't you think. if I eat someone alive with a multiboxed setup, even if I didn't use keystroke broadcasting... I still faceroll them by using 8 clients. key broadcast changes nothing
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds
6039
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:31:07 -
[2104] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Complete non-sequitur, nowhere in this thread has CCP indicated that multi-boxing is a problem or will be prohibited. You can even use ISBoxer to manage windows, CPU/memory, etc. But using it to issue, in effect, multiple commands with a single click is now prohibited as it probably should always have been. To be fair, they haven't said much of anything to warrant 90 pages after the initial post. This is the problem I see with the situation, and why it doesn't bode well. The multiboxed things will continue, and key broadcasting wasn't the thing at all. The situation is still what it was before the announcement. I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Assume what I just said is true. In plain English: CCP is vilifying ISBoxer when the root of the issue is multiboxing. Which they're collecting subs for. All the things that were broken by ISBoxing and multiboxing are still broken. Most of all, bombs. bombs are still broken due to being AOE. They should have been changed to 1m explosion radius. They wouldn't be the big giant explosionuu RP bombs that we imagine, but the stealth platform and lack of target lock should be enough to use them. The people vilifying multi-boxers strike me as a very distinct minority. CCP has also stated, explicitly that multi-boxing is fine. Note they have never, AFAIK, stated that ISBoxer is fine. In the released CSM minutes they note it is a grey area and one they'll likely never explicitly endorse.
As long as I've played, CCP's stance on ISboxer has been "use at your own risk". So no, not explicitly endorsed at all.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
Pain Time
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:32:31 -
[2105] - Quote
Simple answer: No. One account. One person. Totallarian approach or ccp is just half ass doing a job. |
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7341
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:33:44 -
[2106] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:GUYS. It is very important that we don't argue amongst ourselves. Not right now, not this time.
Multiboxers have paid subs for how long and all we're given is another client with no integration. This is a self-serving move they're doing with the ISBoxer change. Because of reimbursements given to players who cried about believing someone was ISBoxing and cheating. It solves a very short term problem, but it's the wrong move.
Put yourself in CCP's shoes. Right now they're trying to cater to everyone, and 33% of their subs are from +n accounts. So what do you do? Live a facade that you're not responsible for what multiboxers do, and play like you thought people only used multiboxing for scouting?
Then there's this thread. They've said nothing to continue the dialog with players, in what should be a customer service / feedback type line of communication. Instead they're hiding, saying nothing, letting players argue with each other about whatever, when CCP is the deciding authority here. We're basically left listening to muzak, waiting for the next available customer service representative for ... 4 days now.
Click through the dev posts and all you'll get are "read the OP," a dev hacked inline image because falcon is so edgy, another dev saying workarounds will be caught.
when the -real- issue is CCP is playing possum, waiting to see what players do in the long term.
so. let's not get upset at each other. That's what CCP wants, and that's what they're counting on. For everyone to believe this is a multiboxer vs uniboxer issue. It's not. The real issue is why multiboxing is sold and promoted, but hasn't been supported in the client in a way that can be balanced, that we can more or less agree with.
This time it happens to be my playstyle. Next time it could be yours. This is sort of a big thing. If it was something you paid for, wouldn't you care?
Tinfoil much?
Gÿ+
The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'Hodor'.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25731
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:35:43 -
[2107] - Quote
I'm trying on several hats in this discussion, one of them may have high tin content.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds
6039
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:40:41 -
[2108] - Quote
Pain Time wrote:Simple answer: No. One account. One person. Totallarian approach or ccp is just half ass doing a job.
Nope, sorry, that is ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with having multiple accounts, or even multiboxing them. Especially multiboxing. There is no advantage by virtue of having more than one account. A multiboxer manually controlling multiple ships in PVP for example has to divide his or her attention between all their ships at the same time, while an opponent with a single account only has to focus on one. I have fought and won against multiboxers simply because they couldn't handle that degree of multitasking.
The advantage only occurs when commands are automated, and one click sends the same command to multiple ships. That's the only problem here.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
Pain Time
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:41:16 -
[2109] - Quote
As for ccp not responding, that's their memo. Ever since I started in 07. Perhaps ccp should consider outsourcing public relations to a automatic call center? |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds
6039
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:42:25 -
[2110] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:One client instance at a time, is all I mean to say. That's the only solution to this -thing- in EVE called multiboxing.
But Rain, multiboxing multiple clients at once is not the problem, and it's not what's being addressed here.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25731
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:42:49 -
[2111] - Quote
kinda agreeing with that. not one account, though. one account logged in at a time.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2473
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:43:26 -
[2112] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:1. Is in accurate. Mike Azariah already covered that one.
