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)
Sibyyl Gallente Federation 15557	Posted - 2014.12.02 07:50:20 - [2431] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Wrong. See this image straight from CCP. As long as 1 click or keypress = 1 click or keypress on 1 client, then it's still within the rules. Round robin keybinds do exactly that. Even usiing good window management/multiple monitor then clicking though each client hammering the F1 button does that. And the rule is the rule. The "spirit" of the rule is that you can't use key broadcasting. Round robin keybinds are not broadcasting in any way shape or form. Neither is using VideoFX to line up all your clients modules next to each other in a single block. Neither is laying out your windows and clicking through them really fast. If you want to play Russian Roulette with pilots you've invested years into to see if you will win a semantics argument with a GM then feel free to do so. Round robin keybinds = input multiplexing to an ISBoxer heathen. Do you think people who enforce the rules will be ISBoxer scholars? The only people who know ISBoxer that well are ISBoxers themselves. To everyone else, especially in the dynamics of a petition to CCP, you will sound like a defensive lunatic. Quote: So by all means continue sitting around whining because CCPs dumb ruling will have very little effect on isboxer users. That's exactly what I've been saying all along. If they want to fix the problem then they need to address the problem - as in the fact that the gameplay elements in question are too simple and easy to replicate. Banning input multiplexing is most efficient decision to make from a developer effort point of view. If you're CCP what are you going to do? Fix mining, incursions, bombers, gatecamps, links, ganking or ban ISBoxer and solve most of these issues literally overnight? We can argue against the decision all day, and I am doing that the same as you are. But I think that the arguments should take CCP's business motivations into account, too. SCRUM is not a river in Egypt. Friendship is the best ship.
Carmen Electra The Scope Gallente Federation 13827	Posted - 2014.12.02 07:51:25 - [2432] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: And the rule is the rule. The "spirit" of the rule is that you can't use key broadcasting. Who knows? I guess we'll see. CCP seems to word things as to give them all the discretion they want in matters like this, so I doubt going all lawyer on them will be all that effective. Lucas Kell wrote: CCPs dumb ruling will have very little effect on isboxer users. Many in my boxing community called it quits shortly after the announcement. The ones that are trying to adapt are looking at greatly reduced effectiveness, depending on the activity. Mining may still be possible, though on a much more limited scale. Not sure about bombers. As for incursions (what I did), if you want to attempt a 3rd wave OTA without broadcasting, then be my guest. It may be possible, but at that point I'd rather go do something else with my time. Lucas Kell wrote: That's exactly what I've been sayign all along. If they want to fix the problem then they need to address the problem - as in the fact that the gameplay elements in question are too simple and easy to replicate. I agree with this. Bacon makes us stronger
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4446	Posted - 2014.12.02 08:01:51 - [2433] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: If you want to play Russian Roulette with pilots you've invested years into to see if you will win a semantics argument with a GM then feel free to do so. Round robin keybinds = input multiplexing to an ISBoxer heathen. Do you think people who enforce the rules will be ISBoxer scholars? Right, so what you are saying is you have no idea what the difference between a round robin keybind and input broadcasting is. A round robin keybind will more closely resemble a "normal" multiboxer without isboxer at all than input broadcasting. If they start banning people for regular multiboxing then there will be some serious issues. Sibyyl wrote: Banning input multiplexing is most efficient decision to make from a developer effort point of view. If you're CCP what are you going to do? Fix mining, incursions, bombers, gatecamps, links, ganking or ban ISBoxer and solve literally most of these issues overnight? Except it doesn't solve the issue. Mutliboxing players will still be bombing and still be incursion running and still be mining on massive scales. The problem is that the game barely needs input. Mining requires about 3 clicks every 10 minutes from each client. Bombing needs 10 clicks per wave total. Incursions barely use broadcasting as it is (mostly they use clickbars since you have a variety of roles being filled). Sibyyl wrote: We can argue against the decision all day, and I am doing that the same as you are. But I think that the arguments should take CCP's business motivations into account, too. SCRUM is not a river in Egypt. Their business motivations? They are kicking out a bunch of subs so that crying carebears cry less for about a week before they realise that the bulk of the multiboxers have simply adapted to the new norm and carried on. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4446	Posted - 2014.12.02 08:04:44 - [2434] - Quote Carmen Electra wrote: Many in my boxing community called it quits shortly after the announcement. The ones that are trying to adapt are looking at greatly reduced effectiveness, depending on the activity. Mining may still be possible, though on a much more limited scale. Not sure about bombers. There's always people having knee-jerk reactions to changes. Give them some time to look at it properly and they'll realise it's barely a change. Carmen Electra wrote: As for incursions (what I did), if you want to attempt a 3rd wave OTA without broadcasting, then be my guest. It may be possible, but at that point I'd rather go do something else with my time. Use Video FX with mouse and keyboard passthrough and cluster your controls. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Sibyyl Gallente Federation 15567	Posted - 2014.12.02 08:19:46 - [2435] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Right, so what you are saying is you have no idea what the difference between a round robin keybind and input broadcasting is. A round robin keybind will more closely resemble a "normal" multiboxer without isboxer at all than input broadcasting. If they start banning people for regular multiboxing then there will be some serious issues. Really? I have every idea. Here's where all 3 are bannable. Quote: We do not endorse or condone the use of any third party applications or other software that modifies the client or otherwise confers an unfair benefit to players. ... However, if any third party application or other software is used to gain any unfair advantage, or for purposes beyond its intended use, or if the application or other software violates other parts of the EULA, we may fully enforce our rights to prohibit such use, including player bans. Please use such third party applications or other software at your own risk. You will fail trying to rules-lawyer your way around a GM. The precedent in any ruling is the cornerstone for future decisions. Input multiplexing is a stone's throw from your other two usages, and the difference is irrelevant in the level of conversation in a petition to CCP. Friendship is the best ship.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 26385	Posted - 2014.12.02 08:21:14 - [2436] - Quote oh yeah? well... anyway, I will not be a happy camper if rapid sequences are an issue. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub \| Twitter \|-ámk.III \| Imgur \| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined \|
Sibyyl Gallente Federation 15567	Posted - 2014.12.02 08:34:28 - [2437] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: clearly. the only software allowed to provide an unfair benefit is the client itself. I think it depends on the person. I will personally never be able to control more than one client at once, much less control a single client with the ease with which most people might. I can't even finish a tutorial mission without having to look down at my keyboard and then back at the screen (one of many unfortunate side effects of how my brain processes tactile information). Friendship is the best ship.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 2482	Posted - 2014.12.02 08:35:00 - [2438] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Quote: There is no barrier to using ISBoxer, and there are many free alternatives that work just as well. Derp. Of course there is a barrier to ISBoxer. Can I just download and have it humming along in 5-10 minutes like EFT or EVEMon? Do I have to pay for the platform? If the answers are "No, and yes," then those are barriers. I highlighted the bit you missed. You need to learn to read Lucas, it was a two part question. Quote: Teckos Pech wrote: The question is simple, and I'll note you have steadfastly not answered it, but given these two scenarios which player will make more isk: Player with 4 accounts ratting without ISBoxer, vs. Player with 4 accounts ratting with ISBoxer? People use ISBoxer because it makes them more efficient at certain activities in the game. Efficiency that can and does translate into more isk, items, etc. Of course the player using isboxer, because they've used tools available to make themselves more efficient. I make more in trading because I use tools which allow me to spend as little time as possible collating and analysing information. It's no different except the tools I use will never be available publicly, not even for a price. And following this change, you realise that people with isboxer will still make more isk, right? The main benefit of isboxer isn;t even key broadcasting. I'd say at the cop is the CPU/FPS management, followed by Video FX, then it would probably be key broadcasting. So what was the point in removing broadcasting? Its basically automation and based on all the sturm und drang ITT the ban on broadcasting has some people very upset. Some are so upset that they are supposedly quiting the game for good and Nolak has been glued to his PC pretty much from page 1. Makes me wonder if perhaps broadcasting does perhaps convey more benefit than you are claiming. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 2482	Posted - 2014.12.02 08:42:20 - [2439] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: I am going to pile on by saying, "me too", "what he said", etc. In fact, I'd like to see answers to one of the above statements: Why should input broadcasting/multiplexing be allowed in Eve, why is it good for the game. And no, "Because it wasn't banned for over a year." is not a sufficient answer. I see you called someone out for strawmanning, and here I see you doing the same thing. Here are some facts that require no conjecture: CCP has known about ISBoxer for a long time (years). CCP has also been keenly aware that the use of ISBoxer lends itself to the creation and long term maintenance of multiple accounts. This has resulted in dollars for CCP, revenue from subscriptions of these accounts. The nature of ISBoxer is such that if it is suddenly deemed ban-worthy, as input multiplexing is, this also renders these multiple accounts worthless. Without ISBoxer, there would be no way for a single person to allow each pilot on each account to earn an amount of ISK that justifies the subscription. Now, don't get carried away with this statement. Of course multiple accounts, such as 2 or 3 are useful. But 20 accounts? 30 accounts? Not at all. As someone pointed out to me, EVE is akin to a hobby. Bastion is a great game, and it might cost you $5. EVE can cost you thousands of dollars. In the case of ISBoxers, EVE has cost many of them thousands of dollars. 35 days is not enough time to transition the use case for these accounts. The Skill Queue system does not have the agility for these characters to develop alternate uses in the matter of one month. The change in EULA also renders obsolete the EULA that the player agreed to when he paid a yearly sub. The contention is that CCP created an attractive environment for a certain type of paid customer, and has accepted the advance payment of some of those customers and now is unwilling to issue refunds now that the EULA has been completely altered from its original state (as far as input multiplexers are concerned). CCP wasn't just evaluating the feasibility of ISBoxer. They were profiting from it. If revenue from subscriptions is secondary to the spirit of the game, as Falcon says on Reddit, then CCP should also be gracious enough to refund players who have payed for subscriptions in advance up to a year which intersect with this EULA change. No straw man, I honestly want to know what benefit does it bring to the game as a whole to allow input broadcasting? Instead of constantly rehashing old and tiresome non-arguments, why not try to come up with something new and convincing. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 26387	Posted - 2014.12.02 08:47:49 - [2440] - Quote I would like to add that multiboxing in EVE (so basically EVE) has caused me to create this monster of a computer, and prior to EVE I was a Dell whatever-is-in-the-box kind of guy. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub \| Twitter \|-ámk.III \| Imgur \| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined \|
Sibyyl Gallente Federation 15568	Posted - 2014.12.02 08:50:30 - [2441] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: No straw man, I honestly want to know what benefit does it bring to the game as a whole to allow input broadcasting? Instead of constantly rehashing old and tiresome non-arguments, why not try to come up with something new and convincing. I find your question to be invalid, since I don't think it detracts from the game any. Friendship is the best ship.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 2482	Posted - 2014.12.02 08:51:49 - [2442] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: And we've been over things like EFT, EVEMon, etc. Those are free to anyone that wants to use them. There is no barrier to the use of those programs. It's got nothing to do with it being "free to anyone". There's several pieces of open source software that allow you to broadcast keys. Cache scraping is a EULA violation they simply don't enforce it because a bunch of carebears haven't cried about it yet. What about pieces of software like elinor, which automatically import market orders when you click them in game, work out margins and pop undercut figures in your clipboard for you to paste in game. That's pretty much market botting. Why isn't that banned? In the same way, I used a whole array of homebrew tools which grab market data, work out routes, margins, etc, so I have to spend literally minutes to do what would take me hours to work out in game. These pieces of software are not available to everyone. Surely any market runner with tools like this should be banned too? You might be in a grey area there Lucas. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 2482	Posted - 2014.12.02 08:53:22 - [2443] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: No straw man, I honestly want to know what benefit does it bring to the game as a whole to allow input broadcasting? Instead of constantly rehashing old and tiresome non-arguments, why not try to come up with something new and convincing. I find your question to be invalid, since I don't think it detracts from the game any. Edit: And to be perfectly honest, if a person who is stuck uniboxing like I am can put up with multiplexers, then you (and everybody else) can too. Other than violating section 6.A.3 you mean. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4446	Posted - 2014.12.02 08:54:03 - [2444] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: Quote: We do not endorse or condone the use of any third party applications or other software that modifies the client or otherwise confers an unfair benefit to players. ... However, if any third party application or other software is used to gain any unfair advantage, or for purposes beyond its intended use, or if the application or other software violates other parts of the EULA, we may fully enforce our rights to prohibit such use, including player bans. Please use such third party applications or other software at your own risk. You will fail trying to rules-lawyer your way around a GM. The precedent in any ruling is the cornerstone for future decisions. Input multiplexing is a stone's throw from your other two usages, and the difference is irrelevant in the level of conversation in a petition to CCP. It's not rules lawyering. Read the OP. Look at the nice little flowchart CCP handed out. Multiboxing is not banned. ISBoxer is not banned. As long as you aren't multiplexing it's fine. If you are seriously suggesting they will ban you for pushing buttons on separate clients too fast you are absolutely insane. Oh and by the way, since you've linked to that section of the EULA, when will Elinor, eve-central, eve-marketdata, eve-mentat, jeveassets, EFT, Teamspeak, Mumble, etc all be banned? They all have methods of providing an unfair advantage too. I really wish idiots would stop jumping in saying "you're rules lawyering, waaaah" every time someone suggests doing something that they are allowed to do. If they wanted to stop round robins and global keybinds, then they would be right here saying it, since this is the place we're supposed to be getting clarification. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4446	Posted - 2014.12.02 08:58:41 - [2445] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: You need to learn to read Lucas, it was a two part question. And the answer to both is yes. You can download broadcasting software for free and configure it as easily as EVEmon. Teckos Pech wrote: Its basically automation and based on all the sturm und drang ITT the ban on broadcasting has some people very upset. Some are so upset that they are supposedly quiting the game for good and Nolak has been glued to his PC pretty much from page 1. Makes me wonder if perhaps broadcasting does perhaps convey more benefit than you are claiming. Perhaps you should actually look at how isboxer works then. Of course, some people are going to explode in a rage, regardless of what change is made. Broadcasting is however not the most important or useful feature of isboxer. And no, it's not automation. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Sibyyl Gallente Federation 15569	Posted - 2014.12.02 08:59:04 - [2446] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Oh and by the way, since you've linked to that section of the EULA, when will Elinor, eve-central, eve-marketdata, eve-mentat, jeveassets, EFT, Teamspeak, Mumble, etc all be banned? They all have methods of providing an unfair advantage too. I really wish idiots would stop jumping in saying "you're rules lawyering, waaaah" every time someone suggests doing something that they are allowed to do. If they wanted to stop round robins and global keybinds, then they would be right here saying it, since this is the place we're supposed to be getting clarification. Teckos Pech wrote: Other than violating section 6.A.3 you mean. I will answer you both. I think the EULA change is based on an inconsistent and draconian interpretation of 6.A.3. Lucas, you are talking about having a reasonable argument with the same people who think that ISBoxer is somehow unfair when EVEMon and EFT confering advantages is unrelated and ok. Not even sure why you're arguing with me. You know very well how rule interpretations go in this game. You are shooting the messenger here. Do you not see that? Friendship is the best ship.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 26388	Posted - 2014.12.02 09:01:18 - [2447] - Quote I disagree with your sig, sib. the best ship in eve is HARDSHIP. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub \| Twitter \|-ámk.III \| Imgur \| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined \|