Suppose the "God like ISBoxer" has an error rate of 5%. What is the probability he'll make an error? Trivial, it is 5%. Now, our fleet of 10 RL dudes have the same error rate. What is the probability that they will be error free? It is 0.95^10 which comes out close to 60%. So, real life dudes face a 40% error rate while the ISBoxer faces a 5% error rate. And note, all the players have, individually, the exact same error rate. There is no bias here. Just some elementary mathematics. As for 2, I started out comparing the following: 1 ISBoxer 10 accounts vs. 1 non-ISBoxer and 10 accounts. In this case, it seems reasonable to conclude the ISBoxer would have the edge. 1. Mike also explained that the 5% when the ISBoxer does make a mistake, EVERYTHING REPLICATES THAT MISTAKE. As such, there is more ISK at risk when the ISBoxer makes his 5% mistake than when 40% of the non-boxed fleet makes a mistake. 2. I draw your attention to this picture: http://www.imageurlhost.com/images/wmyyw90899ha490gktl1.jpg. The man is not using ISBoxer, nor was he in violation of ISBoxer. He created that setup to flaunt the fact that the ISBoxer program is not the problem. That was accomplished with tape, dowels, and some cheap penny-nails.
1. Sure, that error is potentially larger...or not. It depends. I also pointed out that over time the ISBoxer is likely going to make 95% of error free isk + whatever isk he makes when he does make an error (note this can be negative isk). The 10 player fleet on the other hand is going to make 60% of the error free isk + whatever isk they make when making an error (note this can be negative too).
As for 2, frankly, I don't see how it means ISBoxer is not the problem. That picture looks like a low tech macro to me.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds
6039
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:45:22 -
[2113] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:kinda agreeing with that. not one account, though. one account logged in at a time.
no really. the problem is that multiple clients are logged in, running amok. it's the only way to really solve this issue.
not saying I'd like it. I'm just saying that's the real solution. I'd say the real problem is the ambiguity of what multiple clients are allowed to do.
I've only ever used one account, and I've done quite well for myself in the game, and enjoy it immensely on a daily basis. Being able to log in with multiple clients though is not something I take issue with, most notably because it is not demonstrably harmful to the game.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2474
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:46:53 -
[2114] - Quote
Pain Time wrote:Simple answer: No. One account. One person. Totallarian approach or ccp is just half ass doing a job.
You might think this would be good, but its impact would be very significant. Try doing invention on a single character. Very difficult. And I doubt CCP is going to gut its revenue stream.
Next horrible idea.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2474
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:47:42 -
[2115] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I'm trying on several hats in this discussion, one of them may have high tin content.
+1 for the admission.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25732
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 05:50:26 -
[2116] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Pain Time wrote:Simple answer: No. One account. One person. Totallarian approach or ccp is just half ass doing a job. You might think this would be good, but its impact would be very significant. Try doing invention on a single character. Very difficult. And I doubt CCP is going to gut its revenue stream. Next horrible idea. not saying it's good, or that I like the outcomes. just saying it's the solution that would lay this to rest.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25732
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 06:10:05 -
[2117] - Quote
only allowing one client at a time is still fairly OP. If I had to do it with four clients, I would have a capital pilot, a subcap pilot, and a utility scout / cyno alt type character on each one. And they would be staged around EVE as a workaround to jump cloning. So if I have copies of the same skillsheet, I can log off of one, and log into another... potentially jumping from a fight in the north to a fight in the south.
In an ideal EVE, players with logistics routes, or industry chains would work with other players and share the profit. But that would require EVE and CCP backing wayyyy up to before they welcomed multiboxing to go unchecked.
Whether you want to look at it from industry or pvp standpoints, multiboxing and 'having a friend' does scale with more characters. It's not always the same, in different cases, but it's there.
For starters, warfare links and mining boosts. With just one character, it does nothing. But you start adding characters under those boosters, and they gain stats and kill things faster, or harvest things faster. Then add a hauler, or a noctis, and to both those situations, the player who uses multiple characters at the same time has an advantage.
There are also situations that are hard-coded into the game mechanics, where you -need- more than one character. PVE, mostly. Cap chains and a triforce of logi, for one. And then there's things like Incursions where the payout scales for a certain number of characters completing it.
Ignore the Nightmare incursion fleets you're familiar with, where one person controls 10 of them at the same time. (and the ISBoxer interfaces that are -obviously- a perversion of the client as it was meant to be seen. and used) Ignore them because Incursions are still possible without ISBoxer. Remove ISBoxer from the picture completely. There is still the issue of multiboxing as a workaround to game mechanics, as an advantage over using just one character at a time.
If I'm nice about it, I would say CCP just didn't see this coming. I know -I- have taken multiboxing for granted since I started, within a few months of joining this game. I really haven't sat down to look at the game from a uniboxer POV until now.