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 2482	Posted - 2014.12.02 09:07:10 - [2448] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Oh and by the way, since you've linked to that section of the EULA, when will Elinor, eve-central, eve-marketdata, eve-mentat, jeveassets, EFT, Teamspeak, Mumble, etc all be banned? They all have methods of providing an unfair advantage too. I really wish idiots would stop jumping in saying "you're rules lawyering, waaaah" every time someone suggests doing something that they are allowed to do. If they wanted to stop round robins and global keybinds, then they would be right here saying it, since this is the place we're supposed to be getting clarification. Teckos Pech wrote: Other than violating section 6.A.3 you mean. I will answer you both. I think the EULA change is based on an inconsistent and draconian interpretation of 6.A.3. Lucas, you are talking about having a reasonable argument with the same people who think that ISBoxer is somehow unfair when EVEMon and EFT confering advantages is unrelated and ok. Not even sure why you're arguing with me. You know very well how rule interpretations go in this game. You are shooting the messenger here. Do you not see that? There has been no change to the EULA. They have just changed how they view some features of software like ISBoxer. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Lord Battlestar Faulcon de Lazy 194	Posted - 2014.12.02 09:19:36 - [2449] - Quote I don't see what all of the problem is about. They didn't ban all of ISBoxer, and they didn't ban the use of multiple accounts. You could still multibox 20 characters, you just have to put more work into it. You no longer get the easy mode of instantly having your commands transferred to all characters. The problem with ISBoxer is that it does it's job too perfectly and you can have an instant command sent to every character instantly. Whereas if I have to alt tab windows or whatnot to put in those same commands you are going to win. If I am 2-3 character mining operation in a belt multiboxing the old fashioned way, there is no way I can compete with a person multiboxing a 20 mining character operation and being able to instantly send commands to every character. Same thing in PVP, is it fair that a single person can run an entire pvp fleet from a single keyboard? If I tried to pvp with 20 characters without ISboxer I would likely see them all die because I couldn't switch tabs fast enough. When CCP said in 2013 they were not going to take action, it was implied that if the system wasn't abused they would leave it alone. However now it is solidly abused beyond measure, and it has no good determinable impact to the game besides allowing a small minority of players a big advantage. When I see players running through 0.0 looking more like botters than actual fleets running DED complexes and whatnot, it makes me wonder the bigger impact going on behind the scenes. The only reason people are mad now is they are losing a distinct and massive advantage they have clung onto, and now they are mad because they no longer have that massive advantage. I once podded myself by blowing a huge fart.
JGar Rooflestein Red Phoenix Rising Absolution Alliance 0	Posted - 2014.12.02 09:24:34 - [2450] - Quote As an Industry Multiboxer i feel we provide a huge chunk of the Market and help build your ships. WeE pay for multiple acc and take our accounts and mine all day. So what we can control them all via 1 click. We are not automating anything we are making it easier for us to do something we may enjoy. Yes i can control them all with out isoboxer but its just a bit easier and less of a headache. Who am I hurting? Anyone can do it. -JGar "Great man once said nothing."
Lord Battlestar Faulcon de Lazy 194	Posted - 2014.12.02 09:27:36 - [2451] - Quote JGar Rooflestein wrote: As an Industry Multiboxer i feel we provide a huge chunk of the Market and help build your ships. WeE pay for multiple acc and take our accounts and mine all day. So what we can control them all via 1 click. We are not automating anything we are making it easier for us to do something we may enjoy. Yes i can control them all with out isoboxer but its just a bit easier and less of a headache. Who am I hurting? Anyone can do it. If it is the same argument I was hearing from macro and bot users in 2008, you know there is a problem. I once podded myself by blowing a huge fart.