And yeah, it's obvious by my naming convention for my characters that I meant for people to know what I was up to. Perhaps I planned on being flippant about it from the beginning. I even said some inflammatory things in this thread, like the picture I posted of my setup. But maybe... multiboxing is a problem.
When you start to consider the things that would change as a result of being limited to one client, yeah, CCP and players will take a hit. It would be the end of the gravy train for both parties. After all, I didn't continue subbing multiple accounts because it -wasn't- working. CCP didn't promote multiboxing because it lost money.
I've argued for both increasing multiboxer support and removing it completely. I feel strongly about both options, and I think they would both provide a more complete solution than this announcement.
I hope players spend time considering both scenarios: more in-client multiboxing support, or no multiboxing at all.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
282
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 06:11:42 -
[2118] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Pain Time wrote:Simple answer: No. One account. One person. Totallarian approach or ccp is just half ass doing a job. You might think this would be good, but its impact would be very significant. Try doing invention on a single character. Very difficult. And I doubt CCP is going to gut its revenue stream. Next horrible idea.
Unfortunately, that is what we see as the next thing CCP will do when people successfully alt-tab fast enough, or use enough monitors to cause another public outcry with ****-poor arguments such as "I don't want to spend time and effort making a new account; BAN MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS!" |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25732
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 06:19:01 -
[2119] - Quote
Ha. oh yeah. and what's funny about cynos is they stay lit when you log. it's possible to cyno yourself with 1 account.
wait. that's not right. they drop fleet don't they.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds
6039
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 06:26:15 -
[2120] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:****-poor arguments such as "I don't want to spend time and effort making a new account; BAN MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS!"
But this is not the argument.
The actual argument would be, why should I HAVE to get multiple accounts? Because if I needed multiple accounts to play the game then why not just charge $30 a month and get two characters available for simultaneous logging? They don't do that though, they charge $15 for one, which tells me I should only need one.
People that think they NEED multiple accounts to do well are only scamming themselves. CCP just gives you the tools to do so.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
282
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 06:34:29 -
[2121] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Why should I HAVE to get multiple accounts? Because if I needed multiple accounts to play the game then why not just charge $30 a month and get two characters available for simultaneous logging? They don't do that though, they charge $15 for one, which tells me I should only need one.
People that think they NEED multiple accounts to do well are only scamming themselves. CCP just gives you the tools to do so. I'm not against multiboxing though, not at all, I can't make myself clear enough on that issue but I think the real issue has been made quite clear. Nevertheless, the 'slippery slope' argument is still a fallacy, a speculation based on your own fear of change.
You don't have to have multiple accounts. Just like you don't have to get a titan, or enter a WH, or challenge oneself to PVP with frigates only. People acquire multiple characters because they want to do more/different things. Some people get a new toon and send it into a wormhole to try something they've never done before to challenge themself.
We are challenging ourselves to multitask. We are testing the limits of our ability to split our attention amongst multiple windows and characters.
e: To paraphrase JFK: "We choose to multibox and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25732
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 06:38:47 -
[2122] - Quote
all you need to support an account is one character in high sec in a tengu or marauder. navy raven, even. subbing with plex is not out of reach for anyone. it might take four or five months but it's not like you can learn EVE within that time frame anyway.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
276
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 06:53:06 -
[2123] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:****-poor arguments such as "I don't want to spend time and effort making a new account; BAN MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS!" But this is not the argument. The actual argument would be, why should I HAVE to get multiple accounts? Because if I needed multiple accounts to play the game then why not just charge $30 a month and get two characters available for simultaneous logging? They don't do that though, they charge $15 for one, which tells me I should only need one. People that think they NEED multiple accounts to do well are only scamming themselves. CCP just gives you the tools to do so. I'm not against multiboxing though, not at all, I can't make myself clear enough on that issue but I think the real issue has been made quite clear. Nevertheless, the 'slippery slope' argument is still a fallacy, a speculation based on your own fear of change. How much more would you be prepared to pay for every item on the market. How much time would you put into the game with less than half its current population. Having to go 40 or 50 jumps just to find someone to pvp with.