Sylphy TSOE Po1ice TSOE Consortium 46	Posted - 2014.12.02 09:41:10 - [2452] - Quote Bronson Hughes wrote: weren't you leaving? Nope, never said that. Currently on extended leave due to Dragon Age: Inquisition. I just don't believe PLEX prices will change _that_ drastically because CCP decided to update one of its policies. Take a look at PLEX prices a year ago, 500 mil anyone? The character does not represent the views/opinions of its Corporation or Alliance.
JGar Rooflestein Red Phoenix Rising Absolution Alliance 1	Posted - 2014.12.02 09:44:48 - [2453] - Quote Sylphy wrote: Bronson Hughes wrote: weren't you leaving? Nope, never said that. Currently on extended leave due to Dragon Age: Inquisition. I just don't believe PLEX prices will change _that_ drastically because CCP decided to update one of its policies. Take a look at PLEX prices a year ago, 500 mil anyone? They may actually drop. Some people will see this and possibly just close most of their accounts making the need of plex not as high. -JGar "Great man once said nothing."
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4446	Posted - 2014.12.02 09:51:47 - [2454] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: Lucas, you are talking about having a reasonable argument with the same people who think that ISBoxer is somehow unfair when EVEMon and EFT confering advantages is unrelated and ok. Not even sure why you're arguing with me. You know very well how rule interpretations go in this game. You are shooting the messenger here. Do you not see that? Oh I'm fully aware of how rule interpretations go, I just can't see them banning "normal" multiboxers any time soon, which means other methods of controlling clients with 1 click per client click will generally be safe. This means the likelihood is banning broadcasting is going to have little effect on what the whiners are whining about. So the net result will be some reduced subs, whiners still whining and isboxers still gaining an advantage, because once again CCP are avoiding tackling the problem in favour of trying to work around it. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 62	Posted - 2014.12.02 09:55:14 - [2455] - Quote First of all, grats to goonies, went over 100 pages of tears. Draclira's modified bucket of tears is overflowing. As a multiboxer, I support CCP on this. What's the point of EULA if you don't enforce it? (I find myself supporting almost everything (which has no Fozzie in it) lately, hmmm...) I'm fitting a second bucket now, please bring more tears. A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
Beledia Ilphukiir Proffessional Experts Group 43	Posted - 2014.12.02 09:55:53 - [2456] - Quote JGar Rooflestein wrote: As an Industry Multiboxer i feel we provide a huge chunk of the Market and help build your ships. WeE pay for multiple acc and take our accounts and mine all day. So what we can control them all via 1 click. We are not automating anything we are making it easier for us to do something we may enjoy. Yes i can control them all with out isoboxer but its just a bit easier and less of a headache. Who am I hurting? Anyone can do it. You outlined it quite well yourself, but what it really boils down to is your previous actions are no longer in agreement with the rules of the game. The chance in policy is a reaction to the things you describe. You admit getting direct in-game competitive advantage over other players from your use of the function, that is soon to be a bannable offense and it allows you to mine and provide an excessive amount of items to the market. Similar to a bot you squeeze out actual people with little effort on your part, but you don't give a **** about any of that, since you're the one enjoying all the advantages. You can still continue to do everything you currently do in the game, but the amount of effort needed to achieve it will go up. If you're willing to put in that extra effort, good for you. If not, the advantage was always the result of the automation and not something attributed to you.