No-one says you "Have" to get multiple accounts but without those who have them, TQ would be a very quiet lonely place.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25732
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 07:06:56 -
[2124] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Rain6637 wrote:kinda agreeing with that. not one account, though. one account logged in at a time.
no really. the problem is that multiple clients are logged in, running amok. it's the only way to really solve this issue.
not saying I'd like it. I'm just saying that's the real solution. I'd say the real problem is the ambiguity of what multiple clients are allowed to do. I've only ever used one account, and I've done quite well for myself in the game, and enjoy it immensely on a daily basis. Being able to log in with multiple clients though is not something I take issue with, most notably because it is not demonstrably harmful to the game. that is easily changed with catalysts, or taloses, or tornadoes, or torp bombers, or a fleet of contesting Nightmares.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds
6040
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 07:19:40 -
[2125] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:****-poor arguments such as "I don't want to spend time and effort making a new account; BAN MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS!" But this is not the argument. The actual argument would be, why should I HAVE to get multiple accounts? Because if I needed multiple accounts to play the game then why not just charge $30 a month and get two characters available for simultaneous logging? They don't do that though, they charge $15 for one, which tells me I should only need one. People that think they NEED multiple accounts to do well are only scamming themselves. CCP just gives you the tools to do so. I'm not against multiboxing though, not at all, I can't make myself clear enough on that issue but I think the real issue has been made quite clear. Nevertheless, the 'slippery slope' argument is still a fallacy, a speculation based on your own fear of change. How much more would you be prepared to pay for every item on the market. How much time would you put into the game with less than half its current population. Having to go 40 or 50 jumps just to find someone to pvp with. No-one says you "Have" to get multiple accounts but without those who have them, TQ would be a very quiet lonely place.
And if you and the other guy who argued with me on this were paying attention, you would have noted that I have no problem, explicit or implicit, with multiboxing or people with multiple accounts. None at all. That is not what this is about, it's how one manages those accounts that is the issue here.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds
6040
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 07:21:20 -
[2126] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Rain6637 wrote:kinda agreeing with that. not one account, though. one account logged in at a time.
no really. the problem is that multiple clients are logged in, running amok. it's the only way to really solve this issue.
not saying I'd like it. I'm just saying that's the real solution. I'd say the real problem is the ambiguity of what multiple clients are allowed to do. I've only ever used one account, and I've done quite well for myself in the game, and enjoy it immensely on a daily basis. Being able to log in with multiple clients though is not something I take issue with, most notably because it is not demonstrably harmful to the game. that is easily changed with catalysts, or taloses, or tornadoes, or torp bombers, or a fleet of contesting Nightmares.
A fleet of 20 'nados managed by one person manually handling each client vs a fleet of 20 'nados managed by 20 players is at a severe disadvantage due to his or her divided attention. That changes the moment he or she no longer has to divide their attention, and can just push F1 once to fire 160 1400mm cannons simultaneously.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
282
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 07:28:06 -
[2127] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:A fleet of 20 'nados managed by one person manually handling each client vs a fleet of 20 'nados managed by 20 players is at a severe disadvantage due to his or her divided attention. That changes the moment he or she no longer has to divide their attention, and can just push F1 once to fire 160 1400mm cannons simultaneously.
If you fly a 20b providence around in hisec, you will die. Doesn't matter if it's a boxer or a corp like VENGA. Also, stop hiring noobs in your gank fleet. |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds
6040
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 07:34:29 -
[2128] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:A fleet of 20 'nados managed by one person manually handling each client vs a fleet of 20 'nados managed by 20 players is at a severe disadvantage due to his or her divided attention. That changes the moment he or she no longer has to divide their attention, and can just push F1 once to fire 160 1400mm cannons simultaneously. If you fly a 20b providence around in hisec, you will die. Doesn't matter if it's a boxer or a corp like VENGA. Also, stop hiring noobs in your gank fleet.
I don't have a gank fleet so I don't know what you're talking about.
As for dying just by virtue of flying around in a Providence, no, that's not true at all. Some people actually know how to fly freighters and haulers using proper caution and risk mitigation. We call it the "idiot tank" - we tank ourselves with stupid people, who are much easier targets.
Stop making excuses and treating me like I know nothing. Once again, we're not addressing multiboxing, we're addressing input broadcasting and multiplexing. So enough with the non sequiturs already, we're all adults here so ******* act like it.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25735
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 07:36:43 -
[2129] - Quote
hey Remiel, u wotm8?
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
282
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 07:42:59 -
[2130] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:I don't have a gank fleet so I don't know what you're talking about.
As for dying just by virtue of flying around in a Providence, no, that's not true at all. Some people actually know how to fly freighters and haulers using proper caution and risk mitigation. We call it the "idiot tank" - we tank ourselves with stupid people, who are much easier targets.
Stop making excuses and treating me like I know nothing. Once again, we're not addressing multiboxing, we're addressing input broadcasting and multiplexing. So enough with the non sequiturs already, we're all adults here so ******* act like it.
I mean a general "you" when I said "your gank fleet".
If you simply fly an empty Provi, only CODE would probably gank you for the giggles. I was positing if you flew in a Provi with 20b of :stuff: in your hold.
Also, there is not a doubt in my mind that every single ISBoxer who says "multiboxing" is referring to the ability to broadcast his actions. If you think for even a second that we misread CCP's post, then I pity you. |
|
|
|
|
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 |