JGar Rooflestein Red Phoenix Rising Absolution Alliance 1	Posted - 2014.12.02 10:05:35 - [2457] - Quote Beledia Ilphukiir wrote: You outlined it quite well yourself, but what it really boils down to is your previous actions are no longer in agreement with the rules of the game. The change in policy is a reaction to the things you describe. You admit getting direct in-game competitive advantage over other players from your use of the function, that is soon to be a bannable offense and it allows you to mine and provide an excessive amount of items to the market. Similar to a bot you squeeze out actual people with little effort on your part, but you don't give a ** about any of that, since you're the one enjoying all the advantages. You can still continue to do everything you currently do in the game, but the amount of effort needed to achieve it will go up. If you're willing to put in that extra effort, good for you. If not, the advantage was always the result of the automation and not something attributed to you. I will keep doing what i do with all accounts still subbed. Will be a little bit more work but no big deal. The input broadcasting must made it a little less of a headache. I'm with CCP on this. I do also beilve there is another way to resolve this issue without removing this third party function that has been accepted and allowed in mmos for years upon years. I can see CCP wants change they want to open the game for newer players by making it easier for them. A-Reduction to jump drives B-Nerfing sov stuctures C-Removal of Input Broadcasting D-Possibly reducing sov/alliance sizes E-?No more high sec awoxing (probably,not sure) -JGar** "Great man once said nothing."
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4446	Posted - 2014.12.02 10:12:56 - [2458] - Quote Lord Battlestar wrote: The problem with ISBoxer is that it does it's job too perfectly and you can have an instant command sent to every character instantly. Whereas if I have to alt tab windows or whatnot to put in those same commands you are going to win. If I am 2-3 character mining operation in a belt multiboxing the old fashioned way, there is no way I can compete with a person multiboxing a 20 mining character operation and being able to instantly send commands to every character. Even following this change you still won't be able to compete. The other non-banned features of ISBoxer are easily powerful enough to crush a non-isboxer user. Take for example VideoFX - this allows you to place segments of another EVE window into a single window (like this}. With this, an isboxer can put all of his module controls in a neat little block. No alt tabbing or broadcasting required. If you ever watch someone efficiently isboxing miners on a mid scale (not he 100+, more like 20-30), they'll usually only broadcast up until they start mining. Following that they'll usually deal with individual miners modules, then broadcast drag the ore to the orca, then drag it to the hauler. After the change, they can still log in broadcasting, they then round robin the undock, fleet warp to location, then just use the VideoFX panels to target an start lasers on each client and move cargo individually. It really is minimal extra effort because mining mechanics require so little input. Lord Battlestar wrote: Same thing in PVP, is it fair that a single person can run an entire pvp fleet from a single keyboard? If I tried to pvp with 20 characters without ISboxer I would likely see them all die because I couldn't switch tabs fast enough. Depends on the PvP. In "normal" PvP isboxers die too. They only benefit in ganks and bombing runs, which can be done without isboxer relatively easily. Lord Battlestar wrote: The only reason people are mad now is they are losing a distinct and massive advantage they have clung onto, and now they are mad because they no longer have that massive advantage. No, they aren't. They will still have a massive advantage. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 26412	Posted - 2014.12.02 10:17:09 - [2459] - Quote I'll let you in on a secret. there's really no need to multibox when you're in a horde. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub \| Twitter \|-ámk.III \| Imgur \| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined \|
kraken11 jensen Californian CottonPickers 15	Posted - 2014.12.02 10:28:24 - [2460] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Sibyyl wrote: Lucas, you are talking about having a reasonable argument with the same people who think that ISBoxer is somehow unfair when EVEMon and EFT confering advantages is unrelated and ok. Not even sure why you're arguing with me. You know very well how rule interpretations go in this game. You are shooting the messenger here. Do you not see that? Oh I'm fully aware of how rule interpretations go, I just can't see them banning "normal" multiboxers any time soon, which means other methods of controlling clients with 1 click per client click will generally be safe. This means the likelihood is banning broadcasting is going to have little effect on what the whiners are whining about. So the net result will be some reduced subs, whiners still whining and isboxers still gaining an advantage, because once again CCP are avoiding tackling the problem in favour of trying to work around it. you can set it up in other ways than using the Isboxer (like video fx kinda, or stacked) It also have a lot to do With what People prefer. There're free options for screen setup. Personally i like isboxer.

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.